Is gambling a weird way of weath redistribution?

[Mr. Magkaisa]

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?

           -     You know, mate, all I can say is that the casino doesn't care if a player is rich or poor and gambles on their platform. Because the majority of those who play on a casino platform actually lose, and only a few win a large amount of money in their casino.

So, the one who really benefits the most is the casino owner, not the gamblers who enter gambling platforms, whether online or in physical casinos.
Housed edge always win at they never lose ever in the end.

[maydna]

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?

           -     You know, mate, all I can say is that the casino doesn't care if a player is rich or poor and gambles on their platform. Because the majority of those who play on a casino platform actually lose, and only a few win a large amount of money in their casino.

So, the one who really benefits the most is the casino owner, not the gamblers who enter gambling platforms, whether online or in physical casinos.
Housed edge always win at they never lose ever in the end.

That is right because casino only gives a place to them to playing gambling. Even casino gives a warning to them to be careful when spending their money in gambling. If those people lose their money, that will not be responsibility from the casino because casino already warn those gamblers. Gambling itself will not a place to make money but only for having fun while winning or losing will comes to those gamblers.

Casino owner will benefits from that situation because they will takes the money from the lose gamblers. If you don't want to lose much money from gambling, you must limit your money that you use for playing gambling.

[Oluwa-btc]

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.

 

I love this and it does makes alot of sense you know.
Mostly Gambling can't be in any way of wealth distribution because aside the fact that some hit jackpots and hug wins to cover up their losses for somedays, it's very certain that it works to their favour.like out of 100% involved in Gambling activities,a total of 10% fall on the winning sides where they must have been lucky in most cases,then what happened to the other percentage of people a loss to them and a huge gain to the casino or gambling sites.

So you see there's no way of creating wealth for redistribution.

[Ruttoshi]

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.

 

I love this and it does makes alot of sense you know.
Mostly Gambling can't be in any way of wealth distribution because aside the fact that some hit jackpots and hug wins to cover up their losses for somedays, it's very certain that it works to their favour.like out of 100% involved in Gambling activities,a total of 10% fall on the winning sides where they must have been lucky in most cases,then what happened to the other percentage of people a loss to them and a huge gain to the casino or gambling sites.

So you see there's no way of creating wealth for redistribution.

Casinos are out for business to make profit and this is why you see that their software is designed in such a way that it will favor them more than the gamblers so that they don't run out of business. Casinos are not wealth distribution organizations and let no one get it twisted.

Casinos takes money from everyone using their gambling site and only pays few winners who were lucky on that day because gambling is based by luck and luck comes by chance.

[promise444c5]

I love this and it does makes alot of sense you know.
Mostly Gambling can't be in any way of wealth distribution because aside the fact that some hit jackpots and hug wins to cover up their losses for somedays, it's very certain that it works to their favour.like out of 100% involved in Gambling activities,a total of 10% fall on the winning sides where they must have been lucky in most cases,then what happened to the other percentage of people a loss to them and a huge gain to the casino or gambling sites.

So you see there's no way of creating wealth for redistribution.

I don't even see it coming near any kind of wealth redistribution like you said, most wins is just to cover up losses or let's just say one could hit a jack pot that gives someone profits compared to what he/she had lost (funds) and that will take a massive risk sometimes to get unless it just a lucky win without to much loss,some can even come without any losss and most times that comes in a very low percentage. In short, it's not like any form of wealth distribution, that person playing high bets know what he/she is doing so far they can afford it..... they only need a win to cash out big.

[Ojima-ojo]

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.

 

I love this and it does makes alot of sense you know.
Mostly Gambling can't be in any way of wealth distribution because aside the fact that some hit jackpots and hug wins to cover up their losses for somedays, it's very certain that it works to their favour.like out of 100% involved in Gambling activities,a total of 10% fall on the winning sides where they must have been lucky in most cases,then what happened to the other percentage of people a loss to them and a huge gain to the casino or gambling sites.

So you see there's no way of creating wealth for redistribution.

Even though the possibility of hitting a jackpot is there, it still does not validate the misconceptions of taking gambling as a way of wealth redistribution, because in gambling, only the casinos wins, why because, anytime there is a bet, the house edge is there to limit the players potentials and as a matter of fact is almost impossible to win bets.

So taking gambling to means a way of wealth distribution is something out of the ordinary.

[alegotardo]

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 disagree!
I believe that casinos, especially gambling sites, have increased people's economic inequality.

I say this because I know several people who earn very little and instead use the little money they have left to buy clothes, go to the ba with friends, watch a movie with their wife or go to a restaurant on the weekend.
But all that changed when some of them became addicted to gambling, now all they do is spend money on betting.

Those who are rich, have more education and a more "correct" mentality, know that they cannot spend all their money on something frivolous, so many of them remain rich, even gambling.

[betswift]

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.

 

I love this and it does makes alot of sense you know.
Mostly Gambling can't be in any way of wealth distribution because aside the fact that some hit jackpots and hug wins to cover up their losses for somedays, it's very certain that it works to their favour.like out of 100% involved in Gambling activities,a total of 10% fall on the winning sides where they must have been lucky in most cases,then what happened to the other percentage of people a loss to them and a huge gain to the casino or gambling sites.

So you see there's no way of creating wealth for redistribution.

Yeah, the funds still go in a cycle, and only the fortunate are getting something out of it

[LUCKMCFLY]

           -     You know, mate, all I can say is that the casino doesn't care if a player is rich or poor and gambles on their platform. Because the majority of those who play on a casino platform actually lose, and only a few win a large amount of money in their casino.

So, the one who really benefits the most is the casino owner, not the gamblers who enter gambling platforms, whether online or in physical casinos.
Housed edge always win at they never lose ever in the end.

Yes, that is the truth, we as players should consider these things before playing, especially the house edge for the first option of a casino is not to check the financial status of the Players , if they are Poor or rich, that is of no interest, if you are playing in a casino it is because the person is able to assume their loss or failure if such a thing happens, but for this you must have the necessary maturity that in the casino we can never beat the casino advantage, we just have to take advantage of those advantages of luck and withdraw money when Necessary.

[Kemarit]

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?

Nah, that will not always the case, there are no wealth distribution here, it's just gambling per se, you win money to lose money, that's it. It is not something that can sustain someone, in the end the house is going to win and so with that, they are the only one that is going to benefit here, and all the money is going to them, simply as that.

And that is the smoke screen, you thought that they are helping people that are involved in the casinos, but it is not, it's business and at the end of the day, people are going to lose money and the one that is going to benefit is only the casinos themselves.

[Hirose UK]

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?

Nah, that will not always the case, there are no wealth distribution here, it's just gambling per se, you win money to lose money, that's it. It is not something that can sustain someone, in the end the house is going to win and so with that, they are the only one that is going to benefit here, and all the money is going to them, simply as that.

And that is the smoke screen, you thought that they are helping people that are involved in the casinos, but it is not, it's business and at the end of the day, people are going to lose money and the one that is going to benefit is only the casinos themselves.

Of course, because basically casinos and business owners only care about income or profit in running their business, they will never care whether their customers are rich or poor because the most important thing is that the casino has many customers and large amount of money turnover.
Everything that happens must really be personal consideration and responsibility of gamblers and poor people can even spend lot of money to gamble, on the other hand, rich people are not all able to lose their money in large amounts.
In gambling, gambler is indeed required to be able to take care of himself and be able to take the right steps in all decisions taken from each result of betting his money, otherwise the gambler will only continue to lose money.

But regarding the redistribution of wealth as OP said, I think that is also not quite right, basically they run to make money and the workers in the casino get paid from their jobs, saying that redistribution of wealth is an unreasonable conspiracy.

[Jody.Drummer]

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?

           -     You know, mate, all I can say is that the casino doesn't care if a player is rich or poor and gambles on their platform. Because the majority of those who play on a casino platform actually lose, and only a few win a large amount of money in their casino.

So, the one who really benefits the most is the casino owner, not the gamblers who enter gambling platforms, whether online or in physical casinos.
Housed edge always win at they never lose ever in the end.

The purpose of the casino is to seek profit from people who gamble in the casino, so it cannot be said that gambling is a way to return wealth. As you said, the majority of those who play also experience defeat and it is something that can be certain that the chances of losing that players have tend to be smaller than the chances of winning, while for the casino itself they have a greater chance of winning than losing.

agree with saying that the most profitable is the casino, even though they have to spend money on winning players but when compared to winning and losing players it is one in ten where the number of winning players is less than the number of losing players, so the victory obtained by the player does not seem to have a big effect on the casino in terms of its profits. and it should be noted that the host will always win in terms of profit because they have the power of everything in gambling, so players can only bet by waiting for luck to happen.

[Outhue]

It is a good definition to call gambling a form of wealth distribution, but isn't wealth distribution something that should be happening between investors themselves? Aka crypto investment or trading, but in gambling it is you and the house.

Now I've never seen where the house lose it all, they have 1% chance of failing while gamblers have 98% chance of losing, running a gambling den or a casino is a very lucrative business if you have the importance experience about how to run the casino.

The house will always win, gambling is programmed to favour the house than the gamblers, to gamblers they need luck to win, for the house they only need dream chasers aka the gamblers to visit their casino.

[khiholangkang]

It is a good definition to call gambling a form of wealth distribution, but isn't wealth distribution something that should be happening between investors themselves? Aka crypto investment or trading, but in gambling it is you and the house.

Now I've never seen where the house lose it all, they have 1% chance of failing while gamblers have 98% chance of losing, running a gambling den or a casino is a very lucrative business if you have the importance experience about how to run the casino.

The house will always win, gambling is programmed to favour the house than the gamblers, to gamblers they need luck to win, for the house they only need dream chasers aka the gamblers to visit their casino.

Then it cannot be considered as wealth distribution, because it is not like we buy bitcoin at low prices when people are afraid and sell bitcoin when many investors are fomo.

Gambling is you and the bookie, I agree with that, systematically different from investing in trading, unless you bet with other people, like in poker, maybe it can be said that the distribution of wealth from gambling because those who win will get their share of winnings, it's just that more people are gambling with the bookie with a level of luck that is difficult to calculate.