Posts Tagged ‘gambling’
“Gambling is a tax on ignorance”*…
And as Einstein observed, “two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Gambling– and related specualtive investments– have always been, for the vast majority of punters, a sucker’s bet. But, as Paul Kedrosky explains, the growing prevalence of AI and the emergence of prediction markets have amplified that painful reality…
The return skew in prediction markets’ returns is startling. It is partly a function of their nature, but also of vibe-coding script kiddies attacking every market anomaly as quickly as it arises. Check a recent WSJ article for examples.
The same dynamic is now spreading across retail-dominated markets. A driver is how AI lowers the cost of systematic exploitation and exploration to near zero. What used to require infrastructure, data pipelines, and bearded quants is now accessible via off-the-shelf models, APIs, and loosely stitched “agent” workflows doing … stuff that even their users don’t fully understand.
The result isn’t democratization of returns. It is wider participation, of a sort, alongside the rapid re-concentration of profits. A small subset of users—those willing to iterate fastest, monitor continuously, and deploy capital programmatically—capture gains, with everyone else just liquidity.
They scrape sentiment, parse new information, and reprice positions in seconds, compressing the half-life of mispricings. That doesn’t eliminate inefficiency, but changes who harvests it. The edge shifts from insight to speed, coverage, and execution discipline—areas where even modest automation compounds quickly, and edges disappear overnight.
Prediction markets are simply the cleanest expression of this trend because they combine thin liquidity, discrete outcomes, and high retail participation. But the same pattern is visible in options flow, single-stock volatility events, and even online poker, which AI increasingly dominates.
As AI tools continue to scale, expect this to get worse: a small cohort running semi-automated strategies extracting semi-consistent edge, and a much larger base supplying them returns. Under the pressure of AI prevalance, markets don’t flatten, the return gradient steepens to a cliff…
Fewer and fewer winners take more and more of the pot. The mechanics of concentration: “AI is Eating Markets” from @paulkedrosky.com.
* Warren Buffett
###
As we contemplate concentration, we might note that today is Mother’s Day. As noted yesterday, the observance became official on that date in 1914. But the quest to honor moms began a good bit earlier. On this date in 1908, Anna Jarvis held a memorial for her mother at St. Andrew’s Methodist Church in Grafton, West Virginia, the location of the International Mother’s Day Shrine. But her quest to create Mother’s Day had begun three years earlier when her mother Ann, a lifelong activist, died.
Ann had tried to start a “Mother’s Remembrance Day” in the mid-19th century. On her passing, Anna enlisted the support of retailer extraordinaire John Wanamaker, who knew a merchandising opportunity when he saw one, and who hosted the first Mother’s Day ceremonies in his Philadelphia emporium’s auditorium. In 1912, Anna trademarked the phrases “second Sunday in May” and “Mother’s Day”, and created the Mother’s Day International Association. By 1914, she and Wanamaker had built sufficient support in Congress to score the Congressional Resolution noted yesterday. (President Wilson, who was by current accounts uninterested in the move– distracted as he was by the beginnings of his ultimately unsuccessful effort to keep the U.S. out of the troubles in Europe that became World War I– nonetheless knew better than to take a stand against moms.)
“The gambling known as business looks with austere disfavor upon the business known as gambling”*…
The quote above, from Ambrose Bierce, was true enough until relatively recently. Business has embraced gaming. When the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports betting in 2018, Americans, who had legally wagered less than $5 billion on sports annually. Last year, they bet $150 billion, most of it online (with the active involvement of leagues and the broadcasters who serve up their games). And now prediction markets are on the scene, widening the apperture for online casino-like wagering to include politics, the Golden Globe awards, the return of Jesus Christ and virtually anything else… which could be a problem.
Indeed, just this past week, Common Sense Media released a report on gambling by young boys that reveals (among other deeply concerning things) that 1 in 3 American boys ages 11-17 are gambling before they can vote. (Full report here.)
Gambling addiction has been an issue in the U.S. for decades. But with the onslaught of new ways to wager, the problem is surging. And as Benjamin Errett (observes in an amusing piece on “McGuffins“– objects, devices, or events necessary to plot and the motivation of characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself), it’s a particularly problematic problem…
There’s a compelling argument to be made that money is the true MacGuffin. George Ainslie [here], a psychiatrist and behavioural economist, makes that case in a very readable paper on addiction and regrettable choices. He gets right to the weird thing about gambling as a compulsive behaviour: Spending money for a chance of getting more money (with the likelihood of losing it) is illogically direct. (I too got stuck on this paradox in The Wit’s Guide to Gambling, and some part of my brain is still spinning on the roulette table.) If you simply must have cocaine or hot fudge sundaes or hot cocaine fudge sundaes, the immediate pleasure and later pain are in different modalities. And so Ainslie concludes that money is a MacGuffin because it’s “the object of a hedonic game that is justified by its instrumental believability but which is actually shaped by its production of satisfaction in its own right.” Ergo, capitalism is a Hitchcock movie….
– source
Ainsle’s essay, prepared for a conference on addiction, is eminently worth reading and pondering.
###
As we turn our backs on baccarat, we might recall that it was on this date in 1960 that “Money (That’s What I Want)” by Barrett Strong entered the Billboard Hot 100. Written by Berry Gordy and Janie Bradford, the single was the first hit record by Gordy’s Motown Records (released on Motown’s Tamla label). The song peaked at #23 in April and was the only song recorded by Strong that reached the Hot 100, though Strong went on to write many of Motown’s biggest hits. It was, of course, covered by The Beatles, among many others.
And we might note that today is the first day of a “prefectly square” month…
“Financialization is neither finance-nor enterprise-driven”…
The estimable Brad DeLong has observed that Marx was right: “all that is solid melts into air”…
Since 1870, worldwide, on average, according to our flawed standard measures, every thirty years about 4/5 of the economy have improved in technology and productivity by roughly 25%, at a rate of roughly 0.8% per year. And 1/5 of the economy has quintupled in technology and productivity, at a rate of about 5.4% per year. That leaves average productivity, worldwide, roughly twice what it was a generation before. And it is a different, although overlapping, share of the economy that undergoes this massive leading-sector push every generation.
And so, since 1870, we have seen successive Steampower, Applied-Science, Mass Production, Globalized Value-Chain, and now Attention Info-Bio Tech modes, with these transformations occurring faster and more completely in today’s rich countries and slower and incompletely in today’s poor countries, but with life even in poor countries being substantially transformed vis-à-vis life 150 years ago…
… For most people, a generation sees (i) some change in their roles as producers in the organization and productivity of their jobs and the pieces of the societal division of labor that they do, some change in their roles as consumers and utilizers of most of the products of the human division of labor, but about one-fifth or so of their life as consumers and utilizers of the products of the human division of labor completely upended, largely in a good way. And then there are the 1/5 of people whose jobs and whose roles as producers were caught up in the Schumpeterian creative-destruction leading-sector technology tsunami, for whom little is the same as it was thirty years before. That change is to their substantial detriment if they tried to do the old thing in the old way: their real incomes then would be only 1/4 or so of what they would have expected. But that change would have been to their substantial benefit had they found a way to successfully surf the wave.
To summarize: Since 1770, the modern economy changes by puncture, not glide. Every thirty years these days, a sector explodes—lifting productivity, reorganizing firms, and scrambling career ladders. Roughly four-fifths inch forward, while one-fifth quintuples and redefines the frontier. Those leading sectors—steam, mass production, information—rebuild institutions and stress politics as they march. Most people experience partial gains in consumption and workflow; the unlucky fifth face brutal displacement unless they pivot fast. Past waves forged industry, mass production, suburbia, microelectronics; each remapped the social order, often painfully. Average living standards rise, but the distribution is jagged, and the politics volatile. Today’s leading edge runs through data centers and cognitive work: prompts, context engineering, evaluation, and synthesis. The liberal arts—long buffered—now sit at ground zero. Survival means translation: turn judgment, clarity, and taste into leverage over machines and markets, while rebuilding public capacity to manage the turbulence…
– “All That Is Solid Melts into Air”: Since 1870, Roughly One-Fifth of the Economy Is Transformed Every Thirty Years,” from @delong.social
And how’s that going? Two dispatches from the front, on separate but fundamentally-related phenomena emerging in our current “puncture.” First, Luke Goldstein on the way in which a great many major corporations — from airlines to social media platforms — now aspire to become unregulated banks. As he explains, “bankification” today accounts for the highest profit margins in the US economy, crippling productive capacity and setting the stage for the next crash…
The US economy is turning into one giant bank.
Starbucks holds nearly $2 billion of customers’ money in its rewards program. That’s more than the total deposits managed by 85 percent of chartered banks, making the coffee chain one of the biggest financial institutions in the country.
Conversely, Capital One, one of the world’s top banks, now operates its own cafes on city street corners.
Airlines are now little more than flying banks, given that they make more money from selling frequent-flyer points to credit card companies than they do flying passengers.
More Americans than ever are in debt to their nearby grocery store due to predatory “buy now, pay later” loans offered during checkout.
As you’re wheeled into an emergency medical procedure, the nurse may ask if you’d prefer to pay on a deferred-payment loan plan, an increasingly common way to finance health care expenses.
And if you can’t pay your rent on time, it could soon become common for your apartment building owner to lend you the money, putting you in debt to your landlord.
These are snapshots of the new wave of financialization sweeping across the country, where the lines between finance and commerce are being blurred.
Upward of 40 percent of Americans now pay for basic items like groceries and health care using borrowed money — and this excludes credit cards. A third of younger Americans hold their savings on nonbank tech platforms like Venmo, and industries from retail to transportation derive anywhere from 14 percent to half of their profits from partnerships with credit card companies.
While this new type of financialization takes many different forms, the endgame is the same: Most major corporations now aspire to become unregulated banks, opening up new avenues to make even more money hand over fist. Banks operating credit cards are the highest-profit-margin enterprises in the economy. Every company wants a share of the loot, amassed from high fees and low overhead costs.
This development has been supercharged by the Silicon Valley investor class, under the Orwellian term “embedded finance.” Others call it “bankification.”
The peddlers of embedded finance promise a world of “frictionless transactions,” providing consumers efficiency and convenience by integrating financial and nonfinancial services.
But these new profit streams come with a range of potential harms….
– “Everything Is Becoming a Bank” from @jacobinmagazin.bsky.social
Next, Ted Gioia on the rise of our gambling culture. He begins by recounting the grimy details of the recent gambling bust that rocked professional basketball (includsing the roles of ESPN and the NBA itself… though…)..
… It’s not just sports. Two weeks before the FBI arrests, the New York Stock Exchange invested $2 billion in the Polymarket betting operation. As Gordan Gekko says in the movie Wall Street: “It’s all about bucks, kid.”
Does the NYSE now count as the sixth family running gambling in New York?
No, it’s not that simple. There are lots of gambling businesses in New York, starting with the government. The NY State Lottery brings in more cash than all the Mafia families combined. So the NYSE is a johnny-come-lately to the gaming tables, like country rubes visiting the Statue of Liberty…
[Gioia unpacks the “ideas”seven rules of casino design and management” of casino design expert Bill Friedman (“a former gambling addict who wrote a very influential (and expensive) book on casino design”]
… Of course, the real insidious process is happening online, where every big web platform is imitating a gambling casino. And they rake in gangsta profits bigger than any gangsta has ever made.
How bad is it? Consider this fact: Among the eight largest companies in the world, at least half of them promote addiction with screen interfaces that mimic slot machines…
– “Why Is Everything Turning into a Casino?” from @tedgioia.bsky.social
The last word, which applies to both pieces, from Gioia:
Of course, none of this demands your participation. You can leave the casino at any moment—or never enter in the first place. Even if gambling is addictive, most people refuse the bait.
That’s especially true right now. Las Vegas tourism has fallen dramatically. And when you interview consumers, they will tell you why—they are upset at the casinos. The gambling business has become too exploitative and manipulative.
So people just walk away.
The exact same thing is starting to happen with social media. And for the same reason—folks are fed up with the apps. Many stop using them, and brag about it to their friends. So the trend of walking away feeds on itself…
… Maybe businesses need to find a different role model than a casino. It’s not hard to think of a few examples.
So let me close with a wild idea.
Perhaps they can design web apps to serve people—instead of controlling, manipulating, and surveilling them. After all, many businesses once thrived with that simple formula. It’s not too late to return to that practice…
By way of understanding “casino design and management” techniques at work online, see also “Catalog of Dark Patterns, “a variety of dark pattern examples, sorted by category, to better understand deceptive [consumer experience] design practices,” from Dark Patterns.
And by way of context: “The Invisible Economic Crisis,” (Louis Hyman interviewed in TNR), “It Is Trump’s Casino Economy Now. You’ll Probably Lose,” from Kyla Scanlon. and Scanlon’s follow-up piece in her newsletter: “How Bible Sales and Chipotle Explain the Economy.”
###
As we just say no, we might recall that it was on this date in 1834 that the first mention of the card game poker was published, a reference to an account by English actor Joseph Cowell, who reported that the game was played in New Orleans and on Mississippi River boats (as recounted in Jonathan H. Green‘s book, An Exposure of the Arts and Miseries of Gambling.
Poker itself originated in the late 18th century, and had probably spread throughout the Mississippi River region by 1800. It was played in a variety of forms, with 52 cards, and included both straight poker and stud. 20 card poker (the variety referenced by Cowell) was a variant for two players. (It is a common English practice to reduce the deck in card games when there are fewer players).
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”*…
Your correspondent is headed onto the road again; so, with apologies, regular service will be suspended until on or about May 17…
… In the meantime, the remarkable Henry Farrell offers sage advice…
Last Thursday, Combinations (a publication of the RadicalxChange foundation), published a review essay that I wrote on Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s Abundance. I’m not going to repeat here what I say there; it’s available for free, so if you want to read it, just click on the link! [and one should read it]. Instead, I want to make the implicit argument explicit.
One of the big problems of American politics – and of politics in plenty of places elsewhere – is that we lack usable and attractive futures. The result is the current battle between the defenders of the present, and an incoherent counter-alliance that brings the cultists of an imaginary past and the evangelists of an impossible future into common cause.
Because I am weird, I think that the most immediately useful aspect of Klein and Thompson’s book is not its specific argument about how to get to the future. It is that the book has the promise to reorient the presentists around the prospect of an attractive future, and the different paths you might take to get there. On the one hand, as Dan Davies says (riffing on post-punk philosophizing), if you don’t have a dream then how’re ya gonna have a dream come true? On the other, no single dream is capable of foretelling the One True Path To Abundance (or, for that matter, any other desirable goal) so you want to have useful arguments between people with different dreams, and different plausible paths…
[Farrell discusses the book and its reception– the myriad reactions it has occasioned– puts the debate into an intellectualy historical context, then pivots to his advice…]
… One terrifying prospect for the U.S. is that the Trump faction wins again in 2028. Another is that the Democrats regain power – but that like Keir Starmer’s government, they trap themselves in a vicious cycle where universal expectations of less generate factionalism and political stasis, which further deepen those universal expectations.
That is why I think that abundance is important as a goal. We need to aim towards some version of abundance to escape the trap we’re in. That too, is why I think that disagreement about how to reach that goal over the next couple of years is valuable in two ways.
First, no faction on the left or right has any monopoly on the wisdom about how to get there. It is only through argument – and experimentation in those bits of the federal system and local politics where experimentation is possible – that we can figure out what to do when we can do it. Second, if we can get to a place where the major argument is about how to get towards abundance, not just between center left and centrists, but across the political spectrum, we – for a very broad value of we – will be halfway towards winning the fight we need to win. Far more is politically possible when we are disagreeing over how to get to an attractive future, than when we are struggling to ensure that we are as close to the top of the pile as possible in a horrible one.
We need usable futures that can orient current politics in fruitful ways. Abundance – in the broadest sense of that term – is the closest thing to a common denominator across such futures that I know of…
Abundance not as an agenda but a goal: “We need usable futures,” from @himself.bsky.social.
For contrast, pair with: “Trump’s futurism: Elon’s rockets and fewer dolls for ‘baby girl’” (and Part 2) from @adamtooze.bsky.social.
* Franklin D. Roosevelt
###
As we opt for optimism, we might send cautious birthday greetings to an example of what less-inclusive abundance can yield: John Warne “Bet-a-Million” Gates; he was born on this date in 1855. A Gilded Age industrialist and gambler, Gates was among the first salesmen of barbed wire. He parlayed his success into the manufacture of of the fencing; and success at that, into the manufacture fo steel. (He was instrumental in changing the steel industry’s production methods from the Bessemer process to the open hearth process.) He was the president of Republic Steel and later, of the Texas Company (an oil concern later known as Texaco) and of the Kansas City, Pittsburgh and Gulf Railroad.
Gates developed a taste– and a talent– for gambling at a young age. In his prime, he was known to host raucous, days-long poker games in his permanent suite at the Waldorf-Astoria. His nickname derived from a 1900 horserace in England on which he wagered $70,000 and was widely-reported to have won $1,000,000 (though it seems likely he won “only” $600,000).
“We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is to learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.”*…
Classical economists posit that investment decisions are driven by rationality — a clear-eyed evaluation of risks and rewards… but then, meme stocks.
Kwabena Donkor, an assistant professor of marketing at Stanford Graduate School of Business has just unveiled some new research that suggests that identity distorts our financial choices, leading us to overvalue investments that reinforce our sense of self…
People don’t just invest with their wallets — they invest with their identity,” says Donkor, a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
In a novel field study involving soccer fans, Donkor and several colleagues uncover evidence of how identity can skew economic thinking. The researchers ran a series of experiments focused on fans who placed nearly 40,000 bets on English Premier League matches during the 2021-22 season. Participants — nearly 800 from Kenya and 1,600 from the United Kingdom — were given a budget and asked to place bets on upcoming matches. They received winnings based on the outcomes of randomly selected games.
Most of the participants were longtime supporters of a particular team. (Manchester United was their top favorite.) They were more optimistic about their favorite teams, betting 20% more on them. They rated their teams as having a 10% to 18% higher chance of victory than other teams, even when presented with forecasts from professional oddsmakers suggesting otherwise. These results persisted even after accounting for factors such as personal beliefs and appetite for risk.
The study also finds that participants placed a lower value on gains not aligned with their identity — what the researchers referred to as an “identity tax.” Fans effectively devalued these neutral bets by 17% to 27%. For poorly performing teams, this “tax” could soar as high as 47%, reflecting a strong emotional impulse to support their favorite team even when the odds were against it
The research, detailed in a paper cowritten with Lorenz Goette of the National University of Singapore, Maximilian Müller of the Toulouse School of Economics, Eugen Dimant of the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Kurschilgen of UniDistance Suisse, shows that identity-driven preferences explain much of the gap in bettors’ behavior. Simulations showed that distorted beliefs due to identity account for as much as 44% of the difference in fans’ betting behavior. The remainder stemmed from preferences rooted in identity itself — people were willing to sacrifice potential gains to support options that aligned with who they are…
… The study’s findings have far-reaching implications for understanding economic behavior, particularly in areas like consumer finance, brand loyalty, and even political decision-making…
… the research hints at how consumers view different products. Items that align with a person’s identity are likely to be seen as complements rather than substitutes. For example, Donkor says a consumer who identifies strongly with sustainability might view eco-friendly products as essential enhancements to their lifestyle, even if they’re similar to comparable, less expensive goods.
Ultimately, these findings could improve our thinking about the biases that influence our financial lives. As the researchers point out, acknowledging the role of identity in decision-making is one key to designing better policies, creating more effective financial products, and ultimately improving individual welfare. “If we ignore identity,” Donkor concludes, “we miss the bigger picture in decision-making.”…
Understanding the choices that we, and those around us, make: “What Soccer Fans Can Teach Us About Making Irrational Decisions,” from @SIEPR.
* Aldous Huxley
###
As we ponder the price (and as a reminder that there are other kinds of irrational decisions and that sometimes returns do matter to investors), we might recall that it was on this date in 2008 that Bernard “Bernie” Madoff was arrested and charged with defrauding investment clients of as much as $65 billion. A pioneer in electronic trading and chairman of the Nasdaq stock exchange in the early 1990s, he had turned to money management. By 2008, Madoff was running a huge and growing fund that promised its investors high and stable returns… the problem: it was a Ponzi scheme, the largest known Ponzi scheme in history.
You must be logged in to post a comment.