zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. Workac+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-09-26 16:35:54
Here is a wild idea:

Reshape the entire industry to be a decentralized/house-edge-free form, where any one player has a net 0% gain/loss outcome over time. Regulate what bets can be placed and their payouts so that winners win less amounts and losers lose less amounts (i.e. you don't get wiped out).

It will feel like gambling, but overtime is no different than coin flipping for lunch money with a coworker every day. Essentially math away the "house always wins" part.

replies(4): >>r00fus+Q >>WorldM+1s >>njtran+Ct1 >>user90+Fw1
2. r00fus+Q[view] [source] 2024-09-26 16:40:21
>>Workac+(OP)
Hot take: The entire goal of the gambling industry is to act as a one-way function for money (ie, laundering).

Thus, your proposal might actually work, except what's in it for the rubes?

3. WorldM+1s[view] [source] 2024-09-26 19:25:00
>>Workac+(OP)
One way to look at this is it is already sort of the dividing line between traditional "Fantasy Sports" and modern "Sports Betting". Fantasy Sports involves finding a like-minded group and winnings are often as much "bragging rights" and camaraderie as it might be any actual pool of money. Sports Betting is certainly not that.

A problem is infection. As Sports Betting is more legal and profitable, Fantasy Sports gain more Sports Bets and pseudoanonymity and lose some of their community spirit for "micro-transactions" and other "extreme gamification" and the line between each blurs. (Including to the point where groups looking for one might be easily confused into doing the other.)

I idly wonder if there is a way to shore up Fantasy Sports against the tide of Sports Betting profit.

4. njtran+Ct1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 04:02:51
>>Workac+(OP)
There are such attempts, e.g. Smarkets. The general approach is called a "betting exchange" where you buy and sell bets with other people to set the market price for the various games / events going on. It's too complicated, though. Most people just want to bet on the Pats winning. They're not rational financial actors.
5. user90+Fw1[view] [source] 2024-09-27 04:41:59
>>Workac+(OP)
great but who is funding that at %0? is it non profit? like website, company and math people there will have wages. so even 1% is impossible without incredibly big volume and liqudity.
replies(1): >>joketh+O32
◧◩
6. joketh+O32[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-27 10:07:39
>>user90+Fw1
If Americans are spending 1B per month and you capture 10M per month (1%) of the market, charging 1% gives you 100k / month for the business.

I think you could raise money and then sustain a lean business.

[go to top]