I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows. But I really wish the advertising rules around it were changed. I would very much like it if the laws were similar to toy advertising in Japan. Ads are allowed, but you are not allowed to show ads for the product during the event.
In Japan you can't show ads for Power Ranger toys during an airing of Power Rangers. Draft King wouldn't be allowed to show commercials during a baseball game and definitely would not be allowed to show you the betting odds in the seventh inning to make sure you bet before the game is over. The betting ads are just so ridiculous and blanket the broadcast that they make it seem like you're weird if you aren't constantly betting on every game.
>I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows.
Why? It has increased the transfer of wealth from the poor to the wealthy and heightened poverty while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes.
What social problems was underground betting actually causing? Was there actually some huge strain on police resources? Is it really a god thing that instead of a small number of gamblers being bankrupted by some shady characters, a much larger number are bankrupted by Disney? At least loan sharks and thugs put more money back into the local economy and small businesses.
> while providing nothing of value you can't get from a game that's not for stakes.
When I play poker, I don't get the same fun value when it's for nothing but the clay chips or even if it's for $2 total win (_when playing for pennies_). The _fun_ for me is when it's a $20+ decision, the _fun_ for me is to play against other people where the decision they have to make has _weight_ to it. I think that there is _fun_ to be had when you're playing for stakes that cannot be had when you're playing for nothing. When I throw the dice, it's not _fun_ to see if it lands on a 7 or 11 or whatever the rules of craps are. The _fun_ for me is the betting, the winning or losing of the money. If I just wanted to see who could get a set of numbers from random dice rolls without money involved, I'd play Yahtzee.
I agree that _some people_ shouldn't gamble because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_. Just like _some people_ probably shouldn't drink because it's not _fun_ but an _addiction_ or shouldn't smoke weed because it's not _fun_ but _addicting_. That doesn't mean that there is _no value_ being added to the people's lives that _find it fun_ and don't find it _addicting_.
We may disagree on if _fun_ is of any value to people vs the harm that that _fun_ might give them and I think we both agree we should make it _really clear_ the consequences of the _fun_ someone chooses to have. But I disagree that gambling adds _no value_ whatsoever or the idea that what I find is of no value means that everyone should agree it adds no value. Let the players have their fun, tax the shit out of it, and offer help to those that have an addiction to it, just like smoking or drinking or anything else that we as a society have deemed not illegal but not directly beneficial.
I won't deny that poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money, and poker is honestly one of the greatest games I've ever played in terms of sheer depth and how much you can replay it.
At the same time, it's not the only great game I've played. When it comes to probability-centric games, I'm fond of Backgammon, deck builders, and computer strategy games which are all enjoyable when not played for stakes.
I think the first time Poker disturbed me is when I was at a table when somebody was going all-in every other hand for hours just bleeding a ton of money, not really playing the game, just having a sort of problem as everybody at the table stayed at that table swallowing the money. When you realise a lot of the fun the good players have who study poker strategy is not only at the expense of such people, but poker itself wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if such people didn't exist and it was all very serious people reading strategy books who were all slowly losing money to the rake, the magic sort of fades. Even among the winning players, you see people who aren't technically losing money but can't stop themselves from playing despite the fact they're spending way too much time on the game, not really enjoying it, while barely making any money.
I don't know, Why not play a fun game where nobody has to suffer? You know who I see playing non-gambling probability games all the time? Former poker pros.
> poker REALLY doesn't work when it's for play money
I have a great college memory of taking an all-in no-money hand off a fraternity brother as a freshman prospect during rush week... with a pair of 3's (against an ace-high?).
Dealer to brother: "Why the hell did you go all in?"
Brother: "Because we weren't playing for money."
Dealer to me: "Why the hell did you call with 3's?"
Me: "Because we weren't playing for money, and he wasn't either."
Mafia rings that make money from bookmaking and then also deal in drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, etc have been nearly eliminated and live on today primarily due to Hollywood, The Sopranos, etc.
That's like saying that the only harm of a drug war is to the street dealers. All things being equal, I'd rather not live in a town where organized groups of people have a strong profit motive to pop their competition off.
I won't deny that underground gambling has all sorts of collateral damage, I just don't think that Disney causes far more collateral damage than these criminals ever did just in a non-violent way. They're less thuggish, more Bernie Madoff in their effects on society.
I sincerely and strongly believe legal gambling causes far more harm than criminals ever did. The reason gambling gets legalised is not because legalised gambling reduces harm. It's because legalised gambling can balance the books for some politician before the next election, because they can sell it as being "pro-fun", because gamblers themselves will vote for them, and because the harms are abstract, diffuse, and blamed on the gamblers themselves.
One of the oldest debates in government imho... yes, vices are bad. Yes, they're also human nature. Yes, prohibition is problematic, yes, decriminalization also has tradeoffs. There aren't any "correct" positions on these. It's just a game of moving around the harms.
We have seen immense harm from legal gambling in the UK since it was liberalised some years ago, far more than any illegal gambling ever caused in the UK. Whether that is also true of the US I can't say but I suspect that it is true to some extent.
Illegal gambling was not a big problem in the UK. A lot of the harm from gambling does not hinge on legality. It hinges on the suppliers manipulation of human psychology to induce people to continue to gamble well beyond their means resulting in people stealing from employers and family and committing suicide.
"Fifteen years on from the dawn of the Gambling Act 2005, and the landscape has changed beyond recognition. A casino can now be accessed from your pocket 24/7 and half of UK adults gamble at least once a month. But hiding in plain sight is a world of regret, exploitation and shattered lives underpinning an industry that claims to be ‘just a bit of fun’ generating £14bn in profit.
The House of Lords Gambling Industry Select Committee estimate that 60 per cent of online gambling profits come from the 5 per cent of customers experiencing gambling problems, with estimates of disordered gambling rates ranging from 340,000 to 1.4 million. The industry’s practices create disordered gamblers and then exploit them. The harm caused goes far beyond financial losses. It is estimated by Gambling with Lives that there are between 250 and 650 gambling related suicides every year."
>I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows
I'm not 100% sure on this one. The problem with gambling is it involves huge amounts of money, generally far more than the base product it is attached to. Much like MTX in games has changed the meta-game from playing the game to actually needing to buy as much in game content as possible to play the game, productized gambling changes the meta from the product to gambling. The further enshitification of the world around us.
I'd go even further to legal, but not advertized when it comes to gambling. It is considered a vice for a number of valid reasons.
The proper way to legitimize a vice is with heavy regulation. Half the screen should be a scrolling red banner stating that you could ruin your life with gambling. Random chance games should show the result a split second after the decision, with zero fanfare (to avoid fake near misses).
Same goes for smoking and drinking. Provide the product in a plain container plastered with warning labels.
>Half the screen should be a scrolling red banner stating that you could ruin your life with gambling.
We've had that forever, the biggest effect it has is legitimising the gambling industry, helping legitimise the idea that it's gamblers fault if they get addicted, and thus expanding gambling and thus making people poorer.
>Random chance games should show the result a split second after the decision, with zero fanfare (to avoid fake near misses).
This is a more interesting idea, and I don't think it's totally unviable to enforce it considering most gambling happens through fairly centralised avenues (major companies, app store, play store). I think it could be effective and is certainly one of the better pro-regulation ideas I've heard.
This is a good point. The gaming industry probably doesn't even care if "most" people tune out the ads. They are marketing to the whales, or trying to turn people into whales, and like MTX in games, they'll figure out how to milk the whales until they're dry, with bonuses, new bet types, fewer clicks to place bets, etc.
If someone desperately wants to gamble, they should be able to find them. If all the industry is doing is meeting an otherwise unmet vice demand, fine, okay, whatever, it's better than mob-ran gambling rings, but why on earth should we allow it to manufacture demand?
An argument can be made that a world where someone who is hell-bent on gambling being allowed to legally gamble is better than one where he isn't. Fine.
But what argument can be made that a world where more people are gambling is better than a world where fewer people are gambling? Why encourage it? Who benefits from installing heroin vending machines in schools?
Because gambling is a normalized, built-in part of sports broadcasts. There's no mention of age limits, addiction, drawbacks, etc. I watch the UFC and it's not even a commercial but part of the actual show. Odds, favorites, sponsor messages, etc. are built right into the broadcast.
I don't think gambling is the worst thing out there but it's not a net plus for society and overall cheapens sports.
It's just endless and I think gambling is a vice. Why make your kid a sports fan if its not about any generally positive things (perseverance, cultural touchstones, physical fitness) and just about putting them on the track to becoming a gambler.
Sure those are bad too, ultimately my sports fandom was a way to connect with my father and friends locally growing up. Truth is it's just entertainment and there's other ways to accomplish those things in 2023.
These sports leagues are cashing in on the fact that live sports were the only thing propping up the lucrative cable tv and network tv business models, extracting whatever value they can. They are trying to transition to over the top streaming services and maybe it will happen or maybe a lot of people like me will decide there's more to life than if my local sports team defeats another city's sports team.
I think it's a good thing that gambling has been legalized and brought out the shadows.
From time to time, I try to look up the impact of the newly legalized gambling in the US. I can never find any good comparison about addiction, people who got into trouble because gambling is so easy now, etc. I still know people who put in bets with "their guy", and I also know people who were otherwise OK who now all of a sudden have an addiction because gambling is basically frictionless. Overall, it's a big question mark for me as to if this is a good thing or not.
A sibling commenter mentioned smoking ads. Even with cigarettes, you had to physically go to a store and physically pull out your payment method to buy them. With new online gambling, gambling is as frictionless as posting a tweet for anyone of age. Advertising is a big part of this yes, and like you allude to, the types of impulsive bets that are presented is even more ridiculous.
There's a far greater chance of harm to society in general by removing the stigma and making it easy than there ever was by making it something that only happened on the down low. Nobody's lives are ultimately enriched by betting unless you win a gigantic jackpot, and even then there are negative issues with that.
In Japan you can't show ads for Power Ranger toys during an airing of Power Rangers. Draft King wouldn't be allowed to show commercials during a baseball game and definitely would not be allowed to show you the betting odds in the seventh inning to make sure you bet before the game is over. The betting ads are just so ridiculous and blanket the broadcast that they make it seem like you're weird if you aren't constantly betting on every game.