[juleiie]

Yeah but someone has to give the money to the insider traders.

Betting and insider gambling wouldn’t work if people were educated and just didn’t gamble and so never used these platforms in the first place.

It’s an old question of whether government is responsible to protect people from themselves or should we give everyone freedom to go bankrupt in this specific way if they so desire.

I don’t know if there is a healthy way to gamble really. With drugs and substances at least there is some continuous spectrum but you either gamble your money or not.

[somenameforme]

Many, I suspect the overwhelming majority, of the markets are impossible to engage in insider trading in. So it's genuinely just an interesting way to monetize expertise. Chess is a great example. A lot of the money in that market is people turning on the latest chess engines and betting in accordance to position evals, but skilled players can see much more - like how a position that the computer gives as a dead drawn is, in reality, extremely difficult for one side to hold. So the market might give near 50% when it's perhaps more like 65/35. That's quite a large edge. There's also quite a lot of opportunities for arbitrage betting, which is by definition risk free.

[logicchains]

>I don’t know if there is a healthy way to gamble really.

The majority of gamblers keep it within limits, only a small minority lack that control and inevitably end up impoverishing themselves.

[juleiie]

The majority of people can’t even control their daily screen time, yet we are supposed to believe they can masterfully restrain their urges when money and dopamine are on the line? Nothing I’ve seen indicates human impulse control is that bulletproof. Furthermore, the 'I have it under control' narrative isn't proof of a healthy habit; it’s practically the universal slogan of active addiction.