zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. Double+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-09-27 12:11:22
I live in Dublin where a lot of the tech developement centres for many online bookmaker and casinos are based. I have been approached by recruiters for some of them and even though they offer VERY generous packages I refuse to work for them on moral grounds.

The thing that bothers me the most is that they know a lot of poitential employees have issues with the whole sector, so they try to give it a false veneer of acceptability. A good example of that was that both Paddy Power and Boyle Sports referred to themselves as suppliers of "risk-based entertainment" in their recruitment literature, something I found to be very sleazy.

I also know people who work for some of these companies and they tell me that all their talk about caring for problem gamblers is complete nonsense and that they actively seek ways to lure back problem gamblers who were able to quit.

It's also very weird that as governments around the world are cracking down on alcohol poromotion at the same time they seem to be encouraging the promotion of gambling. I would say gambling can do as much harm to a family as alcohol addiction can. I'm frankly shocked at the amount of gambling adverts there are these days. And so many of them carry the subtle sub-text that if you don't bet on your team then you aren't a true fan.

The problem is that people will gamble no matter what, so providing a safe way to do so is better than banning it. I agree with you that it's all about to what degree you allow gambling. At the very least I would ban advertising as it's effectively normalising something that most definitely should not be normalised.

replies(1): >>xhkkff+Eb
2. xhkkff+Eb[view] [source] 2024-09-27 13:28:16
>>Double+(OP)
Gambling isn't the only form of entertainment meant to tickle the part of the brain that craves risk. Movies have car chases. Amusement parks have roller coasters.

And many jobs involve taking risks. Investment houses. Sales. etc. We reward those who take risks because society (often) benefits.

I find it much easier to argue against standard casino games because it's pretty easy to mathematically prove that the gambler will end up broke. With sports, it's a bit harder. As long as the vig is small enough, smart gamblers who know the teams can eke out a profit. If anything, sports gambling rewards study, thought, and focus, all things we should celebrate. THat doesn't mean I like. I would like to see it banned. But it means I have trouble arguing against it with any vigor.

replies(1): >>Double+ag
◧◩
3. Double+ag[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-27 13:52:46
>>xhkkff+Eb
Being a savvy sports gambler will only get you banned though, the house always wins also applies to sports betting.
replies(2): >>xhkkff+nG1 >>albert+GO1
◧◩◪
4. xhkkff+nG1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-27 21:57:27
>>Double+ag
But that's not true. I know several guys who make a living at it. The casinos don't care because they make their vig on the action. The only losers are the folks on the other side of the bets.

It is true that the casinos will find a way to ban people who find an advantage in traditional games like blackjack (think card counting), but that's different. In sports gambling, the profit is extracted with the vig/spread.

◧◩◪
5. albert+GO1[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-27 23:14:01
>>Double+ag
There exists big sports betting exchanges like Betfair, where there isn't a "house" and where they don't really have an incentive to limit big winners. I have friends who make consistent profit from these sites - though it must be said they do ramp up the commission
replies(1): >>erfgh+6Z6
◧◩◪◨
6. erfgh+6Z6[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-09-30 12:20:30
>>albert+GO1
How do you know that they make a consistent profit? You take their word for it? Gamblers are notorious liars and are also known to keep very poor record of their bets.
[go to top]