The battle to stop clever people betting

Smart People, Edges, and Prediction Markets

• Some argue genuinely “smart” people avoid gambling, seeing belief in one’s immunity to addiction as delusional.
• Others counter that many clever people do live by betting (stocks, derivatives, sports, prediction markets) and that learning to bet with an edge is adaptive.
• Several posters say they enjoy betting as a way to quantify probabilities and test forecasts, especially on platforms like Polymarket, but still frame it as gambling.
• There’s consensus that “smart” gamblers only play when they have an edge; most real‑world bets are negative expected value.

Fairness, Banning Winners, and the House Model

• Many see sportsbooks as explicitly designed to part gamblers from their money, not to be fair games.
• Discussion highlights two models:
  • Traditional bookies/casinos: you often bet against the house; they limit or ban winning players.
  • Exchanges/prediction markets/financial markets: operators earn a fee or spread and don’t directly lose to winners.
• Some think banning sharp players is rational business (to preserve casual demand); others see it as proof of an exploitative industry.

Gambling vs Financial Markets

• Multiple comments compare gambling with stock/derivatives markets: both involve risk, but casinos are clearly negative‑sum after the rake, while financial markets are closer to zero‑sum (or positive‑sum in utility).
• “Neo‑brokers” with leveraged products and casino‑like UX are criticized as turning securities trading into de facto gambling.
• Some recommend using regulated financial markets instead of sports betting, noting you can’t be barred simply for being good.

Addiction, Harm, and Regulation

• One commenter cites DSM‑5’s reclassification of gambling disorder as an addiction, placing it alongside substance dependencies.
• Disagreement over whether “everyone is addicted to something” vs proper clinical definitions of addiction.
• Some see gambling as mostly harmless entertainment with a small minority of severe cases; others stress high rates of ruined lives and suicide, especially with easy phone access.
• Debate over how “heavily regulated” gambling actually is; online sports betting is contrasted with prediction markets regulated more like financial firms, which often lack responsible‑gaming controls.

Moral, Religious, and Social Perspectives

• Several view the industry as predatory, “legalized crime,” or net negative to society; comparisons are made to fast food and alcohol.
• Extended subthread on the “Christian right”: claims they underreact to gambling compared to other moral issues; counterclaims emphasize church charity work and finite attention.
• Others argue you don’t need religion to oppose gambling; purely humanist arguments about exploitation and externalities suffice.

Economic Context and “Financial Nihilism”

• Some link rising gambling to a shrinking middle class: younger people feel normal life goals (like homeownership) are unattainable without a “lottery win.”
• This feeds a “financial nihilism” mindset: if you’ll never afford a house by saving, you might as well gamble.
• Critics push back, arguing significant gambling spend is itself a major reason some can’t accumulate savings, and suggest moving to cheaper areas instead of gambling for a miracle.
• Others note that beyond the dream of winning, gambling can express self‑harm or depressive tendencies.

Prediction Markets and Crypto Platforms

• Polymarket/Kalshi are described as “insider trading festivals” where knowledgeable players can profit from mispriced outcomes (“insane thing does not happen” bets).
• Some see them as closer to fair exchanges that welcome informed traders; others emphasize platform fees, low liquidity, ambiguous resolution criteria, and the same zero‑sum dynamics.
• One commenter claims decentralized venues “even the playing field”; another replies that the core problem is overspending, not fairness of odds.

Pharmacological Angle (Ozempic/GLP‑1s)

• Brief side thread on whether GLP‑1 drugs like Ozempic reduce gambling or other compulsive behaviors.
• Some say yes broadly; another notes mixed reports and emphasizes that while there may be an effect across behaviors (gambling, shopping, nail‑biting), more data is needed and the magnitude is unclear.