[ChuckNorris89]

> they could offer the "entertainment" for free

But free slot machines aren't "entertaining" though. People get addicted to slot machines, and other forms of gambling, because they make you put skin in the game and so your brain's chemistry goes all over the place when you win or loose giving you various highs. You don't get such highs when everything is free and you have no skin in the game. It gets boring instantly. But once you put your hard earned cash in, then it gets interesting.

[runnerup]

I’m aware. I hope most other HN’ers are aware.

When I said “free” I meant that every dollar taken in should be paid out to the gamblers. Not that gamblers would use the machines without depositing some money/bet/ante. If the government chooses to offer gambling to the servicemen it shouldn’t result in headlines with eye watering profits being skimmed off the top.

At least the old-school rampant gambling in the barracks (poker games, scorpion races, etc) usually don’t have a house cut. Every dollar taken in is paid out.

That would be the minimum ethical requirement here for the government.

[giantg2]

If you know you're getting it all back, what's the point? At least the way you word it, it sounds like an equal distribution, which means no payout. Even if it's not an equal distribution like your example, you're still going to have people loose.

The money does go back to the gamblers... and other service members and dependents. It's in the form of MWR programs. That's why you can get a tennis lesson with a pro who has played in the Open for $10, have free access to the rec hall, cheap bowling, cheap pool access, hobby shop access, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes to towards lodging like the Hale Koa, or other services like space-a flights.

[runnerup]

> If you know you're getting it all back, what's the point?

I meant to word it like "They could make it so that 99.9999% of gamblers lose all their bets, but one gambler per year wins $100 million". Just as long as the military isn't taking that a % of that money to use lieu of money they should have budgeted properly for creature comforts.

[giantg2]

"money to use lieu of money they should have budgeted properly for creature comforts."

I mean, the MWR budgeting is a completely different conversation. The way that budgeting works now, they wouldn't replace that $100M.

On that subject, the exchanges shouldn't mark up items above cost, nor should the commissary charge that 5% fee, etc. In the grand scheme of things, voluntary gambling is the least exploitive, since the others have been imposed manditorily over time. And we still have some military families on food stamps... so there's a lot to discuss and would probably benefit from a complete compensation/benefits system restructuring.

[jameshart]

If the payout rate of the machines could be set to pay out 100% of the take in prize money, the military would not be taking a profit, but the gambling would still be real.

[majani]

That would mean giving away lots of prizes and you would have an addicted military very, very quickly. For most people, the losses are what stop them in their tracks

[Y_Y]

Why not 105%? Keeps people of of trouble. I bet the military would rather you sat a Skinner Box than broke your leg surfing or leaked military secrets on TikTok.

[eternityforest]

Wouldn't that make gambling addiction more likely and cause problems when they return to civilian life, and try to recapture the high?