Who thought putting a casino in everyone’s pocket was a good idea?(nymag.com)
nymag.com
Who thought putting a casino in everyone’s pocket was a good idea?
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/10/politicans-are-getting-hooked-on-mobile-sports-betting.html
133 comments
Also we’ve already been told that lie. Lottery money didn’t add to education funds, it replaced existing ones.
When it made a profit. In Illinois, it turned out not to be even paying for itself. Just another pile of contracts to be handed out to selected family and friends.
> In Illinois
As a former resident, the thing you have to remember about Illinois is that for statisticians and politicians, Chicago is Illinois, but everyone not in dinner and a movie range disowns it, like it’s it’s own state.
If you witness someone at a party say they’re from Illinois, and someone says, “I’m from Illinois!” the conversations will go, “What town? Where’s that? Oh, Chicago.” “Oh Chicago” like you just said you hate dogs. I think people from downstate expect people from Chicago or any of the burbs to tell people they’re from Chicago, not Illinois. This is made worse when talking to foreigners, who can’t place Illinois on a map in their head until you say Chicago.
If you exclude Chicago from your mental arithmetic, any number of stats seem counterintuitive for Illinois. Including some things you might assume Mississippi or Alabama would be #1 for like racist courts. But given how much traction organized crime got there during Prohibition, and how many former mayors have been indicted, if you include Chicago then you can believe just about any horrible fact about Illinois.
As a former resident, the thing you have to remember about Illinois is that for statisticians and politicians, Chicago is Illinois, but everyone not in dinner and a movie range disowns it, like it’s it’s own state.
If you witness someone at a party say they’re from Illinois, and someone says, “I’m from Illinois!” the conversations will go, “What town? Where’s that? Oh, Chicago.” “Oh Chicago” like you just said you hate dogs. I think people from downstate expect people from Chicago or any of the burbs to tell people they’re from Chicago, not Illinois. This is made worse when talking to foreigners, who can’t place Illinois on a map in their head until you say Chicago.
If you exclude Chicago from your mental arithmetic, any number of stats seem counterintuitive for Illinois. Including some things you might assume Mississippi or Alabama would be #1 for like racist courts. But given how much traction organized crime got there during Prohibition, and how many former mayors have been indicted, if you include Chicago then you can believe just about any horrible fact about Illinois.
Every time they roll out the ability to so activity that’s bad for people, it’s always “think of the children” and “think of the poor”.
I can see the day where they try to legalize child prostitution by kicking back 20% to schools.
It is NEVER the case where the proper way to fund an unfunded social need is to support the wholesale exploitation of the very group you’re funding.
I can see the day where they try to legalize child prostitution by kicking back 20% to schools.
It is NEVER the case where the proper way to fund an unfunded social need is to support the wholesale exploitation of the very group you’re funding.
Corporations will just pass along the cost. Just directly tax the rich.
Not to mention that there's something deeply ironic about taxing the stupid to pay for education.
The US does collect over 300 billion dollars from corporations in tax revenue...
This is something I'm debating myself right now. We have a proposition on the California ballot in November to legalize online gambling. On the one hand, if adults want to gamble, why should the government stop them? Sure, tax the hell out of it to account for the externalities of it, like increased crime and an increased need for social services when people bankrupt themselves, but don't outright ban it.
On the other hand, is it worth the externalities? We ban drunk driving because of the extreme harm you can cause others. We ban smoking in a lot of places for the same reason.
Is the harm to society of easily accessible online gambling worth allowing consenting adults to consent?
On the other hand, is it worth the externalities? We ban drunk driving because of the extreme harm you can cause others. We ban smoking in a lot of places for the same reason.
Is the harm to society of easily accessible online gambling worth allowing consenting adults to consent?
As a side note, in California it’s much harder to get rid of a bad proposition once it’s enacted than a bad law. Vote against propositions unless you’re certain that you support them forever.
My default on all propositions is always No for this exact reason. It's a change to the constitution of the State. I feel like that should have a higher threshold than "eh, sounds good".
Absolutely. And I do still vote for some propositions if I think they’re a great idea, but with a much higher bar than for other decisions:
If a proposition is a good idea and the people turn it down, they can try again next year.
If a proposition is a bad idea and the people vote it in, we’re stuck with it.
The cost for saying “no” and being wrong is much smaller.
If a proposition is a good idea and the people turn it down, they can try again next year.
If a proposition is a bad idea and the people vote it in, we’re stuck with it.
The cost for saying “no” and being wrong is much smaller.
Can a new proposition override (or cancel out) an older one? Are they similar to Constitutional amendments (such as 21's canceling out 18'th) or are California props more sticky?
Yeah they can override old ones. That's pretty much the only way to change the old ones -- pass a new one that overrides it. The legislature can't override constitutional amendments.
In case anyone is curious, there are multiple different kinds of California ballot propositions. Some are constitutional amendments; some are statutes; some (like the subject[s] of this particular comment thread) are a combination of both. There are also bond measures and veto referendums, which for the purposes of this classification are probably more like statutes than amendments. (Furthermore, the ballot propositions can be citizen-initiated, legislatively-referred, or mandatory.)
On the ballot for 2022 in California is 1 constitutional amendment, 2 combined amendments/statutes, 3 statutes, and 1 veto referendum.
On the ballot for 2022 in California is 1 constitutional amendment, 2 combined amendments/statutes, 3 statutes, and 1 veto referendum.
The problem with casinos is that it's easy to make one that is not fair (fraudulent odds). To prevent that, you need some sort of auditing system. And to do that you need to issue limited licenses. What this causes is that in most of the world, those licenses end up in the hands of really trustworthy characters that would never hurt a fly.
If it wasn't for that problem, I'd just be pro making casinos as straightforward to operate as opening an e-commerce shop. I have no qualms with adults gambling their money away, my problem is with mafiosos getting it all.
If it wasn't for that problem, I'd just be pro making casinos as straightforward to operate as opening an e-commerce shop. I have no qualms with adults gambling their money away, my problem is with mafiosos getting it all.
No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit. In the meantime, this will prompt illegal casinos to offer either better deal (better odds) or worse deal (extended credit) than can be had at legal casinos.
The situation right now is there is no reason for an illegal book to offer a better deal, and the worse deal is already illegal, so nothing would change by making it legal.
The situation right now is there is no reason for an illegal book to offer a better deal, and the worse deal is already illegal, so nothing would change by making it legal.
> No reason to have limited licenses. A state run clearing house for all money going in and money going out. Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is
In many countries loteries advertise how much money was spent in tickets, and obviously they advertise the prize pool and the odds. As you can tell people still play, publishing the results does nothing. But that doesn't mean you should allow a free for all of fraudulent games. You see, most gamblers want to lose their money fairly.
In many countries loteries advertise how much money was spent in tickets, and obviously they advertise the prize pool and the odds. As you can tell people still play, publishing the results does nothing. But that doesn't mean you should allow a free for all of fraudulent games. You see, most gamblers want to lose their money fairly.
>Then publish the results of this, so people can see how bad a deal gambling is, the state can get their cut, and people can know which places are legit.
Trivially exploited. The cool dude 85 casino will lie about all of its odds and make up the money-in, money-out difference when big whale cool dude 86 comes into town and soaks the casino for a few tens of millions on a private game of go fish.
Trivially exploited. The cool dude 85 casino will lie about all of its odds and make up the money-in, money-out difference when big whale cool dude 86 comes into town and soaks the casino for a few tens of millions on a private game of go fish.
>The problem with casinos is that it's easy to make one that is not fair (fraudulent odds). To prevent that, you need some sort of auditing system.
Does somebody want to tell him?
Does somebody want to tell him?
It's impossible for a casino to be "fair" over the long term, because it has deeper pockets than individual gamblers. Even a gambler with a positive expectation (which is not something that is easy, fun or usually even possible to do in a casino game), over time will have increasingly wider swings of fate (i.e. the most they've ever lost or won will always increase), and one will bankrupt them.
Fair in this context does not mean the customer can get a positive outcome over time unless they are very lucky and never return. Fair just means you get what is advertised. If a willing adult knows the casino is a losing proposition most of the time but feels "they are lucky", by all means.
This is what intuition tells me as well, but it is not true. If a gambler has positive expectation of wining, even if you have gamblers playing until either broke or dead, the expectation is for the casino to lose money.
I don't see gambling as having the same kind of direct harms to others as drunk driving or second hand smoke.
If I gamble and I lose all my money and go bankrupt, that still doesn't necessarily harm others or even massively increase their risk of harm. Can't say the same for the other two actions.
If I gamble and I lose all my money and go bankrupt, that still doesn't necessarily harm others or even massively increase their risk of harm. Can't say the same for the other two actions.
A ton of people I know have a cousin or a brother in law that have been slowing draining bank accounts on DraftKings for years. Their spouses and children only find out once there is no money to pay bills. In one case a set of retired parents went back to work parttime to help support their grandchildren after their adult son wasted all their money and then lost their house.
No its not the gore-splattered event of a drunk driving car accident, but it still tears apart families.
No its not the gore-splattered event of a drunk driving car accident, but it still tears apart families.
It harms those who are dependent on your income, such as your family.
That's reasonable. But it's also reasonable to ask what the government's responsibility is in protecting those people.
As a society we've already decided it is the job of the government to at least care for children and other adults who aren't capable through both direct aid and forcing adults to take care of them (child support being the most obvious example).
I'd say it falls into a similar realm -- protecting those who can't protect themselves.
I'd say it falls into a similar realm -- protecting those who can't protect themselves.
Not everyone has people dependent on their income. Is it without harm? No, but it's not the same as putting random innocent people at risk. Even with that, the harm you're talking about is not direct - they lose income, but with drunk driving and smoking people directly die.
It's more of a cost to society. Once they lose all their money, what happens? They either turn to crime or rely on social services. In both cases society pays more than the would have otherwise.
Being in a state that legalized marijuana, the tangential rise in crime and homeless is significant and was unexpected. The activity of legalizing one small thing (weed) isn't bad but the broader scope of societal degradation makes me wish we had not legalized it. For all intents and purposes it was legal before, just wasn't big business.
I think online gambling is in the same area socially.
I think online gambling is in the same area socially.
How do you know it's correlated?
I'm in a state that is in the process of legalizing it but it's not done yet but the social degradation and rise in crime is also happening here.
I'm in a state that is in the process of legalizing it but it's not done yet but the social degradation and rise in crime is also happening here.
> How do you know it's correlated?
I cannot say its the sole thing that has caused the current state of affairs in the state, but it's been roughly 10ish years and the social decline started about at that time. Speaking with many locals (completely unscientific) but many feel like this was also the point in time where it brought it many individuals that did not have a plan in life but came for the green gold rush, or to merely be in a location where it was easier to buy and safe to use without risk of jail. Many believe it was this influx that started to erode society a bit. Homelessness and pan handling went up. Crime slowly went up. Etc....
Clearly there has a multitude of other contributing factors since then (covid, housing crisis, etc...) but this sort of started the ball rolling down the hill and the additional issues helped with momentum.
This might not be an issue with other states that are legalizing now because it's more available in several states but as one of the first few to legalize it, I feel it definitely hurt more than it helped.
I cannot say its the sole thing that has caused the current state of affairs in the state, but it's been roughly 10ish years and the social decline started about at that time. Speaking with many locals (completely unscientific) but many feel like this was also the point in time where it brought it many individuals that did not have a plan in life but came for the green gold rush, or to merely be in a location where it was easier to buy and safe to use without risk of jail. Many believe it was this influx that started to erode society a bit. Homelessness and pan handling went up. Crime slowly went up. Etc....
Clearly there has a multitude of other contributing factors since then (covid, housing crisis, etc...) but this sort of started the ball rolling down the hill and the additional issues helped with momentum.
This might not be an issue with other states that are legalizing now because it's more available in several states but as one of the first few to legalize it, I feel it definitely hurt more than it helped.
This is a topic of actual research, and metro area rental vacancy rates (i.e. how affordable/abundant housing is) are the main determiners of whether someone at risk actually becomes homeless.
> The fundamental conclusion is that the consequences of individual vulnerabilities are far more severe in locations with less accommodating housing markets. [0]
[0] https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housi...
As an easy counterexample, San Francisco had a rising population experiencing homelessness years before marijuana legalization in January 2018 [1].
[1] https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population
> The fundamental conclusion is that the consequences of individual vulnerabilities are far more severe in locations with less accommodating housing markets. [0]
[0] https://www.sightline.org/2022/03/16/homelessness-is-a-housi...
As an easy counterexample, San Francisco had a rising population experiencing homelessness years before marijuana legalization in January 2018 [1].
[1] https://sfgov.org/scorecards/safety-net/homeless-population
I think SF has had significant issues that led to a large homeless population prior to Marijuana becoming legal. That city is a case study in itself it terms of why it's gotten to where it's at (and I'm not remotely the person to argue either way there. I travel for work there a few times and year and it's always bad, unpleasant and I'd argue unsafe and each year is worse but my exposure is limited to infrequent visits and nothing as a resident). Housing availability has always been mentioned as one of the bigger issues there but I cannot speak to it beyond what I read.
People moving to locations without a plan, and avg to high rental rates will naturally lead to more homeless people. We did have an influx of unprepared people due to legalization. And Im not saying legalization is purely to blame. Certainly possible it was all coincidence with timing. Market rebound, in tandem with people in low wage jobs not prepared for market shifts? Veterans coming back from a decade long war without a safety net (medical or financial), PE buying housing. There are plenty of possibilities. But going back to the original post, I believe that allowing online betting for people already in trouble is not going to help towns and cities in any manner. So I would worry about things getting worse before they will get better.
People moving to locations without a plan, and avg to high rental rates will naturally lead to more homeless people. We did have an influx of unprepared people due to legalization. And Im not saying legalization is purely to blame. Certainly possible it was all coincidence with timing. Market rebound, in tandem with people in low wage jobs not prepared for market shifts? Veterans coming back from a decade long war without a safety net (medical or financial), PE buying housing. There are plenty of possibilities. But going back to the original post, I believe that allowing online betting for people already in trouble is not going to help towns and cities in any manner. So I would worry about things getting worse before they will get better.
You can't just see two things that happened at around the same time and assume one caused the other
Of course not. And I did not do any sort of study. Mere observation and communication with other locals. I believe it however (just the start of the current problems, not the sole source of them)
So you admit that you're probably wrong, that you have done no research, but because someone else agrees with you you choose to believe it anyway? Well I appreciate the honesty at least
No, this is why I do not get into a lot of discussions on HN, where its an argument about semantics with people who are more or less in tech (which you can behaviorally be generalized into a few groups of people). I merely made a point about discussions Ive had over several years with people who have lived in the area for decades, with observations Ive made after living in the affected area for several decades and responding to the question about if it's a good idea to put a casino into everyone's pocket (the original post). The world runs by peoples experiences and not studies, you're lucky if you get people to see both, but by and large society is dumb, leaders are dumb (in a different manner) and none of it matters as for big ships turn slowly and cash rules the world. Online gaming will pass because it brings in cash to everyone who has a hand on the rudder.
I'm not trying to be glib but it sounds like you agree with everything I said.
You haven't looked at any studies and have based your opinion on conversations you've had with people around you. You haven't had decades to talk about this either because weed was only legalized a couple years ago.
You claim that people are stupid and don't look at studies but that includes you by your own admission. If you're ok with that I guess that's fine but I would think you'd try to do something about it.
For what it's worth I agree with you about casinos, don't agree with you about weed.
You haven't looked at any studies and have based your opinion on conversations you've had with people around you. You haven't had decades to talk about this either because weed was only legalized a couple years ago.
You claim that people are stupid and don't look at studies but that includes you by your own admission. If you're ok with that I guess that's fine but I would think you'd try to do something about it.
For what it's worth I agree with you about casinos, don't agree with you about weed.
> You haven't had decades to talk about this either because weed was only legalized a couple years ago.
Marijuana has been legal for almost a decade. When asking people who have lived here their entire lives when did the thing start to change, many have said when it was legalized things started to change for the worse. Not that it changed overnight, but it was a noticeable difference in the quality of life, and decreased since that point in time.
>I'm not trying to be glib but it sounds like you agree with everything I said. You haven't looked at any studies and have based your opinion on conversations you've had with people around you. > You claim that people are stupid and don't look at studies but that includes you by your own admission. If you're ok with that I guess that's fine but I would think you'd try to do something about it.
I disagree with much of it and you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make, I feel like I did a poor job explaining it but it's not a big deal. Appreciate the back and forth.
Marijuana has been legal for almost a decade. When asking people who have lived here their entire lives when did the thing start to change, many have said when it was legalized things started to change for the worse. Not that it changed overnight, but it was a noticeable difference in the quality of life, and decreased since that point in time.
>I'm not trying to be glib but it sounds like you agree with everything I said. You haven't looked at any studies and have based your opinion on conversations you've had with people around you. > You claim that people are stupid and don't look at studies but that includes you by your own admission. If you're ok with that I guess that's fine but I would think you'd try to do something about it.
I disagree with much of it and you are misunderstanding the point I was trying to make, I feel like I did a poor job explaining it but it's not a big deal. Appreciate the back and forth.
Sports betting in casinos has been around for a long time in Vegas but it never caught on the way, say, slot machines have. For a long time most people who bet on sports bet illegally by calling their bookie on the phone. Legal sports betting in Nevada made it possible for people who set lines and point spreads to hang their shingle even if the betting parlors were poorly attended.
The UK experience has shown how sports betting is popular as something spontaneous that fits into life, watching the game, etc. Mobile scratches that itch. For that matter, Sinclair broadcasting is interested in the ATSC 3 standard because it lets you transfer a web "player" to a TV set that could support sports betting through the remote control:
https://www.tvrev.com/news/broadcasting-atsc-3-gambling-nab-...
For many people sports betting is good clean fun that helps people get more fun out of the game, but for other people it is a dangerous behavioral addiction.
The thing about addiction is that addicts really need to get away from temptation to come clean. It is easy to keep away from the casino but with gambling in your pocket, advertised at the ballpark, advertised on the broadcast and even embedded in the broadcast, it's going to be very hard for people... A person with a gambling problem may have to stop watching sports entirely, which is a shame.
The UK experience has shown how sports betting is popular as something spontaneous that fits into life, watching the game, etc. Mobile scratches that itch. For that matter, Sinclair broadcasting is interested in the ATSC 3 standard because it lets you transfer a web "player" to a TV set that could support sports betting through the remote control:
https://www.tvrev.com/news/broadcasting-atsc-3-gambling-nab-...
For many people sports betting is good clean fun that helps people get more fun out of the game, but for other people it is a dangerous behavioral addiction.
The thing about addiction is that addicts really need to get away from temptation to come clean. It is easy to keep away from the casino but with gambling in your pocket, advertised at the ballpark, advertised on the broadcast and even embedded in the broadcast, it's going to be very hard for people... A person with a gambling problem may have to stop watching sports entirely, which is a shame.
> it lets you transfer a web "player" to a TV set that could support sports betting through the remote control
The problem with that is the broadcast delays; live betting will always be as fast as possible (so that people who are physically at the match don't get much of a window to place a "guaranteed winner" bet, e.g. "next player to score"), but the various broadcast methods can add up to maybe 20 seconds' delay and most people probably wouldn't want the betting overlay to tell them that someone had scored before the TV pictures show them the action.
The problem with that is the broadcast delays; live betting will always be as fast as possible (so that people who are physically at the match don't get much of a window to place a "guaranteed winner" bet, e.g. "next player to score"), but the various broadcast methods can add up to maybe 20 seconds' delay and most people probably wouldn't want the betting overlay to tell them that someone had scored before the TV pictures show them the action.
>Sports betting not catching on in Vegas...
You have clearly never been to the sports book at Circa Casino in Las Vegas. The big screen is three stories high.
[1]: https://www.circasports.com/
You have clearly never been to the sports book at Circa Casino in Las Vegas. The big screen is three stories high.
[1]: https://www.circasports.com/
It's not the size of the screen it is the size of the crowd.
It's probably an artistic choice but note that the seats in front of that screen are empty in the photo on that page.
There is an impressive looking sportsbook at the rural racino with huge TVs near me, I wind up there sometimes on "any given Sunday" because my extended family likes going there and I like to play the track when I know I the odds are in my favor, and it's never very busy.
It's probably an artistic choice but note that the seats in front of that screen are empty in the photo on that page.
There is an impressive looking sportsbook at the rural racino with huge TVs near me, I wind up there sometimes on "any given Sunday" because my extended family likes going there and I like to play the track when I know I the odds are in my favor, and it's never very busy.
A government list of people banned from sports betting seems to be an interesting idea. Obviously there are offshore platforms that would ignore the list, but the point is just to raise the transaction costs a little. I wouldn't like to see courts force people to sign up, but I could see joining the list as a prerequisite to rehab and personally know a few addicts that would sign up when they have support so they don't fall when they're at their lowest.
Who thought letting children gamble was a good idea? But here we are 30 years later and Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon cards are still a thing. Most people don't even recognize them as gambling.
Just because a slot machine has a guaranteed minimum payout, which in this case is 10 pieces of cardboard with nice pictures on them, doesn't make it not gambling.
Just because a slot machine has a guaranteed minimum payout, which in this case is 10 pieces of cardboard with nice pictures on them, doesn't make it not gambling.
Gacha, loot boxes, trading cards, etc... all proven super effective at getting kids to spend money on what is essentially nothing. Imo the stuff that is essentially gambling but not regulated and taxed as such is worse than things that are obviously gambling like casinos, sports betting, etc...
MtG is baseball cards for a different kind of nerd.
This is much older than Wizards of the Coast
This is much older than Wizards of the Coast
Did baseball cards have artificial scarcity? Did you buy them in packs with unknown cards in them? Legitimate question, I have no idea
Yes to both. Bought them I was growing up. Got mostly the same crap cards over and over it seemed. Each pack also had a stick of gum in it.
According to my research just now, they were initially included as a bonus to another product, like gum or cigarettes! Presumably you didn't know which ones you were going to get and had to trade around if you wanted a complete collection. According to this source [0], the trend switched from cigarettes to gum after it became illegal to sell cigarettes to children.
I think the scarcity that led to certain cards becoming more valuable was incidental rather than intentional, but I'm not an expert.
[0] https://www.amerlegends.com/the-history-of-marketing-basebal.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_card
I think the scarcity that led to certain cards becoming more valuable was incidental rather than intentional, but I'm not an expert.
[0] https://www.amerlegends.com/the-history-of-marketing-basebal.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_card
I go against the grain here and think that if there’s a time for people to learn their “gambling lesson” it’s when they’re kids/teens and can’t lose their entire retirement.
I doubt it turns anyone into a gambling addict but it could show them how much money you can waste on it with no return.
Of course I have an adult friend that has bragged many times in the past about how much he sold individual MTG cards for but never seems to tally up how much he spent to get them in the first place, so…
I doubt it turns anyone into a gambling addict but it could show them how much money you can waste on it with no return.
Of course I have an adult friend that has bragged many times in the past about how much he sold individual MTG cards for but never seems to tally up how much he spent to get them in the first place, so…
Take a look at the latest crazyness cash grab from Wizards the creators of Magic:
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/news/celebrate...
$999 for 4 packs of 15 cards in which 2 are rare. Not real magic cards - not valid for tournament play.
$999 for 4 packs of 15 cards in which 2 are rare. Not real magic cards - not valid for tournament play.
Man I wish I knew where my magic cards were. I have all of those rare cards from their original editions! I had a deck that was five colors, almost all rare, and only multilands. I can't even imagine what that would be worth today (or if they're even tournament legal anymore, I haven't checked the rules in about 25 years).
They are probably tournament legal in old school (cards printed in 93/94 which I play with my son) and in something called Vintage.
With multilands you must mean the Dual Lands and they have a lot of value. https://www.mtgstocks.com/lists/6 - even if they are from the revised set and have been played with we speak about at least $200 each and you probably had 20 or so in your deck.
If by original editions you mean Alpha (black border, round corners) and Beta (black border) - they have insane value depending on which cards of course.
Do you remember if the cards had black borders? Would love to see some photos of your deck :)
With multilands you must mean the Dual Lands and they have a lot of value. https://www.mtgstocks.com/lists/6 - even if they are from the revised set and have been played with we speak about at least $200 each and you probably had 20 or so in your deck.
If by original editions you mean Alpha (black border, round corners) and Beta (black border) - they have insane value depending on which cards of course.
Do you remember if the cards had black borders? Would love to see some photos of your deck :)
I had about 20 mulitlands in the deck (all in sleeves) as well as a whole second set of pristine multilands.
And yes, mostly Beta (black border), a few Alphas, and a lot of Unlimited, Arabian Nights, and Legends still in sleeves. I stopped collecting after that.
> Would love to see some photos of your deck :)
Would love to be able to find them and take those photos!!
I actually ran a business selling Magic cards back in '95. I'd go buy cases at wholesale and then sell them out of my trunk at retail with my buddy. Instead of taking profit, we'd open one pack for every one we sold, so I got all my money back and a shitload of rare cards. It was my most successful business in my career!
And yes, mostly Beta (black border), a few Alphas, and a lot of Unlimited, Arabian Nights, and Legends still in sleeves. I stopped collecting after that.
> Would love to see some photos of your deck :)
Would love to be able to find them and take those photos!!
I actually ran a business selling Magic cards back in '95. I'd go buy cases at wholesale and then sell them out of my trunk at retail with my buddy. Instead of taking profit, we'd open one pack for every one we sold, so I got all my money back and a shitload of rare cards. It was my most successful business in my career!
Thank you for sharing this info, must have been a wonderful experience. Your cards must be worth a small fortune.
I played first in 1996 but had no money so no valuable cards, but I kept them all. I have now been spending around €2K to buy old cards (mostly revised and 4th edition) to make decks for playing with my son. We play an affordable format for old school, you can see more info here https://7pts-singleton.com/
Last summer we travelled to Madrid to be part of the Championship, me and my son - it was wonderful :)
I played first in 1996 but had no money so no valuable cards, but I kept them all. I have now been spending around €2K to buy old cards (mostly revised and 4th edition) to make decks for playing with my son. We play an affordable format for old school, you can see more info here https://7pts-singleton.com/
Last summer we travelled to Madrid to be part of the Championship, me and my son - it was wonderful :)
That's so cool! My kids aren't quite old enough yet, but soon!
The new formulation is a lot stronger though. Most kids probably bought one pack of cards perhaps, got burned, never bought another random pack. Now people cant watch a sporting event without gambling.
> Who thought letting children gamble was a good idea? But here we are 30 years later and Magic: The Gathering and Pokemon cards are still a thing. Most people don't even recognize them as gambling.
Even under the least charitable framing imaginable, there's a world of differences between trading card games and slot machines. For starters, slot machines are not random; the payouts are are specifically preprogrammed to manipulate users into the patterns of behavior that maximize playtime and minimize total volume of payouts. When you learn about how they really work, it's actually shocking that slot machines are legal at all, because of the amount of explicit deception that goes on, compared to even roulette, craps, or even blackjack.
Not to mention that trading card games are multifacted; not only is it possible to participate in those games without interfacing with any of the aspects that could be construed as "gambling", but it's a known and actively encouraged set of playstyles. From the perspective of many users (including the most engaged ones), those aspects don't even exist, insofar as they don't interface with them at all.
Even under the least charitable framing imaginable, there's a world of differences between trading card games and slot machines. For starters, slot machines are not random; the payouts are are specifically preprogrammed to manipulate users into the patterns of behavior that maximize playtime and minimize total volume of payouts. When you learn about how they really work, it's actually shocking that slot machines are legal at all, because of the amount of explicit deception that goes on, compared to even roulette, craps, or even blackjack.
Not to mention that trading card games are multifacted; not only is it possible to participate in those games without interfacing with any of the aspects that could be construed as "gambling", but it's a known and actively encouraged set of playstyles. From the perspective of many users (including the most engaged ones), those aspects don't even exist, insofar as they don't interface with them at all.
> Just because a slot machine has a guaranteed minimum payout, which in this case is 10 pieces of cardboard with nice pictures on them, doesn't make it not gambling.
I mark the difference as to whether you can simply buy the thing you want.
For MTG and its ilk, you can buy a card instead of open packs. In addition, you can sell any card you get. This is a little different from normal gambling in that these card games have an upside that is okay and a downside that is generally capped.
This is different from some of the online "gacha games" where you MUST gamble, and, even then, you are not guaranteed to cough up the card you want. And, even if you get the card, you generally can't sell it to somebody else. These have infinite downside and are flat-out gambling and need to be treated as such.
I mark the difference as to whether you can simply buy the thing you want.
For MTG and its ilk, you can buy a card instead of open packs. In addition, you can sell any card you get. This is a little different from normal gambling in that these card games have an upside that is okay and a downside that is generally capped.
This is different from some of the online "gacha games" where you MUST gamble, and, even then, you are not guaranteed to cough up the card you want. And, even if you get the card, you generally can't sell it to somebody else. These have infinite downside and are flat-out gambling and need to be treated as such.
> For MTG and its ilk, you can buy a card instead of open packs.
That's false. The manufacturer (Wizards of the Coast) does not sell individual cards. You have to gamble and buy random packs.
You're describing buying specific cards from people who have done the gambling already by buying packs and opening them.
That's false. The manufacturer (Wizards of the Coast) does not sell individual cards. You have to gamble and buy random packs.
You're describing buying specific cards from people who have done the gambling already by buying packs and opening them.
> That's false. The manufacturer (Wizards of the Coast) does not sell individual cards. You have to gamble and buy random packs.
This is true but glosses over the fact that you bought a thing. And you can buy and sell that thing--as can others.
In addition, most of the "boxes" that were sold for MTG were almost always net positive in terms of money spent. Yeah, make sure you preorder and don't buy from scalpers. However, if you spent $200 on cards you generally got slightly more than $200 in value if you kept them in good shape and then cashed them in later.
Contrast this to something like Genshin Impact where you simply cannot dodge the gacha mechanics in any way, shape or form AND you have zero idea what the probabilities are and whether the game company is being consistent (they almost certainly are not).
Side note: This example is, of course, one of the reasons why WotC is getting hammered for the 30th anniversary box. The MTG community appears to be quite sensitive to getting taken for a ride. So, there's clearly some difference between MTG-like games and pure gambling or gacha mechanics.
This is true but glosses over the fact that you bought a thing. And you can buy and sell that thing--as can others.
In addition, most of the "boxes" that were sold for MTG were almost always net positive in terms of money spent. Yeah, make sure you preorder and don't buy from scalpers. However, if you spent $200 on cards you generally got slightly more than $200 in value if you kept them in good shape and then cashed them in later.
Contrast this to something like Genshin Impact where you simply cannot dodge the gacha mechanics in any way, shape or form AND you have zero idea what the probabilities are and whether the game company is being consistent (they almost certainly are not).
Side note: This example is, of course, one of the reasons why WotC is getting hammered for the 30th anniversary box. The MTG community appears to be quite sensitive to getting taken for a ride. So, there's clearly some difference between MTG-like games and pure gambling or gacha mechanics.
Can you not sell a Genshin Impact account? My understanding is that selling accounts that have been pre-gambled so to speak has a long history in MMOs and pay-to-win games. If you can't re-sell the virtual items, just re-sell the whole account.
MtG cards are things out of physical necessity. If WotC could lock cards to whoever purchase them first, I've no doubt they would. They've been heavily pushing digital versions of the game lately, where they have the ability to control, limit, or eliminate the second hand market.
MtG cards are things out of physical necessity. If WotC could lock cards to whoever purchase them first, I've no doubt they would. They've been heavily pushing digital versions of the game lately, where they have the ability to control, limit, or eliminate the second hand market.
> Can you not sell a Genshin Impact account?
My understanding was that selling these is a bannable offense and that they are tied to the identity of the phone.
> If WotC could lock cards to whoever purchase them first, I've no doubt they would.
Oh, no doubt. MTGO tried that path and had a bunch of their big players boycott them. WotC got schooled real quick that their top players play this game precisely because they can make money at each level without gambling.
This is why MTGO still allows people to purchase individual cards as well as cash out their digital collections for real, physical cards.
Yes, it's a historical accident that WotC/Hasbro would change. Nevertheless, it is what sets the standard game apart from mere gambling.
(Don't get me started on the gorp that WotC/Hasbro pulls around their more expensive formats--Legacy, particularly. Yeah, that's pretty much back to straight up gambling.)
My understanding was that selling these is a bannable offense and that they are tied to the identity of the phone.
> If WotC could lock cards to whoever purchase them first, I've no doubt they would.
Oh, no doubt. MTGO tried that path and had a bunch of their big players boycott them. WotC got schooled real quick that their top players play this game precisely because they can make money at each level without gambling.
This is why MTGO still allows people to purchase individual cards as well as cash out their digital collections for real, physical cards.
Yes, it's a historical accident that WotC/Hasbro would change. Nevertheless, it is what sets the standard game apart from mere gambling.
(Don't get me started on the gorp that WotC/Hasbro pulls around their more expensive formats--Legacy, particularly. Yeah, that's pretty much back to straight up gambling.)
Unfortunately booster packs are the only way they can profit and create a meta game. The biggest scam of them all are the printing ratios. They will print a fairly strong game breaking and defining card but only in short prints meaning you will probably get 1 copy out of 2 boxes (boxes prices above 80$ depending on the game). Hence the high demand and low supply will rule even the secondary market adjusting prices the way the companies intended. That's how a game dies.
When I started seeing ads for online casinos and sports books proliferate along with the concurrent rise of buy now, pay later services, my first thought was: “This is going to end in tears.”
Sports betting is a huge problem in the UK right now. Wild that other countries are trying to replicate a problem that we're trying to solve here.
[deleted]
This just singles out sports betting apps and makes no mention of things like Robinhood, predictit (rip), or the likes. Big whoop
Most people are pretty behind the curve on the fact that stock trading is essentially elaborate betting on horse races, but sports betting doesn't have such skewed optics
That's only when the poor people do it, when VCs/ banks / hedge funds do it they are stewards of future innovation and macroeconomy efficiency experts, guiding our economy towards the activity that returns socially beneficial results.
> Most people are pretty behind the curve on the fact that stock trading is essentially elaborate betting on horse races
If your drug of choice is deep-OTM weekly options, it suddenly becomes straight up gambling.
If your drug of choice is deep-OTM weekly options, it suddenly becomes straight up gambling.
Trading is obviously different from investing. Horse racing has no such comparable as an S&P 500 index fund that will produce solid returns over a very long period of time (such that you can safely allocate N% of your income to it over a lifetime and can expect to do well).
I am certain you just inspired someone to start the first horse race index fund in which fund managers invest diversify by placing low- to moderate-risk bets at horse races around the world.
You can buy fractional ownership in horses as an investment. Buying across a bunch of different horses would effectively be creating your own index.
I think we should ban all stock transactions that aren't simply buying or selling shares for personal possession. Calls/puts, options, futures, etc. are just bets that are less complicated for corporate investment banks to automate strategies than for individual retail investors, leading to an obvious power and information imbalance that guarantees that the "house" always wins.
futures have very legitimate use for producers and consumers of commodities. speculators then provide them liquidity
but say, people blowing out accounts trading emini sp500 while having no idea what a futures contract is, sure why not
but say, people blowing out accounts trading emini sp500 while having no idea what a futures contract is, sure why not
Producers and consumers can provide their own damn liquidity. It's called "budgeting".
This seems to be an explanation ex post facto and not a reason for its genesis. This insane liquidity generation scheme is one of many expressions of the force that drives unbridled exponential growth, which we can now see is in excess of what our environment writ large can sustainably provide.
The pursuit of short term money-on-money returns is eating the world, and sycophants who personally benefit are turning blind eyes to this very basic and obvious fact.
This seems to be an explanation ex post facto and not a reason for its genesis. This insane liquidity generation scheme is one of many expressions of the force that drives unbridled exponential growth, which we can now see is in excess of what our environment writ large can sustainably provide.
The pursuit of short term money-on-money returns is eating the world, and sycophants who personally benefit are turning blind eyes to this very basic and obvious fact.
Derivatives have a purpose and closing off regular people is just more gate keeping.
Horses competing or Humans competing, what's the difference?
It's a little different because:
(1) Stocks do make money in the long term. If you buy and hold broad ETFs like SPY and QQQ you can do very well on Robin Hood.
(2) The cumulative effect of people's speculation helps set prices and allocate capital. Even if many speculators loose, collectively the speculators have excellent judgement. It's as if the sports betting helped decide who wins the game.
(1) Stocks do make money in the long term. If you buy and hold broad ETFs like SPY and QQQ you can do very well on Robin Hood.
(2) The cumulative effect of people's speculation helps set prices and allocate capital. Even if many speculators loose, collectively the speculators have excellent judgement. It's as if the sports betting helped decide who wins the game.
(1) Kinda irrelevant to the point, I feel, and Robinhood's design is (imo) clearly targeting the gambling crowd.
(2) Slightly better argument, but retail orders don't have much effect on the market overall.
(2) Slightly better argument, but retail orders don't have much effect on the market overall.
Some of the reason why market makers will pay for order flow from Robinhood is that they don't believe retail orders will move the market because retail investors don't have any useful information about the stock.
On the other hand, market makers don't want to trade against, say, Elon Musk buying or selling Tesla because they assume that kind of person knows something and they try to make them pay through the nose for liquidity. That is why people like that might announce well ahead of time the schedule that they plan to sell stock to diversify or raise funds and why there is a special sector of the industry to help move large blocks of stock, convincing buyers that they are not being exploited.
On the other hand, market makers don't want to trade against, say, Elon Musk buying or selling Tesla because they assume that kind of person knows something and they try to make them pay through the nose for liquidity. That is why people like that might announce well ahead of time the schedule that they plan to sell stock to diversify or raise funds and why there is a special sector of the industry to help move large blocks of stock, convincing buyers that they are not being exploited.
As someone perpetually intrigued by quantitative finance from a mathematical perspective, I started lurking on the /r/options sub on reddit.
It was shocking the lack of basic knowledge people there have about the fundamentals of options pricing, their behavior and most importantly the risk involved. In itself this is not a big deal but through seeing conversations it was clear that many of these people are approved for very high level options trading and have margin accounts.
Options are fun to study because they are the real world application of a range of probabilistic tools, and properly managing risk involves lots of cool stats. But precisely because of this trading them really should be left to people that know what they're doing, otherwise they become an incredibly powerful foot gun.
But here's the thing. Options are a zero sum game, and currently 25% of options trading is retail. If I'm an institutional investor/trader this is great for me because it's like inviting a bunch of tourists to a poker table with professionals.
It was shocking the lack of basic knowledge people there have about the fundamentals of options pricing, their behavior and most importantly the risk involved. In itself this is not a big deal but through seeing conversations it was clear that many of these people are approved for very high level options trading and have margin accounts.
Options are fun to study because they are the real world application of a range of probabilistic tools, and properly managing risk involves lots of cool stats. But precisely because of this trading them really should be left to people that know what they're doing, otherwise they become an incredibly powerful foot gun.
But here's the thing. Options are a zero sum game, and currently 25% of options trading is retail. If I'm an institutional investor/trader this is great for me because it's like inviting a bunch of tourists to a poker table with professionals.
> predictit (rip)
Did something happen to PredictIt? They look up to me, and I still get marketing emails from them. Not finding any news storied about their demise.
Did something happen to PredictIt? They look up to me, and I still get marketing emails from them. Not finding any news storied about their demise.
They're supposed to be shutting down on Feb 15th iirc.
But after reading your comment I did a quick search and apparently they're suing the CFTC to remain open(?). So maybe there's a chance, but as of now it unfortunately looks like they're not gonna be running much longer :(
But after reading your comment I did a quick search and apparently they're suing the CFTC to remain open(?). So maybe there's a chance, but as of now it unfortunately looks like they're not gonna be running much longer :(
I assumed it would be about mobile games.
Surprised there's no mention of Boost Mobile's bullshit venture with DraftKings.
https://www.sporttechie.com/boost-mobile-makes-fantasy-bet-w...
They even have everything down to suggesting they could use SMS marketing to make microbets during events, and putting cash on your books at a brick and mortar Boost Mobile dealer. Who else is up for putting money on their books at their prepaid wireless dealer?
-----
What makes this worse is Boost Mobile's statements to the press when T-Mobile announced the shutdown of the CDMA network: https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-s-cdma-shu...
“The bottom line is this: T-Mobile’s anticompetitive Grinch-like decision to accelerate the shutdown of its CDMA network will likely harm millions of Boost customers that depend on access to this network for wireless connectivity, disproportionately impacting low-income consumers who over-index in communities of color.”
Dish and Boost Mobile KNOWS their client base and still thinks partnering with DraftKings is a great idea, especially when they weren't helping their "low-income consumers" easily upgrade to a new LTE phone during the network shutdown - instead, spending even more millions to partner with AT&T for roaming/coverage?
They even have everything down to suggesting they could use SMS marketing to make microbets during events, and putting cash on your books at a brick and mortar Boost Mobile dealer. Who else is up for putting money on their books at their prepaid wireless dealer?
-----
What makes this worse is Boost Mobile's statements to the press when T-Mobile announced the shutdown of the CDMA network: https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/t-mobile-s-cdma-shu...
“The bottom line is this: T-Mobile’s anticompetitive Grinch-like decision to accelerate the shutdown of its CDMA network will likely harm millions of Boost customers that depend on access to this network for wireless connectivity, disproportionately impacting low-income consumers who over-index in communities of color.”
Dish and Boost Mobile KNOWS their client base and still thinks partnering with DraftKings is a great idea, especially when they weren't helping their "low-income consumers" easily upgrade to a new LTE phone during the network shutdown - instead, spending even more millions to partner with AT&T for roaming/coverage?
What do you mean? Boost Mobile loves their base and wants to help them as much as possible! Sometimes you're in a tight spot between rent and food and all you need now is a couple parlays to hit to be living large. I can't wait for them to start offering payday loans to really help people out and let them make income on leverage! Wouldn't that just be swell.
>> Want to bet on whether the next pitch is a ball or strike? On total field goals in the quarter of a basketball game? Or maybe whether the next football play will be a run or pass?
Unless otherwise confirmed or defended — this isn’t even possible, yet - I know you can’t do this on FanDuel, not sure about draftkings.
Imo this article is a great wake up call, but it’s not that real-time sophisticated as the op attempts to strongly imply.
Unless otherwise confirmed or defended — this isn’t even possible, yet - I know you can’t do this on FanDuel, not sure about draftkings.
Imo this article is a great wake up call, but it’s not that real-time sophisticated as the op attempts to strongly imply.
Those are called spot bets and spot betting has long been popular and possible.
The downside is that it led to a form of match fixing in cricket. Not fixing the whole match because that would take a lot of conspiracy but a bowler throwing a no-ball at a particular time was easy to do and only required the bowler(s) to be in on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_cricket_spot-fixing_s...
The downside is that it led to a form of match fixing in cricket. Not fixing the whole match because that would take a lot of conspiracy but a bowler throwing a no-ball at a particular time was easy to do and only required the bowler(s) to be in on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_cricket_spot-fixing_s...
Bovada live betting did (at one point at least) let you bet on whether the next play in a football game was a run or pass and what the outcome of a baseball at bat was going to be (hit, strikeout, etc). I don’t know about field goals in a basketball quarter but you can certainly now easily bet on the O/U for a quarter totals which is essentially the same thing.
Prop bets like this have been big in the U.K. for a long time and are available on betting sites in the U.S.
Sports betting attracts some sophisticated players who make money like card counters because the odds are variable and it is possible to have better judgement than the crowd, although few bettors are going to succeed at that. Prop bets, however, are for suckers.
Sports betting attracts some sophisticated players who make money like card counters because the odds are variable and it is possible to have better judgement than the crowd, although few bettors are going to succeed at that. Prop bets, however, are for suckers.
The first time I had heard of proposition bets was about a decade ago, when a coworker printed out a list of novelty ones from Bovada for the Super Bowl (things like "How many times will Al Michaels mention the quarterback's brother during the broadcast?" or "How many costume changes will the lead singer make during the halftime show?"). They're nice to keep track of just for fun when you're with a bunch of people at somebody's house anyway, the score isn't close, and nobody really cares about either team. But the idea that somewhere there's serious money on "Will the first score be a run or a pass?" sounded crazy to me at the time.
There is "what color of Gatorade which will be dumped on the winning team" which seems way too easy to fix.
Not only are these currently possible, my theory is that these "micro" bets are the future of live sports and will be the main factor that leagues move away from tv networks and toward their own streaming platforms. There's way, way too much money to be made from impulse bets.
I am pretty sure I saw real-time bets like that before. (Can't remember if it was DK or FD). But I can only see it working if you are at the live event. Live TV has too much of a delay. You can guess what will happen while watching a live TV event because the odds change on your app before the play happens on your TV.
Right now on my sports betting app in the UK, I can bet on a live game that is running right now.
I can bet on Goals scored in next 10 mins and over / under on the number of corner kicks in the next 10 mins.
This is pretty minor game, I don't know if there are more real time possibilities on larger games.
I can bet on Goals scored in next 10 mins and over / under on the number of corner kicks in the next 10 mins.
This is pretty minor game, I don't know if there are more real time possibilities on larger games.
The casino obviously
It's telling that California Props 26 and 27 (about sports betting) are on track to have the highest ad dollar spend of all time on all CA propositions[1]. And, by "telling" I mean "totally absurd". This is evidently California's biggest priority in 2022.
1: https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/inside-the-issues/2022/...
1: https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/inside-the-issues/2022/...
Regulation is better than leaving it up to the black markets.
That depends on the regulation. If the regulation makes sure the activity is not widely advertised, then it can be useful. However, if the regulation allows gambling companies to widely advertise and make their products highly accessible, such as through smartphone apps, then the increase in activity will outweigh any benefit.
I’ve seen this argument before, but how much bigger would the regulated market have to be before we call it a net neutral?
Because if there were $1 billion in illegal bets, and $20 billion in legal bets, which of those would be worse for society?
Because if there were $1 billion in illegal bets, and $20 billion in legal bets, which of those would be worse for society?
[deleted]
How many scandals caused by perverse incentives occur before the NFL starts wishing for the days before they took on gambling partners?
Never? The NFL has had no problems redirecting billions of state and local funding to build stadiums and other altars to their players. Thru things like food and beverage taxes, every US resident helps underwrite the NFL even if they never watch a minute of a game. If you do watch? Be prepared to spend hundreds or thousands to go to a game and buy merch.
Bread and circuses. And sell the bread if you need a ticket for admission.
Bread and circuses. And sell the bread if you need a ticket for admission.
It has happened before in cricket[1], I don't understand how do people not see this coming, or why they think it's still ok.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_controversies_in_crick...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_controversies_in_crick...
Somewhat analogous to providing narcan, needles, and foil to people suffering from addiction, as a safe way for them to consume drugs.
Draft Kings is providing a safe way for people to gamble, without fear of a beating or loan sharking from a disgruntled bookie.
Draft Kings is providing a safe way for people to gamble, without fear of a beating or loan sharking from a disgruntled bookie.
Or safe access to gasp abortion.
With all due respect to Mr. Betteridge, the answer to the question the headline asks is "everyone". Whether it be the pearl-clutching morality police party, or the we-gotta-save-people-from-themselves party, they all agree that a firehose of money into the budget is a great idea, follow-on consequences be damned. Slap a "game responsibly" sticker on it, sorted.
Oh, it goes to education, does it? No, it doesn't. Now education is financed from gambling proceeds, not a budget line item in the general fund. The money that used go to education is now diverted elsewhere. It used to be, some 30-40 years ago when I used to argue against state lotteries, that the states would just flat-out not used the gambling proceeds for education (it would go to roads, or whatever) after people stopped paying attention after a few years. Well, people started paying attention, so now the gambling money goes to education but what used to fund education goes elsewhere. Example after example over the course of decades, but we keep falling for it.
Oh, it goes to education, does it? No, it doesn't. Now education is financed from gambling proceeds, not a budget line item in the general fund. The money that used go to education is now diverted elsewhere. It used to be, some 30-40 years ago when I used to argue against state lotteries, that the states would just flat-out not used the gambling proceeds for education (it would go to roads, or whatever) after people stopped paying attention after a few years. Well, people started paying attention, so now the gambling money goes to education but what used to fund education goes elsewhere. Example after example over the course of decades, but we keep falling for it.
Yeah, I need the government to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong. /s
especially if the government offers blanket immunity to whatever dastardly corporate goal was in cahoot with the government.
Did you get the COVID-19 vaccine? ;)
The government didn't force anyone to get vaccinated.
That's semantics. They forced countless employers to mandate their employees to get vaccinated. At which point you went jobless or bent the knee.
I forced my employer to mandate vaccines. Government had no part in that.
In your defense, at the time you probably thought the vaccines were super effective at preventing transmission though. Now that we know they're not, most of the private sectors companies have quietly dropped the mandates, although you still have the health related ones that do a certain percentage of Medicaid/Medicare work that require it.
You are conflating good advice with behavior mandates.
It's OK to advise me that gambling can be dangerously addictive, or that getting vaccinated is a good way to avoid getting sick.
It's OK to advise me that gambling can be dangerously addictive, or that getting vaccinated is a good way to avoid getting sick.
We already let people bet on companies, why not sports?
The Dutch government does.
capitalists
The government. They thought it was a good idea to put a spying and tracking device in your pocket and they needed a way to make it appealing. This is just the latest scheme.
You also have the option to tax corporate earnings to support these worthy initiatives. A portion of the revenue that would go to a CEO superyatch or dong-shaped rocket will be kicked in into a state's general fund. Just sayin'...