Gambling advertisement

[Forskaren]

I have noticed that here in Sweden some TV-channels have increased their advertisement for online gambling a lot in the last couple of years.

At the same time a lot of people seem to be buying insurance on all the things that the salesperson tell them to buy. In some cases the salesperson even manage to sell a TV with insurance where also the insurance can be paid by a high interest loan with monthly payments.

What do you generally think about advertising from the lending, gambling and insurance industry? Their business is the same, their customers pay money to get back less money (on average).

[DutchGirl]

I think it's funny how some people will do both: gamble away money (and get nothing in return) and want ABSOLUTE security of their assets and thus insure money away (and get nothing in return). So both assume that everything will go right with the gambling and everything go wrong with everything else.

But this is not you, right?

If you want to go into politics and protect other people from making financial mistakes (and make a law about what gambling institutions and insurance companies can say during advertisements), you can do that. If you don't want to go into politics, just ignore these advertisements.

[Noedig]

I am not averse to gambling as such. Or even for budgeting to spend money on it. People must be considered adults, capable of managing their own risk.

Naturally, the industry relies on inciting unrealistic expectations of winning. For example, just this week in the UK the TV has saturation advertising for a particular poker site, offering a 10GBP free real-money credit. Many gambling sites have similar enticements. There are always strings to such offers: withdrawal of winnings is forbidden unless that "free" money has been bet many times to make it unlikely you still have it. Presumably to habituate the player to gambling with real money.

To the extent that gambling is to do with conscious management of risk vs reward, and mastering emotions of fear and greed, it can have useful lessons for ERE. Better to play with friends for matchsticks and honour. But online will do.

I looked into online poker during my six month break.

There were several general gambling and Poker games on the steam platform. I downloaded three and tried them.

Each offers initial free credits for trying the game, then for repeated logons, and for completed achievements. However -as you would expect- real money purchases are encouraged for extra credits, costume options, hidden areas and other virtual luxuries.

I don't spend real money. I find I play mainly in practice modes that do not deplete my free credits. In other words, I cannot even bring myself to gamble with actual fake money, and prefer the simulated fake money! Sigh, I am incorrigibly risk averse.

Is it fun? Yes:
-There is mental effort to master the game: Poker requires some calculation and exercise of intuition, and there are many variants. Winning feels good.
-You are playing with other people and must anticipate their behaviour. Winning feels good.
-The gambling is cocooned within other experiences both active (social chat, avatars, walking about) and passive (structuring the play around narrative such as a knockout tournament with gangsters in dives).

However the whole experience is structured as a slippery slope towards very non-ERE behaviour. Beware, and consider where the money for those TV ads comes from!

[ducknalddon]

I think I'd argue most people should avoid these sites, they spend a lot of time and money figuring out how to get you to keep coming back and I'm not sure the average person is equipped to deal with it. If it was my decision they would be legislated out of existence.

[thegreatvoid]

this week there was some record big lottery game in my country and a lot of my costumers , who are mostly engerineers asked me if I had bought a ticket.
Of course , I said: fuck no, how stupid does one have to be to play . Anybody who knows basic math . knows that the odds are so tiny.
Became really akward when I noticed that all the 50 year old engineers sitting in the restaurant , where I work, had a ticket in their hand.
Yikes- guess somebody didn´t save any money for retirement.

[prognastat]

I've never understood it, but I've seen many smart people including programmers and engineers who are really good at math and logic in their work spend far too much on the lottery.

[Seppia]

I think for a financially healthy person, buying a lottery ticket here and there could make sense though.
The expected payout is negative, but if the cost is inconsequential, one would still be in a super high upside - almost no downside situation.
Let's say a ticket costs $1 and you buy one per week, the impact on your finances if you never win is close to zero, but if you happen to win its game changing.
We only have one life.
I personally buy no lottery tickets because I find them morally disgusting (bla bla exploiting poor ignorant people bla bla) and don't want to support the industry, but if I acted rationally I would probably be an occasional buyer

[FBeyer]

... super high upside - almost no downside situation.
Let's say a ticket costs $1 and you buy one per week...

Low downside, high variance; isn't that the premise of The Dhando Investor?
I don't buy lottery tickets, but I can understand buying one, with the same rationale as you used above. But never more than one. Your odds of winning go from zero to infinitesimal with almost any non-zero number of tickets.

Besides, if you need the dopamine thrill because you can't find a similar one anywhere else, I guess that one dollar per week can be well spent.

You can math your way to judging everyone who plays the lottery, but there is honestly a good reason to play it too. As long as you buy one, and only one ticket.

[7Wannabe5]

I occasionally buy lottery tickets when the size of the pot is large enough to create positive expectation. For instance, I bought one several weeks ago when the expected payout on $2 ticket was approximately $6. I think the pot was around 600 million. So, if somebody had the ability to spend 200 million to buy every possible combination, they would have been assured a quick profit*. There are individuals who keep track of smaller regional games and attempt to do this. However, it might be against regulations.

*I also knew approximately how many tickets had been sold by the evening of the draw, and it wasn't a large enough number to significantly swamp out the expectation due to likelihood of having to split the pot with other winner(s), given the fact that there were also smaller payouts attached to matching fewer numbers.

So, if you won't buy a lottery ticket even if you calculate positive expectation, is that a sign that you suffer from irrational level of risk aversion?


Poker is obviously a zero-sum game, so you would have to weight your relative skill level against overhead of house fees. For better or worse, I would note that it seems somewhat likely that a member of this forum could gain a slight edge simply by playing while simultaneously running an algorithm. If I was going to become a gambler, I would choose poker/similar game or possibly horse-racing/sports.

[Seppia]

Mumble, this doesn't smell right. If the expected "return on investment" were positive, there would certainly be some investor jumping in.

[7Wannabe5]

@Seppia:

It has to do with what Jacob frequently suggests relative to EMH. The big boys simply aren't geared to take advantage of every intermittent and/or small fry opportunity. I actually picked up a couple lottery tickets on that evening for my friend who is worth close to $100,000,000. It's not like he could choose to cash in his empire to take advantage of the opportunity, and even if he could, it would amount to a loss for him due to tax code etc. Also, when big players do jump into the game, the odds change.

I would also note that the "slight edge" a member of this forum could gain by running an algorithm might only amount to an average hourly wage of $2 for playing poker online. I just suggested this based on the obvious observation that many people entering into this zero sum game would not know how to construct or comprehend such an algorithm or even how to evaluate the results of the use of one purchased for such purpose.

[7Wannabe5]

Or, another way to look at it would be that an individual who possessed the skill set necessary to make modest living through evincing mathematical edge in zero or near zero sum gambling or trading activities, could also likely earn $50/hour as an actuary or similar profession. So, it really depends on how much more fun you think it would be to hang out on a race track vs. in an insurance office and/or how much you like to be your own boss and/or how much you like to only work part-time, etc. etc. etc.

[Jin+Guice]

Players win and winners play...

[theanimal]

This s a perfect example of what 7wanna is talking about. There was a guy in Michigan I believe who figured out the algorithm for the lottery and found a way to consistently win big. He eventually operated a "fund" for his wife and friends making millions and expanding to another state on the east coast before a journalist figured out what was happening and called out the government or something like that.

Here's the article. It's worth the read. https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/art ... o-winners/

[Lillailler]

Yes. For a country which is so concerned to discourage other forms of compulsive behaviour - bottles of wine can only be sold in state liquor stores during the permitted hours; tobacco cannot be advertised on TV - the deluge of advertising for online gambling seems out of place and disconcerting. Perhaps the government's tax take on gambling provides a partial explanation. Actually, there is one other related thing: the flood of advertising for consumer loans. Of course loans are a necessary part of a functioning economy, but you think a certain point has been reached when the ads play in between segments of a reality TV program dedicated to helping people get out of a situation of massive unrepayable consumer debt, with a new case shown every week.