Today, discussing casino gambling, our hero bets on reader ignorance:
Maybe at some point increasingly intense competition will inspire someone to stop offering less-terrible odds? The only thing that really puzzles me in this policy space is some jurisdictions’ proclivity for legalizing video poker and slots without legalizing table games. The same paternalistic considerations (ultimately unpersuasive in my view, but I see where people are coming from) should apply either way, but at least with table games you get jobs.
Two things:
1)Casino odds aren't that bad. For most games, the house retains a small edge, because casino games aren't competitive across facilities, they're competitive against the option to not play. People are most willing to go broke playing games they win almost half the time -- casinos know this. That's why the house edge stays low.
2)Not all jobs are created equal. Casinos are pure entertainment ventures. If the same entertainment can be provided at lower cost, isn't that saved money better deployed elsewhere in the economy, where it could end up invested in, say, a company that builds snooty little cafes and congestion-pricing toll booths in unprogrammed triangular green-space parks resulting from terrible legacy city planning? OK, maybe not. Shuffle up and deal.
Posts
The man has had almost no contact with the real world, give him a break.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*Bangs head against the wall*
ReplyDeleteBut casinos, lotteries, and VLTs are a revenue grab by the local/state government. VLTs are "the best bet": the odds are strongly in favor of the house, maintenance can be outsourced, and a machine does NOT require a pension, sick days, benefits, or an hourly wage. And as pointed out in this post, this is invariably sold by pols as a revenue stream for beloved public programs, education, swimming pools etc, and not as a job creation program.