Re(4): Hard Rock TLDR Posted on October 9, 2025 at 12:43:33 PM by Craig G
For openers, you are needlessly confusing the issue in 2 ways.
1 - "Jimmy got to be pretty good at picking the NFL games" + "possibly had some insider info"
2 - Bringing Guido into it.
The 'insider info' adds a questionable ehics dimension, which has no bearing on the main issue. 'Guido' represents illicit operations, which are also irrelevant.
What we a really discussing here is a player with a high level of skill, like a chess grandmaster, who has worked hard (presumably) to achieve a better understanding of the landscape than the competition. To the point of being able to win consistently.
Is it ethical to ban or limit them? That is the central question.
You also seem to be passing a moral judgement - "it shoulda just been for some entertainment". Exactly who is making that call? What is the basis? People losing thru ignorance and innumeracy is good, the natural order of things, and course the profits from exploiting that should flow to bookies and sports books?
Seems to me if your going to be Puritanical on ethics, then maybe we should ban betting altogether. Then, if you argue that it's all entertainment, just enjoy the games. Or make imaginary bets. Your position seems to be that losing real money is legitimate but winning is not.
So back to the main issue. Does Hard Rock have transparency is their policy? Do they they tell you up front that winning consistently is not allowed? Obviously not, but why does it have to be sub rosa?
Finally, we should examine their ads and promos. If there is anthing promoted that aligns with playing smart, as if that is a good thing, and lead to success, then banning someone who attains that is a clear contradiction. False advertising.
I close this witha little AI take:
Me: I'm glad you said 'industry's messaging' because Hard Rock was just an example. But they probably have little to fear legally. However, if parimutuel betting does not have this problem, nor does high level financial speculation, what parallels can we find, if any?
AI: Excellent distinction - and the parallels are revealing.
**Parimutuel betting** (horse racing, etc.):
- You're betting against other bettors, not the house
- The track takes a fixed percentage (the "takeout") regardless of who wins
- Skilled bettors are **welcome** - they don't threaten the business model
- The track profits from volume, not from you losing specifically
- No contradiction: skill is genuinely rewarded, and the house openly takes its cut from the pool
**Financial markets/speculation**:
- Similar structure - you're trading against other market participants
- Brokers/exchanges profit from transaction fees and spreads
- Consistently profitable traders are **celebrated** - they generate more volume
- Jane Street, Renaissance Technologies, successful hedge funds aren't banned; they're the industry's proof that skill matters
- The "house" (exchanges, brokers) is genuinely neutral about who wins
**The key parallel**: In both cases, the operator profits from **facilitating transactions** rather than from **one side losing**. This eliminates the ethical contradiction entirely.
**The sportsbook difference**:
- They're the counterparty to your bet - when you win, they lose
- This creates the perverse incentive: they must ban winners to survive
- Yet they can't market honestly ("Come lose money to us!"), so they borrow the language of skill-based competition
**What we find**: The contradiction exists specifically in markets where:
1. The operator is counterparty to bets (conflicted interest)
2. The operator markets skill/strategy (borrowed legitimacy)
3. The operator systematically eliminates skilled participants (revealed preference)
Parimutuel and financial markets avoid this by being **genuine intermediaries** rather than counterparties. Hard Rock and similar sportsbooks are stuck trying to look like intermediaries while actually being adversaries.
Tiger's Jai-Alai Chalk Talk
