Hacker News Reader

Comment by hx8 | Hacker News Reader

It's interesting that your list skews entirely digital, and that more physical games of chance like lotteries and blackjack are not on the list. Do you see them as fundamentally different?

View on HN

Here's a good read on the topic from Zvi Mowshowitz: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...

He was very much pro-legalizing online gambling. He had worked for sportsbooks, had done lots of sports betting himself, stuff like that. But has concluded that legalizing online gambling has been a disaster.

> When sports gambling was legalized in America, I was hopeful it too could prove a net positive force, far superior to the previous obnoxious wave of daily fantasy sports.

> It brings me no pleasure to conclude that this was not the case. The results are in. Legalized mobile gambling on sports, let alone casino games, has proven to be a huge mistake. The societal impacts are far worse than I expected.

The article makes a compelling argument that online gambling is a lot worse than other forms of gambling.

I have a take on this too. You know how scammers cast a really wide net, hoping to get lucky and find suckers? Well, that's really only part of the story, what actually happens is they get lucky and happen to find people when they are vulnerable. That's how smart people get scammed somewhat randomly.

When online gambling is in your pocket, it is guaranteed to be available when you're vulnerable.

Well I was thinking in the context of games, so the list is some of the stuff that you can waste unlimited amounts of real money on to get a chance for a shiny digital item. I do think that physical gambling is bad too, though it's not as easily accessible, you don't carry a (physical) roulette table in your pocket.

I agree that accessibility is a big aspect that makes these digital games of chance different than the physical counterparts.

I think online/digital gambling is worse because it follows you everywhere. I don’t like any form of gambling, but at least with casinos there’s some escape in not physically being there. It’s also harder to enforce age requirements online.

They all have apps these days, and just like a local bookmaker might "accidentally" remove your name from their legally required self-ban list it's very common that a "bug" in your phone app means you can keep gambling after saying you want to stop.

"Mistakes" in the controlling party's favour are extremely common in such industries. Fluke 100-1 sport betting win? Oops we forget to fill out that mandatory anti-fraud paperwork, bet is off. Lost that 3-2 bet that the favourite would place in a horse race but actually you didn't show proper ID? Sorry that's your problem, we're keeping the money

Google keeps accidentally forgetting that I don’t want their fucking browser.

Regulating gambling is a good idea. Gambling firms spend a lot of money on (lobbying for) ensuring the regulations are as loose as possible despite the very obvious downsides of their industry.

Not OP but I would certainly ban adding gambling "features" to other products or services. Either you can be a gambling or betting shop/platform (regulated and restricted to adults) or something else, but not both.

Pokemon cards, magic the gathering fits that too

Card packs are not digital.

When I was writing my comment I mentioned packs as in digital loot boxes designed to feel like physical card packs.

Many locales ban physical gambling as well. It’s a defensible policy.

I think it's interesting that you're refusing to engage with the topic at hand and trying to distract with whataboutism.

You may be shocked and horrified to learn that two things can be bad at the same time, even if we only talk about one.

GP's comments trend digital because we're talking about digital games. GP is on-topic, you are trying to derail and delegetimize the conversation.

I think it's very interesting many people treat physical games of chance as different than purely digital ones, and wanted to explore this topic. To me, that's a more interesting topic of conversation than calling for legislation, or arguing about the merits of such legislation. Especially when it's about legislation in a jurisdiction I do not fall under.

This forum is a branching conversation pattern. I'm not derailing anything because this isn't a linear conversation. If you want to discuss something else that the parent comment said then make a post against that conversation.

Physical gambling is confined to a physical location (like a casino or a sports betting bar), so people have to go there to be harmed. It's bad, but it requires someone to spend time getting there (and if the victim has a family/friends they might ask where they're headed/intervene in some way) and there is a limit to the amount of people who can be there at once. With digital gambling, anyone can spend any amount of money, anywhere, anytime, with no oversight (however little it might be in a physical location). The harm is magnified immensely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com