|
|
|
|
|
by JumpCrisscross
624 days ago
|
|
It's still cake! The implied assertion is gambling enterprises need problem gamblers. That if you restrict their ability to prey on problem gamblers, nobody gets to casually gamble. I know nothing about gambling. But I know a lot about market making and the math of being a bookie. And basaed on that, I don't think the claim is true. |
|
If we accept that almost 50% of revenue comes from 80% of gamblers (a diverse cohort) while the other almost 50% comes from 3% of gamblers (a far more uniform cohort), then of course betting companies would be absolutely defending against any change (regulation) that would impact the 3%. Furthermore they’d be remiss in their duty to their shareholders if they weren’t trying to migrate gamblers from the larger cohort to the smaller.