zlacker

>>jimbob+(OP)
Gambling is a vice, and we should allow it but make it expensive and somewhat stigmatized.

At the very least, ads should be banned or require nasty images like tobacco products.

>>datadr+3a
I have participated in a few meetings of some lottery boards, and I have heard that there is a tension here between the illegal market and the pricing of the legal market. Some states charge the (relatively low) commissions that the illegal market charges because they would prefer to stamp out the illegal market, and others take your position but have a thriving black market for gambling. Those are basically the two options.

>>pclmul+Ga
I think illegal sports gambling was less pernicious. The usual bookie offered bets on the outcome of games which are much harder to manipulate than the stupid prop bets that people get addicted to now. The stigma of being involved in something illegal also slowed things down, you had to actually call up a bookie and not just press a button on an app.

>>PaulHo+rb
For what it's worth, I agree with you, but that's the counter-argument: if prices are too high, you're going to essentially get people either circumventing restrictions (eg with VPNs) or turning to gangs.

Some of the other games that state lotteries are adopting are almost as bad as sports betting in terms of their availability (look up instant-play gaming), but sports betting feels like a game of skill, which certainly makes it worse from a psychological perspective. I still think it should be legal if people are going to do it anyway. Maybe banning the "specials" on combo bets or requiring them to be labeled as "this is still a bad bet" could help.

For the record, I have a vested interest in sports gambling being banned because I sell products involved in instant-play and other forms of gaming that are not involved in sports betting.

>>pclmul+vd
Did people do illegal online sports gambling before it was legal? Did it do as much harm as it does now?