Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
jbellis1 day ago | parent | context | favorite | on: An ESPN producer who quit because of sports gambli... Legalizing sports gambling was the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory. I expect that almost nobody reading Hacker News has a gambling problem, but people at the other end of the economic spectrum are being absolutely ripped up by it. Unfortunately, it's probably not going to change soon. Too much money to be made now. Reasonable overview here and it's only gotten worse since 2024. https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp... help 
silisili1 day ago | next[–] Perhaps selfishly as I'm not much a gambler, I hate it because it ruined sports. You have a barrage of ads and odds that plague every game at every turn. You have a handful of players already caught betting on their own games, which means there are many more who just haven't been caught yet. And now, every single bad call leads fans to "refs must have money on this game", and to be honest, who knows if they do. reply dylan6041 day ago | parent | next[–] Funny how movies keep turning out to be more prophetic than fiction. The Last Boy Scout nailed the effects of sports betting. reply nyjah1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] It’s not selfish. The worst part for me is the gambling cos infiltrated all of my favorite sports content too. It went from gambling ads to just being the entire damn network. It’s really sad and has effects all over. reply SV_BubbleTime1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] > You have a barrage of ads Right, because that’s a recent occurrence. The number of ads on any sportsball program is actually sickening unless you are used to it. I don’t care about the commercials, it’s the ones you don’t notice. You might notice The Verizon Center’s instant recap cam brought to you by GoPro, “Go Be A Pro!”… no, it’s everything that appears on the screen at any single moment is branded and paid for you to see it subconsciously. Every helmet, mouthguard, clipboard, every everything everywhere all the time, no letting up. I’m pretty sure that the level of advertising in sports is super unhealthy. I really don’t care that betting the game is an option or not. reply roenxi1 day ago | prev | next[–] > Legalizing sports gambling was the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory. That's a tough sell; the US makes a lot of errors. Assuming "public policy" means "domestic"; their industrial policy promoting deindustrialisation seems like a bigger error. After a few moments of thought I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. There might be bigger ones but the US citizens lost a remarkable amount there. It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. And the use of spying and federal harassment of political opponents seems to have been steadily normalising. Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling. reply estearum1 day ago | parent | next[–] Industrial policy promoting deindustrialization was a migration (the same one all advanced economies make) toward higher value-add tasks. The surveillance apparatus was created to prevent another 9/11 which quite possibly would have destabilized the state itself. These may or may not have been mistakes, may or may not have been worth it, may or may not have been illegal, etc. etc., but they both had a pretty coherent rationale for them. What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? It's such an obscenely indefensible change that any politician advocating for it should be investigated relentlessly (at least journalistically) until the day they die. > It is no longer possible to know what the laws of the US are, because some of them are secret. That's not true. > Even just background over-regulation on starting and running new businesses is probably going to cause more damage to poor people than legalising sports gambling. Absurd statement. reply roenxi1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] > What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? Some people want to bet on sports. It seems obvious enough. It's like asking what the rationale is for letting people do anything. They don't have to clear it with you to make sure you agree that it is a worthwhile activity (or anyone else for that matter). Even if it is clear folly on a whim. I'll just add that every mistake the US makes is going to have a rationale. Everything the US does has a coherent rationale with the possible exception of the recent Iran war. But sometimes the rationale is stupid. > That's not true. It is true. They had a big thing about clamping down on whistleblowers under the Obama administration because people kept trying to leak information on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intellig... > Absurd statement. The world is an absurd place. My mind usually goes to https://www.grumpy-economist.com/p/the-cost-of-regulation when I bring that point up. reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] Okay great: people want to bet. Should we legalize heroin and legalize advertising heroin on TV? I don't really have interest in arguing the point with you. If you think "people want to do it" is sufficient then that's fine, and other readers can be convinced-or-not by that argument. I don't think this argument is even within earshot of the legitimacy of the arguments for the other two "unforced errors" you mention. Secret law: The Wikipedia section heading being "secret law" does not actually make it a "secret law" in the sense that most Americans would read it. What it's referring to is a set of secret court rulings. Which are, yes, very problematic and not something I'll defend. But the phrase "secret law" would cause most Americans to think of secret legislation, which does not exist. reply roenxi1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] 1) If most Americans haven't reflected that law and legislation are different words then so be it, but I don't intend to hold myself accountable. 2) Bear in mind how the "they're obviously going to be scanning internet traffic" conversations went back in the 90s and 00s (where it went from absurd tinfoil hat talk to common sense assumption basically overnight). If they do turn out to have secret legislation that feeds into the FISA court then I reserve the option of being smug in retrospect. It seems quite reasonable that they would need secret legislation to operate the secret court that produces secret laws likely enforced by secret police. There is pressure to recreate the whole legal system with the word "secret" in front of it to make any individual secret part work. It's a secret court; I doubt any of us know what is going on in there. This is one of the major problems with secret courts, it is not possible to opine on how they are working without speculation. reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] It’s not that they’re different words. It’s that the word “law” has multiple distinct meanings. One (the more common meaning) is a synonym for “statute.” That’s not what’s discussed here. Your second paragraph is actually exemplifying the exact type of misunderstanding of the situation that I was alluding to. You really don’t need secret legislation, or even secret statutes, or even secret rules to produce the “secret law” referred to in the article. All you need is secret decisions. reply asdfasvea1 day ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] I hate semantic and pedant arguments on the Internet but this is worth it: We don't legalize things in America, we illegalize things. The constitution doesn't give us rights, it actually takes them away so our government can operate. We give freedom lip service in this country but if you truly believe in it this is what we must drill into people in civics class and in discourse. This is in fact what happened with sports betting. They wrote a law making it illegal. That law got struck down, so we are back to the default which is it is legal. We can make it illegal again to address the court ruling, but it's an uphill battle. reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] I don’t know what you think was gained by this argument. Sports betting was effectively illegal, and a number of people lobbied aggressively and pursued lawsuits to overturn the status quo (de facto federal ban) then a huge number of efforts to permit it at the state level in a bunch of states. All of these efforts are completely adequately described as “legalization” efforts. Yes, we can change the new status quo again. And we should. reply asdfasvea1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] That's an interesting opening sentence considering you then iterated what I said about the specifics of sports betting. reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] You took issue with referring to it as “legalization.” That’s exactly what it was. reply dylan6041 day ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] > What's the rationale for legalized sports betting? People are acting like sports betting is new. The Romans bet on the gladiators. I'm not a history buff, but I'd imagine older civilizations bet on some form of sport as well. What's the rationale? To make money of course. To be confused on this seems like a bit of deliberate obtuseness. The fact it hasn't been legal for so long was because the puritanical start to the country. It would be nice to have specific leagues that were pure sport for sport's sake, but once one league allows betting and the money starts to flow, all of the other leagues will follow or wither reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] In true HN fashion, I suppose I must be FULLY explicit. “What’s the rationale for legalized sports betting [that mirrors the rationales for these other two decisions that you are placing in the same category]?” “Just make money” or “the Romans did it” are unlikely to fit the bill. reply dylan6041 day ago | root | parent | next[–] Why do people invest? To make money. Sounds more like you're wanting to ask a more generic question on why addict gambles, but if you want to understand the rational of an addict, then get in line. The only thing to understand is trying chase the high in whatever form it takes. Ask an addict and they will tell you there's no explaining it. To me, the "HN fasion" is not accepting that there are things that exist that are not rational and no matter how much you want to logic your way to an answer, it will never happen. reply estearum1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] You’ve lost the thread. Start back at the top. This is about policy errors and the degree to which those errors are unforced. The question is whether sports gambling was just as “forced” as the surveillance state or as deindustrialization. reply mikeaskew41 day ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] Not so fast. Puritanical is the easy thing to say. Folks just found new ways (tech) to make money from it. It’s never been ethical or legitimate. Still isn’t. reply simoncion1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] > I'd probably argue the Bush-Obama era establishment of a massive internal surveillance apparatus (including a secret court) is a strong contender for biggest unforced error in living memory. Yeah, that one's huge. Another huge one was when the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 provided retroactive immunity to the telephone companies who all willingly, blatantly, and -undoubtedly- knowingly violated Federal law controlling domestic surveillance. This is tangentially related, but I suspect that the major LLM Manufacturers are hoping that they can frighten Congress into doing something like that again. Getting all active lawsuits about your illegal behavior erased all at once is a huge gift to scumbag businesses. reply Rapzid1 day ago | prev | next[–] Being higher on the socioeconomic ladder doesn't protect you from addiction. I believe it makes it easier for some to get their fill and remain high-functioning; ie not becoming destitute. But for others their "fill" is so high their addictions will wreck them entirely regardless of means. But perhaps to your point, if I'm give it charity, people with less means are more likely to get entirely wrecked by certain addictions. reply ryandrake1 day ago | parent | next[–] Yea, many people I know who had any pre-existing interest in any of the various Sportsball games are now all neck deep in sports betting apps, from investment bankers to shelf stockers at Home Depot. I don't know which of them are suffering financially from it, but all they do when we get together anymore is talk about sports betting. reply dev_dan_21 day ago | prev | next[–] Cautionary note (and a serious one, not to be snarky): Being well off financially is not a protection against gambling addiction (which can also take the form of day trading, for example); which is a pretty efficient way to ruin ones financial wealth, amongst other things. As with many other psychological phenomenona, finances and education only protect to a certain degree or not at all, depending on what one is talking about in detail. This is not a comment about correlation or causation of wealth with mental health, but rather a warning to keep in the back of ones head; success and a sharp mind don't make one immune against mental health issues in general and gambling addiction in particular. reply dylan6041 day ago | parent | next[–] To me, the difference is a form of classism. Addiction to drugs is for the lower class. Addiction to gambling from making money from investing is something only upper class people can have. reply markovs_gun20 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] I feel like this is just straight from the Kalshi marketing department. The wealthy make money from speculation by taking calculated risks and offsetting those risks with other investments. They're not betting everything on black at the roulette table or bettin on the outcome of football games. reply jjav1 day ago | prev | next[–] > Legalizing sports gambling was the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory. Sports gambling isn't a good thing, but 2025-2026 has shown us many far worse errors in public policy every single day. reply amelius1 day ago | prev | next[–] > but people at the other end of the economic spectrum I'm eating just ramen here ... reply wslh1 day ago | prev | next[–] I also found that sports gambling created an "industry" of proxies for sub18 consumers which makes the issue more terrific. reply AnotherGoodName1 day ago | parent | next[–] So weird they allow advertising something so harmful at events with so many children is considered ok. It’s like the bad old days where cigarette companies targeted youth. reply dylan6041 day ago | root | parent | next[–] If tobacco taught us anything it's that people are slow to get wise and slower to make change. Spend enough money on advertising, and you can slow it down even further. reply 01284a7e1 day ago | prev | next[–] "I expect that almost nobody reading Hacker News has a gambling problem" Here's an unforced error. reply Terr_1 day ago | parent | next[–] Here's how I see what's going on, turning subtext to text... * Person 1: "$THING is a problem for a significant chunk of people. My audience here probably doesn't experience it subjectively, but it's still objectively true." * Person 2: "But what if we are feeling it!? Ah-hah! I found an error! You goofed!" * (Me): "That's really not their point, stop nitpicking the disclaimer." reply ba1afd89f34cb231 day ago | root | parent | next[–] A surprising number of people unfortunately seem to believe that bad things happen to people that deserve it, especially when it comes to addictions. This has been a prevalent problem with drugs, and it makes addicts ashamed, resulting in them not getting the help they need. For a long time, opioid addiction was a problem for weak, godless, poor people shooting heroin in flip houses that couldn’t possibly affect pill-popping suburbanites. “Gambling is a problem for poor people, but not the smart, educated folks on this here forum” smacks exactly of that. So while that detail might be orthogonal to the original point, I’d agree that it’s not just a nitpick but a very real problem as a statement that is worthy of being called out. reply dylan6041 day ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] But it's not not the point. Assuming any group is immune is just folly at best. I guarantee that there > 0 addicts reading this forum. I'll even guarantee that it is > 1. reply Avicebron1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] misinterpreting what they are trying to convey is an unforced error. That's not the point. reply 01284a7e1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] I'm not misinterpreting anything. It takes away from the point, and their point is a strong one in my opinion. reply EA-31671 day ago | prev | next[–] Addictions are irrational and anyone can fall prey to them, people here are no exception. The only difference between a poor, uneducated gambler and a well-off, educated gambler is how they talk about it, how much they can afford to bet, and which games of chance they lose at. Beyond that however I agree that turning this loose on the American public is an incredibly short-sighted act, but it's part of a pattern rather than an outlier. reply spwa41 day ago | parent | next[–] Are they? If in Australia you walk into one of those gambling places, you'll quickly see those people have no real economic future, with or without gambling. They're not part of a large family either. They don't have or have lost their spouse and are just looking for some fun. They will live at or just above the level that social assistance can let them live until they die, and a bankruptcy due to gambling will make surprisingly little difference (hell, it may allow them not to work for a decade). So rationality? You're assuming there's good options available for these people. But if they don't own a home ... they won't lose much, and their careers provide them with little to gain month to month. Isn't it rational under those circumstances to try to get quick large reward ... or fail entirely? When you have no real other options and even arguably little to lose? The time when being a non-educated worker in a big city would get you a house, a family, and pretty good comfort, enabling ordering 5 beers most evenings in a pub, have a hobby, ... has long ended, at least in Australia. reply motionlessveloc1 day ago | root | parent | next[–] Tradies make good money in Australia, far better than most Western countries, without a college education. If anything it's the educated middle class (teachers, nurses, etc) that's getting squeezed. The stereotypical problem gambler in Australia is a lonely retiree blowing their pension at the pokies (slots), and clubs and casinos go all out to cater to this demographic with free taxi services etc. reply EA-31671 day ago | root | parent | prev | next[–] You'll find the wealthier gamblers in nicer places, doing it online, in socially acceptable forums like private games, and most of all by traveling to very nice destinations that make the experience properly "luxurious" for their standards... i.e. Macao, Hong Kong, etc. The fact that you can go into any neighborhood dive bar and see a bunch of nearly indigent drunks doesn't mean that people aren't drinking themselves to death in mansions, private clubs, or $1000 a meal restaurants. As for rational risk, most people consider the line between having enough for daily expenses, making debt payments, and having a place to rent is a massive upgrade over a shelter or the streets. Or working a second job, or a third. reply markovs_gun20 hours ago | parent | prev | next[–] In my experience a wealthy person with a gambling addiction eventually becomes a poor person with a gambling addiction reply EA-31676 hours ago | root | parent | next[–] To a shocking degree sometimes. I had a good friend in high school who was from Hong Kong, born to a pretty rich couple who recently moved to the UK ahead of the handover. I guess the move was stressful because his father's culturally and socially acceptable gambling habit took a real turn and his family lost about 2/3rds of everything before the mother figured out what was happening and stepped in. Certainly on his own he was on the road to driving his family into true penury. reply jay_kyburz1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] Yeah, I'm no gambler, but I do have a hundred grand and countless hours invested in a business I'm trying to make work. reply dylan6041 day ago | root | parent | next[–] The term workaholic did not just invent itself reply cyanydeez1 day ago | prev | next[–] you don't think VCs betting winning to win trillions in the AI wars ... has a gambling problem? reply estearum1 day ago | parent | next[–] They just have self-image problems. Different origin, I think. They're truly just caught up in a pissing match with their peers. reply rgmerk1 day ago | parent | prev | next[–] No, because they’re mostly gambling with other people’s money, not their own. reply dolebirchwood1 day ago | prev[–] > the biggest unforced error in United States public policy in living memory. I'm going with the rollout of LED headlights on that one, but reasonable people can disagree. reply nine_k1 day ago | parent | next[–] How does this compare? Do people get addicted to spending money on LED headlights until they go broke? reply fn-mote1 day ago | parent | prev[–] Post a link documenting the severity of that claim. No reference - no comparison. reply
Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2. Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact Search: