Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution?

[Yatsan]

...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 -

I agree that it is not. It's not even with a gambler's will to do so, at least on his/her priority unlike with purchasing something or paying for a service. The  primary goal is to simply make profit ( for most of the gamblers) and not minding that they are already paying the service provider or the whole mechanism. Wealth redistribution is something that runs continuously. Examples are charity and taxation; doing a charity will give you a thought that you are putting the money for other's comfort and needs. Same goes with taxation that you are aware it will be used for country's projects for its people. In gambling, in most instances, you'd more think of what you will get than others' benefit from your bet. So yes, it would most likely be described as with the process of purchasing something out of personal motive.

[redsun114]

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.

No offense but I always think that almost all casinos are money hungry or greedy that they can only think of them selves, so what you are saying that they will be happy blah blah blah... is impossible. In fact I think they will be annoyed more when they figure that out. Casinos can also benefit from the poor people, so they can encourage them as well to play more.

If we want to help the others, it will be better to just donate the money straight to them and not use the casino as proxy because like you said, they can only corrupt it. Indeed this also happens to other industries most especially in the charity one/itself and this is why many people are discouraged to donate there after knowing it.

[Su-asa]

10% of $1,000,000 is $100, so if you wager $1,000,000 and you lost it, it means you have lost all the money you wagered with and not 10%. Gamble is risky and gambler need to gamble responsible by risking what he can afford to lose and not the other way round. If a gambler have a lot of money and can afford to risk 1 million dollars there's nothing bad with that because he can afford to lose it.

[serjent05]

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 do not think of gambling as a wealth redistribution pattern even as a weird one.  The reason behind is that it is so flawed if we call it redistribution because the amount of money the gambling being transferred to is from many to few.

Like the house or the owner of the gambling scheme getting the most of the money and this is simply can't be called redistribution but accumulation where money gets accumulated from many gamblers to just a few entities like what happens in lotteries and other gambling platforms.

No offense but I always think that almost all casinos are money hungry or greedy that they can only think of them selves, so what you are saying that they will be happy blah blah blah... is impossible. In fact I think they will be annoyed more when they figure that out. Casinos can also benefit from the poor people, so they can encourage them as well to play more.

It is obvious that business establishment wants to prosper and casinos and gambling platform is no difference. If they can monopolize all players then it is best for them, every business establishment is greedy to get customers, because it is their means of surviving and prospering.  I do not think casinos and other gambling platforms are more greedy than any other business establishment though.

If we want to help the others, it will be better to just donate the money straight to them and not use the casino as proxy because like you said, they can only corrupt it. Indeed this also happens to other industries most especially in the charity one/itself and this is why many people are discouraged to donate there after knowing it.

It is too much of a task if the casinos makes an individual approach over people who need help, we have institutions for that so I believe it is wise for the casino to take advantage of using institutions for their charity works.  Saves a lot of effort and time for them.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

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?

Without gamblers, casinos will not exist or may not be a successful business. Without gamblers losing their money even more than they can earn casinos will definitely go bankrupt because of paying more winners. In a Nutshell, I will say that casinos are redistricting just a small percentage of what they have earned from gamblers. Don't forget that there are billions and trillions of gamblers losing everyday and the casino owners are making huge profit seriously which can not be compare to their payout.

[Assface16678]

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.

No offense but I always think that almost all casinos are money hungry or greedy that they can only think of them selves, so what you are saying that they will be happy blah blah blah... is impossible. In fact I think they will be annoyed more when they figure that out. Casinos can also benefit from the poor people, so they can encourage them as well to play more.

If we want to help the others, it will be better to just donate the money straight to them and not use the casino as proxy because like you said, they can only corrupt it. Indeed this also happens to other industries most especially in the charity one/itself and this is why many people are discouraged to donate there after knowing it.

Somewhat true, casinos are mostly the ones and only ones that are beneficial. Of course, it's their business, and the more gamblers lose money, the more they can earn. That's also why I don't believe in those casinos that want to raise awareness or campaign about stopping or guiding those who are too addicted to gambling and also give rehabilitation to those gamblers who are too addicted and losing a lot of money.
 
That is the scary part about casinos. They can do everything in order to earn money, or it becomes favourable for them, and take advantage of those gamblers who are desperate to win in a casino game. All though you can win a huge amount of money in gambling by hitting a jackpot, of course it could also be a trap that will create false hope for those money-hungry gamblers. So gamble moderately and do not trust too much on a casino platform.

[bangjoe]

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?

It's not like that, I admit your theory of "redistribution of wealth" is quite interesting but the fact is that the gamblers who continue to gamble the poor get poorer and the rich get poorer very quickly rather than building their wealth, and no gamblers get rich from gambling except the casino owners.

There may be some winning schemes, but I don't think anyone gets rich from winning, and it comes down to luck, it's not a place where you move the ball to another hand with the same shape.

[TheUltraElite]

I would not go to that extent that it is wealth redistribution, it is more like a company selling its product and the employees getting paid from the profits. Indeed the casino industry manages to create a number of jobs. That is why the people who profit from gambling are the ones who are working with the casino and not playing in it. This includes the owner, bankroll investors, affiliate marketers and offline workers.

If you opine that most of the casino workers are poor and they are getting paid from the rich, yes that would be correct apart from the fact that everyone does not work at the casino, so it is a skewed distribution.

[wiss19]

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.

I don't think you can call it a scam, it's just that you need to understand how it works. What most people do is ignore the facts and realities about gambling and make stories of their own in their minds when they are getting into gambling. They start building skyscrapers in the sky about the money they can win from gambling but they don't realize that it is just a possibility and there is no guarantee for that to happen.

This thing usually makes people lose more money than they can afford to lose because they keep trying to achieve what they have been dreaming about and the nature of gambling doesn't let them accomplish that because it's only for a few extremely lucky people and not everyone can have that much luck.

So, it's mostly disappointment.

[The Hidebehinder]

10% of $1,000,000 is $100, so if you wager $1,000,000 and you lost it, it means you have lost all the money you wagered with and not 10%

10% of $1,000,000 is $100,000 check your math again!

I do not think of gambling as a wealth redistribution pattern even as a weird one.  The reason behind is that it is so flawed if we call it redistribution because the amount of money the gambling being transferred to is from many to few.

I never said it's a social program where the poorer get more and the richer less, I said it's wealth redistribution and if money leaves one pocket and other receives one without any economical activity between them, such as buying goods, selling a car, renting a flat or teaching a math class I think it's just as much of redistribution as taxes are.

[Wapfika]

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?

Sort of. You explained really well on how many redistribute from gambling but this assumption is only true if casino doesn’t use their own bankroll to match players bet.

For example, Casino payout on bets when 1 player bet on side A is not always from Player who bet on side B to balance it because casino cover some of the missing bet from the minority in case the majority win. Meaning if the minority win then casino will pocket more than the house edge since they risk too some of their bankroll to match uncover bets by other side.

The house edge gives the casino guarantee profit but that doesn’t mean their profit is limited to it. So they are getting huge money that are redistributing to employee but the majority will go to the owner so it’s just another millionaire in the making rather than a wealth redistribution.

[Jating]

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?

Sounds just like it, a good theory. Remember that gambling is a big business, everyone makes money out of, from gamblers to casino owners. But that's it, there no connection to wealth redistribution whatsoever, it's just the probably, others win, and then there are losers regardless if you are rich or whales. Of course, in a landbased casinos, there are a ton of jobs that is being open locally, because as I have pointed out, it's business after all.

There are even a country that really looks for gambling as their main source, and it's Macau in Asia.

So don't overthink about it my friend, wealth redistribution, wealth inequality will be there throughout human's history.

[mirakal]

The casino just gives what these gamblers are looking for and we are not forced to gamble which is why we don't have a reason to blame casinos for losing our money. Let us accept the fact that while gamblers lose money, casinos are benefiting from it. And while some gamblers lose, there are few gamblers who win. If we think this is not the best thing that will happen to us then we also have to ask ourselves why we choose this life when we know we can possibly lose our money. But I believe there is one reason that encourages us to gamble -and that is because of money. We are greedy and think that through gambling we can improve our living and become rich easily. Unfortunately, luck never comes to easily as well which we may lose terribly first before we win.

[Accardo]

Sounds just like it, a good theory. Remember that gambling is a big business, everyone makes money out of, from gamblers to casino owners. But that's it, there no connection to wealth redistribution whatsoever, it's just the probably, others win, and then there are losers regardless if you are rich or whales. Of course, in a landbased casinos, there are a ton of jobs that is being open locally, because as I have pointed out, it's business after all.

There are even a country that really looks for gambling as their main source, and it's Macau in Asia.

So don't overthink about it my friend, wealth redistribution, wealth inequality will be there throughout human's history.

If being categorized under wealth distribution, the gamblers take lesser amount compared to the casino. The funds don't even stay longer in the hands of the gambler before it's been taken by the casino, to be given back to the gambler next time. It's actually what the market is about. Money circulates from player to another helping the casino business grow. And we must know that wealth is created when raw materials are being joined together to form a new product. Casinos are gaining from their ideas.

Gambling is just an activity that could be done anywhere any time. Casinos only fixed some materials together and told people that gambling in their place does the changes and would yield them more funds. Because, it'll be hard to gamble everyday if they weren't casinos. Due to the fact that, gambling is not a one man activity. People need to come together and disagree on an idea or opinion then they'll be urged to gamble over it. Such things wouldn't happen all the time. But casinos fixed this, and are killing it for their provisions for a comfortable gambling environment.

[summonerrk]

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?

Thanks for the interesting topic. The distribution of casino finances operates in the same way as all other businesses: the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. By rich in this case, we mean casino owners, they actually cannot be poor. And they are constantly receiving an influx of money from the poor. Those masses of players who, in the hope of changing their lives, carry and carry money to the casino. And let the casino pay the salaries of the workers, but these are small amounts that are not able to make rich out of poor casino workers. These are my thoughts.

[Zoomic]

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?

Have you also noticed that we have more losers than we have winners, who collects all the money from these losers? The casinos. You are not wrong about gambling being a weird way of wealth redistribution because gambling actually takes from the poor and vulnerable ones and give to the rich casino owners with only a small portion of those money coming back to the people.

No one should buy into the idea of trying to gain wealth through gambling because the more you gamble, the more you enrich the casinos. Have you taken time to count the number of times you've lost at the casino and the number of times you've won? You will realise that your winnings are no where compared to what you've lost since you started gambling. This is to show that no wealth is coming back to you, the weather redistribution is in a regressive manner.

[LUCKMCFLY]

That is the scary part about casinos. They can do everything in order to earn money, or it becomes favourable for them, and take advantage of those gamblers who are desperate to win in a casino game. All though you can win a huge amount of money in gambling by hitting a jackpot, of course it could also be a trap that will create false hope for those money-hungry gamblers. So gamble moderately and do not trust too much on a casino platform.

Yes, in fact it is a serious reality of casinos, that is why casinos only play it for adults, because it has so many intrinsic things that makes anyone fall into temptations that lead them to a total abyss, and it is played with the mind and that makes them spend money from their pockets, just to go to the money plane, which gives everyone a lot, because we all want money, you can't say that nobody wants it, well except the rich who have plenty, that's another thing, but the majority in their eagerness to seek to multiply money then fall into the simplest traps making them fall many times into addiction.

[Accardo]

Have you also noticed that we have more losers than we have winners, who collects all the money from these losers? The casinos. You are not wrong about gambling being a weird way of wealth redistribution because gambling actually takes from the poor and vulnerable ones and give to the rich casino owners with only a small portion of those money coming back to the people.

No one should buy into the idea of trying to gain wealth through gambling because the more you gamble, the more you enrich the casinos. Have you taken time to count the number of times you've lost at the casino and the number of times you've won? You will realise that your winnings are no where compared to what you've lost since you started gambling. This is to show that no wealth is coming back to you, the weather redistribution is in a regressive manner.

Players may not be able to successfully win big in gambling, but wealth is distributed through gambling. Millions of people gamble everyday and lots of money enters into the market via gambling. Which also can be linked down to building the economy of some nations. This means that some people get paid because others spend money gambling.

The chain is long and it's just as any other means of generating money in the market. Funds are being exchanged between the player and the casino. And most times the player would lose for another player to win. The house is winning, and as well lose out lots of money to keep the business running. The wins distributed each day are very high amounts of money.

[Orpichukwu]

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.

 

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.

[o48o]

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?

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.