zlacker

This reminds me also of the huge difference between gambling and gambling. Some games are at least somewhat beatable (sports betting, poker) even though the house is most consistent winner.

Then there is junk like every slot machine ever, 98 % of online casinos, etc.

Lotteries would belong to that category if they weren't such a useful way to sell something few people can afford, or to finance projects with an opt-in taxation.

>>kqr+(OP)
you are trying to say that there is a difference between pure random luck and 'skill' based gambling. However the both act in the brain the same way and both lead to bad ends to the vast majority.

>>kqr+(OP)
The online sports platforms will reduce your max bet size to $1 if you win too much.

Should be outlawed and any politician who's advocating otherwise should be (at least) journalistically investigated.

It is so unfathomably antisocial that there is effectively no morally sound reason to advocate for its proliferation.

>>kqr+(OP)
The Spanish lottery is actually quite egalitarian and produces distributed payouts for communities. It’s fascinating really - 99 pi did an episode about them a while back https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-gordo/

>>sleepy+s
Sports was a mistake, a waste of the concern and attention of billions of people, ban sports.

>>card_z+v4
Come on, do you see "sports" (completed separated from gambling on them) to be a plague on society? Do you have anyone in your family or social circle that had their lives destroyed by sports? It's not even comparable, your comment seems to be in bad faith

>>snapca+w6
Except if it involves robots or Starcraft, because I like those. But I also like poker, which Sleepybrett seems opposed to.

>>card_z+v4
Assuming this isn't sarcasm... I would be very careful about banning or even dismissing anything that has been popular for thousands of years.

>>apitma+Gc
Like gambling?

>>apitma+Gc
Well, sarcasm is against the guidelines I think, so let's say it was reductio ad absurdum. I'm responding to the idea that gambling+skill is just as bad, or bad enough to also ban. It would make the legislation and policing a lot simpler, close up some loopholes, and would have the side effect of outlawing the stock market, but I'm still against it.

>>parine+4e
Yes. Consider the tradeoffs carefully. Try the experiments. Do the research. Then make a decision.

>>apitma+Eg
Haven't you already made a decision by saying "if the research finds X is true, we have a moral duty to ban gambling"? It's the is-ought problem.

>>sleepy+s
>* However the both act in the brain the same way and both lead to bad ends to the vast majority.*

This is a poor justification for making something illegal. Chocolate and cocaine operate on the same neural pathways, but one is clearly more detrimental than the other. Following this reasoning, we should ban chocolate, and being able to see comment scores on hacker news, and like counts on Instagram photos, and reach on Twitter, and retirement account balances because they produce the same effects in the brain as illegal drugs do.

>>kqr+(OP)
Beatable games are even worse than unbeatable ones. They hook people who believe they can win. Maybe some can, it doesn't matter - they still ruin lives for no benefit. You just add some skilled gamblers to the group that runs the house directly or indirectly.

>>llamai+j3
Oh, yeah. Parimutuel pools among people who know each other is far better, although even then some people are remarkably hard to reach when they have lost even small amounts.

>>card_z+v4
What's the tangible negative outcome of widespread sports interest?