zlacker

this pattern is a pretty defensible way to run a sports book. obviously you don’t want to accept large bets from someone who is doing arbitrage or consistently has inside information.

any business with variable prices works this way, if some mysterious person shows up to your car dealership and seems really excited to unload a bunch of used cars on you, you should feel nervous that you’re overpaying or something is wrong with the cars.

in my view the diabolical part is the predatory marketing tactics, and making gambling platforms ubiquitous.

i say this as someone who, like you, thinks legalizing sports betting is an ongoing disaster, but wants the strongest arguments against it.

>>currym+(OP)
People conceive of gambling as a game where the house typically has a slight edge through fees, information, or structural advantage in the game itself. I don't think this "ban if winning" behavior fits with people's model of "fairness" even in the intrinsically unfair world of gambling.

I think a very good first step legislation would be to require disclosure of this behavior. Public appetite would probably be very strong and it wouldn't run afoul of any of the other "people should be free to play games" arguments. You can play the game, but the owner of the game is required to disclose the rules of it.

>>currym+(OP)
If you think a sports book is a retailer, selling a product, sure.

But sports books pitch themselves like brokers, giving fair access to bets. A brokerage-style betting market would be perhaps more fair (or at least, the sharks would take the rubes’ money instead of the casino robbing them) but doesn’t exist.

>>spencz+fe
financial markets also work this way — the current market price is for a limited quantity and if you trade the price will move.

moreover people go to great lengths to try to avoid trading with winners.

there have been cases where people’s banks refuse to do any more foreign exchange trades with them when it becomes clear they are just arbitraging. it’s exactly analogous to the sports book case.

>>llamai+45
Everyone knows you'll get banned for counting cards at Blackjack, but they don't have to catch you red handed. They just have to catch you winning too much. Fixing sporting events is very lucrative and there are criminals doing it. Probably not in the NFL, but it definitely happens still in individual sports like boxing. A blanket policy of banning people who win a statistically impossible amount seems reasonable.

>>jeremy+1x
It's not "a statistically impossible amount." That sounds like another great regulation to put in place though. If they can prove cheating or statistical unlikeliness then go ahead.

Regarding "everyone knows" - right! Does "everyone know" this about sports betting apps? If no, then they should. If yes, then no problem requiring unambiguous disclosures.

>>llamai+EA
i think the number of random gamblers who get so consistently lucky that their bet size gets reduced, is probably quite small. this is because you usually lose money betting on sports, because sports betting is bad. it's mainly going to be people doing obvious arbitrage, and secondarily people who truly are professional gamblers.

this can also be spun in a positive way: if that does ever happen, the bookies are literally forcing someone to quit when they are ahead! isn't that considerate of them.

unfortunately, i think sports betting platforms just have many strong arguments that controlling bet sizes in this way is fine.

>>currym+2C
Then no harm done in requiring that disclosure before people make an account!

Of course the entire business is built on creating the belief that a user can make a ton of money. Due to this mechanic, this is an actual lie.