Topic: Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution? - page 8. (Read 1544 times)

no prob, i'm leaving this area, not my world.

...and good luck.

Yes, but it is not my personal one. If I refer someone through the signature to the casino I don't win more or less. All of us in the campaign wear the same one, or we should, as far as I can see most of us wear the one you can find here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cfnp-betcoinag-signature-campaign-herolegendary-members-50week-5265892

What I just realised is that I should have updated it and missed it.

I owe you a merit. I am out atm.

I don't know who benefits from those referral numbers but it's not me.

I have never associated gambling or casinos with wealth distribution whatsoever in the past, if anything I used to see gambling as a form of wealth concentration by  those managing those casinos or the bookie in question. whatever the case, in the imaginary scenario you are putting on the table you are assuming there will be always with delnlnd pockets losing money to people who have less money than they do, which is not completely true . There will be occasions someone with much money will end up profiting from people with less money than him.
Sportbetting could be some form of wealth distribution at times, but when comes to wealth distribution there are better techniques (specially planned by left leaning governments) to accelerate wealth distribution in favor of the less fortunate ones of society.

You have a referral link in your signature...

I do have a job and I am not getting referrals through my signature.

Here the only thing you are making clear is that you have no idea how this works and you are very upset that many people like me, in fact the vast majority, enjoy good gambling.

Get a life.

What the hell are you doing in this forum and even more in the gambling section if you think it's so bad?

It was not my idea about redistribution.

As for your comment, it sums up who we are dealing here with.

No comment needed.  

Referrals.. get a job.

I didn't understand the 100% and will maybe not unless I get confirmation that my theory is flawed even assuming typical accounting
I play 100$ on slots, randomness will eat 5$ and return 95$ in winnings.
I play again a few hours with $95, I will lose 5$ and get only 90$ back.
I lost 10$ that day but I did not play 100, I played $190, am I wrong?
Assuming that I am right the 100% is impossible?!?!?!



My opinion that you shouldn't anyhow because you never said 100% loss for everyone, that percentage made me use bold letters and ask about it since as far as I can understand this would mean every single gamble would mean you lose every single cent and I can't picture this mathematically. Unfortunately enough to the subject discussed my whole experience is with sports betting, making the house edge or continuous playing  under losing percentage not relevant to my own numbers.

There are many of us who, apart from advertising casinos, are also gamblers and make responsible use of gambling, even if your gnat brain can't understand that.

First you come up with the weird idea of redistribution and now you come out with those, don't you have any more weird ideas you want to share? Do you feel lonely? Misunderstood?

Not to take all their money through clever tactics and addictive techniques designed after years and millions of dollars of research ?

Damn, all this years I was so wrong about it, they just want to entertain us.

I am calling my friend who supposedly worked in one of this kind of researches and call him a F liar.

I disagree with the OP on his conclusion that gambling is a means of wealth distribution among people. This is because both the rich and the poor losses more than they win and they casino takes the major share of the money. When we mean wealth distribution, it means that it most go round the gamblers but if you don't win how will you get your own share.

Gambling is a business to entertain gamblers through the casino services and you pay for participating in their games, but to attract more people, the payment that was made to participate in the game is used to stake for you, so that it will be that if you win the game there is a reward for you but gamblers misunderstand this and started going after the casinos money.

LOL It's like asking drug dealers if they feel sorry for people...

Those who tell you that have told you the idea but have not explained it to you. In PvP games the casino charges a commission and there are players who can make consistent and long term profits. However in casino games it is not possible. If the House Edge is 5% that is on one bet. So if you bet $100 the expected value is $95. You may get $0 or $2K but in the long run that is what you will get as a return on your bet.

Now, you have to include compound interest in the equation. Doing the operations in an abstract way, if you were to get $95 out of $100 and you bet it again on the same bet, the expected value would be 90.25, if you bet it again it would be 85.7375 and so on until you run out of money.


No they are not a scam because the numbers are there and the casinos publish their fees and House Edge. The casinos, the honest ones, give you what they offer, and the people who bet properly on casino games, what they do is to enjoy moments of entertainment, for which they pay like those who go to an amusement park, because they offer them emotions and the possibility of winning money in individual sessions, but never in the long term.

In short, I don't have any conscience problems about it.

MUhahahahah little padawan, or even better You know nothing, Jon Snow!!!

First mistake, you assume everyone here gambles when in reality few do, most are too damn stupid to even place a real combined bet, I saw a guy predicting a no-goal and team A leading in the first half, some even think gambling is against their religion, but earning money ISN'T!
Second assumption, and again bad one is that you think they do what they say, users here talk about how bad is to keep money on exchanges only to get caught their payment address is an address on a CEX.
Anyhow:


This is where you went wrong with this one but as a typical antisocialist and pure capitalist I do find it interesting as a bit of it is true

The logic might sound proof at first since it's basically a pot, everyone puts money in some get more some get less back and a cut of it gets redistributed to people who have made it happen, at first glance there would be no difference between this and some donation box or some fundraising for the needy, but it has a weak point the redistribution might be too lopsided based on the pool of players and the money that is spent would be spent on something else eventually even without the option of gambling.

Actually scratch this, even if it's uneven it's still redistribution....I got caught up in thinking it was about social equality!
I need to think about this once again from a different point of view.

Any multi business requires workers for them to put hands on deck to get things working and, the workers must be paid for their services as it's no charity organization. Then in the chain of wealth distribution assuming that's actually what the wins and losses in casinos entails, the casinos are the ones getting the largest share % in the distribution, while a small amount of money goes to the few gamblers that  manage to get a win.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 which led to the temporary stop of some of the popular sports leagues leading to a low patronage from gamblers due to the sit-at-home order by the government yet, the gambling industry in Nigeria still made a monthly billion $ benchmark with a daily $5+M profit, how much more now all activities have resumed worldwide.
  check here.

The casinos will be happy to know that they are a channel for wealth redistribution and they are going to justify wealthy people to continue gambling to redistribute their wealth but it is never the case, the casino is the one that will benefit from this unfair so-called wealth redistribution, wealth redistribution is one will get fair shares on all the beneficiaries or receivers and not one getting the lion shares.
This is a weird comparison we could have applied it to other industries but I doubt its ok in the gambling industry.

Most likely, the facts on the ground that they see are that they continue to gamble, including those of us here, actually everyone knows that gambling never makes you rich, so why do people continue to gamble, the fact is that they often lose, that's human nature, lust, actually what needs to be blamed is the lust that exists in the human body, not gambling, if someone can fight lust, automatically gambling is not a source of wealth and income for those who think.

It's all your wish, of course you already know the risks, before buying a ticket, but you still buy, stealing can be said if they force you to buy a ticket, do they do it, of course not, so whatever you do in gambling on willyourself.
Distributing wealth carried out by gambling parties is another matter, half loses and half wins, those are tricks and games in the gambling arena, in that case whoever is affected positively and negatively is at their risk, that is gambling, cunning and cunning.

That's deep. I don't know how you came up with the idea but you may be right about what you are trying to point out.
Sure, this is where the employees are getting their salaries. The gambling place is the party to make the deal and they have cuts so that they can pay for their employees and other things that must be paid. i.e. tax, electricity bills, internet, etc...

Wealth distribution. Hmmm. There are wealthy people who don't gamble so I guess they are exempted from this. But yes, I mean without the wealthy there will be no large consumers and they are part of that.
I think this thread is best in the "Economics" section. Just my two cents.

Somewhat it may lead you to think like that yet it is not really wealth distribution.The casino has the responsibility to pay all their staff in everything promised to them no matter if they win or lose money so opting to work in a casino is usually a good choice considering the bonuses they give to their staff from time to time.Of course they have the house edge put in place to make sure that they will net profit in the long run which if we think thoroughly is what pays everything for them,the house edge.This is put in place in games of luck and which in turn are usually the most played game in a casino,at least online ones.One can of course call that a form of wealth distribution and I don't think is a bad statement,just not 100% true.

Sorry for my mistake, the article was kinda long and I just searched for the 5% you have mentioned.


Because they are paid and not many people care about people getting addicted to gambling - they think it's their own fault and greed.

But advertisements like this are the source of many life dramas.

Some will downplay it and say it's just for fun, not it's not - knowing some people can get addicted and lose life.
Or compare it to investments as everything can be thought as gambling but casinos are made with lot of research on human behavior and they take advantage of that.

Who said casino is a place to make money?

Gambling is a game of chance, if you don't lose all of your money in gambling, you can choose to withdraw in loss just like cut loss in trading. Most people will lose, but it doesn't mean every gamblers will lose and not able to make money.

Gambling isn't scam, you can double your money or lose it all, if someone promise to make money through gambling without any risk, definitely it's scam.