Gambling for me very much falls into the category of “if you’re dumb enough to do it then you deserve to get what’s coming to you” type activities - as in, how do you preserve the practice for adults who enjoy it responsibility, while restricting access to those who’d be better off without it? Who makes that decision? Abolition clearly isn’t a realistic option - so what to do, apart from education and sin tax?
* Standardize the UI. No animations. No cartoon characters. No flashing, sounds. It should look more boring than Craigslist. No A/B testing. No hiring psychologists to "optimize" the UI.
* No "retention team". No freebies, kickbacks, offers, comps.
* Implement a voluntary ban list, and enforce it strongly. Someone that decides to ban themselves from gambling for life should be unable to bet even a penny.
* Setup a "qualified gambler" program, similar to "qualified investors". You can bet $1,000 per year, or 20% of your YoY growth in net worth, or 1% of total net worth, whichever is greatest.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Also I volunteer to design the gambling UIs. I will use Microsoft Excel 97 as my inspiration.
I love the idea of gambling having all the appeal of options trading, that is to say, something that looks and sounds kinda complicated and confusing to the uninitiated.
And if a husband is stupid enough to gamble, his wife deserves the increased likelihood of domestic violence? And his kids deserve for the household to go bankrupt?
These aren’t hypotheticals. The article demonstrates that they are real, measurable effects of gambling.
This is addressed in the article. The idea is that it shouldn't be made illegal, but it should be made annoying.
Do what they do with tobacco and alcohol in most of the world. Sin tax and education are possibilities, but also limit advertising, enforce age limits (annoying age checks are also a deterrent for adults), have people go to a designated physical location (what the article suggests), mandate the display of anti-gambling messages, forbid 24/7 service, etc...
Physical casinos are typically heavily regulated, and often limited to select areas (ex: Vegas), why not online sports gambling?
Correct. Folks here don’t even begin to talk about Dave and busters or Chuck E. Cheese with their own terrible betting systems designed for kids were the company script (tickets) buys sugar poison at prices that would make your local robber baron jealous of you!
But no one cares that we begin the stupid-person-to-gambler pipeline right at those moments. No one calls to ban Chuck E. Cheese. In fact, it’s the opposite. We embraced those companies with horror games like five night at Freddie’s - horror games whose characters were rapidly used for internet degeneracy similarly to the overwatch characters.
If you’re stupid enough to get depressed you don’t deserve to rot in bed all day. If you’re stupid enough to get sick you don’t deserve to go into debt.
But I think that’s the difference between seeing gambling as an activity and an addiction.
I think gambling should be legal as it is possible to do responsibly. But I'm no libertarian. I think that money would be better spent elsewhere and I'd support restrictions on advertising.
True, but there are people who get paid to make games even more addictive. You don't see many old one-armed bandits in Vegas anymore because the newer games are more alluring and addictive, therefore profitable.
