[robotresearcher]

I'm all for people's freedom of action.

Why do you think we have these rules, since a free-for-all is the default? Is this a barrier to entry that protects the rich, or a barrier to getting ripped off that protects the less rich? Or both?

Chesterton's fence and all that.

You are allowed to throw all your money away if you want.

These rules are (at least partly) protecting you from having someone take your money under false pretenses.

[ksdale]

I think they're absolutely there under the pretense of protecting people, and they do protect people from scams, at the cost of preventing average people from participating in one of the biggest wealth creation events in modern history. I think they're hypocritical, specifically because people are allowed to do all sorts of (in my opinion) far dumber things with their money. I think the world would be a much better place if gambling were illegal and all the people who currently waste their money at slot machines spent all that time thinking about how companies work.

You're correct that I'm allowed to throw my money away if I want, so why am I not allowed to do this?

[robotresearcher]

Because if you got scammed, you threw your money away but you didn't want to. An important difference, no?

[ksdale]

Do you think most of the people who go to casinos think they're going to lose money? I think an unfortunate percentage do not realize at all that the odds are stacked against them. Their misunderstanding of statistics means they are quite literally getting scammed. And for the remainder that are doing it for entertainment, that's quite literally what I'm proposing be the standard for investing in companies.

[HWR_14]

> Do you think most of the people who go to casinos think they're going to lose money?

Yes. Everyone I know going to a casino can be asked how much they plan on losing a day. Almost all will respond with reasonable (for their finances) answer. The others still have an answer that I may think is unreasonable, but that's just a greater percentage of disposable income going to gambling than I think makes sense.

I don't even think most gambling addicts think they are going to make money, any more than most smokers don't think they're immune to cancer. There are some areas (poker, sports betting) where a lot of people think they will make money, but that's because they're games of skill and some people can make money there. And people overestimage their own skill.

[User23]

I’m an entrepreneur, an accredited investor, and a recreational gambler and from my perspective everything you’ve said is completely true.

Casino gambling is only a financial strategy in the most unlikely scenarios, like the infamous MIT blackjack team.

By and large it’s a recreational activity. There’s the dopamine hit from the risk and another dopamine hit from your host paying for everything because you’re willing to spend 6-8 hours at the tables on your vacation. The slots are definitely a worse value proposition even with the higher comp rate.

The simple fact is that recreational gambling is less about strategy and edge and more about proper risk management. If your bankroll lets you Kelly bet at a level the marketing execs want to see then you will have a good time with predictable max losses.

I can’t imagine being entertained by slots, but if someone is and the house edge isn’t completely obscene, which sadly the gaming board permits, then even there there’s a reasonably priced vacation to be had with a Kelly betting strategy.

[HWR_14]

Out of curiosity, do you have a good source of information for those bet levels?

[User23]

> since a free-for-all is the default?

Only for the very first round. For every subsequent round it’s a game of consolidation. That’s a very ugly game.