I think most gamblers know it's a scam but still try to outrun it, simple as that.
Similar to people in crypto space putting money in premined projects.
Topic: Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution? - page 5. (Read 676 times)
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share
I doubt if half of them lose and half of them win, instead it's much more like most of them lose and few of them win. Most gamblers who win don't want to withdraw their winning, instead they will keep gamble till they make crazy amount of money. But, they will lose it all, which make most of gamblers are in loss.Although few gamblers are making money, the casino is clever too, they will limit the winner accounts and make them to not able to make a lot money from their sites.
Yesterday I was sorting my winnings tickets I put while watching the game, had quite a nice sum and while standing in line to cash them I thought about how money is moving around, got the idea it's pretty close to a wealth redistribution.
Gambling is no where near wealth redistribution. The society don't redistribute wealth especially in capitalist economy that most of the countries are running. You can only get social amenities being provided by government, NGO or someone in the society but not in form of money but maybe job creation. If you are gambling then you only risk your money for an increase, you are lucky if you win and unlucky when you don't.
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
Sorry I think rich gamblers stake reasonably like they can bear and use percentage proportional to their bankroll probably because they understand what it is to risk money. However, despite that they use huge staking power, if you compare total amount on the sum of smaller stake, it might be bigger than the few rich stakers, so who is now redistributing wealth? Thus, more money get to big stakers than poor stakers I guess so.
Assuming rich people have more to lose and their share of the losses is bigger, taking into account they support with this money a ton of jobs, 70 000 in Europe alone, is this a form of wealth redistribution?
I don't think the share of loses by rich people is bigger because they are fewer compared to poor players total sum of money on stake because they also have very high number of small stakers than rich stakers.
Anyway, I don't think gambling is a way of wealth redistribution.
Besides, if everyone would be losing 100%, do you think people woulds till gamble?
Yes because people are addicted.
A gambler that wins is a free advertisement, even if he stops playing after winning (which is a very rare case due to greed), other will join to catch the same luck.
I'm saying that in the end, people vs casino never win, casinos are never negative in their income and this is because it's all a calculated legal scam.
It's the same with lottery, the chance to win is so small 99.999% of people will never win but they keep playing because they keep dreaming.
You go to casino in hope to find a bigger loser but in the end, everyone is a loser except casino owner.
So if you want to win, make your own casino - this is the only proper way.
As for the article you mentioned, you got it wrong:
Quote
Net revenues of $8.8 billion in the current year compared to $8.4 billion in the prior year, an increase of 5%;
It's 5% increase from the last year, not 5% revenue.
You're not wrong about wealth redistribution but you got the numbers wrong.
Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
...Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
Besides, if everyone would be losing 100%, do you think people woulds till gamble?
Let's say you plan to gamble with $100 and lose it, that's 100% of your money. Next time you start with $100 again and lose, do you get the point?
In the end, many players are more in the minus than in the profit, it counts as if we paid for the entertainment.This is not wealth distribution, it's a business... and every business has money flow, meaning money gets in and out exchanging many hands. House or some players can get rich or lose everything, but all that is on the individual level, we can't speak about some redistribution where the biggest factor is luck.
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
I do not think that your theory is stupid . I think that there is some sense to it . With regards to payment of wages I think that there is a wealth redistribution system in place even though it may not be a perfect one. When the house wins which happens often, some of it goes into paying the salaries of their employee who in turn spend it in the local economy, buying goods, paying for services rendered etc . And as we may already know there are already hundreds of persons who work in the gambling industry. So in my estimation, this is one imperfect way through which wealth is redistributed.
I don't know whether it is weird or not, but I agree that gambling is basically what you propose. Yes, just like any other zero sum game. Someone loses, someone wins, the money changes hands, that's basically what wealth redistribution means.
About a deeper analysis about who benefits the most, it depends on many factors, but basically the kind of game: it is not the same playing poker with friends, slots in a casino online, or a national lottery, to name a few, so I don't dare to generalise.
About a deeper analysis about who benefits the most, it depends on many factors, but basically the kind of game: it is not the same playing poker with friends, slots in a casino online, or a national lottery, to name a few, so I don't dare to generalise.
I don't think it is, if it's a wealth distribution then the distribution is not fair the casinos take as high as 90% and those who work for them 5% and their associates 5%.
Do you think you will like the term if you are working in a casino and you are a low-level worker and you are part of this kind of distribution, the proper terms for this is profit distribution and not wealth distribution.
Do you think you will like the term if you are working in a casino and you are a low-level worker and you are part of this kind of distribution, the proper terms for this is profit distribution and not wealth distribution.
is this a form of wealth redistribution?
In a wired way, it actually a way of wealth redistribution. Redistribution means to give back to the people through an economical process but in gambling it isn't same. Like I have said on several occasions, gambling is a give and take thing. We give to the casino, then if we win or lose, we go home with either of them. The rich folks spend so much on gambling and thus if they lose half or win more, the casinos gathers these little gains and loss from everyone, even from the average gambler. Though it might sound like they are giving back, but it isn't. To make profits from gambling, you have to put in something and if you aren't lucky, you loss it. So literally the casino makes more profits from our loss.
Isn't that how things work in every business? In every business, a product or service is being sold to customers, and the workers or employees are paid their wages from the revenue earned on that service or product being sold, the same applies to gambling as well. I know it's a bit different because in other businesses, the company or the brand gives away a product or maybe some service to get the money but in gambling, the company gives away money in some cases and give nothing in most cases.
This is how the whole economy of a country works, and that is exactly how it happens in the whole world. It is like a money cycle, you use the money to buy something, the money you are using cycles back to you in one way or the other, it's the same wealth being redistributed hundreds and thousands of time.
This is how the whole economy of a country works, and that is exactly how it happens in the whole world. It is like a money cycle, you use the money to buy something, the money you are using cycles back to you in one way or the other, it's the same wealth being redistributed hundreds and thousands of time.
Yesterday I was sorting my winnings tickets I put while watching the game, had quite a nice sum and while standing in line to cash them I thought about how money is moving around, got the idea it's pretty close to a wealth redistribution.
Wealth distribution in gambling? Sounds new to us its more of wealth donation going to the coffer of the casino.Quote
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
Assuming rich people have more to lose and their share of the losses is bigger, taking into account they support with this money a ton of jobs, 70 000 in Europe alone, is this a form of wealth redistribution?
Then we can assume all business are wealth redistribution based on your theory, casinos are profit generating platform they take the big portion of the profit and the staffs are getting what the casino operators are allocating to their staff even if casino rake in millions or billions the staffs or workers only get a steady income, so its not a wealth redistribution at all when one entity gets a lion share of the profit.Assuming rich people have more to lose and their share of the losses is bigger, taking into account they support with this money a ton of jobs, 70 000 in Europe alone, is this a form of wealth redistribution?
Profit and salary are not the same so its far from being a distribution of wealth.
You're not wrong about wealth redistribution but you got the numbers wrong.
Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
I took the numbers from here:
https://investors.mgmresorts.com/investors/news-releases/press-release-details/2024/MGM-RESORTS-INTERNATIONAL-REPORTS-RECORD-FOURTH-QUARTER-AND-FULL-YEAR-2023-RESULTS/default.aspx
It's a publicly traded company so them lying in an investor released statement not only would trigger a fine from SEC but why lie to your own about how much you make when that's the whole point, it's not a private business there is no hidden entity cashing that money, it's all dividends.
Besides, if everyone would be losing 100%, do you think people woulds till gamble?
That is the same with all businesses, you pay the salaries of the grocery staffs when you purchase a product, you pay the salaries of the airport workers when you book a flight, money you pay to services are used to keep the service running and leave a good enough profit margin for the business.
But the difference there is that the cost of the wages and everything else is included in the product your buy, everyone has the same share contributing on that while buying the product.
In my case I went there I bought some tickets and I gained money, I didn't contribute one cent to the wages or the staff or to the rent of the location, it would be like a thief stealing merchandise looking from the accounting book.
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
I do not agree with this. Casinos are not having just 5% from their customers. That is why most gambling sites do not prefer gamblers to gamble between themselves but the gamblers to be gambling with the casinos and the casinos are winning most money. I will say casinos take 95% of the money. About the money redistribution, I do not think that is worth talking about. I understood your point and you are correct. But redistribution is not correct about this because it is about sharing something (which is money here) among people. The money is not shared to the gamblers that are losing the money to the gambling sites.
...cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
That is the same with all businesses, you pay the salaries of the grocery staffs when you purchase a product, you pay the salaries of the airport workers when you book a flight, money you pay to services are used to keep the service running and leave a good enough profit margin for the business.Gambling is not wealth redistribution, but involves transfer of money as does everything else we pay for.
- Jay -
You're not wrong about wealth redistribution but you got the numbers wrong.
Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
It's an addiction and they're selling the drug.
It always ends the same, that's why I never gambled in my life.
...Then why I'm in the "Gambling" zone ? just for fun.
Casino takes 100% (in the end) and Players lose 100%.
It's an addiction and they're selling the drug.
It always ends the same, that's why I never gambled in my life.
...Then why I'm in the "Gambling" zone ? just for fun.
The casinos are the ones that are benefitting more because both the rich and poor from different countries gather money together for them, and they only give few person little part of that money, I wouldn't call that wealth distribution because the poor are not rich. Of course casinos must pay their workers because it is business and only you cannot run such a business without worker. Moreover, the worker gets peanut compared to what the casino benefits.
Among those that was able to win big only few of them was able to keep this wealth by investing it, while a lot of them lost it back to the casino because of greed or addiction. The house hedge always wins, meaning the casino keeps the wealth of rich gamblers. This is why one should only gamble for fun with the amount of money that he can afford to lose in order for him not to give majority of his income to the casino due to addiction.
Among those that was able to win big only few of them was able to keep this wealth by investing it, while a lot of them lost it back to the casino because of greed or addiction. The house hedge always wins, meaning the casino keeps the wealth of rich gamblers. This is why one should only gamble for fun with the amount of money that he can afford to lose in order for him not to give majority of his income to the casino due to addiction.
Yesterday I was sorting my winnings tickets I put while watching the game, had quite a nice sum and while standing in line to cash them I thought about how money is moving around, got the idea it's pretty close to a wealth redistribution.
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
Assuming rich people have more to lose and their share of the losses is bigger, taking into account they support with this money a ton of jobs, 70 000 in Europe alone, is this a form of wealth redistribution?
Might be a stupid theory but hear me out on this, we have the gamblers that bet on 1 million, half of them lose, half of them win, the casinos get their 5% share, from this share they pay wages and rent and other costs, cutting the part where the casino gets the money it's that basically gamblers pay the wages of the whole staff manning those, and they also shuffle money between them.
Assuming rich people have more to lose and their share of the losses is bigger, taking into account they support with this money a ton of jobs, 70 000 in Europe alone, is this a form of wealth redistribution?
Jump to: