Topic: Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution? - page 6. (Read 1545 times)

I mean signature campaigners are the closest example of the gambling wealth redistribution you mentioned in this thread. Signature campaigners are common people trying to make extra bucks on the internet, but not by gambling with their own money, rather they are working for the gambling industry and being paid for the propaganda they execute for casinos.

Money lost by whales at gambling games allow online earnings opportunities like signature campaigns through that "wealth redistribution".

Many people getting into gambling with high hopes need to understand this thing. They expect way too much from something which is based on luck and the higher possibility in it is that they are going to lose their money eventually, but they still don't get it.

I have seen people trying to get some money from somewhere so that they can use that money for gambling and earn more money with it, and I've always been telling them to not make that mistake because they are only going to lose the money and get nothing at the end.

Some people think they can make money from gambling if they have a large bankroll but it's nothing more than a myth.

Casinos are not charities. They are in it for financial gain. And thats alright. The issue is, too many people enter a casino believing they will be the next big thing. They arent. So, what do we do? We speak the truth to them. We teach them the odds. We demonstrate for them the workings of the games. To inform people, not to frightish them away. That is how we give them power. To equip people with the knowledge required for wise decisions.

Im a businessman. I am in love with closing a deal. And the best deals are the ones where both sides feel like they're winning. In gambling, we require a more fair, open playing field. Both commercially and for the consumers, it is beneficial.

You are right; however, gamblers are not always poor even though the majority are average, there are rich gamblers as well, and casinos get a lot of profit from such gamblers. Imagine a rich gambler, having millions of dollars, getting addicted to gambling, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars each month in a casino, that casino would earn more money from a single gambler than they earn from all average gamblers combined.

However, this isn't always the case, but if we talk about wealth distribution, it is true that the wealth goes from some people to some others, especially the employees of the casinos who get their salaries from the money that the casino gets from gamblers who are either rich or poor. That's how the cycle of life works.

I already provided tons of links from actual SEC fillings of the biggest casino, a 90% loss on the players would mean everyone, every single player would enter with $100 and exit with $10. If we talk about sports book you would need a ratio of 19:1 to bet on the losing team (since the winner would double his money) which is nearly impossible!


No, because just as with shops or other examples, signature campaigners provide a service for which they get paid, in gambling there is no economic activity between the players, you pick a number or a team and you either lose or get money!

True, and one thing I will say that if only the majority of gamblers knew about this fact then in my opinion it would be unlikely for them to maintain their intentions and goals of earning in gambling, because after all it is clear that the name of the business certainly has the intention and purpose to get a lot of profit, and if we talk about the gambling business then yes of course the casino benefits from the majority of losing gamblers, or simply put the more gamblers who lose (due to acting impulsively) the greater the casino's profits.

Basically, yes, as you said, it is true that gambling is also the same as other businesses that we know,  there is no significant difference with business in general, and maybe the difference is in terms of the product being marketed, they don't have a product to sell, they just  make a game as an intermediary to get profit from their  business.

It is difficult to say whether players' gains or losses represent a redistribution of wealth. But considering that. That 99% lose money over the long term, all these funds go over time to casinos and bookmakers. This process is predominantly one-way - from players to casinos. There is a flow that goes from the casino to the players - but it is a very small flow. The idea that winning at a casino might be a form of wealth redistribution can only really come when one is at their most optimistic.

Broadly speaking, yeah. For as long as those who have the money spend what they have, the wealth is somehow redistributed. Although this isn't the kind of wealth redistribution that involves social mechanisms in order to address inequality. But, again, spending helps the larger community in one way or another.

The problem with this kind of wealth redistribution is that so many gamblers are poor. The rich gambling companies are milking them to further grow their wealth. It would be a different story if gamblers are only the rich ones who don't care if they're losing so much. In reality, however, social ills are created through gambling because there are so many poor yet irresponsible people who are spending so much in casinos but forget to provide even the basic needs of their families.

Yes, it's a voluntary form of wealth redistribution where riches aren't forced to give their money away to society, but do this because they want to be entertained and risk their luck through an activity called gambling. I guess 100% of signature campaigners on this forum who have been working for casinos are a good example of that, right? Because people here aren't wealthy players, but average folks looking for extra income opportunities on the internet.

People say the poors are harmed by gambling, because they can't afford to lose anything and still gamble anyway, and that casinos are the only ones benefited after all. However, I don't think it's true, because as you said, the industry creates lots of jobs and moves huge sums of money which impacts directly or indirectly many sectors of society.

Check touristic gambling cities and regions, like Las Vegas and Macau, so you will see how gambling is important for the local economies and how it benefits not only the gambling houses, but also the hotels, restaurants, transport services and so on.

No this one. I don't think a casino will only get a half. they must get more than 90%, while the others are about the affiliates or others using cheats. Ah maybe it is more percentages again for the casino.

because I believe, the principles of a casino are:
Taking as much people's money as possible, forever, and making people unable to stop leaving the casino.
Yes, without us realizing it, we are trapped in the casino and in the end we follow their path, where the casino will win much more, while the players will lose many times more. but unfortunately, even though they know this, they are lazy enough to stop and it just gets worse in the hope that the casino will be more kind in making them win. And of course, that won't happen

Redistribution no.  Casinos make way more than the 5% vig that they put on the bets.  In terms of Redistribution it's more a pa's over to a company.  While yes one person loses amd one person wins but in the end even the winners typically lose so I wouldn't say it's a Redistribution of wealth but rather a way of entertainment at a specified cost.

You just figured out how the 1 percenters use the casino as a money laundering machine my friend. And I don’t even need to explain how it works any further because it is just like how you explained it, with all the bells and whistles included too. You take out your money and convert them into chips at the casino cashier, they give you an equivalent amount you play and/or pay with while you’re inside their premises, when you’re done with it you withdraw your money, and voila, the once dirty money is now clean and free from all grimes if crime or whatever.

It’s literally how it all works lol. And while you may call it wealth redistribution, which is why it sounded weird to you in the first place, the people knew this is a money laundering scheme.

It actually is a complex one and it is not different from other big businesses that we know. They need OPEX to cover their entire company to keep it running and they have staff to pay and everything. And that's why they need to have a source to get all of those expenses and the difference is that they're a gambling business. While the others have different products but if we're going to take a look at it, they're all in the same logic as a business. There is no need to be too wary about it because it all lies to the profits that they all get from all their customers and everything is calculated and on a budget including promos, bonuses, etc.

If gambling is taking away from a bunch of people, isn't it an accumulation rather than a redistribution?  Besides, poor gamblers are too many that the cumulative amount may equal or even greater than the amount spent by rich people.  We can say that individually poor gamblers spend less and rich gamblers spend more but in a cumulative state, they may possibly be equal in amount. 


I am with you on this, calling the money flow in the gambling industry as a redistribution of wealth is somehow misleading.  Since most money ends up in few people, it can be considered as accumulation rather than redistribution.


I somehow have a different point view on this.  I believe this is not any kind of robbery but a business.  Casino or gambling industry offering entertainment with a chance of winning, the industry openly declares the risk to their client so this can't be consider a fraud act or a kind of robbery.  Besides the house have the fund to pay their client so it is not right to say that the house needs to rob player A to pay for Player B since there are instances where Player A and Player B need to be paid.  Since gambling is business any losses from player A and player B can be said as profit by the house and is considered to be money of the house and will be used to pay the winner.  So in this system, it is not the player that is paying for the other player but the house paying for the winning player.

Since you already perceived that the idea may be a stupid theory that means we are going to be contributing based on just fun and false assumptions,  gambling can be a fast way to wealth generation and distribution in the sense that gambling os lime robbing Peter to pay Paul because in most cases one man lise is another man win in gambling.

So it then means that, gambling is like robbing play A to pay player B regardless of they both financial class.

The rich don’t always loose, let me tell you that. Sometimes, the very opposite is what you find as the poor man tends to be much more daring and takes more risk on the odds than a rich man would do. For a rich guy, it’s always about let the money work for me and with that, you could find them with unbelievable stakes on a bet and sometimes, it plays out for them, just a single bet. The poor guy would rather go for multi bets and there could be that one game that would end it all.

While looking at it to be some way of wealth redistribution, yeah it could be that. It easily becomes the hope of a common man and that’s why, you can easily find them gambling all day with the little they’ve got. Looking for that saving grace bet and it does come to some. Afterwards, it becomes an issue of how you choose to utilize your luck to benefit you.

The casino business is indeed a complex one. It appeals to all strata of society, the rich, the average, and the poor, equally. The algorithms of the games are structured in such a way that they always favor the house, ensuring that a majority of gamblers end up losing.

The various operational costs, including those related to staff salaries, rent plus electricity and other numerous bills, all spell out the necessity for casinos to keep their profits high. In addition to that, money laundering practices paint a clearer picture as to why casino regulations tend to be stringent. These details together present casinos as profit-driven business entities; it appears charity is not their forte.

Casino is a business and I understand where you taking this from and think of it. Well, it's sort of a wealth distribution if it's coming from the wealthy but this is an accumulated effort and money of every person from different forms of life. The rich, the average and the poor. As long as there are people that will lose for which is assigned for most of the gamblers because of the algorithm and the casinos are into the business and not a charity that will just give out their money and you pointed out one important factor on them and that's the operational expenses.

Coming from the staff, the rent, electricity, rent, and other bills. They need to do something for that and that's how they're spending all of the losses of their customers. And as for the losses, it means money and profits to the casinos. Well, one dark side of it from what you're thinking of it is that they're also being used for money laundering and that's why they have gotten stricter more than ever.

Yes and no. It's technically redistribution, but not in a sense what we traditionally mean with that term. It's about collecting money and giving some of it back in a random looking way.

But it's more symmetrical, because if losses of rich people are bigger, so are often their wins. Likewise losses of poor people are smaller, and so are their wins. So it's not taking away from rich and giving it to the poor, but taking a away from bunch of people and giving lots of it back to few lucky ones, and changes are that poor people are winning less. Aside from insanely lucky lottery winners that might or might not have gambled with lots of money.

But we can just call it gambling, as everyone knows how gambling works and calling it redistribution is misleading, even though i understand what you mean with it.

We all could be wrong too, as I also believe you are wrong on this. Casinos don't take 100% of everything; in fact, most of the time, some gamblers also do win some good amount of money, even if it's not up to 10% of the total wager, but at least it will reduce the number from 100% down to something less. 
 
On the other hand, casinos also have some third parties to settle with, like some of them that have third-party games running on their casino. There is also the tax they have to pay for salary, security, and other expenses. 
 
No doubt the casino takes the highest share, but it's not up to the amount you rate them to be taking.