If everything is gambling, then nothing is gambling. The point of words is to make distinctions.
There is an important difference between taking a chance on something (like a new project) and making a bet in a system that has been set up for the express purpose of extracting money from bettors.
When you take risks in real life, there’s no “house”. There’s nobody who’s set up the entire arrangement to extract from you. When you engage in casino gambling, sports-book betting, or the state lottery, there is a “house”; there is someone more powerful than you who has constructed the system in which you’re playing, and who expects to be able to reliably extract value from you and other bettors. You can tell they’re in this position because otherwise the game would not be there to be played.
You’re arguing that the definition of gambling is that there’s a house moderating wagering on an outcome. To clarify, does that mean that you think that prediction markets are not gambling?
I am not saying that my definition of gambling is necessarily objectively correct, neither is yours, but I was just stating an opinion.
You’re arguing that the definition of gambling is that there’s a house moderating wagering on an outcome
Not at all. I am, first, saying that “everything is gambling” is a mistake, a failure of reasoning; and, second, saying that there are important distinctions to make about different kinds of risk-taking, one of them being whether the risk is being offered by a negative-sum extractive system.
You implied that in your previous message when you said “When you take risks in real life, there’s no ‘house’”.
What would you argue the definition of gambling is? Also, do you agree that if we use the definition of “risking something for a potential gain,” wouldn’t that make every decision a gamble?
If everything is gambling, then nothing is gambling. The point of words is to make distinctions.
There is an important difference between taking a chance on something (like a new project) and making a bet in a system that has been set up for the express purpose of extracting money from bettors.
When you take risks in real life, there’s no “house”. There’s nobody who’s set up the entire arrangement to extract from you. When you engage in casino gambling, sports-book betting, or the state lottery, there is a “house”; there is someone more powerful than you who has constructed the system in which you’re playing, and who expects to be able to reliably extract value from you and other bettors. You can tell they’re in this position because otherwise the game would not be there to be played.
You’re arguing that the definition of gambling is that there’s a house moderating wagering on an outcome. To clarify, does that mean that you think that prediction markets are not gambling?
I am not saying that my definition of gambling is necessarily objectively correct, neither is yours, but I was just stating an opinion.
Not at all. I am, first, saying that “everything is gambling” is a mistake, a failure of reasoning; and, second, saying that there are important distinctions to make about different kinds of risk-taking, one of them being whether the risk is being offered by a negative-sum extractive system.
You implied that in your previous message when you said “When you take risks in real life, there’s no ‘house’”.
What would you argue the definition of gambling is? Also, do you agree that if we use the definition of “risking something for a potential gain,” wouldn’t that make every decision a gamble?
I recommend reading the sequence “A Human’s Guide to Words”.