By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

So... NY State now allows online betting on sports and pretty much everything else, and I have really mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I think that people generally should be free to do what they wish so long as it is not impacting another person. On the other hand, there are some instances where something is harmful enough (i.e. heroin) that the government should step in and if not ban then regulate.

Gambling may be one of those things. We know pretty well from studies how effective random reward schedules are, which is why they are used so often. I don't think gambling should be outright banned, but erecting a few barriers to at least give gamblers a chance to pause and think on it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You can argue that since other states will allow gambling, it is pointless for NY to try not to, and you might as well get part of the revenue from NY gamblers, but ignoring federalism concerns, do people think that gambling is something the government should regulate?



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

So... NY State now allows online betting on sports and pretty much everything else, and I have really mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I think that people generally should be free to do what they wish so long as it is not impacting another person. On the other hand, there are some instances where something is harmful enough (i.e. heroin) that the government should step in and if not ban then regulate.

Gambling may be one of those things. We know pretty well from studies how effective random reward schedules are, which is why they are used so often. I don't think gambling should be outright banned, but erecting a few barriers to at least give gamblers a chance to pause and think on it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You can argue that since other states will allow gambling, it is pointless for NY to try not to, and you might as well get part of the revenue from NY gamblers, but ignoring federalism concerns, do people think that gambling is something the government should regulate?

Naw, we already have plenty of ways to gamble.  Its really no different from anything done in excess.  The people that go overboard with it usually find something else to destroy their lives.  Basically any particular thing people find either addictive or entertaining can be abused, at some point the government cannot be everyone nanny for everything, but they can give people assistance when they fall.



Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:

So... NY State now allows online betting on sports and pretty much everything else, and I have really mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I think that people generally should be free to do what they wish so long as it is not impacting another person. On the other hand, there are some instances where something is harmful enough (i.e. heroin) that the government should step in and if not ban then regulate.

Gambling may be one of those things. We know pretty well from studies how effective random reward schedules are, which is why they are used so often. I don't think gambling should be outright banned, but erecting a few barriers to at least give gamblers a chance to pause and think on it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You can argue that since other states will allow gambling, it is pointless for NY to try not to, and you might as well get part of the revenue from NY gamblers, but ignoring federalism concerns, do people think that gambling is something the government should regulate?

Naw, we already have plenty of ways to gamble.  Its really no different from anything done in excess.  The people that go overboard with it usually find something else to destroy their lives.  Basically any particular thing people find either addictive or entertaining can be abused, at some point the government cannot be everyone nanny for everything, but they can give people assistance when they fall.

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.



JWeinCom said:

So... NY State now allows online betting on sports and pretty much everything else, and I have really mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I think that people generally should be free to do what they wish so long as it is not impacting another person. On the other hand, there are some instances where something is harmful enough (i.e. heroin) that the government should step in and if not ban then regulate.

Gambling may be one of those things. We know pretty well from studies how effective random reward schedules are, which is why they are used so often. I don't think gambling should be outright banned, but erecting a few barriers to at least give gamblers a chance to pause and think on it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You can argue that since other states will allow gambling, it is pointless for NY to try not to, and you might as well get part of the revenue from NY gamblers, but ignoring federalism concerns, do people think that gambling is something the government should regulate?

They got wall street, so they are gambling on much bigger things every day with much higher sums already.

But yeah, gambling is not a thing I support very much, and actually think it needs to be reigned in a bit. 



JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

Naw, we already have plenty of ways to gamble.  Its really no different from anything done in excess.  The people that go overboard with it usually find something else to destroy their lives.  Basically any particular thing people find either addictive or entertaining can be abused, at some point the government cannot be everyone nanny for everything, but they can give people assistance when they fall.

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

It depends on how you define regulation.  The Online operations should defiantly be regulated.  Odds should be clearly shown and not hidden.  They should be require to make public actual winning percentage and the number of bets being place etc so that it easy for people to discover a pattern that out side of what you would expect base on the odds in a statically significant way.  Especially when dealing with software it possible that there no intention of manipulation of the odds but a software glitch instead.  There should be far greater reporting requirements on online gambling businesses then a typical private company would be required to do.  Advertising should be regulated to make sure deceptive practices are not use to target vulnerable populations and all users should be require to go through a age checking process to ensure they 21 or over.  They should require gambling licenses to operate just like we require for selling liquor etc. 

That being said I do support it being legal and there been studies done in countries that have online gambling that have shown it not to have the negative impact that a lot of people suspect it would have when it come to addiction.

https://www.realmoneyaction.com/harvard-study-online-gambling-isnt-addictive/



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
JWeinCom said:

So... NY State now allows online betting on sports and pretty much everything else, and I have really mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, I think that people generally should be free to do what they wish so long as it is not impacting another person. On the other hand, there are some instances where something is harmful enough (i.e. heroin) that the government should step in and if not ban then regulate.

Gambling may be one of those things. We know pretty well from studies how effective random reward schedules are, which is why they are used so often. I don't think gambling should be outright banned, but erecting a few barriers to at least give gamblers a chance to pause and think on it doesn't seem unreasonable.

You can argue that since other states will allow gambling, it is pointless for NY to try not to, and you might as well get part of the revenue from NY gamblers, but ignoring federalism concerns, do people think that gambling is something the government should regulate?

They got wall street, so they are gambling on much bigger things every day with much higher sums already.

But yeah, gambling is not a thing I support very much, and actually think it needs to be reigned in a bit. 

Wall Street is different though. Obviously it's gambling, but, for the average investor at least, the payoff is not instant, which really blunts the potential for addiction. There's also (in theory) no house advantage.

There are definitely problems with Wall Street, but people compulsively trading stocks for an endorphin rush on a large scale is probably not one of them. 

To analogize, investing in stocks is like the marijuana of gambling and craps is like the crystal meth. Gambling on sports is somewhere in between those. 



JWeinCom said:
Machiavellian said:

Naw, we already have plenty of ways to gamble.  Its really no different from anything done in excess.  The people that go overboard with it usually find something else to destroy their lives.  Basically any particular thing people find either addictive or entertaining can be abused, at some point the government cannot be everyone nanny for everything, but they can give people assistance when they fall.

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

Lets put it this way.  I really do not need the government to police everything I do.  You can overeat and cause all kinds of health problems, should the government regulate that.  You can over drink on any particular thing, should the government regulate that.  You can game until you die, should the government monitor your gaming and police that.  Where does personal responsibility ends and government intervention begin.  I am all for regulation when the action has an effect that causes more than one person issues but if that action causes only the person an issue and its their responsibility to manage it, then I am not for government intervention.  There does come a point where I do not need to be babysitted by ever action I take that can cause some measure of harm by the government.  

Just like there are places to help people with overeating, drinking, gaming and any other type of action that can cause issues for people who cannot managed their daily lives, the same goes for gambling which I might add there are plenty of services already there.  

Humans will always find something to get addicted to especially for people who are more susceptible to addition.  Its not like we woke up today and gambling or any other type of activity suddenly hit the scene.  Online gambling is no different then wall street gambling on stocks and other financial items.  Its the same thing, people take risk like this all the time and some get paid and most others get burned.

If I would agree with anything is age.  Just like Drinking, Smoking or any of these types of activities, age should be regulated but I believe that is already the case.  We already tried to over regulate drinking and smoking and the only thing it did was move it underground.  Best to keep it above the surface so it can be monitored.  



Cyran said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

It depends on how you define regulation.  The Online operations should defiantly be regulated.  Odds should be clearly shown and not hidden.  They should be require to make public actual winning percentage and the number of bets being place etc so that it easy for people to discover a pattern that out side of what you would expect base on the odds in a statically significant way.  Especially when dealing with software it possible that there no intention of manipulation of the odds but a software glitch instead.  There should be far greater reporting requirements on online gambling businesses then a typical private company would be required to do.  Advertising should be regulated to make sure deceptive practices are not use to target vulnerable populations and all users should be require to go through a age checking process to ensure they 21 or over.  They should require gambling licenses to operate just like we require for selling liquor etc. 

That being said I do support it being legal and there been studies done in countries that have online gambling that have shown it not to have the negative impact that a lot of people suspect it would have when it come to addiction.

https://www.realmoneyaction.com/harvard-study-online-gambling-isnt-addictive/

That's posted by an organization whose purpose is to encourage gambling, so gotta take that with a grain of salt. The studies they cite seem to be from reputable institutions, but I'd like to see the full studies, because data can be cherry picked.

The studies seem to indicate that online gaming itself is not more addictive than something such as casino gaming, which seems pretty logical. Being able to control the entire environment would definitely be an advantage in getting people to gamble. So, that's a good point as to why online gaming might not lead to major problems.

But the question is in scale. The study found 1-5% of people did in fact gamble "excessively". That's a fairly significant portion and unlike those who gamble excessively at casinos, but unlike the casino goers, there's little to stand in the way of excessive gambling. 

The study they quote to address that issue user Pokerstars as an example, but I think Poker is not a great comparison. Poker is a game where you play against other players, and success is largely skill based. Because of this, it naturally limits the amount that people who are not good at poker are going to play. If you perceive your loss as simply bad luck and next time you might have good luck, then you're more likely to keep playing, compared to if you you view your loss as a result of other players being better than you, and you're probably going to lose in the future as well.

Of course, it's possible that online gaming isn't a major issue and there's no justification for any extreme regulation, but those studies don't convince me.



JWeinCom said:
Cyran said:

It depends on how you define regulation.  The Online operations should defiantly be regulated.  Odds should be clearly shown and not hidden.  They should be require to make public actual winning percentage and the number of bets being place etc so that it easy for people to discover a pattern that out side of what you would expect base on the odds in a statically significant way.  Especially when dealing with software it possible that there no intention of manipulation of the odds but a software glitch instead.  There should be far greater reporting requirements on online gambling businesses then a typical private company would be required to do.  Advertising should be regulated to make sure deceptive practices are not use to target vulnerable populations and all users should be require to go through a age checking process to ensure they 21 or over.  They should require gambling licenses to operate just like we require for selling liquor etc. 

That being said I do support it being legal and there been studies done in countries that have online gambling that have shown it not to have the negative impact that a lot of people suspect it would have when it come to addiction.

https://www.realmoneyaction.com/harvard-study-online-gambling-isnt-addictive/

That's posted by an organization whose purpose is to encourage gambling, so gotta take that with a grain of salt. The studies they cite seem to be from reputable institutions, but I'd like to see the full studies, because data can be cherry picked.

The studies seem to indicate that online gaming itself is not more addictive than something such as casino gaming, which seems pretty logical. Being able to control the entire environment would definitely be an advantage in getting people to gamble. So, that's a good point as to why online gaming might not lead to major problems.

But the question is in scale. The study found 1-5% of people did in fact gamble "excessively". That's a fairly significant portion and unlike those who gamble excessively at casinos, but unlike the casino goers, there's little to stand in the way of excessive gambling. 

The study they quote to address that issue user Pokerstars as an example, but I think Poker is not a great comparison. Poker is a game where you play against other players, and success is largely skill based. Because of this, it naturally limits the amount that people who are not good at poker are going to play. If you perceive your loss as simply bad luck and next time you might have good luck, then you're more likely to keep playing, compared to if you you view your loss as a result of other players being better than you, and you're probably going to lose in the future as well.

Of course, it's possible that online gaming isn't a major issue and there's no justification for any extreme regulation, but those studies don't convince me.

Sport betting was also included in study as mention in the dataset(university of Hamburg. Bwin provided access to 4,000 online casino players and 40,000 sports bettors.).  Tracking down these PHD studies online is a pain because a lot of time they under some Harvard database that not easy to find or available for none students etc.  Even the study mention in your article they not providing a link to original study.

Here a link talking about the study from a less bias source when it comes to gambling

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-psychology-of-online-gambling-versus-going-to-a-casino/374107/

EDIT: also for the 1-5% what was found to compulsively online gamble the study said that being able to gamble online was not a trigging event meaning they was  addictively gamble before they could gamble online.  People like that will find a way to gamble legal or not legal till they get help.  If anything maybe collecting of data could help identify these people quicker to get them help.

Last edited by Cyran - on 08 April 2021

Machiavellian said:
JWeinCom said:

I don't really buy that argument, because if you make it, then it can probably be used to legitimize deregulation of any market. Guns, alcohol, drugs, etc.

Sure there are SOME people who would gamble no matter what. But if they literally don't have to leave the house to do it, more people are going to vs if they had to actually go to a casino. Obviously, the reason that there is a push to legalize online gambling is because they anticipate way more people will gamble if they do so.

Government can't regulate everything, but certain things raise enough problems that they do, i.e. hard drugs. Unless you're a true libertarian, there are bound to be some things that should be limited. I feel gambling ought to be one of them.

As for providing them help after the fact, that begs the question. If the people running the online betting are paying for that, then that's one thing. The argument is that the tax revenue will support things like education and such which will benefit all of us in the long run. But, intuitively I feel that the amount of money that society has to pay out to help gambling addicts and others affected (i.e. children who need support that their parents can't provide) will be greater than the amount we get out of it. And we know that the people most likely to struggle with gambling are those least able to afford it http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/01/001.html. So the end result is funneling money upwards.

Lets put it this way.  I really do not need the government to police everything I do.  You can overeat and cause all kinds of health problems, should the government regulate that.  You can over drink on any particular thing, should the government regulate that.  You can game until you die, should the government monitor your gaming and police that.  Where does personal responsibility ends and government intervention begin.  I am all for regulation when the action has an effect that causes more than one person issues but if that action causes only the person an issue and its their responsibility to manage it, then I am not for government intervention.  There does come a point where I do not need to be babysitted by ever action I take that can cause some measure of harm by the government.  

Just like there are places to help people with overeating, drinking, gaming and any other type of action that can cause issues for people who cannot managed their daily lives, the same goes for gambling which I might add there are plenty of services already there.  

Humans will always find something to get addicted to especially for people who are more susceptible to addition.  Its not like we woke up today and gambling or any other type of activity suddenly hit the scene.  Online gambling is no different then wall street gambling on stocks and other financial items.  Its the same thing, people take risk like this all the time and some get paid and most others get burned.

If I would agree with anything is age.  Just like Drinking, Smoking or any of these types of activities, age should be regulated but I believe that is already the case.  We already tried to over regulate drinking and smoking and the only thing it did was move it underground.  Best to keep it above the surface so it can be monitored.  

But not everything is equally addictive. 

In Skinner's experiments, rats were presented with a machine that gave food pellets when they pressed a level. They varied how often the machine would release foods. Every time, once every x times, or completely randomly.

When the reward was random, the rats would press the level far more, even after they had eaten the same amount of pellets as the rats who got a pellet every time. 

https://www.phd-insights.com/learn-user-research/why-is-email-addictive#:~:text=In%20Skinner's%20classic%20studies%2C%20rats,after%20they%20pressed%20a%20lever.&text=Skinner%20observed%20that%20lab%20mice,other%20times%20nothing%20at%20all.

We're also really bad at dealing with probability. People tend to vastly overestimate the chance of unlikely events happening. Statistically, there is no rational reason to ever play something like powerball, but people do.

https://www.cogencyteam.com/news/2018/02/why-are-humans-bad-at-calculating-risk/#:~:text=According%20to%20Paul%20Slovic%2C%20Ph,or%20risky%20commonplace%20events%20are.

Then of course there's the matter of how fast the consequences are. I can definitely destroy my health with twinkies, but that's going to require quite a bit of time, during which it is possible for some kind of intervention. On the other hand, I can overdose on opiods in a single day. So, that is much more dangerous and worth regulation.

So, I don't think that the amount of people who will become addicted to something in a life-ruining way is inevitably going to be the same regardless of what they have access to. Certain things are just more addictive to others. We also have the issue that people are exceptionally bad at navigating the risks and rewards of gambling compared to other areas. And considering gravity of the potential harm and the speed of which it hits, then there's a much stronger case for regulating gambling compared to for example Mayor Mike's campaign against soda.

That doesn't necessarily mean that gambling is serious enough to be regulated, but that depends where you want to draw the line. I don't believe you're a pure libertarian who thinks that anything adults consent to should be allowed for the government, so let's use some examples to draw the line. Assume we are in a society with only adults that meet our current standards for mental competence.

Should heroin be legal?

Should heroin be unregulated?

Should the government be able to ticket people for not wearing seatbelts?

Should the government be able to force car manufacturers to provide seatbelts?

Should the government forbid predatory loan rates?