Why Ban Sports Bets?
Sports betting is in the news today, with the rise of Kalshi and Polymarket. Critics point to many issues, but I think most are excuses; what really bothers most is just typical sports bets. On reflection, I’m a bit puzzled by this. Let me explain.
Traditional societies have discouraged, regulated, and banned many kinds of pleasures. Such as sleep, idleness, fancy or plentiful food, fancy clothes, travel, humor, music and dancing, gossip and small talk, drugs and intoxication, fiction, gaming, gambling, bragging, gossip, fighting, spanking, and many forms of sex including prostitution. They feared such pleasures distracting from work and piety.
Our world still bans many things, but pleasure isn’t usually a central consideration; we are far more indulgent and approving of pleasure. Yet we still do ban a few pleasures, including recreational drugs, dogfighting, corporal punishment, loan sharks, dwarf-tossing, gambling, and sex that is paid or with minors. Drugs, dogfighting, dwarf-tossing, corporal punishment, and loan sharks seem to be about physical harms, and also shame and empathy. Sex has long evoked deep complex opaque feelings.
But sports bets don’t involve shame, physical harm, or deep opaque feelings. We mostly approve of sports, and of people putting lots of time and energy into playing and watching sports. And sports bets complements those activities, making them more interesting, engaging, and better informed.
Yes, we dislike money all else equal, but we let money touch many adjacent areas. Yes, sports bets can waste time and money, but so do a great many allowed pleasures. Yes, they involve risk, but we let people take big risks in deciding who to date, and in longshot careers like acting, music, or athletics. Yes, sports bets resolve faster, but you can bet just as fast and big in ordinary financial markets. Yes, bookies once charged high fees, but new markets have far lower fees.
I guess I lean toward explaining banned sports bets as just a random exception to our usual historical trend, which seems a weak but good sign re how long we’ll let these new sports betting markets continue to be legal. Not my thing, but I usually don’t mind others having fun via their things.
Added 14Apr: Many point to the possibility of commitment problems, where people are tempted in the moment to do stuff they would want to commit ahead of time not to do. But it isn’t that hard to set up commitment mechanisms, and when we do few actually avail themselves of such options.
Last time I checked, sports bookies are mostly banning competent gamblers and only allowing innumerate gamblers to play. In your own terms, banning sports betting is adaptive for societies because it’s a zero sum or typically negative sum use of money
Probably as a kind of imperfect commitment mechanism. We see an activity where people tend to express a desire to do less of it when in far mode than they actually do when in near mode -- in other words it shows hyperbolic discounting -- we reasonably suspect that people are acting in utility negative ways.
Some kind of truly effective system where people could sign up to prevent themselves from gambling (eg to remove yourself from the ban list requires taking action months before you are removed) or to impose dollar limits on themselves might be preferable if we could make it work. The difficulty is that implementing it is difficult because it requires people verify who they are and raises concerns about people placing bets for others. But I still think would be a good idea.
I believe some states do have this for casinos but not in a very effective or advertised form.