Thread

DraftKings is using AI to behaviorally target chronic gamblers

570 points · 432 comments · paimapi

tedivm · 1790700196 · focus · HN ↗
ProPublica had one of their reports work with gambling addition experts to see how DraftKings would respond to someone presenting signs of a gambling problem. It's a hell of a read, and makes it clear that this company is full of people with absolutely no ethics whatsoever.
<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/draftkings-sports-gambling-problem-vip-fanduel" rel="nofollow">https://www.propublica.org/article/draftkings-sports-gamblin...
1. WheelsAtLarge · 1790703876 · focus · HN ↗
  People in companies that are a negative public good are by definition unethical. I'm not surprised by anything they do. The real problem is how we've let these companies infiltrate so much of our society so fast. I can't consume any ad supported media without getting some ad about them. This company really defines the phrase "money talks"
  1. stronglikedan · 1790706321 · focus · HN ↗
    Many people enjoy gambling, and relatively few have a "problem", so "negative public good" is doing a lot of work there. DraftKings may indeed by unethical, but that doesn't mean that all or even most others are.
    SaucyWrong · 1790707230 · focus · HN ↗
    In my state (Massachusetts), the number of people who call in to the state’s gambling problem hotline doubled after online sports books became legalized. That is, by definition, a negative effect on the public good. The net number of people seeking help for gambling problems increased by 100%.
    pbronez · 1790708376 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s definitely bad that twice as many people have a gambling problem. However to assess the NET impact you also have to count how much value/fun/whatever the non-problem-gamblers are having, plus whatever tax revenues you get, increased economic activity from more attention on sports, etc.
    Personally I think these companies suck. Just need more work to make a strong good faith argument about it.
    AlexandrB · 1790709949 · focus · HN ↗
    My problem with sports gambling is that all these companies are lying. If you win a lot you get (the gambling equivalent of) shadow banned[1]. The provider pretends they're providing a game where you can "win big" and it's all up to your knowledge of sports, but the reality is that it's a skewed playing field where you can either lose or lose more.
    The common industry explanation is that this is because they would be unprofitable if they allowed "winners" to keep betting, which tells you everything you need to know. These businesses can only exist because they're allowed to skew the odds in their favour. Eliminate this unfair practice and the problem goes away on its own.
    [1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/19/stake-factoring-how-bookies-clamp-down-on-successful-gamblers" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/19/stake-factor...
    erfgh · 1790711035 · focus · HN ↗
    They will just switch to a betting exchange model where the house gets a percentage of the turnover and the rest is distributed to the players. Under this model there is no incentive to ban winners.
    VBprogrammer · 1790712671 · focus · HN ↗
    The problem with this is liquidity, particularly well before an event. It's why the original exchange (or at least the first one I'm aware of) also now offer a normal sportsbook.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.