Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution?

[swogerino]

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?

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.

[danherbias07]

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.

[YOSHIE]

Besides, if everyone would be losing 100%, do you think people woulds till gamble?

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.

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.

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.

[robelneo]

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?

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.

[Lida93]

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?

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.

[stompix]

How that it work with your conscience?

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:

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.

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.

[Poker Player]

100% means everyone on every bet will lose money, and since I see this opinion more and more I have to ask everyone displaying a gambling signature here something:

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.

IF YOU BELIEVE THE CASINOS TAKE 100% OF THE MONEY  DEPOSITED WHY DO YOU ADVERTISE SUCH A THING WITH YOUR SIGNATURES?

Isn't this close to advertising a scam scheme if you are convinced anyone gambling will lose all their money?
How that it work with your conscience?

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.

[MeGold666]

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

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

[Ruttoshi]

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.

[MeGold666]

Gambling is a business to entertain gamblers through the casino services

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.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

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

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?

[The Hidebehinder]

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.

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?!?!?!

No they are not a scam because the numbers are there and the casinos publish their fees and House Edge.

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

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.

[MeGold666]

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

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?

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.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

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 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?

[MeGold666]

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

You have a referral link in your signature...

Code:

https://www.betcoin.ag/?r=295272

[Hispo]

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.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

You have a referral link in your signature...

Code:

https://www.betcoin.ag/?r=295272

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5265892.0

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.

[MeGold666]

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

...and good luck.

[hahay]

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?

I think it's not just about wealth or about rich people distributing their wealth on gambling because after all, poor people can also gamble as long as they still have money even if it's not much. With that said, I don't think it's about distribution, because even though they are rich people I think they also still expect their money back with the expected winnings. After all, the casino also certainly has other income perhaps from an investor so that their operations continue to work well or as it should. So, whether it is strange or not about the distribution of wealth, for me it is not right because every gambler also gambles with their own targets because after all, if it is called distribution then they will gamble to lose and not to win.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

It has being well said already from other previous replies that the gambling platform is the one that benefits the most and get the 100% gain and the gambler loosing from the whole percentage, well there could be enough reasons to back this up as being the actually scenario of what is going to transpired or that has already been happening with everyone making bets, though the casinos also in some little ways take part from these loss also, but we shouldn't completely see it as a means of wealth redistribution, instead a thing of luck and survival of the luckiest.