General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
Legalizing Sports Gambling Was a Huge Mistake
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/09/legal-sports-gambling-was-mistake/679925/free link: https://archive.ph/CQAW3
Alarming patterns have started to emerge. Two recent working papers look at the economic impacts of legalization. One, by Northwestern University’s Scott Baker and colleagues, finds that legal sports gambling depletes households’ savings. Specifically, for every $1 spent on betting, households put $2 less into investment accounts. States see big increases in the risk of overdrafting a bank account or maxing out a credit card. These effects are strongest among already precarious households.
A second paper, from the economists Brett Hollenbeck of UCLA and Poet Larsen and Davide Proserpio of the University of Southern California, tells a similar story. Looking specifically at online sports gambling, they find that legalization increases the risk that a household goes bankrupt by 25 to 30 percent, and increases debt delinquency. These problems seem to concentrate among young men living in low-income counties—further evidence that those most hurt by sports gambling are the least well-off.
A third recent paper, from the University of Oregon economists Kyutaro Matsuzawa and Emily Arnesen, shows another, perhaps more surprising—and certainly more harrowing—harm of gambling legalization: domestic violence. Earlier research found that an NFL home team’s upset loss causes a 10 percent increase in reported incidents of men being violent toward their partner. Matsuzawa and Arnesen extend this, finding that in states where sports betting is legal, the effect is even bigger. They estimate that legal sports betting leads to a roughly 9 percent increase in intimate-partner violence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yagotme
(3,948 posts)Some people have addictive personalities, and just walking down the street to a "casino" isn't in their best interest. Anecdotally, I know a person that got a lot of money (over $35,000) from back funds during Covid. Lasted 3-4 months. Over 90 percent went into a local gambling establishment, so, I guess the State "recouped" most of the money back.
Warpy
(113,131 posts)Winning anything hits the pleasure centers of a gambler's brain. Addiction is when he wins and then gambles away everything he's won, chasing that high. It's insidious and denial is strong, since he's working off his own brain chemistry instead of booze or other drugs. That's one reason it's so difficult to treat.
I played nickel slots when I was six and the bouncer wasn't looking. I soon grew bored, it seemed like a lot of physical effort for so little return, something I still feel about it. You might as well get a job and be guaranteed a paycheck.
malaise
(278,677 posts)That’s for sure
Trenzalore
(2,547 posts)1/2 the football clubs are sponsored by a legal bookie lol
malaise
(278,677 posts)Apparently they didn’t learn either
Trenzalore
(2,547 posts)And police corruption.
It really is the other option
hlthe2b
(106,707 posts)Anyone flying into Reno or Las Vegas airports the first time, hearing the ubiquitous slot machine rings in a jarring cacophony (and who has never spent time in casinos) knows how unusual, unexpected, and perhaps a bit annoying it is. Then you see them in every damned grocery store with men, women of all ages transfixed in a glazed haze as they gamble away their salary or the week's grocery money.
Yeah, who could have predicted?
Violet_Crumble
(36,143 posts)Pokies = slot machines, btw. Back when I was a smoker, I'd head down to the club for a 'smoke and a poke' lol
I'm opposed to online gambling, but totally support how it is here with pokies only allowed in clubs and pubs, which are beyond plentiful. I got polled by some survey group last week who were looking at the impact of gambling in my area, and I realised I'm opposed to restricting gambling to all because some people have gambling problems. I'm strongly in support of help for them in the form of a universal ban from all pubs and clubs where they live, self-imposed restrictions etc, But I like putting a few dollars in the pokies every couple of weeks and I don't want that taken away from me.
hlthe2b
(106,707 posts)I was recruited for a job once and flew into Los Vegas and then Reno... I had the opportunity to drive to Lake Tahoe (which I loved) and then to Carson City. While there is sufficient natural beauty around Tahoe to tempt me, the "gambling is everything" attitude was a real turn-off to me. While I had no problem dropping a quarter or two in a slot machine (for my friends who had requested I do so for them) I had no feeling of temptation to do more. However, who knows how being around that all the time and EVERYWHERE will impact one... Cards would probably not be an issue at the casinos as except for college blackjack a time or two, I have remained intensely ignorant of poker and other card games--and happily so. 
Colorado has their mountain casinos--as do quite a few other states-- and I don't have a problem with that, but I say leave the gambling there.
DeepWinter
(578 posts)I agree. Some people have addictive personalities and some are just piss poor at money management. When those two overlap, bad things happen and any gambling is an expressway to financial disaster. They can't just cut their losses, laugh, and walk away.
Walleye
(36,358 posts)
RandomNumbers
(18,230 posts)Organized gambling is just exploitation. Only Trump could bankrupt a casino.
Sports gambling may have the illusion of being skill based but very, very few people are THAT skilled. (and there is always chance to cause injuries that even the most skilled person could not predict.)
Far more just want to believe they are skilled enough to at least do okay. And that is how the profiteers rake in the dough.
But some of the marks will claim that the real problem is gas prices. 
IbogaProject
(3,751 posts)Is the point spread ir the odds are made to balance the bets. Worse whole number spreads are a loss for both sides. And winners pay a fee out of their winnings. These both push the odds below 50%. If the odds of winning are below 50% the chance the party with less money loosing everything gets very high, the one with substantially more money can handle loosing streaks better on top of their odds advantage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin
Walleye
(36,358 posts)
jmowreader
(51,581 posts)I don’t gamble but if that’s what you wanna do, no problem.
The problem with online gambling is it makes it way too easy for teens to gamble. Gambling is probably as addictive and hard to stop doing as cigarettes are, and you can’t buy those online. You can buy cigars online, but the biggest online cigar store says on its home page they don’t sell cigarettes. (On the other hand, if you walk into one of their two outlet stores they sell cigarettes by the ton - and have, on many occasions.)
It should have been restricted to physical sports books you would have to enter and show ID in before you wager.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)To protect people from themselves.
Do we also need to get rid of day trading apps?
Ensure a fair playing field and that's it.
NoRethugFriends
(3,059 posts)Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)We don't need nannies.
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)If somebody wants to be thrown through their windshield why is it anyone's responsibility to stop them? Same for helmet laws.
They are just ways to increase the police state and drive income to the state.
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)when someone gets thrown through a windshield?
If they have private insurance we all do, since it raises the cost of premiums.
If they're on Medicaid or Medicare, we all do, since it raises our taxes.
The cost of a single spinal cord or brain injury over the course of a lifetime can run into millions of dollars. Medical care, rehab. and long term supports, disability insurance, lost work hours: millions of dollars.
Unless of course you're in favor of simply letting people who are injured in this way, including children, simply die.
Self Esteem
(1,766 posts)Obesity is a massive epidemic in the United States and certainly impacting the healthcare system. Maybe the government should step in and block fast food, junk food and unhealthy food since Americans obviously struggle to regulate their own eating habits.
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)Ever read Upton Sinclair, "The Jungle"? It's about the corruption of the unregulated meat packing industry in the early 1900s, and how thousands of people would die every year from eating tainted meat, rotten meat, meat contaminated with feces and dead rats and human body parts etc. Sinclair's book was a major impetus for the passage of government regulations governing industry practices, which was a major accomplishment of the Progressive Movement.
So, is regulating the meat packing industry just another example of the nanny state? Shouldn't we all be responsible for making sure the food we eat doesn't kill us, and if we're not careful, isn't that just too bad? That was certainly the argument made back then against such "intrusive" government regulation.
My point is that there's a line to be drawn, a balance to be made. Regulating each individual's eating habits would be impossible, and a massive intrusion on everyone's day to day life. It would also be prohibitively expensive. By contrast, regulating the safety of the food we eat, junk or not, seems to me to be a legitimate purpose of government, and why we live in a commonwealth. Such regulation saves lives and health, at relatively little cost compared to the alternative.
Requiring seatbelts is similarly highly cost effective, and it obviously saves many lives and prevents many injuries each year. Requiring the use of seatbelts seems to me then to be entirely legitimate, and such "government intrusion" a minor inconvenience worth enduring.
Self Esteem
(1,766 posts)And it doesn't end with just food.
Let's ban the consumption of alcohol and the smoking of cigarettes (while rolling back the gains we've seen on pot and other drugs).
What you're demanding be regulated isn't the same as making sure people don't eat poisonous food. That regulation is more in line with the auto regulations - not human regulations.
If, from your perspective, humans should be forced to wear their seatbelts, there's no logical argument to be made that they should not be forced to regulate the food they eat - or at least heavily regulate the consumption outside the home.
Don't you see that?
Regulate how many cheeseburgers a person can buy at McDonald's. Ban those under the age of 18 from buying sugary snacks without an adult present. These regulations aren't out of the scope of what we already regulate to some degree.
And the fact so many Americans are eating themselves to death, becoming morbidly obese in the process, seems to be a bigger concern to me than whether someone wears a seatbelt. Regulate it so those under the age of 18 are required to wear a seatbelt. That I agree with (and I've worn my seatbelt long before it was ever required by law).
We already know that the leading cause of death in America is heart disease.
And those people are probably taking up way more resources than the ones you used in your previous example. If it's about resources, let's cut the fat - pun intended.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)There is a pretty big cavern between making sure the food supply is safe vs regulating the amount of saturated fat a person can eat.
One is the job of government and one isn't.
People can make their own choices on what they eat with the information provided. They can't personally inspect processing plants and distribution infrastructure.
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)--Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I never said my argument was consistent.
I'm drawing what I think is a reasonable balance between personal freedom and public good, a balance which can change depending on the issue being considered.
For instance, legislation to require the use of seatbelts is hardly on the same level as regulating how many cheeseburgers someone can eat. Your argument, while perhaps compelling in a reducio ad absurdum sort of way, seems to make no allowance for such a distinction.
Politics is the art of the possible. No, we don't ban tobacco. We do however regulate where people can smoke. We impose taxes on cigarettes, coupled with public education, including warnings on packets, to discourage smoking, and these have over the decades significantly reduced rates of smoking. And as you point out, we do regulate who can purchase alcohol, imposing age limits as well as a ban on drunk driving and public drunkenness. BTW, I support the same laws for cannabis as we have for alcohol--age limits, limits on consumption while driving, etc. I think we should take addiction out of the realm of criminal justice and instead treat it as the medical issue it is.
So I'll repeat myself. Weighing the cost to individual freedom, such as it is, against the costs--in death, injury, and expense to the public--of being required by law to wear seat belts, I think the law is justified. Regulating people's diet, while it may seem consistent given my argument about seatbelts, is vastly different in terms of the cost to personal freedom, not to mention the difficulty--if not impossibility--of enforcing anything close to a similar law on diet.
Ultimately, I think my stance is pragmatic as well as humane. Some limits on freedom, which may seem justified in terms of impact to the general public, are not only onerous but impossible to enforce. Absolute prohibition of alcohol would be a case in point. Others, such as requiring the use of seatbelts while driving, not so much.
The absolutism you seem to espouse, while it may be consistent, does nothing to help us as progressives trying to navigate the real world.
Self Esteem
(1,766 posts)Pragmatic would be to enforce it for minors and let adults make their own choices. There is nothing pragmatic about putting more and more restrictions on what grown adults can do: whether it's gamble, watch porn, drink, eat unhealthy or not put on a seatbelt when they drive.
They're all related and have some level of social devalue and likely cost us in some way. But you know what? That's the price of being free I guess.
If someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, I treat it like someone who drinks or smokes - they're taking that risk but that's their right as a grown ass consenting adult. I'm sorry you don't think adults should have autonomy over their own lives.
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)you're an ideologue, and I'm not.
As an ideologue you seem unable to distinguish between the differences in the instances we're discussing. You attach an absolute and seemingly immutable value on "personal autonomy" while I'm willing to think in terms of nuance and balance, and to weigh each instance on its own particular merits. And so to me seat-belts don't equal hamburgers don't equal cannabis don't equal porn don't equal gambling. Laws that require drivers to wear seat-belts do just that, and no more. They're no more a threat to our personal freedom than laws against jaywalking.
The hold your ideology has on you is reflected in your comment, "I'm sorry you don't think adults should have autonomy over their own lives." As if "autonomy" is indivisible, as if to lose some measure of autonomy in one instance is to compromise it in all others. It reminds me of all the "slippery slope" arguments against reasonable gun control. Take even a single step and the trap door will open that will place us all in tyranny. Is that a jack-booted thug I hear knocking down my door?!
To repeat: I'm not an ideologue. If someone shows me how to save hundreds of thousands of lives over the course of several decades at minimal cost and with an ever so slight imposition on the day to day activities of each individual, I won't let the hobgoblin of a foolish consistency keep it from happening.
Obviously we differ.
Edited to add: I posted this in response to another post in this thread. Just some useful information on the impact of seat belt laws in the real world.
"Seat belts saved 14,955 lives in 2017, the most recent year those estimates are available from NHTSA.
An additional 2,549 lives could have been saved in 2017 if everyone wore a seat belt, according to NHTSA.
Since 1975, seat belts have saved 374,276 lives and would have prevented another 386,719 deaths if they had been universally used."
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/seat-belt-use-primer-roundup/#:~:text=Seat%20belts%20saved%2014%2C955%20lives%20in%202017%2C%20the,386%2C719%20deaths%20if%20they%20had%20been%20universally%20used.
alarimer
(16,642 posts)It is largely not their fault. Evidence shows it is largely a product of our food system. Sugar is added to EVERYTHING, for instance. Massive food conglomerates need to be regulated better than they are now.
Also some places (particularly impoverised urban areas) are actually food deserts, where there are few supermarkets and what fresh food there is is too expensive. So yeah, government can step in here as well.
Self Esteem
(1,766 posts)It is largely their actions that make them morbidly obese. You don't get to be 100 or 200 lbs overweight without having some level of responsibility.
alarimer
(16,642 posts)And you couldn't really sound more like a jerk if you tried.
Self Esteem
(1,766 posts)It's just plain excuse making to suggest people who are morbidly obese have no responsibility in that happening.
Trust me: I was obese once too during COVID. I put on a good amount of weight because I never left the house and ordered in a lot. It was not a healthy lifestyle. But once I started cutting down on my calories, shocker, I started losing the weight. That is the case for a vast majority of people. You don't get to be 100+ pounds overweight if you didn't have a hand in it. That's not being a jerk. It's being a realist.
And you know what? I don't care if anyone is morbidly obese. It's none of my business. I'm just saying you start regulating personal health and that's the first thing that should be regulated because it's the most impactful. But I don't think you should regulate personal health. Just like I don't think seatbelts should be mandated. We're all responsible for ourselves and the consequences of the actions.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)From people strapped in too. So that's a big nothing-burger
thucythucy
(8,749 posts)Seatbelts can't and don't prevent all injuries or deaths. Wearing them however does significantly reduce their possibility, which is hardly "a big nothing-burger."
"Seat belts saved 14,955 lives in 2017, the most recent year those estimates are available from NHTSA.
An additional 2,549 lives could have been saved in 2017 if everyone wore a seat belt, according to NHTSA.
Since 1975, seat belts have saved 374,276 lives and would have prevented another 386,719 deaths if they had been universally used."
https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/seat-belt-use-primer-roundup/#:~:text=Seat%20belts%20saved%2014%2C955%20lives%20in%202017%2C%20the,386%2C719%20deaths%20if%20they%20had%20been%20universally%20used.
Disaffected
(5,160 posts)
markpkessinger
(8,587 posts). . . It is also protecting their family members, who in many cases had no say in their loved one's behavior.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)Should we make divorce illegal?
markpkessinger
(8,587 posts). . . Here, most people believe in government regulations concerning safety.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)is a very republican thing to do.
Disaffected
(5,160 posts)Or so a lot of folks say - usually the ones that get nabbed for speeding.
Come to think of it, who needs building, plumbing and electrical codes? Who need laws at all when all they do is increase the police state and drive income to the state.
I dunno, maybe things work better way off in the mountains....
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)Speeding directly impacts others. That's a public safety issue.
Stop with this false equivalency.
Disaffected
(5,160 posts)Please refer again to post # 60 which explains the equivalency well.
Seatbelts also BTW help in the driver maintaining control of a vehicle in a loss of control of potential loss of control incident.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)The cost of a hospital bill for someone who didn't buckle up is equivalent to being hit by a car going 90 mph?
Stop twisting yourself into a logical pretzel.
Disaffected
(5,160 posts)better than no logic at all. Anyhow, this discussion has become pointless so I will bow out.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)Response to Mountainguy (Reply #97)
Disaffected This message was self-deleted by its author.
Envirogal
(175 posts)Being able to protect themselves from non-medical related debt through their own personal weaknesses shouldn’t be something that taxpayers and businesses cover as they forgive debt.
Social Security is also another nanny that helps people who aren’t able to save for their own retirement to provide basic income.
In order to have a productive society, there needs to be certain things put in place even though this may seem unnecessary. It actually costs society externalized costs in the long run in so many ways. In the case of gambling, as these reports are revealing, you have increased incidents of depression, domestic violence, even less desirability in potential mates that have bad credit from an addiction problem. Incels are becoming a dangerous societal problem with the rise in the toxic masculinity movement as it is. Now add a growing gambling problem to this mix.
What will need to happen is some form of Super Fund cleanup model where the gambling industry pays into a a separate fund to start providing for bankruptcy and other societal costs that come up because of this dumb idea that taxpayers are now on the hook for.
Externalities: privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The taxes we get from gambling don’t even come close to paying for the tentacles of the harm it causes.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)Not having your hand held with someone telling you what's best.
And it doesn't come without cost.
Envirogal
(175 posts)That drains personal income and leads to problems that we all on the hook for. All I am a saying is there is a reason why so many in the sports betting world saw an easy mark by lobbying sports gambling to become so much easier with little accountability to society. Sure better than underground much easier with temptations everywhere now and algorithms to alert them to new opportunities.
Gambling is a disease as much as alcoholism. I’ve been around it a lot. Interesting how much casinos monitor “winners” behaviors but don’t give a crap nor have any responsibility if someone “loses”.
Agree to disagree but the beer companies were forced to have more accountability (restrictions on how “happy hours” were promoted, mandating “drink responsively “ campaigns, and how they targeted youth. Same for smoking—kicked it out of public spaces, even bars.
We all know gambling leads to economic ruin that then brings these costs to taxpayers. How do we keep that cost more on the individual as well as the gambling industry house winning without paying the true costs?
PeaceWave
(1,038 posts)Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)The point of that millions of people use those apps and aren't insiders or even professional day traders.
A lot of those people lose money.
Are we talking about making day trading illegal?
Very similar to sports betting.
PeaceWave
(1,038 posts)Similar to educational advertising regarding gambling and alcohol abuse. I see nothing wrong with opening up that discussion - Since any kind of addiction very quickly becomes a problem affecting the entire family. I say this with a couple of former in-laws in mind. Moron #1 cost his family over $200K back during the dot com bust. He busted his family and is now dead. Moron #2 cost his family over $20K on non-Bitcoin crypto about a year ago. That one may have learned his lesson.
Envirogal
(175 posts)It is really unfortunate that the gambling industry has not been made to air public service announcements, much like we’ve done with the beverage industry on driving under the influence. The tobacco industry was forced into it Through the settlement they had to pay after decades of lying to the public.
dickthegrouch
(3,575 posts)That says call 800-so-and-so if you think you have a problem. Of course it is tiny and unmemorable, and requires some self- or situational awareness but it is there in California at least.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)Literally every gambling ad I see includes a mention of the gambling addicts hotline.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)A law saying stocks must be held a minimum of x trading days would do it.
Some apps already have rules in place to limit it and the law requires a minimum account size to do it. But it could easily be made totally illegal.
PeaceWave
(1,038 posts)Addicts don't recognize logic.
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)
calguy
(5,778 posts)that in order to day trade, a client must maintain a trading account of $25,000. Otherwise, only three day trades are allowed any five-day period.
Cirsium
(1,121 posts)It is absolutely true that it is the proper role for the government to "protect us from ourselves." Right wingers think otherwise, because they deny that we are social beings living in a community. All sorts of laws and regulations and public programs "protect us from ourselves."
PJMcK
(22,996 posts)They’re called laws and regulations.
MichMan
(13,517 posts)Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)People should be allowed to use drugs and sell themselves if they choose.
alarimer
(16,642 posts)It is exploitative and coercive by its very nature.
RandomNumbers
(18,230 posts)You may have made a wrong turn.
Thing is, the exploitation of people's weaknesses does not affect only the weak ones who are exploited. Ask the family members of an addict sometime about how the evil rolls down on them.
Gambling does not one thing to contribute to a better society. It creates no value but to line the pockets of its profiteers.
Historic NY
(38,027 posts)Making it easier to access. The sure thing is losing. Its the same as back in the day men would come from he mills and factories on payday to the waterholes and drinks up the week's work ..
In the olden days, bookies would come around and bets were placed. Of course, a piece of the action went to criminal enterprises.
When people complain about not having enough money, look around at the betting parlors and casinos.
Johnny2X2X
(21,874 posts)They must be, because I know a lot of gamblers, and no one has ever lost a dime gambling! Yup, every single one of them either wins big every weekend, or at the very worst, occasionally breaks even. Any minute now, those casinos will be closing their doors and websites, any minute.
Legal gambling is terrible for society. All the time at work I hear from people betting the under and over on football games, it's impossible to win on over/under consistently.People are doing parlays for suckers, teasers, and just sucker bets non stop. Everybody thinks they have some inside track they read somewhere, not realizing that all that "inside information" originates at the sports books. You are reading exactly what they want you to hear, they have it down to a science and they are playing you.
And that's just small time, the real vicious stuff is the bigger money gambling. Did you know that casinos will float you huge lines of credit? They are experts on evaluating your assets and know when you're in trouble. If you own a small business, they will float you the value they think they can get for your small business when they seize it to sell. Know a guy who gambled his 3 small bars away and ended up in prison over his gambling losses. The floated him $1/2M in credit and watched him lose it all and immediately got the courts to seize the businesses, he got in trouble for fraud for trying to drain the businesses of assets before the seizure, he and his son both did a couple years in prison.
Ex Lurker
(3,923 posts)or even know how to find one. Just like there are people who will go to a weed dispensary who wouldn't buy from a street dealer. Sure, I imagine the impacts are similar with legal and illegal gambling, but legalizing it broadens the market considerably.
It's academic, though. The horse is out of the barn. I'm extremely doubtful anybody will ban it once it's legal.
MurrayDelph
(5,435 posts)they took the wrong lesson from it
Forty-five years ago, I lived in Los Angeles, and would go to Vegas several times a year. They had headliner shows that were reasonably priced (I met Jack Benny when he was walking down the hall at the Riviera, where he was performing). Lounge shows were loss-leaders (I saw Duke Ellington as a lounge act), as were the buffets.
Then casinos started going Mega, and everything had to be a profit center. Prices on everything went up. Things that used to be free became profit centers. Most Vegas casinos charge for parking (unless you have elite status), meaning you have to pay for the privilege of giving them your money, which they justify on the grounds that you might be there only to go to the attached mall so many of them have, and shopping doesn't directly wet their beak.
And then there are the "resort fees," which originated during the Enron days as an "energy surcharge" (you didn't expect them to absorb those higher costs to keep those fancy lights on during the day, did you?). Resort fees cover two options: things you don't want/need, and things that should have been considered part of the cost of the room. But resort fees allow them to advertise a lower rate than the room actually costs, both to sucker people in and to lower the commissionable rate to the travel agent.
But for me, the worst part was increasing table stake minimums and lowering their payoffs (see 6:5 vs 3:2 Blackjack). Since I am a low-roller, Vegas table games priced themselves out of my range decades ago. My original solution came when I moved to Oregon, but would drive to LA several times a year. So I'd go by way of Reno. But Reno started increasing prices about time of the pandemic, and now the only low-roller versions of what are called "live games" are machine-run, so i only go that route for cheaper rooms and gasoline.
So if I'm going to have to play on a machine, I may as well play for fun on my computer at home for free. I used to shoot some Craps in Reno just to hold the die, but I ain't gonna do it for $15 a throw.
Envirogal
(175 posts)I still think the gambling industry needs more responsibility but it’s interesting to see how much more expensive Vegas is now from the days of loss leader all-you-can-eat buffets and keep them drinking free drinks.
I used to deal free blackjack in college in the Midwest in the 80’s for coupons to earn towards t-shirts and other SWAG at the club. That is fun—still competitive and the thrill but not actual losing your house to the House.
MurrayDelph
(5,435 posts)When I was younger, you used real money. Now you insert a bill, and when done collect a payslip (that has to be over a dollar), which you have to find a machine to pay you your "winnings."
The videogame "bing-bing-bing" sound will never have the fun feel that the "chunk-chunk-chunk" of coins did.
democratsruletheday
(1,229 posts)look no further than the gambling threads on sports message boards. FULL of clowns posting their 'winnings' but never what they lost of course. Pathetic. Fools gold to say the least.
Maeve
(43,021 posts)Yeah, Hubby buys the occasional lottery ticket, and I have been known to blow a buck or two, but the one time I was in a casino I wanted to run back out. Glitz and noise surrounding depressed looking people feeding money into machines. (I was there for an unrelated dinner) And the sports betting commercials beg people to make a lifestyle out of gambling. I've also seen a depressed area become a wasteland after a casino went in.
Biophilic
(4,970 posts)
ProfessorGAC
(70,512 posts)I'm not sure how to take this because I'm not sure there's a solid dataset to which we can compare.
When gambling, especially sports betting, was underground, we don't have reliable numbers on the amount bet per household, or the impact on other finances. The latter is impossible because we can't know the downstream effects of a thing we can't be sure happened.
Which households, how heavy was the betting behavior, and so on.
I believe their analysis, but I think whether is significantly worse than the illegal sports betting days appears a legitimate question.
I'm paywalled from reading the whole article, but I also don't get the $2 in reduced savings fir every dollar spent. That 2:1 ratio is not an intuitively obvious effect.
Trenzalore
(2,547 posts)For any activity that is being banned you need to ask whether you prefer it being done regulated by the government or done by organized crime. Human behavior is not going to change. The New Testament has them throwing dice for Christ clothes.
Intractable
(563 posts)... not for myself. I have no time for such nonsense.
It frightens me that they play on our weaknesses as humans for immediate gratification and cheap thrills.
It frightens me that the trusted and beloved Jane Seymour (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman) is purveying this.
I've seen a lot of commercials for apps like this. They take your money ...
From the app reviews.
"The game itself is well done, engaging, and addictive, but credits are ridiculously expensive for fake money, or you have to wait an hour to harvest enough credits for one game (win or lose) ..."
"Was fun until it got to level 500, you can't play beyond that without spending a lot of money. Took awhile, but reached level 3000 and now it takes at least 10 or so attempts to get through certain levels before the reward spin (useless) or crates (a little more helpful) Do not use the recommended assists for the level, as it just wastes credits and seldom gets you through the level. I will continue to play (doubtful it will change, but still entertaining) for sure not worth spending any money."
MineralMan
(147,938 posts)The most alarming thing was that they were offering live betting on things like "will they convert and get a first down?" All sorts of micro bets someone could make during the live game.
That encourages multiple bets, each costing money for the bettor. Dangerous!
Xolodno
(6,749 posts)Bunch of friends watching the Superbowl and pull out a wad of one dollar bills and bet on various things. Not a major loss if you were in the wrong. It was more about bragging. Less that $50 dollars would be traded that day...and the winner would often run to the store and buy beer for everyone.
dchill
(40,751 posts)...didn't already know that is bonkers. Or, if they're the compromised legislators who passed those laws - they're just - uh - compromised.
Captain Zero
(7,560 posts)You would say keep it online.
If you ever lived across the street from a guy who had a Bookie visit him twice a week, you would say it's fine online.
FYI. Bookies always drive Oldsmobile convertibles.
Trenzalore
(2,547 posts)Also in PA every fire hall/VFW/American Legion had poker machines which were very illegal and would get raided about once every 1-3 years to have them back in operation the next week lol
The cops collecting bribes also is left out of the equation.
FakeNoose
(35,981 posts)Supposedly "fundraising" to keep the volunteers going, but really it was gambling pure and simple.
There used to be prizes of $10,000 or more, and buying into the game cost something like $100 per card. I think the state has shut these Bingos down, because I haven't seen any signs up for them for several years.
Trenzalore
(2,547 posts)Maybe not for that amount of money but the rural ones do them for guns and sex toys.
They made something called skill machines legal in the state which is virtually a slot machine. Most clubs have a back room of 4-5 of them that are busy from open to close.
MichMan
(13,517 posts)
Grins
(7,934 posts)One if the reasons states jumped on allowing casinos and betting was because of conservatives #1 (and only) principle: Not paying taxes!
States needed money to pay for schools.
How to get the $$$?
Taxes!
Conservatives had a shit fit.
Casino and betting firms said, to get licenses, they would pay a % of the house to the state.
(What does Powerball and MegaMillions fund?
Schools. )
So the minority (gamblers) pays the taxes so the majority doesn’t have to!
And the mess left in its wake? “Not my problem!!”
Envirogal
(175 posts)The state of Iowa was the first to legalize riverboat gambling along The Mississippi river. But How the gambling advocates (hidden through the Trojan Horse “school funding”) were able to get their foot in the door Was through what was called at the time limited gaming excursion. This meant that patrons would cruise for two hours with betting limits of $200. This was done through cards with a series of $20 segments. You would go to the cashier pay them the money with that card. If you blew all your money right away, there was no way for you to get additional chips. So you went up to the top of the boat and had a drink and enjoyed the view because you were stuck!
The intention was good because that two hundred dollar limit would prevent people from going crazy and betting their homes. So it was a safe and fun night out, like bingo. (Turned out it was boring and frustrating being stuck on a boat if you can’t continue to gamble.)
This led other states to get in on the action and began being competitive with each other for these new visitor and riverboat tourism dollars. Not sure which state was the first one to break the limits, (might’ve been Illinois), but once that happened, it opened the floodgates to regular ol’ casino gambling. Boats in Iowa that kept their limit amount, were no longer competitive so they soon dropped it as well.
Tribal casinos also pushed that toothpaste out of the tube.
But this all started by funding schools since taxes are evil and educating kids is not a societal function. Surprised the mafia didn’t enter the charter school movement.
Jacson6
(832 posts)Most of his gambling was with mobsters and at the race track. He owed a lot of money and they made it in his own best interest to take a equity loan on their home. He actually never gambled again. He wouldn't even buy lotto tickets any more.
Most gambling is for suckers. I spend $1 a week on a lotto ticket, but that is all I do.
Silent Type
(7,305 posts)owed them like $10K or something.
I told the guy "he'd have to break my fingers" because he didn't leave anything. Surprisingly, the guy told me "They don't do that anymore and they'd write it off."
I used to play a good bit of small stakes poker in college, but after seeing my dad's issues I quit.
Grins
(7,934 posts)Hate gambling. Had a boss who LOVED it and would book meetings at casinos.
I’d play! But when I lost my $50 limit (Whoo-hoo!) I was done. And pissed. A weekly lottery? Sure. Don’t even notice it.
PS: A long time ago a distant cousin went to Atlantic City with her husband and his gambling buddies. She annoyed him so he gave her $100 to go away. She planned on blowing it all quickly as possible, then going back for another $100!!
Didn’t work.
On a slot machine that was $10 a pull; on her 3rd pull - lights flashed, music blared, and balloons fell from the ceiling! One. Million. Dollars!
Got the check - less taxes!- got husband, and went home.
Since she had won - no reason for husband to gamble ever again, right? Right. He never gambled again.
Liberal In Texas
(14,599 posts)there was illegal gambling on sporting events. And people who wanted to do it had no problem finding a way to place bets. There was a guy at a place I worked who was a well-known and respected media figure who was the go-to bookie go-between. Alao, a few years ago, I was in a social group of friends and I asked one of the guys what his job was and he was matter-of-factly said he was a bookie.
Aside from placing some small football bets with the guy at the place I once worked, I am not a gambler but I have known a bunch of guys that will bet on any kind of sporting event. It's out there legal or not .
TygrBright
(20,987 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)
Oopsie Daisy
(4,553 posts)
ecstatic
(34,506 posts)Abusive, addictive and reckless behavior is the problem. If you take one vice away then it shifts to drinking or casino gambling or porn or strip clubs or lottery tickets etc. Meanwhile, I believe most adults are able to take part in moderation or to completely abstain due to a lack of interest. If there's a way to do it safely and legally online on a regulated platform as opposed to under the table gambling where individuals are killed for not paying debts, I think that's a much better option.
I know the intentions are good but the best thing the federal government can do (in my opinion) is to focus on educating and indoctrinating people from a young age. I remember the "this is your brain on drugs" commercials as a kid. Those were actually effective for me and who knows how many other kids.
Education and opportunity is the antidote for everyone involved.
Pas-de-Calais
(10,017 posts)Of the various sports betting apps. They make them sound like they’re giving you something free if you download and spend $5 betting
Bovine Excretement!
RandomNumbers
(18,230 posts)That if the betting app companies can AFFORD all those ads - and there's a Sh*t-ton of those ads! - then they are getting the money from SOMEONE. Gee, I wonder who they could be fleecing? Maybe I'll just sign up for the free stuff, I'll show them! Surely only the suckers are getting fleeced, but *I* will make it work for me!
Sigh.
angrychair
(9,887 posts)Courts are set to legalize gambling on election results.
That is truly a recipe for disaster.
3catwoman3
(25,650 posts)If I'm going to part with my money, which I do pretty freely, I want something tangible in hand for it every time, whether it's a just a frosted shortbread cookie from Panera or a one-of-a-kind piece of art from the juried art show I'm going to this weekend.
Gambling has zero appeal.
SWBTATTReg
(24,318 posts)I don't care as I don't gamble but the occasional lottery ticket.
Personally, I think gambling like this is a legal way for others to rip you off.
Here in MO, they claim that the proceeds will benefit our schools. My ? to them is: Where are the other gambling proceeds from the Lottery etc. at in supposedly helping our schools (which was the exact same argument used back then).
As I don't believe in pro sports (but high school football/college events, yes). There's already too much stink around pro sports as it is.
hatrack
(61,176 posts)
NCDem47
(2,589 posts)They're into sports and very entrepreneurial. Always thinking about how they make a quick buck and know sure bets when they see them.
Just...a lot of potential trouble for people starting out in life.
Plus, with sports betting, don't we get into players throwing games with money on the line?
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)
Diamond_Dog
(35,118 posts)That right there. Is. Sickening.
keithbvadu2
(40,435 posts)Syntax
Mountainguy
(1,021 posts)I bet those guys were all perfect partners until they put a $20 spot on the Saints.
Happy Hoosier
(8,533 posts)That's esspecially true with online sports books.
It's also true of state lottery systems, but those are now embedded in our culture.
Xolodno
(6,749 posts)Those gambling are probably already pre-deposed of having a problem. Twenty years ago you would go to Las Vegas and have a hard time finding an empty seat. Now, you have dealers just standing there waiting for someone to come up. Even space for slot machines I've noticed has gone down. One of the reasons why some casino's now charge for parking. They also raised minimum bets to the point people often don't bother.
I'm going to take an educated guess that the number of casual gamblers has gone down and only addictive gamblers stick around. And if they gamble at a casino, they will do so with sports, as the odds of losing aren't as bad. So what we could be seeing is a bias in the sample. If you only survey the worst, then you will get results that reflect that.
Last time I gambled wasn't even with my own money. Casino said if I signed up for their rewards card I would get $50 in casino credit, I promptly refused, then they said it will also get us discounts at the spa, restaurants, etc. So then I signed up. Turned that $50 in credits to over $500 in cash when I finally bet the last credit. Wife took one look at me after that and could see I was mentally exhausted from figuring out probabilities and said, "lets just stay in tomorrow, use the gym, sauna, etc." It wore me down and sure the profit paid for a lot of things, but it wore me down. With that said, if I'm at a casino and sit down at a bar, I ask how much we need to gamble to get our drinks comped. Haven't paid for a drink in years and my wife has picked up on my "statistical nature" and figured things out. If she gets stumped, then she asks for the best play.
MichMan
(13,517 posts)Now, with the proliferation of casinos in nearly every state, you can find several in just a couple hours drive. More people are gambling more than ever before, they are just spread out a lot more. The horse racing tracks in my state have however all closed due to lack of business.
I recall during Covid when nearly all college and pro sports were not playing, a co worker told me that people were gambling online on things like Russian ping pong. lol
hawkeye21
(284 posts)Gambling is a fool's game. Everyone knows it. Sports gambling is a scandal waiting to happen. Everyone knows it. So anyone who thinks they've just made an insightful observation must be Captain Obvious.
But legalized sports gambling makes some people rich. And so there you have it. Don't we all know by now that the answer to almost every question is "money"?
Yes, legalized sports gambling is a horrible idea. And the grass is green. Next . . .
alarimer
(16,642 posts)Now even ESPN has a betting service. How is that not a conflict of interest? I'm so sick of seeing betting lines on every single broadcast.
How soon will we see prop bets on, say, the number of concussions or something like that? They probably already are doing bets like that.
Arne
(3,608 posts)Of course I lost what I went in with.
However. on the way out the casino was paved with talking ATM machines.
Don't go yet! Over here. use a card, put your card in, no over here, get a few hundred, Step right up, we won't take your shirt, honest.
I stupidly succumbed, literally.