[CSSer]

I had no idea the age range was so low! In my mind, men or women, my stereotype of an addicted gambler is older because they’re often retired and have nothing better to do. Or at least they’re in their 40s or 50s and are doing it because they’re… bored? Idk, I don’t get gambling personally. But this is a surprise.

[maplethorpe]

It's the same reason young men are drawn to crypto. Younger generations are faced with an economy that prices them out of the housing market, so they feel the need to explore alternative wealth-building pathways if they're to achieve the aspirational lifestyles they've been sold.

[noitpmeder]

Realistically though, with the demographics as they are, aren't these young men just throwing dice to gamble against and take the money of other young men? Isn't this a 0 sum game?

Or is it more young men vs the establishment where the establishment wins the vast majority of the time but occasionally a young dude makes the right longshot bet?

[nradov]

It's a negative sum game when you account for the house rake.

[Aerolfos]

> Or is it more young men vs the establishment where the establishment wins the vast majority of the time but occasionally a young dude makes the right longshot bet?

Seems like the latter - except that not only describes how people perceive gambling, but the entire economy considering startups, silicon valley, the current crop of tech billionaires and how they made their fortunes, etc.

So, why not gamble on crypto, NFTs, or prediction markets? Might as well go for the longshots since everything is a longshot anyway

[avadodin]

A poor person paying $5.00 for an odds–adjusted $4.99 lottery ticket a couple dozen times in their life is likely not making her worst investment. And if she does win, it is hard to argue against the wisdom of it.

The gamblers, however, will see a future where they have paid $5.00 for a $0.03 ticket and still won the lottery a couple dozen times in a row because they deserve it so they will buy all tickets they can right now ending with 3 —because that's important.

Even when you think you have a legitimate insight so the book is mispriced for your actual odds, you should consider the risk.

Risk management is foremost.

What happens if I lose the almost certainly sure bet?

This may come as a surprise to you, but in the real world, there are not few people whose business is making you think you have an edge on your "long shot".

[weird-eye-issue]

It's both

[AngryData]

I mean you could be describing society as it already existed. It is what itself capitalism promotes, gambling just seems a bit more direct. When 99.9% of people apply for a job, they are directly competing against other workers in a zero sum game. Maybe a few years down the line they might open up more jobs so over long enough time spans its not zero sum, but for the person seeking a job at that very moment, it is zero sum. Our economy is zero sum in the short term, its not like people can go freeze themselves in cryostasis and wait a few decades for prospects to be better or the economy to expand, they either earn money now, or they throw that opportunity cost into the trash to never be returned.

[Frieren]

> Maybe a few years down the line they might open up more jobs so over long enough time spans its not zero sum

Also, everybody benefits from a society that chooses qualified people for a position, and gives everybody an opportunity to get a job. But that is also something that shows over time and many processes, and it is harder to see in the moment.

Nepotism is the zero-sum version of applying for a job. Only the power to take away from others is accounted, no qualification required just raw power. Which nepo-baby gets the government contract, the board position, etc. is a zero-sum game and participants behave like what it is. Betrayal, lies, etc. is part of that game.

[derektank]

>Our economy is zero sum in the short term

Um, no, it’s not. It’s notoriously hard to estimate exactly but annual consumer surplus in the US alone is estimated to be in the trillions of dollars.

[AngryData]

So if I come up with a billion dollar invention, does the money just poof into existence? No, that money has to come from other peoples pocket and will no longer be spent on those other things if I sell and collect. Over long time spans no it isn't zero sum, but in anything time that isn't measured in many years, it most definitely is zero sum for all purposes. And since people can't just check out from the economy without losing money, the fact that the economy could be larger in 10 years doesn't make a damn bit of difference to someones right at this moment.

Monopoly isn't a zero sum game, and yet within every turn there is a maximum zero-sum amount of money available in play that can be utilized. And the fact that 5x more money might be on the board 20 turns later doesn't make a bit of difference in what I or anybody else can spend or earn during our turn right now.

[dfxm12]

Younger men are into gambling for a lot of reasons. It's just too easy to gamble when you can do it on your phone (especially when you're already on your phone). They don't think hard work will get them ahead in life (they are probably correct, given housing prices, etc.). They are bombarded with ads (during the games you can bet on!), influencers, etc. Gambling apps are gamified and give you a lot of incentives to keep coming back. Gambling is addictive enough...

[AuthAuth]

It started as a joke, we used to laugh at the groups of guys who would gamble their food money doing "feast or famine"they knew it was dumb and so did we. Then the joke slowly moved over to my group of friends doing so and we knew it was dumb and treated it so. Fast forward 6 years and its so entrenched in daily life every single guy I know at least casually gambles weekly on their favorite sports and some do multiple bets per day on games they dont even watch. I bet $20-$50 on MMA which is like 5% of my income each week thats considered low.

[codechicago277]

Young man I’m going to give you a piece of life advice. You don’t throw your money away on something frivolous like that. You buy a long term, safe investment, like FartCoin.

[maplethorpe]

I don't know if you're joking but FartCoin hasn't shown returns all year.

[codechicago277]

You don’t buy FartCoin for the short term gains, you buy it for the long term. For example it’s down over the past hour, but if you look long term (past day) it’s up.

And yes of course I’m joking. If you’re spending money on these get rich quick schemes instead of dollar cost averaging into an index fund, you’re being irresponsible. That’s real advice.

[maplethorpe]

Mine was a joke too, sorry. I was just trying to go along with your bit.

[noitpmeder]

Please do the math on what $50/week could mean to you in 10 or 20 years and compare that to the likelihood you have any kind of edge betting.

[brailsafe]

$50/week at 10% compounding monthly for 10 years works out to ~$41k

Maybe that means a lot in 10 years, but... is it that impactful now? More impactful than gambling surely, and perhaps this is a bit myopic, but I feel like you wouldn't even be able to buy any new car with that amount 10 years from now. Hopefully it'll still count as an emergency fund.

We saw the value of money halve over like 4 years while everyone who had money made bank. It's tough to be hopeful that any amount saved is going to go far in the future tbh. $41k is about 1/10th of a down payment on a half-duplex, assuming you're keen to borrow the remaining $1.1m.

Definitely don't gamble though, that message I can get behind.

[ndriscoll]

The median home price in the US right now is ~$400k[0], so that's a 10% down payment. While 20% is the traditional target, you can get loans with 3% down, so it seems pretty substantial to me. If you saved that $50/week starting at 18, you could be a decently confident home-buyer in your 20s. If you and a spouse each did that, there's your 20% target.

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MSPUS

[brailsafe]

Certainly a fair argument, and in re-reading my comment I realize I forgot to qualify it with "in my city" the prices are unbelievably out of reach, but it was mainly meant to illustrate the point rather than be factually complete.

I don't think ~$400k accurately depicts useful information, but I'd rather be hopeful than cynical, so I think if your only goal is homeownership, then hopefully if one does trade something stupid like gambling for investments, there will still be options somewhere

[watwut]

I think that $50 a week is expensive hobby, but affordable.

The real threat is that it wont stop there. Some will go to $100 a week, $500 a week and so on, because that is how addiction works.

For all the rationalizations, they do it for the feeling it gets them. And those feelings will drive higher stakes even after you have gambling debt.

[lysp]

I agree. I find men in the 18-30 range being a prime target for targeted gambling ads.

In Australia, it is also not just in app/browser ads either. Gambling promotion is very normalised and entrenched.

The major sports on news and sports shows have the odds showing who is likely to win. Some sports analysis shows (especially on pay TV) even go as far as providing overs/unders for line betting or "possibly wins" from multi-bets (bet $100 and you can win $123,000 with this combination).

Around the sports grounds - all covered in ads. The scoreboards have odds. The team and competition mobile apps all have odds. Even commentary on the radio has ads inserted regularly during a call: "Player A runs up and kicks a goal, and they are now level with 10 points on the Elon-Musk SpaceX Scoreboard. An amazing goal, it's a candidate for the Anthropic goal of the week." During quarter/half breaks, they give more options to bet on. Due to this, I prefer mostly to listen to commentary on public broadcasters as they are not allowed to contain ads at all. I find commercial radio trying to insert brand names every second sentence rather than providing expert analysis.

Similar to loot boxes for teens. It's building up habits for future gambling addictions. Mostly FPS games - that are prominently targeted at teenage boys.

[trashb]

Remember that a lot of men in the 18-30 range have been using lootbox mechanics in games since their teens. Or at least similar game mechanics where you are rewarded for taking a risk or loyalty with a random reward (loot tables, daily login rewards etc.).

I think a lot of gambling related material is targeted at the ages below legal gambling age with the specific purpose to get people to start gambling from legal age, however that would be hidden of course. Similarly no one becomes an alcoholic or smoking addict overnight the day they become of legal age for that substance, there is a buildup period.

Gambling addiction is way more damaging the younger you get in touch with it.

[ziml77]

Gambling and scalping (and the combo that comes from reselling things like pokemon cards and other blind box products). They really do seem like the only options for a lot of people to live the kind of life that they've been sold as the ideal.

And as much as I hate that this is what is happening, I feel like that's what I'm going to end up being forced to try after 15+ years in working software development jobs, given how badly the companies want to replace us with LLMs. Hasn't gotten to that point yet but I'm shocked every day we're not laid off.

[noitpmeder]

You say "a lot of people" but there aren't many of those. The scalpers/pokemon resellers/... making bank and posting on Instagram are, if not outright fraud, at best the 1% to 0.1% of those trying to do it

[watwut]

They are not options to get that lifestyle. Any rational evaluation shows that.

It is about how those men want to feel.

[recursivecaveat]

I think gambling was slowly going that way before crypto, robinhood, sports betting, finfluencers, etc brought it back in big time for young men.

[testbjjl]

Why would a 40/50 year old gamble on the outcome of a bouncing ball when they can gamble on the outcome of a political candidate they work for or a government agency response to an event they helped orchestrate?

[noitpmeder]

Because the vast majority of 40/50 year olds don't fit into either category you described?

[BoxOfRain]

I'm not sure if this tracks internationally, but in the UK sports betting is enormous and young men are included in this. I've got mates from uni I distinctly remember putting chunks of their student loans on the football for example.

[kixiQu]

Young people have more poorly developed impulse control.