[xhkkffbf]

Not to be too picky, but the gambling firms don't have a better grasp of the odds. In fact, they often try to avoid taking sides. They look to set the odds so that there are more or less the same volume of bets on both sides. Then they add a small fee (aka rake, vig or vigorish) which is generally the source of their profits.

Some gambling operations like the paramutual betting pool at horse tracks don't even promise any odds. The odds shift as the bets come in and the prize pool is just split up between all bettors equally -- after about 17% has been subtracted to pay for track.

[nly]

In the UK the media often touts the idea of "beating the bookies", which has a "sticking it to the man" appeal to Joe Public

With tote/paramutual betting the operators assume no risk or volatility. They're not market making. In my view it's exploitative, which I guess is why in the UK it's offered as a state run monopoly on horse racing.

With fixed-odds sports betting there is at least volatility to contend with, and the bookmakers do take a position, even if over the long term they do price to make a profit and will ban you if they think you're even remotely sharp.

Sports betting has been legal in the UK forever, including online. The US is very much behind in this industry

[xhkkffbf]

But I do agree with the larger point that these firms are often preying on people who can't control their urges.