[fennecfoxen]

> Where do I even begin.

I was thinking of beginning with the fact that they're in the gambling business, myself, and that humanity as a whole would be better without a bunch of people systematically studying how to subvert the human brain by abusing deficiencies in its risk-reward computation mechanisms to extract as much money as possible from what might otherwise be the productive economy... wholly ruining a variety of lives in the process (and encouraging others to reject long-term thinking, self-control, and related virtues which frequently help a human being to prosper.)

But sure. I guess their inadequate gambling services around Celtics basketball must annoy some people too.

At least they're not the state lottery. :b

[hueving]

Your view on gambling is predicated on the assumption that people gamble under the assumption they can make money in the long run. Many people enjoy gambling knowing fully that the expected value of the process is negative.

Once you understand that people choose to gamble knowing that it causes losses, your entire argument against it falls apart unless you are willing to take it to its full conclusion and blast every entertainment industry in existence.

[fennecfoxen]

> Many people enjoy gambling knowing fully that the expected value of the process is negative... your entire argument against it falls apart unless you are willing to take it to its full conclusion and blast every entertainment industry in existence.

There are other forms of entertainment out there which people spend money on, yes. Some of them are quite ridiculous. Most of them don't have a business model centered around honing variable-reward reinforcement strategies to addict people and keep them hungry for more. (The fact that people enjoy engaging in it despite knowing that the expected value is negative is in fact the point I was making about malicious third-party brain-hacking.)

And yeah, by and large people get to decide what they want for themselves, even if it's self-destructive, because it's a free country, and we're substantially better off as a whole as a consequence of that freedom. And some of them choose gambling, so bully for them. That doesn't mean I have to like Harrah's or afford them any more respect and affection than I afford to Phillip Morris.

[sdrothrock]

> Most of them don't have a business model centered around honing variable-reward reinforcement strategies to addict people and keep them hungry for more.

Really? Games are doing that, movies do that (sequels, spin-offs, 24/7 exposure), books do that, magazines do that... pretty much every entertainment industry that can, wants to.

Edit: And right on the front page is another example in food: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary...

Candy-picked excerpt: "What I found, over four years of research and reporting, was a conscious effort — taking place in labs and marketing meetings and grocery-store aisles — to get people hooked on foods that are convenient and inexpensive."

[nether]

"90% of people who go to Vegas lose money, 80% leave happy"

[j_s]

> to subvert the human brain by abusing deficiencies in its risk-reward computation mechanisms to extract as much money as possible

Ah, like everyone creating endless in-app purchases? :)

[curiously]

here's the thing. if you get rid of casinos, people are going to go underground.

whenever you ban or make certain activity or good illegal, you create a massive underground economy very quickly, and you can't extract tax revenues and end up spending money on the problems that arise as a result of having an underground economy.

Much rather have cocktail waitresses and air conditioned halls with security guards than sneak through a seedy Chinatown restaurant with false doors and scary looking guys.