|
|
On March 13 2014 11:23 xes wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 10:07 Sufficiency wrote:
Doing all these ETL stuff with Eiii's data made me question why the hell did I not just get 16GB of RAM for my desktop. Don't you just L once since Eii did the E and the T can't be that bad unless the raw data is a huge mess. Unless you mean querying is slow, in which case there probably isn't a better solution, except maybe piping it into SAS which is more efficient at computations. Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 10:06 Goumindong wrote:On March 13 2014 09:39 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 09:05 Sufficiency wrote:On March 13 2014 08:58 lefty wrote:
To give a background, In the past 5 years literally every big professional sport in Korea (baseball, soccer, basketball, volleyball) has had a match fixing scandal. The government has a monopoly on sport gambling(Sports ToTo), with beyond atrocious odds and a very low limit of $ you can bet. Because of such reasons, there is a thriving illegal gambling business, and with the type of people who would be interested in running such things, you get match fixing. LoL is just another category you can bet in.
I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop this. Riot's way of running the LCS is probably better for players, as they are guaranteed $$. Even if you're part of a big team in Korea, they're making fractions of what NA/EU players make. It's probably impossible as Korea has middlemen such as OGN administrating the tournament who need a cut of the revenue. All it takes is one player to fix a game, and I'm absolutely sure these guys get tempting offers from bookies to fix games. I don't understand how deregulating gambling can solve match fixing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_marketOvertaxation and overregulation create profligate black markets. In some industries the black market will greatly exceed the revenues of the white market. In some countries, like Greece, nearly 50% of ALL income is unreported because of these factors. When a black market gets big enough, the players in said market get rich enough to buy off bureaucrats (corruption). Some groups will use this fact to exploit the lack of rule-of-law in the market area by fixing an event (usually an irrelevant event that will see a surprising amount of betting). Then, even if the throw is caught after the fact, there is no repercussions, because what does the cheated party do? Tell the police that they lost $50k unfairly while betting illegally? There isn't any reason for gambling to not be monopolized. Efficiencies in gambling are almost always towards efficiencies of scale, such that you would expect a single larger player to "win" the market anyway. A government monopoly would be the most efficient, since government won't have profit and will not work against regulations which would increase the value to everyone. deregulating the market would not make it harder to cheat as a gambling organization, rather it would do the opposite, it would make it much easier to cheat. That is just a straight up false statement of economics. It would only be true if the monopoly was run efficiently and was run with the intent of being efficient. Deregulation in the airline industries, for instance exposed massive waste. Deregulation of pot is seeing some success in the USA, and government run or regulated monopolies like electric companies or telecoms are notoriously horrid. Deregulation of "sins" has consistently removed the criminal element provided that it is a country with otherwise strong courts and law enforcement. Are you an economist? Because Goumindong is an economist and thus knows better than you.
It's actually just transform. All I need to do is transform. But I am doing it using R, which makes everything really slow. But I am finally over that stage.
|
On March 13 2014 11:33 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 11:23 xes wrote:On March 13 2014 10:07 Sufficiency wrote:
Doing all these ETL stuff with Eiii's data made me question why the hell did I not just get 16GB of RAM for my desktop. Don't you just L once since Eii did the E and the T can't be that bad unless the raw data is a huge mess. Unless you mean querying is slow, in which case there probably isn't a better solution, except maybe piping it into SAS which is more efficient at computations. On March 13 2014 11:22 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 10:06 Goumindong wrote:On March 13 2014 09:39 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 09:05 Sufficiency wrote:On March 13 2014 08:58 lefty wrote:
To give a background, In the past 5 years literally every big professional sport in Korea (baseball, soccer, basketball, volleyball) has had a match fixing scandal. The government has a monopoly on sport gambling(Sports ToTo), with beyond atrocious odds and a very low limit of $ you can bet. Because of such reasons, there is a thriving illegal gambling business, and with the type of people who would be interested in running such things, you get match fixing. LoL is just another category you can bet in.
I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop this. Riot's way of running the LCS is probably better for players, as they are guaranteed $$. Even if you're part of a big team in Korea, they're making fractions of what NA/EU players make. It's probably impossible as Korea has middlemen such as OGN administrating the tournament who need a cut of the revenue. All it takes is one player to fix a game, and I'm absolutely sure these guys get tempting offers from bookies to fix games. I don't understand how deregulating gambling can solve match fixing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_marketOvertaxation and overregulation create profligate black markets. In some industries the black market will greatly exceed the revenues of the white market. In some countries, like Greece, nearly 50% of ALL income is unreported because of these factors. When a black market gets big enough, the players in said market get rich enough to buy off bureaucrats (corruption). Some groups will use this fact to exploit the lack of rule-of-law in the market area by fixing an event (usually an irrelevant event that will see a surprising amount of betting). Then, even if the throw is caught after the fact, there is no repercussions, because what does the cheated party do? Tell the police that they lost $50k unfairly while betting illegally? There isn't any reason for gambling to not be monopolized. Efficiencies in gambling are almost always towards efficiencies of scale, such that you would expect a single larger player to "win" the market anyway. A government monopoly would be the most efficient, since government won't have profit and will not work against regulations which would increase the value to everyone. deregulating the market would not make it harder to cheat as a gambling organization, rather it would do the opposite, it would make it much easier to cheat. That is just a straight up false statement of economics. It would only be true if the monopoly was run efficiently and was run with the intent of being efficient. Deregulation in the airline industries, for instance exposed massive waste. Deregulation of pot is seeing some success in the USA, and government run or regulated monopolies like electric companies or telecoms are notoriously horrid. Deregulation of "sins" has consistently removed the criminal element provided that it is a country with otherwise strong courts and law enforcement. Are you an economist? Because Goumindong is an economist and thus knows better than you. It's actually just transform. All I need to do is transform. But I am doing it using R, which makes everything really slow. But I am finally over that stage.
R gave me cancer which is why I manned up and learned SAS.
|
One of my goals on analyzing Eiii's data is to find out champion counters; for example, if champion B is very strong vs champion A, we may expect champion A's win rate to be lower when champion B is on the other side.
TL;DR: some dumb analysis shows some promising results. Further analysis is required.
For some preliminary number crunching, I chose to examine Yasuo as my champion A. Yasuo was played in 17% of the games in Eiii's data, or roughly 170,000 games (this is after I removed all the games that had duplicated champions due to blind picks). Yasuo's win rate is 0.4992977 in these games - very close to 50%.
Instructions on how to read this is below.
+ Show Spoiler +
Yasuo's win % adj This champion's win %
Annie -0.004645 0.4930965
Olaf 0.011246 0.4555466
Galio -0.002267 0.5027108
TwistedFate 0.017475 0.4505281
XinZhao -0.010030 0.5111428
Urgot 0.022404 0.4261551
Leblanc 0.017096 0.4552870
Vladimir 0.011290 0.4586855
FiddleSticks 0.001502 0.5240406
Kayle -0.010783 0.5234518
MasterYi 0.006370 0.5006758
Alistar -0.000166 0.4511740
Ryze 0.005063 0.4630807
Sion -0.024152 0.4818166
Sivir -0.002710 0.5308822
Soraka -0.002174 0.5076576
Teemo 0.000391 0.5312582
Tristana -0.004650 0.4830660
Warwick 0.009814 0.5238751
Nunu 0.008920 0.4792606
MissFortune -0.000142 0.4964038
Ashe -0.000315 0.5129001
Tryndamere -0.013866 0.5217818
Jax -0.007769 0.5091356
Morgana -0.009800 0.5115442
Zilean 0.003542 0.4966312
Singed 0.001780 0.5007510
Evelynn 0.000132 0.4757726
Twitch 0.009267 0.5001629
Karthus -0.002835 0.4857612
Chogath 0.012001 0.4693000
Amumu -0.013529 0.5437961
Rammus -0.023426 0.5221739
Anivia -0.004136 0.4914551
Shaco 0.000745 0.4810062
DrMundo 0.014199 0.4768480
Sona 0.000435 0.5222691
Kassadin -0.001545 0.5097576
Irelia 0.010808 0.4786336
Janna 0.008460 0.5120600
Gangplank -0.008929 0.4800831
Corki 0.001044 0.4793910
Karma 0.001750 0.4790261
Taric -0.006530 0.5118380
Veigar 0.022977 0.4663137
Trundle -0.002527 0.4876048
Swain -0.022453 0.5277324
Caitlyn -0.005876 0.5003100
Blitzcrank 0.000821 0.5161479
Malphite 0.009189 0.5048160
Katarina -0.015486 0.5234644
Nocturne 0.001194 0.4917405
Maokai 0.005212 0.4805472
Renekton -0.008573 0.4941643
JarvanIV -0.005083 0.5031468
Elise 0.001143 0.4827949
Orianna 0.003938 0.4881132
MonkeyKing 0.006795 0.5540627
Brand 0.000426 0.5207058
LeeSin -0.004089 0.4779830
Vayne 0.001088 0.4633919
Rumble 0.003463 0.4923077
Cassiopeia 0.008583 0.4846513
Skarner -0.004504 0.4701811
Heimerdinger 0.003608 0.5280885
Nasus -0.003769 0.5027265
Nidalee 0.016610 0.4828968
Udyr -0.006161 0.4960711
Poppy 0.004993 0.4862114
Gragas 0.012777 0.4882575
Pantheon -0.013000 0.4959924
Ezreal 0.002467 0.4768249
Mordekaiser -0.017373 0.5007596
Yorick 0.013743 0.4990210
Akali -0.014647 0.5142936
Kennen -0.017185 0.4900385
Garen -0.002822 0.4896779
Leona -0.005915 0.5320253
Malzahar -0.019930 0.5239183
Talon -0.009916 0.5227532
Riven -0.005950 0.4815608
KogMaw 0.018071 0.4974809
Shen 0.015854 0.4661459
Lux 0.012549 0.4991026
Xerath 0.002875 0.4727922
Shyvana 0.002239 0.4985165
Ahri 0.004819 0.4854986
Graves 0.010269 0.4901724
Fizz -0.001902 0.4938033
Volibear 0.002826 0.5079044
Rengar 0.004863 0.4797768
Varus -0.001848 0.4935104
Nautilus 0.011354 0.4649844
Viktor -0.003180 0.4962859
Sejuani 0.016686 0.4997981
Fiora -0.025034 0.5397920
Ziggs -0.000040 0.5272418
Lulu -0.004412 0.5011799
Draven 0.004663 0.5225094
Hecarim 0.013616 0.4986322
Khazix -0.003079 0.5023851
Darius -0.007306 0.4940801
Jayce 0.007560 0.4826982
Lissandra 0.014003 0.4769720
Diana 0.003552 0.4843035
Quinn 0.008080 0.4943556
Syndra 0.008137 0.4794059
Zyra -0.003506 0.5014374
Zac 0.005586 0.4723438
Yasuo 0.000000 0.4992977
Velkoz -0.011679 0.4890524
Jinx -0.002689 0.5159284
Lucian -0.005443 0.5013878
Zed 0.016687 0.4589574
Vi 0.004838 0.5229365
Aatrox -0.004097 0.4867007
Nami 0.013130 0.5086777
Thresh -0.000483 0.5031129
Here's how this table works. For example let's take a look these hand-picked rows:
Yasuo's win % adj This champion's win %
Annie -0.004645 0.4930965
TwistedFate 0.017475 0.4505281
Amumu -0.013529 0.5437961
Warwick 0.009814 0.5238751
Nami 0.013130 0.5086777
This means that when Yasuo is playing against an Annie, Yasuo loses 0.4656% more often; on the other hand, Annie wins 49.30965% of the time overall (with or without Yasuo in the game).
The second column is important, because for example Yasuo seems to lose to Amumu 1.3529% more often, but Amumu is fucking OP with 54% win rate, so it's hard to say at this point if Yasuo's decreased win rate is due to Amumu stronger against Yasuo in particular or Amumu is just strong in general. You can also make a similar argument with Twisted Fate, but in the other direction.
Now let's look at Warwick and Nami. It seems that Yasuo wins about 1% more often against those two champions, but those two are actually with above 50% win rate themselves otherwise. So we have some evidence that Yasuo might be stronger against Warwick and Nami.
Unfortunately most of the other data fall into the Amumu/Twisted Fate scenarios. To analyze those I need to do some adjustments (also need to do some inference so we know the results are statistically significant). I have some plans in mind, but it won't happen until this weekend probably.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 13 2014 11:22 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 10:06 Goumindong wrote:On March 13 2014 09:39 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 09:05 Sufficiency wrote:On March 13 2014 08:58 lefty wrote:
To give a background, In the past 5 years literally every big professional sport in Korea (baseball, soccer, basketball, volleyball) has had a match fixing scandal. The government has a monopoly on sport gambling(Sports ToTo), with beyond atrocious odds and a very low limit of $ you can bet. Because of such reasons, there is a thriving illegal gambling business, and with the type of people who would be interested in running such things, you get match fixing. LoL is just another category you can bet in.
I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop this. Riot's way of running the LCS is probably better for players, as they are guaranteed $$. Even if you're part of a big team in Korea, they're making fractions of what NA/EU players make. It's probably impossible as Korea has middlemen such as OGN administrating the tournament who need a cut of the revenue. All it takes is one player to fix a game, and I'm absolutely sure these guys get tempting offers from bookies to fix games. I don't understand how deregulating gambling can solve match fixing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_marketOvertaxation and overregulation create profligate black markets. In some industries the black market will greatly exceed the revenues of the white market. In some countries, like Greece, nearly 50% of ALL income is unreported because of these factors. When a black market gets big enough, the players in said market get rich enough to buy off bureaucrats (corruption). Some groups will use this fact to exploit the lack of rule-of-law in the market area by fixing an event (usually an irrelevant event that will see a surprising amount of betting). Then, even if the throw is caught after the fact, there is no repercussions, because what does the cheated party do? Tell the police that they lost $50k unfairly while betting illegally? There isn't any reason for gambling to not be monopolized. Efficiencies in gambling are almost always towards efficiencies of scale, such that you would expect a single larger player to "win" the market anyway. A government monopoly would be the most efficient, since government won't have profit and will not work against regulations which would increase the value to everyone. deregulating the market would not make it harder to cheat as a gambling organization, rather it would do the opposite, it would make it much easier to cheat. That is just a straight up false statement of economics. It would only be true if the monopoly was run efficiently and was run with the intent of being efficient. Deregulation in the airline industries, for instance exposed massive waste. Deregulation of pot is seeing some success in the USA, and government run or regulated monopolies like electric companies or telecoms are notoriously horrid. Deregulation of "sins" has consistently removed the criminal element provided that it is a country with otherwise strong courts and law enforcement. he's saying in gamboling there tends to be a natural monopoly anyway because of excessive market power rolling itself over. in a typical econospeak usage of 'deregulation' it means a market without any govt actor at all. in this scenario the private gambling market would still behave like a monopoly due to the aforementioned natural monopoly tendency. this feature of that industry is the substantive point he made, and to this your statement "It would only be true if the monopoly was run efficiently and was run with the intent of being efficient" seems to be way out of left field, because he's not really defending monopoly in general.
|
On March 13 2014 11:13 Kiett wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 09:53 sob3k wrote:On March 13 2014 09:40 TitusVI wrote:On March 13 2014 09:14 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 13 2014 08:37 wei2coolman wrote:On March 13 2014 08:35 Amethyst21 wrote:
Welp, RIP LoL's boom period in Korea Hardly. The scene won't get hurt from this. The way it was presented is so the blame is solely on the manager and not a reflection of the scene itself. The BW scene was even bigger in korea than lol is right now, and that matchfixing scandal crippled it. I don't want to sound unfriendly but can you back that up with something because somehow I can hardly believe that bw years ago was bigger then lol today. Just look at the viewers at lol worlds and players counts of lol today. It is probably much more then bw was at that time. Well player counts and viewer totals are worldwide streaming which basically didn't exist during BW. Certainly not the way they do today. Also BW was nearly all korea, where as LoL is much more global. S3 championships: + Show Spoiler + 2006 Proleague finals BW: + Show Spoiler +S3 championships had ~15k crowd generously, compared to pretty definite audiences of 40+k for BW events, with numbers like 80k being mentioned. That's such a dumb way to compare numbers. Proleague finals were free events. Anyone who wanted to show up could just show up and get a seat. They took place on a popular beach in Busan, where plenty of normal and casually interested people could just pass by and join in on the hubbub. The S3 championship took place in the Staples center, with limited space, and where tickets sold out within an hour were getting resold for hundreds and thousands of dollars. I myself threw out 200 bucks to get floor seats; the guy next to me told me he paid $450 for his. No shit more people show up to a free event than the one where you have to chuck tons of money and an arm and a leg to get a ticket. TBH, I don't have an opinion on either side of this argument, but comparing events with totally different circumstances is stupid and pretty poor evidence.
Thats why I'm not concluding anything relative from it. He just seemed doubtful that BW was nearly as big in Korea as LoL is now, and I think even as incomparable as they are, they do show that both were pretty serious.
|
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, these conclusions are from idealized models. i'm not a grad econ student but the basic gist is that if market share gives you profit extraction power, and you are able to enlarge that share through this power, then at equilibrium you'll have a monopoly even without govt.
it's not a pro-monopoly stance tho, just stating that a certain market will tend toward natural monopoly and thus benefit from governance of some kind. totally letting gamboling run without supervision is surely not the only option apart from what korea is doing now.
|
On March 13 2014 12:16 cLutZ wrote:
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers.
You're bad at this too. Goumindong is bad because he likes to be deliberately obtuse to extract pedantic smugs.
The original post you got worked up about
On March 13 2014 09:05 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 08:58 lefty wrote:
To give a background, In the past 5 years literally every big professional sport in Korea (baseball, soccer, basketball, volleyball) has had a match fixing scandal. The government has a monopoly on sport gambling(Sports ToTo), with beyond atrocious odds and a very low limit of $ you can bet. Because of such reasons, there is a thriving illegal gambling business, and with the type of people who would be interested in running such things, you get match fixing. LoL is just another category you can bet in.
I honestly don't know if there is a way to stop this. Riot's way of running the LCS is probably better for players, as they are guaranteed $$. Even if you're part of a big team in Korea, they're making fractions of what NA/EU players make. It's probably impossible as Korea has middlemen such as OGN administrating the tournament who need a cut of the revenue. All it takes is one player to fix a game, and I'm absolutely sure these guys get tempting offers from bookies to fix games. I don't understand how deregulating gambling can solve match fixing.
was an incorrect summary. I doubt lefty calls for total deregulation of gambling, in which case black markets would run amok and trend toward* monopoly and conglomerates.
Your reply wasn't totally incorrect, but our hero Goumindong takes the chance to blow yours out of context so that he can drop his "As an economist" bombshells
On March 13 2014 10:06 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 09:39 cLutZ wrote:On March 13 2014 09:05 Sufficiency wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_marketOvertaxation and overregulation create profligate black markets. In some industries the black market will greatly exceed the revenues of the white market. In some countries, like Greece, nearly 50% of ALL income is unreported because of these factors. When a black market gets big enough, the players in said market get rich enough to buy off bureaucrats (corruption). Some groups will use this fact to exploit the lack of rule-of-law in the market area by fixing an event (usually an irrelevant event that will see a surprising amount of betting). Then, even if the throw is caught after the fact, there is no repercussions, because what does the cheated party do? Tell the police that they lost $50k unfairly while betting illegally? There isn't any reason for gambling to not be monopolized. Efficiencies in gambling are almost always towards efficiencies of scale, such that you would expect a single larger player to "win" the market anyway. A government monopoly would be the most efficient, since government won't have profit and will not work against regulations which would increase the value to everyone. deregulating the market would not make it harder to cheat as a gambling organization, rather it would do the opposite, it would make it much easier to cheat.
Obviously, you meant excessive regulation done poorly/corruptly means that there is almost no incentive to be a fair player, while G-dangus here drops the bombshell that gambling is a risk aggregation market so the larger you are the more resilient you are to risk* and thus you can buy risk from the players at better margins; ergo, gambling tends towards monopoly, and thus an unregulated monopoly has even less incentive to be a fair player.
Unfortunately, you took his bait and came up with a very reasonable example, thus violating the hidden postulates the People's Donger has set as basis for his pedantry. Vegas is not a single giant conglomerate (at least on paper, Illuminati notwithstanding if you believe such things) for reasons entirely different than the nature of gambling, but entirely relevant to how a better gambling ecosystem can reduce match fixing in Korea.
*There is a natural limit to how large risk buyers can get because eventually you get so large that tail risks are uninsurable and cause significant implosions. A bunch of distributed crime syndicates is more robust in the long term because if Super Boss Man suffers a heart attack, the entire crime system won't implode into infighting (only a smaller gang will and be quickly eaten up).
|
On March 13 2014 12:16 cLutZ wrote:
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers.
"The economics of the second best" was written over 50 years ago and is 100% in line with modern economics. This shit isn't a secret.
And while its true that Vegas isn't a monopoly* the main impetus there is land and the accompanying resorts. It is not the case that the size of a companies capital reserve has a negative effect on the efficiency for which it provides gambling services, rather the other way around. The larger a companies capital reserves the more efficiently it can provide gambling because the more efficiently it can deal with the associated risks.
The idea, basically, that you could just open up the market to new players and illegal gambling would go down is ridiculous. As is the idea that legal private gambling institutions would be less susceptible to manipulation and fraud. I mean the math is very simple. The smaller the gambling pool the easier it is to manipulate it, similarly the more gambling organizations the harder it is to police them for fraud. This is true so long as customers don't have a preference for illegal gambling as opposed to legal gambling (and why they would have that preference is beyond me)
*though it is actually pretty close. Caesar's and MGM own over half of the Casino's on the strip in Vegas. Enough that defining them as a duopoly wouldn't be out of the question.
|
On March 13 2014 14:50 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 12:16 cLutZ wrote:
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers. "The economics of the second best" was written over 50 years ago and is 100% in line with modern economics. This shit isn't a secret. And while its true that Vegas isn't a monopoly* the main impetus there is land and the accompanying resorts. It is not the case that the size of a companies capital reserve has a negative effect on the efficiency for which it provides gambling services, rather the other way around. The larger a companies capital reserves the more efficiently it can provide gambling because the more efficiently it can deal with the associated risks. The idea, basically, that you could just open up the market to new players and illegal gambling would go down is ridiculous. As is the idea that legal private gambling institutions would be less susceptible to manipulation and fraud. I mean the math is very simple. The smaller the gambling pool the easier it is to manipulate it, similarly the more gambling organizations the harder it is to police them for fraud. This is true so long as customers don't have a preference for illegal gambling as opposed to legal gambling (and why they would have that preference is beyond me)*though it is actually pretty close. Caesar's and MGM own over half of the Casino's on the strip in Vegas. Enough that defining them as a duopoly wouldn't be out of the question.
lefty specifically mentioned in his post about gambling in Korea that the odds are terrible for players in legal channels and much better in illegal channels - so much so that the volume there is enough for match fixing to become very lucrative.
I mean if the only brokerage was run by the government and charged $50 commissions, would you be surprised that black market OTC exchanges would suddenly become very popular?
|
No to the second though the first gives me pause. If the odds given by a black market gambling organization are significantly off the odds given by the govt I would be very suspect of fraud at the bm org.
Your point about fat tail risks is also valuable though if the fat tail event is large enough to sink the government you probably have more things to worry about than whether or not you're going to be able to lay a bet on the next SKT game.
|
what happened to the reddit post about the site that can get anyone's ip address from league of legends?
|
On March 13 2014 15:52 IMoperator wrote:
what happened to the reddit post about the site that can get anyone's ip address from league of legends?
Probably got nuked to avoid people posting the link.
|
does anyone know the site? im pretty sure i just got ddos'd by hao.
|
On March 13 2014 16:02 IMoperator wrote:
does anyone know the site? im pretty sure i just got ddos'd by hao.
Doubt knowing the site would matter.
|
On March 13 2014 14:50 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 12:16 cLutZ wrote:
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers. "The economics of the second best" was written over 50 years ago and is 100% in line with modern economics. This shit isn't a secret. And while its true that Vegas isn't a monopoly* the main impetus there is land and the accompanying resorts. It is not the case that the size of a companies capital reserve has a negative effect on the efficiency for which it provides gambling services, rather the other way around. The larger a companies capital reserves the more efficiently it can provide gambling because the more efficiently it can deal with the associated risks. The idea, basically, that you could just open up the market to new players and illegal gambling would go down is ridiculous. As is the idea that legal private gambling institutions would be less susceptible to manipulation and fraud. I mean the math is very simple. The smaller the gambling pool the easier it is to manipulate it, similarly the more gambling organizations the harder it is to police them for fraud. This is true so long as customers don't have a preference for illegal gambling as opposed to legal gambling (and why they would have that preference is beyond me)*though it is actually pretty close. Caesar's and MGM own over half of the Casino's on the strip in Vegas. Enough that defining them as a duopoly wouldn't be out of the question.
Yeah, why would people think the idea of making ridiculous sums of money that is nontaxable is attractive when they could make less money, and then be taxed on it.
Gambling is a go for broke thing, people don't gamble to gain smart and reliable income.
|
|
|
On March 13 2014 16:15 iCanada wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 14:50 Goumindong wrote:On March 13 2014 12:16 cLutZ wrote:
Because Vegas is such a monopoly...
A pro-monopoly stance from an economist is either an incredibly niche application, which he hasn't explained in the least, or is in contrast with the last 50 years of modern economics. And you really don't need to be an economist to know that.
Hell, even lotteries are terrible for consumers. "The economics of the second best" was written over 50 years ago and is 100% in line with modern economics. This shit isn't a secret. And while its true that Vegas isn't a monopoly* the main impetus there is land and the accompanying resorts. It is not the case that the size of a companies capital reserve has a negative effect on the efficiency for which it provides gambling services, rather the other way around. The larger a companies capital reserves the more efficiently it can provide gambling because the more efficiently it can deal with the associated risks. The idea, basically, that you could just open up the market to new players and illegal gambling would go down is ridiculous. As is the idea that legal private gambling institutions would be less susceptible to manipulation and fraud. I mean the math is very simple. The smaller the gambling pool the easier it is to manipulate it, similarly the more gambling organizations the harder it is to police them for fraud. This is true so long as customers don't have a preference for illegal gambling as opposed to legal gambling (and why they would have that preference is beyond me)*though it is actually pretty close. Caesar's and MGM own over half of the Casino's on the strip in Vegas. Enough that defining them as a duopoly wouldn't be out of the question. Yeah, why would people think the idea of making ridiculous sums of money that is nontaxable is attractive when they could make less money, and then be taxed on it. Gambling is a go for broke thing, people don't gamble to gain smart and reliable income.
Why would "legal but deregulated" gambling be tax free?
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Welcome to the world of technology, where pretty much anything exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn0.sbnation.com/assets/3517059/league_of_legends_world_championships_staples_crowd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/20/starcraft_tourney.jpg)
