The US military’s on-base slot machines | Hacker News Reader

The US military’s on-base slot machines

wired.com

78 pointsimpish920881 comments

I'll throw some anecdotal data down. I'm a military brat who grew up on bases around the country and in Germany. My dad was a gambling addict. It was not uncommon for us to spend all day at the bowling alley on base, which was where the slot machines were.

At the time, I didn't know better and just played arcade games all day. Eventually, I started to put together just how much money my dad must have put into those slot machines. Thousands, maybe most of his salary. It certainly explained why we generally had no furniture in our house compared to my friends.

So am I against slot machines on base? No. I have no doubt that if they weren't readily available in a safe/controlled environment, my dad would have still found a way to gamble. If anything, it was a forcing mechanism for him not to go overboard given the limitations of what was offered on site.

I do however wish there were programs that existed to provide offramps for people with addiction, similar to supervised injection sites for drug users. Seems to me that this could be easily funded with the proceeds.

When/where did his addiction start?

Long before I was born. If you're trying to suss out which came first, the addiction or the slot machines, I don't have a definitive answer for you.

I don’t know what it was like before I came over two decades ago, but I think you’re likely right - there are tons of little casinos and sports betting parlors in even small towns in Germany, and unless they were explicitly declared off-limits to soldiers by the post/base commander, he’d have been at one of them gambling away his paychecks, and exposed to people who would not have been likely to get on base who could have caused him even more trouble.

I feel like a portion of the slot machine income needs to go extensive therapeutic support for compulsive gamblers. Of course that would probably be gamed. Or make the machines completely unprofitable.

> Or make the machines completely unprofitable.

That gives me an idea, maybe the slot machines operated by the government should operate at even odds so the long run expected loss, and winnings, is zero. No house cut. This might make the machines more addictive, but on the other hand once gamblers get accustomed to government machines having even odds maybe the predatory commercial machines would lose their appeal?

If it is operating at even odds, would this be subsidized entertainment? As there are still operating cost required to run the machines?

Electricity, upfront cost of the machine, floor space, maintenance. Probably not much in all, but not nothing.

Wouldn’t matter I think. The problem is there’ll still be people who destroy everything they have on the machine.

they could, but if making less money is in the equation its not going to happen. the only way to get a casino to cut you off is to get too drunk or count cards

> provide offramps for people with addiction, similar to supervised injection sites for drug users.

Supervised injection sites in the US don't provide offramps, not unless they require as a condition of use regular counseling. Europe had both kinds, but American harm minimization advocates imported the no-strings-attached variety while using the data for the counseling-required sites to sell them to policy makers.

To carry that over to the slot machines, maybe the slot machines should have required some sort of access ID so users could be tracked and addicts identified for intervention (easier today than 20+ years ago) as a condition for continued use. That might be kind of tough in a military environment, though, given the emphasis on morality and potential repercussions if you're not diligent enough to hide your dirty laundry from your CO; sort of like why commercial pilots don't see mental health professionals.

They can make all the arguments they want about what "good" this money does. But all I see is its taking people who might be interested in leaving the military after 4 years, and sucking them back in due to debt, or not earning as much money as they thought they could.

Its a underhanded forced recruitment tool.

It really shows how rotten and cynical the "leadership" has become.

To take a cue from Band of Brothers, "never put yourself in a situation where you can take from these men." https://youtu.be/AyLHIobW0HQ

The two class system of the military broke that rule during Vietnam…

Morals only apply to enlisted men. And only then if commanded to have them. Officers are given way more leeway and afforded more luxury.

When I was in the Navy, the two-class system needed to go. It led to suboptimal leadership and the departure of many of the best people from the service.

I really don’t believe that’s the motivation here. Bad credit is one of the most common causes of losing your security clearance and failing to pay your debts can result in disciplinary actions. The military has no issues throwing money at retention when they need to.

I do honestly believe it is just a misguided attempt to fund Morale, Welfare, and Recreation.

Well in the case of the person in the article by "funding morale, welfare, and recreation" the military lost an officer. Not something cheap considering the wild amount of money that gets pumped in to training. He lost his family/friends, nearly his life, and financially ruined. But hey at least the VA was able to find a old dusty pamphlet a few years later.

> the military lost an officer. Not something cheap considering the wild amount of money that gets pumped in to training.

This is uninformed. The US military is in the business of weeding out officers (and enlisted) via up or out policies. If you don’t get promoted within a certain number of years you’re out.

There is part of this that is about a lack of financial education in our country. The interesting thing is that if you give a lot of disposal income to young people without a lot of life responsibilities, they will spend it like water. I know lots and lots of soldiers who come back from being deployed and promptly spend all their bonuses on a new truck, a new motorcycle and a new boat. 6 months later, that money is all gone and all of a sudden they can barely afford the payments and start selling things off at a huge loss.

To the military's credit, at least in the Army, financial literacy is now part of the mandatory initial entry training that Soldiers are required to go through. There is also another round of basic financial literacy classes that are required prior to exit from the military.

The article mentions two reasonable reasons for allowing the program (which is about gambling on bases outside of US) to continue.

1. The classic, "people will want to gamble, we may as well control the supply". I think this is generally true. In the US, service members can go off base (when allowed) to gamble in a more or less controlled manner. This program provides the possibility of more or less uniform, controlled access across the globe, regardless of host nation.

2. Revenue funds morale, welfare and recreation activities.

I honestly think point 1 is fair enough. The corrosive element is that it's used for aspect 2 (an alternate approach might be to simply to redistribute money back to the soldiers directly... or just let it go to waste). The challenge is that once someone's funding is coupled to gambling revenue, it compromises its ability to pursue task 1 (which is basically a risk mitigation strategy).

> 1. The classic, "people will want to gamble, we may as well control the supply".

Of course, anecdote, but the example they give — sounds like the guy never would have thought to gamble had there not been a slot machine on base. At the same time, he was so easily and thoroughly adsorbed into it, perhaps he was dry kindling — just waiting for any spark to come along.

Yes agreed. The challenge with any risk mitigation (harm reduction) strategy like this is that it is super super implementation specific. I'd agree based on the description given in the article that the program as currently run is probably not being particularly successful at risk mitigation.

That being said, without real numbers, it's super slippery to argue anything. One could argue that the on base gambling problem introduces (say) 3x the population into gambling. But then perhaps it decreases the of severe financial distress by 10x on an individual basis. That would be a net win. Then one might say that it lowers to risk of off-base unsavory behavior (getting into fights, owing money to local gangs/organized crimes, etc etc) by 1000x on an individualized basis. Perhaps that further tilts the field.

I wonder how this argument is not applied to prostitution, drugs and other illegal things.

All militaries have always turned a blind eye on those things (if not being completely OK with it, e.g. prostitution) as long as soldiers are in fighting condition when needed and that they don't cause too much trouble with local civilians.

There’s a key difference between ignoring a behavior and profiting from it.

I think people misunderstand how MWR funds work. The military isn't taking this gambling money to buy bombs and bullets with.

The funds that the military themselves provide for MWR are very small. Most MWR facilities and activities are funded by what are called non-appropriated funds (NAFs). NAFs are essentially earned through charging fees for services, such as renting equipment like RVs, bounce houses, and other things. MWR funds are also provided from the profits earned by on post golf courses, post exchanges (basically military Walmart), gas stations, etc.

That being said, I do agree that this practice should be ended immediately, as gambling is unhealthy and corrosive to good military order and discipline.

The US military buys weapons only with drugs money, as we know (Sorry, could not resist).

As another example, the post exchanges / Navy exchanges on base (which are retail shopping centers) also contribute from their profits to the local MWR funds. They even advertise it to the shoppers. "Hey, the money we make stays with you all, not some random PE investors"

But no one is confused that Big Morale is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes to force people to shop at the exchange.

In fact, in general the military can't really "make money", to the extent they manage to run activities involving cash receipts with military personnel, it becomes a chore to figure out something productive to do with that spending. MWR is a very minor activity on most bases but it is something that can absorb money on servicemembers' behalf so it often ends up in this role.

Ironically the reasoning in #1 also applies well to legalizing things in various communities. (Without a legal source, some people will see out illegal businesses, drive crime, etc.). I don’t see “go to the neighboring state” as a solution if they all ban X…

I really don’t know what the solution is. Used to think I was in favor of legalization of some drugs, not because I’m interested in their use but as a tool to take power away from gangs and reduce crime.

Later visited a state that did… Actually seeing marijuana stores everywhere was very unsettling. Weird seeing fast food stores converted to them. Saw some high hippies crash their vehicle into their friend’s car door while it was opening. Barely even registered for them… Left a bad taste in my mouth…

Bu it does seem reasonable that the fewer service members interacting with dishonest/criminal organizations, the better.

> Actually seeing marijuana stores everywhere was very unsettling.

How is this different from any other store?

If the only goal is to provide an outlet for gambling, the slot machines could be programmed without a house edge, so that over the long term, the player gains as much money as he loses. But then soldiers might develop a gambling addiction which with those machines is harmless but would become problematic once they return to civilian life and rigged slot machines.

I can't understand why the government has to be so involved in gambling. I'm pretty much okay with the lottery, it's kind of silly thing you can play with friends or coworkers, you pretty much know you're not going to win. But scratch off tickets are worse because it's kind of unlimited. Most people wouldn't blow $100 on lottery tickets, but might on scratch off. There's no delay, just buy immediately to lose. And then they have the apps. Why? Are they really necessary? And to top it off, there's advertisements. It's one thing to say people want to gamble and this is a way to take a reasonable profit and use it to pay for public services. It's quite another to actually try to encourage people to play.

Do we really have to optimize everything?

I live in Massachusetts. I don't play the lottery. I don't know a lot of people who play the lottery. But, evidently, some people in Massachusetts spend a lot on the lottery, a shockingly large amount: over $800 per capita. Some people out there are making up for my absence from the game.

> A 2019 survey found that households with an income below $30,000 spent 13% of their income on lottery tickets, compared to just 1% for households with incomes of $50,000 or higher.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2022-12-08/...

Lottery is famously targeted at the poorer part of society.

Our social circles don’t extend far enough to see the people buying lottery tickets.

Sincere question: what is the alternative you have in mind? Banning gambling or deregulating it?

One of the two great sins of the otherwise competent and progressive Blair/Brown New Labour government in the UK (1997-2010) was that they extensively deregulated and relaxed rules about gambling and simply taxed it.

The worst excess of this -- thankfully now finally heavily regulated -- was the Fixed Odds Betting Terminal:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/19/a-stup...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/27/high-s...

An excellent pair of articles by the brilliant Victoria Coren-Mitchell, but read the first one especially.

Deregulated gambling almost destroyed British society and created a new class of bankrupt addicts. And the internet and app stores are making it bad even as successive governments try to back away from the stream of revenue.

I personally think the solution is a near total ban on everything except horse and greyhound racing (for now) and state-controlled lotteries, but we are so far away from that now.

The alternative? Allow a state lottery (e.g. Mega Millions), bet rid of the scummy mobile apps. Stop advertising. And stop pushing the scratch off games, or remove them all together. Overall it would reduce some revenue but be a net positive to society.

Who says you have to deregulate anything or make it legal otherwise?

> The alternative? Allow a state lottery (e.g. Mega Millions), bet rid of the scummy mobile apps. Stop advertising. And stop pushing the scratch off games, or remove them all together. Overall it would reduce some revenue but be a net positive to society.

I fully agree with this. It completely fits my own perception of the problem. But I asked because a lot of people who think the government has no place in gambling are seeking deregulation, not what is necessary: recriminalisation.

In most markets with state lotteries, it's easier to pass a lottery than a tax increase; they're typically sold as a way to fund schools or some other public good. It's an inefficient revenue capture in the sense that there are higher costs (marketing, printing lottery tix, profit for the lottery operator, etc.) but you can get it across the finish line and not have to worry about your opponent calling you out for raising taxes.

California's lottery, converted to a tax and using topline revenue numbers, would be ~$235 annually per resident.

I wonder if at least part of this is to ensure that the gambling is run by the military, rather than the service members going off base to gamble at places that could be connected to organized crime. Does anyone know if in the countries where this is happening off-based gambling has such connections?

Or online sports gambling?

I disagree with this. High stress environment, already with an alcohol and spending problem (super high interest car loans etc) that in this case: the machines need to go.

But that also challenges a broader trend in games of chance proliferating. In some places, small businesses are pushing hard to allow them to put them in their businesses because they make money.

Gambling is one of those places where I draw the line about freedom of choice and disposition. It's too easy to lose everything, and get suckered in to lose more. It needs stronger regulation because the House never loses, and people who can't control themselves suffer.

You draw the line there. Others draw it at alcohol. Others at pornography.

That’s fine. There should be limits on freedom.

I suppose you're being ironic, but I think most scholars have (unironically) said as much. Obv. example, yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie house.

In most of the cases you mentioned we all wish that people were better people — showed some self-control. (Might as well add fire-arms to your list as well.) And hoping that all people can behave with all out interests in mind, we give people those freedoms (as we do) and then the rest of us are left to endlessly grouse about how fucked up our society is because of those people and their poor choices.

So how do you win?

Some people have concluded that we might, as a society, actually be better off without "Thing X" as one of our freedoms. I'm willing to entertain those arguments.

& it's fair to regulate these. Nobody cares about regulating free slots with no reward, or Balatro

I don't want PornHub ads on billboards & commercials

I was at a bar, coming out of the bathroom I walked into a wall. They stopped serving me alcohol. I went to the liquor store after & they refused to sell me a bottle of jaeger since I wasn't walking straight. The casino won't stop serving you games until you're broke or winning

I do t want alcohol adverts on billboards. I do t want adverts for cars either.

The individual liberty argument for gambling being legal might have some merit, maybe. Personally I don't buy it, but I don't think people who disagree with me are necessarily unreasonable.

What's completely beyond the pale for me is the government actually promoting it. Unconscionable evil.

"When the fun stops, stop"

That was the UK gambling advertisement reaching out to addicts. There is no fun when you're addict.

this carries value into many regions of life, from relationships, work and video games.

Which, ironically, is when it's at the threshold of 'not possible to stop.'

Gambling is an evil business and everyone willingly involved in peddling it should be exiled from society one way or the other. FOBTs are especially streamlined. Everyone in the business knows exactly what they are doing.

That said, the same applies to lots of things: drugs almost literally, but also porn and porn-adjacent services are obvious brain-hacks, but also food, drink and even shopping are frequently structured in such a way to capture business through non-consensual manipulation of the human mind.

None of it is new: people have been losing their shirts, homes, families and lives to most of the above since before money existed, but technology-wielding capital isn't exactly freeing us from it, but instead has optimised it. Sure, it's freedom, but it's freedom of both predator and prey.

Gambling is the only vice where the store conceivably never closes; you can make a bet out of _anything_.

In the Year 2525 hypnotism has been confirmed. Brain protheics have amplified the effect for anyone who can afford it. With a healthy diet & conscious focus the effects can be warded off, so regulators want to wait & see if the market can solve hypnotism abuse

For the past 6 weeks I have stayed in & meditated, as last time I went out I broke my focus between taking a sip of beer & getting distracted hearing Heart of Glass, & in a moment of weakness someone in the crowd convinced me to buy everyone a round & leave a fat tip. Next time I'll have to try harder to stay focused

Hot take: Gambling is fine. Gambling with important money isn't.

If people were somehow limited to gambling up to $10 per day, it wouldn't be a problem. Or if people were gambling with RuneScape gold coins (and not trading real money for gold coins).

State lotteries and scratch tickets should be illegal and banned. Every time I go to the deli I'm inevitably waiting behind a (very obviously) poor person blowing their paycheck or welfare check on a dozen lotto and scratch tickets.

It's better they're legal and regulated than illegal and unregulated - and there's plenty of illegal / unregulated gambling out there.

I just feel like it's a big difference in scale between dealing with a local illegal bookie in your neighborhood and a massive state-sponsored gambling enterprise operating "bookies" out of every corner store and gas station in the country.

Gambling and other predatory businesses on military bases are gross. MLM's run rampant through military communities by preying on dependents and the tighter social networks formed by military families. Yeah, I know, freedom to make adult decisions and all, but sometimes it's nice to just keep the garbage out in the first place.

> freedom to make adult decisions and all

Not to sound like an authoritarian, but sometimes I don't think freedom and free will is to be trusted to people. Not when they can be exploited. Some people are prone to addictions (like gambling); should they, especially when they represent a country, be allowed to indulge? Or should they follow a program to help them with their issues? Is the addiction the real problem or just a symptom of something deeper?

I wonder if there's programs (in e.g. the military) that deal with this. I also wonder if they're trying stuff like ozempic and the like, which apparently helps with a wider range of impulsive / addictive behaviours.

> sometimes I don't think freedom and free will is to be trusted to people. Not when they can be exploited.

The thing is, you gotta square that with these guys getting sent into war zones to get shot at.

If we think these young men and women can’t consent to gambling their money, but can consent to gambling their lives, that seems a bit inconsistent to me.

You don't have to go all the way there to ban exploitative stuff. It's easy to spot. In many cases, you don't even have to go as far as a ban. MLMs, for example, can be discouraged through education.

> Not to sound like an authoritarian, but sometimes I don't think freedom and free will is to be trusted to people.

This is why we have government :-)

The $ argument in favor of this seems a little silly. The $ brought in a millionth of the US military budget.

Think the best argument presented in the piece is just that some non-trivial fraction of soldiers are going to gamble, and its better they do so in a manor controlled by the military then backroom poker games, online, etc.

This was also the operating logic from the time when military bases would have bars (and even some seedier things). You generally had an enlisted club and an officers' club on base, and yeah drunken behavior may result, but it resulted on base.

The foot traffic at these spots is nowhere near what they used to be though.

Only way this can be moral is if it were zero profit.

That is, if the machines pay true odds, and the military eats the cost of the machines.

The government shouldn't be in the gambling business at all, neither this nor state lotteries. It creates a perverse incentive where the government starts promoting gambling instead of what they should be doing: promoting services to help gambling addicts recover.

I'm absolutely sick of seeing billboards promoting the lottery as a sound investment, and not only that but suggesting terrible ways people could waste all their winnings instead of putting it away and being financially responsible. It's sickening.

And yes, I know the argument about state lotteries outcompeting "numbers games" run by organized crime. I don't buy this argument, I don't think we're getting any net gain for society. Having connections to organized crime to participate in their gambling schemes is far less accessible than buying lotto tickets at any gas station in the country. This casual accessibility sucks far more people into gambling addictions..

To be fair, I don't think any state is promoting their lottery as a sound financial investment. Don't get me wrong--giant billboards advertising Powerball and Mega Millions are gross, but they are promoted as random games of chance where "YOU MIGHT WIN!!!" None of them say anything like "Invest in lottery tickets for a sound financial future!"

State-sanctioned gambling is an absolute menace. Lots of states in the US have an ironically-named "Education Lottery", which ostensibly funds public schools. This is done because people don't want to pay the taxes necessary to fund public schools. Instead, these lotteries effectively take money from the poorest of society to fund the schools instead of taxing progressively (or even more for rich people) to fund the dwindling public school budget (assuming this is even done properly). Meanwhile, proper education would teach people that playing the lottery is a fool's errand.

I can only assume the situation is similar on military bases.

https://archive.ph/AJeu6

I'm not even sure I like slot machines being available to the general public but putting them on military bases is disgusting.

One call from the base commander could stop this. So which is it commanders, kickbacks from gambling companies and more troops going into debt just to be take up space in the brig? ... or more people under your command that are not financially stressed? The military is having a hard enough time finding and recruiting people even qualified to proceed to basic training. This behavior is unbecoming of an officer. A demotion and permanent relocation to McMurdo Station, Antarctica or Eielson Air Force Base Alaska for all leaders involved and the problem should solve itself. This message is for defense secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald J. Trump.

For an army that tests for drugs, wants soldiers to be clean when they come in, it is maddening that they then pull this shi*t on them! The level of stupidity and ignorance is staggering. The army doesn’t care about their soldiers. “All I want to say is They don’t really care about us.”

It's pretty disgusting to be honest, a captive, bored and/or stressed audience. Though I'm sure they're popular.

A compromise might be if all the profits went toward perks at the base, better food, etc.

If you told soldiers that all the gambling money was going back in, I’m sure some people would be encouraged to spend every last cent, since they’re not really “losing”

I doubt it. Instead it gives cover for the institution that is making the slot machines available.

Great, now divert the money into their 401k funds and trick them into funding their own retirement.

According to the article that seems to be the case:

> The ARMP’s earnings go back into each branch’s Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR). Some of it pays for entertainment on bases, such as golf courses, bowling alleys, and libraries. “Proceeds that are returned to MWR are decided and allocated by the garrison commander at each installation,”

Though it still feels questionable to me.

So basically a State lottery then.

I grew up and, you know, smoking ads were banned, alcohol is bad. now it's smoke weed every day and slot machines at gas stations. what the heck happened?

that's just wrong

Reply on news.ycombinator.com