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 mean, yes, that is a theory one could reasonably believe in. In the absence of evidence, it's not obvious at all whether it is true or false.

But this submission is about research showing that the legal market isn't just replacing the illegal market. It expands the market and the bad effects.

That is, they're able to track the deposits made to betting sites and other spending. Bets to illegal bookies are obviously not in that dataset. But if the legal gambling had replaced illegal gambling, the money going into legal gambling would appear to be coming from nowhere. Most likely a reduction in cash withdrawals? But that's not the effect they're observing. The money going into gambling is displacing other spending, including spending on +EV investments.

Given there is now evidence that the theory isn't correct, there's probably not much value in talking about it as if there really was a legitimate tradeoff here.