alt Hacker NewsI think so. If you're going to regulate sports betting (and I think there are good arguments for doing that), but you yourself run a lottery which is a tax on people who don't understand probability, then you are just preaching in a "do as I say not as I do" kind of way.
Replies
The predominate reasoning for a long time now has been lotteries are addicting and bad but a small demand is guaranteed. Therefore, in the name of maximizing social benefit, only the government should run them and the profit is used to funds something less partisan (e.g. education, parks, conservation, gambling addiction services)
For these private betting firms, it's open season trying to find whales like mobile gaming, and there's no end to their greed and exploitation.
You regulate other vices (alcohol, tobacco). Limiting gambling to govt owned lotteries or licenced operators is no different, you can set limits on harm, remove the profit motive if the govt operates it, and (at least where I live) the state lottery funds a large number of community grants.
Regulating it also removes demand for underground or foreign online gambling.
I think this is a little myopic. There are degrees to this. It is very rare to see anyone chase their losses to a lottery ticket. I have literally never heard of anyone doing that in my life. If anything, you see some poor place overspend a bit on those tickets. With all the other types of gambling, you see people being wiped out. I think the details matter.
The difference between the ability to make bets 2-3 times a week for a dollar or two and the ability to drop $500 every play of a sporting event is dramatic.