Hasn't it always been? Stock market is basically gambling and you have to do it if you want to retire

and the total comes to roughly $70 billion, which is less than half what Americans wagered on sports.

ngl I joke about parlays and betting on things, but people actually use Kakashi and Polymarket and actually look at the Kevin Hart advertisements and do it.

This is probably why marketing is so arcane to me. I cannot imagine a product or a type of outreach I wouldn't hate and go out of my way to avoid.

Also, this is likely driven be a couple whales. My dad knows a guy who spends 6 figures on sports betting to the point where they'll send him phones and laptops for being a loyal customer. These people aren't exactly going to drop 6 figures on a concert or a museum. I also wonder if the figure includes money that you gamble after you win. Presumably you don't always lose, so you spend $100, gain $300 and then lose $400 have you spent $400? Because the point is to nickle and dime you down, not make you always lose.

"Wagered" probably obfuscates the amount and makes it a category error. Part of the mechanism of taking your money is cycling the money into and out of your account

The article actually goes into all of this with weird statistics that back up my assumptions m for example, losses are like 10% of wagers, 5% or betters absorb 95% of losses, this doesn't include prediction markets and reservations so they estimate 300 billion in wagers total. it's a neat article and I recommend reading it.

Especially for this little tidbit

A recent New York Fed study found credit card delinquencies among millennials and Gen Z have risen in states where sports betting is legal, evidence, researchers said, that some bettors are financing the habit with debt. A quarter of sports bettors now say they worry they cannot control their gambling, according to a U.S. News and World Report survey

Looks like we need to turn movies, arts, museums, and music into more forms of gambling!

I feel like sports gambling is probably fewer people spending more money. And that money is a lot easier to pry from people than someone having to physically go to a museum, theater, or concert venue.

Like if I go to a movie X number of times a year, that's obviously going to be less money than being a gambling addict spending the same amount daily or every couple of days on sports bets. Obviously the money would be better spent on going to a movie, but it's psychological engineering. So how much does this really say?

How trustworthy are the people interviewed in this? Because "an adjunct lecturer in Georgetown University’s Sports Industry Management program" does not sound like a neutral observer.