Comment by thecupisblue
7 hours ago
Not just America, everything is. With stock market, at least we can somehow stop the bad actors, insider traders, corporate manipulation, pumps and dumps - with prediction markets, there is no way.
With prediction markets? Next to impossible. The markets being tied to crypto makes it even worse - things get harder to track, jurisdictions get blurry, proving becomes a ping pong between bureaucracy. And proving something becomes moreso a question of free will - if I decided to do X and then someone bets millon dollars on me doing X when odds are low, how do you prove I haven't decided to do X before? Will you prevent me from exercising my free will because of suspect insider trading? What if I am a president/senator?
Years ago, I was a kid who discovered online betting - often it was the only time I could place bets on MMA events, especially because it wasn't as popular as it is now. Even then, the gambling sites had "Other" options where you could bet on presidents, popes, landing on mars etc. The new markets aren't that much different, but are just using a nicer way to talk about it.
It isn't gambling, it's prediction.
You aren't a gambler, you're a "hyperinformed high iq individual predicting the geopolitical moves". Just like crypto gave people the identity crutch of a "tech investor", this gives them the identity crutch of a "geopolitical strategist".
But in the end, it is still just gambling - wrapped in a nice ego stroking suit, but gambling none the less.
There are some distinctions between gambling and prediction markets. For example, in prediction markets, some forms of insider trading are considered somewhat desirable - essentially, it monetizes insiders leaking inside information.
Other forms of insider trading can be problematic: What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X?
The most extreme that I've seen presented so far are markets where people can predict the death date of a person. On the surface, that just seems like a morbid bet. Once you consider the above form of insider trading, you realize that this can act as a reward for someone who can accurately predict the death date of said person, for example because they're making the counter-trade from a phone next to a high-powered rifle on the rooftop across the street - and like in the bribe example above, the people on the "losing" side of the bet might not mind too much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market
> What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X?
From their POV, that's the purest form of voting with money. If you do X, they're presumably happy with the outcome they just paid for; if you do the opposite of X, they at least have their payouts as consolation prize.
>What if someone (could be an individual or even an uncoordinated group) bets millions of dollars on you not doing X, in the hopes of you taking the opposite bet and doing X?
If the market is efficient and aware of the bribery effect, others will bet that you will do X up to the point where the indirect bribe is equal to the cost of you doing X. If you have private knowledge that a bribe would be taken, you probably have the access to do it far cheaper off market (and you can still use crypto).
As a matter of adopting sensible definitions, I think you need to draw the line somewhere between what is gambling and what is not.
If the risk taken can, in principle, be shifted in your favour (i.e. to produce positive expectation) through application of skill, then it isn't gambling. For example, in my mind, betting on whether you will win a game of chess is not gambling. On the other hand, if you cannot influence the outcome in your favour through skill, then it is gambling. Roulette is generally a good example of this (with the caveat that in some very specific circumstances it's possible to beat with skill).
If we're limiting the definition to merely risk-taking (you might win or you might lose) without factoring in skill, then virtually everything in life becomes gambling. For example, you gamble when you deposit money in the bank because it might go bust.
There's also the legal definition, in which case it's just a matter of checking whether the jurisdiction you are in considers the activity to be gambling or not.
I would say that gambling with skill component is still gambling. For example, in blackjack you can limit your losses by following a basic strategy, which is a 2x2 matrix with rows containing the value of your hand and columns containing the open dealer card.
If you can obtain an edge through a skill component (card counting in blackjack), some people wouldn't call this gambling anymore, but I would still call it gambling myself. Someone doing this for a living is a professional gambler.
What for me would be a sensible definition is that a bet/gamble has no other goals. Putting money in the bank/investing in a stock reallocates capital, which can be invested by someone. The fact that it is a risk-taking endeavor is merely a side effect. I would say the same goes for selling/buying insurance for your car.
So for me, the difference between betting and putting money in the bank/investing is that the primary goal is something different than the risk-taking activity.
Does this not boil down to the distinction being one's intent? I play poker occasionally, for example, and my primary goal is to win money not to take risk. Does that make it meet your definition of investing rather than gambling?
Many sports gamblers (horse racing, etc.) will say it’s about skill. They believe they shift the risk in their favor because they have the data and because they bet strategically so as to win over long term. (They can spend a while detailing it for you if you are willing to listen.)
Prediction markets in general can make anyone feel like it’s about data and skills. If they lose, then they didn’t have the good enough information, so clearly they should improve their skill, right?
From my understanding, purely natural events aside, the probability of you betting against the “house” will always approach 1. If the platform is centralised, they have a strong incentive to influence the stakes, or (this has been documented) straight up limit your ability to bet if you are winning “too much”—enough to cost them real money. If the platform is open and decentralised, “house” is another player with much more capital and personal influence in the matter than you (for example, some president can bet that he would invade a country—and then invade it; some footballer can bet that he wouldn’t score N times—then score N-1 and fake an injury at the most favourable time; of course, they would use intermediaries, and only the careless ones will get burnt).
Talking about "traditional" sports gambling rather than prediction markets: how do we account for the heavy restrictions they place on "sharps" (consistent winners)? If a game can be won through application of skill, but winning through application of skill causes you to be effectively banned, then the game cannot be won through application of skill.
Phrase it like this - market makers and casinos and other hosts really don't want it be a game of skill.
The game is still won through the application of skill even if the house chooses not to play it with you.
The “skill” line is what gamblers tell themselves to justify it. A much more useful demarcation is “does this game have any positive impact on the world” (entertainment value of the gambling itself doesn’t count). For example, insurance is not gambling even though it is itself a zero sum game, it enables societally beneficial risk taking. Options trading on real assets like stock aid in price discovery. Memecoins, sports betting, your local poker game and the way prediction markets actually function in practice are all gambling.
> “…betting on whether you will win a game of chess is not gambling.”
It’s the money aspect that makes it gambling. Just ask Pete Rose.
Is it gambling if the outcome can be shifted through the application of your money and influence?
Ask a VC.
Stock market integrity is important because of their function in the economy. Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.
That is one of the takes I've ever read. There is a reason gambling is so tightly regulated worldwide, and it's certainly not because governments hate easy vice tax revenue. Gambling debt destroys family units, increases poverty rates (most notably for the children of gambling addicts -- the consequences are not localised only to the person making the bad decisions), and increases violent crime rates. Gambling is massively detrimental to society. There can be arguments in allowing people to do things that are detrimental to society in the name of freedom, but it's not a great thing to pretend those detriments don't exist at all.
Do you know of any studies that can accurately show the correlation between gambling and societal costs? On the surface the link makes sense to me and seems like it should be right, though I'm not sure how we could have tested it in a controlled way to really know the link exists.
6 replies →
> Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.
This isn't true.
https://www.connections.edu.au/news/strong-link-between-gamb...
> Stock market integrity is important because of their function in the economy
Some might argue that people - including gambling addicts, and those impacted by their addiction - might possibly be more important than one of many possible financial mechanisms for free enterprise.
Is that NSW = New South Wales? I'm asking because Wikipedia lists New South Wales as a population of only 8.5 million, and those crime numbers are insanely huge relative to that.
3 replies →
You are ignoring the point of TFA. Kalshi & Polymarkets provide a marketplace to monetise political decision-making, a.k.a corruption. This is definitely detrimental to society.
First of all, anyone getting scammed is detrimental to society because society is made out of people and those are people getting scammed. Gambling addicts are not less important than wealthy people.
Second, these markets are generating new gambling addicts, which is wildly and provably detrimental to society.
Just so we're clear on the standards of solidarity here, someone murdering your entire family would be tragic but not detrimental to society. How much should society do to prevent that from happening?
>Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.
It certainly is at scale.
Depends on how many of those gambling addicts there are.
If a huge enough portion of the population try to solve the statue quo of their economic problems by betting all on red, that's not gonna be great for society, including those who don't gamble.
The gambling industry itself is a net drain on society.
What is the societal benefit provided by it?
>What is the societal benefit provided by it?
Same as beer or any other drug - just a way to have some fun and not destructive provided you can control yourself.
Though, the one time I opened a CSGO gun case and felt the dopamine rush, it was way stronger than any drug I've done. Not that I'm a "highly-experienced individual", but alcohol, weed or adderall don't come close to a CSGO case. Gambling feels much riskier.
Some people want to gamble and the gambling industry provides what they want.
How would you like it if people who didn't care about your hobby started questioning the social benefit of allowing you to do it?
2 replies →
Except when "gambling adicts" end up as a cover for money laundering and funneling cash to people to buy influence.
Until people are making money and affecting the world. Let's say that you're someone close to Trump and you have betted a very large sum that Trump should take a certain action. Are you going to try to make him take that action even if at that point it turns out to be the worst decision for the country and the world?
> Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.
I used to believe that. With the legalization of all the sports betting and how fast it can drain a gambler which can then affect the gambler's family, I'm now pretty much on the other side of the fence.
Just like we banned public smoking because of the effects of secondhand smoke, I'm pretty convinced that the secondary effects of gambling means it needs to go back to being banned. I don't see an obvious way to legislate gambling to prevent the auxiliary victims. It doesn't help that getting maximum profit as a bookie means being part of a group of the scummiest people on the planet who will stoop to anything to drain people of their money as fast as possible.
The sports betting sites even have account managers who are tasked with keeping people on the sites even after the user has decided to quit. It’s so lucrative they can afford to pay people to sit and text gambling addicts.