Utah lawmakers form united front in push to ban prediction markets
67 points
by thm
2 hours ago
| 8 comments
| theguardian.com
| HN
jackp96
56 minutes ago
[-]
Neither conservative nor Mormon, but online gambling is an addictive scourge that ruins lives, and I'd love to see it banned broadly. And go ahead and ban paid loot boxes as well.

I don't love casinos or lotteries, but at least there's the friction of having to travel to a physical location to feed your addiction.

And then there's the whole "insider trading" and "gambling on war" angles that come into play with prediction markets.

reply
Recursing
31 minutes ago
[-]
For more on this https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...

> it is clear from studies and from what we see with our eyes that ubiquitous sports gambling [...] is mostly predation on people who suffer from addictive behaviors.

> This is not a minor issue. This is so bad that you can pick up the impacts in overall economic distress data.

> the financial consequences of legalized sports betting [...] include a 28% overall increase in bankruptcies (!). [...] a 28% increase in bankruptcies is far more than I would have predicted. The typical adult bankruptcy rate is about 0.16%, so this would mean about 4bps (0.04%)/year of additional bankruptcies, or an over 1% additional chance a typical person goes bankrupt during their lifetime. [...] A bankruptcy is extremely socially expensive, on the order of $200k. That alone is almost triple the profits, and clearly wipes out all the social gains. Legalized online sports betting is currently a deeply, deeply horrible deal.

> [...] there might be a 3% overall increase in domestic violence as the result of legalized sports betting [...] This is a huge direct cost to bear. Domestic violence ruins lives. It also is a huge indicator that this is causing large amounts of distress in various forms, and that those gambling on sports are not making rational or wise consumption decisions.

reply
aczerepinski
15 minutes ago
[-]
Good call on lootboxes. I’d love it if video games that include them would be forced to do age verification to whatever extent casinos need to, and be 18+.
reply
ekianjo
12 minutes ago
[-]
Not just kids get addicted
reply
egorfine
44 minutes ago
[-]
As much as I hate what gambling does on the society, I'm still not sure if banning this activity counts as freedom. I believe that grown consenting adults do have a free will and should have the ability to destroy their lives if they so choose.

OTOH allowing those kind of activities WILL end up with people opting in for the greater evil and thus some kind of limits should be enforced by governments.

I have no idea what would be the right approach, but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one.

reply
screye
4 minutes ago
[-]
Nations do not apply a standard of 'total freedom' for most other vices. It is known that grown consenting adults can't compete against an algorithmic assault on their self-control systems.

Nations have established middle grounds for gambling. To gamble, drive a couple of hours down to an exempt casino and set fire to your money if you so wish. Bootleg operations are permitted as long as they stay low. Prostitution has similar regulations. Sports betting, Onlyfans & Prediction markets remove those necessary frictions from each vice, preying on men (it's mostly men) at their most vulnerable.

Prediction markets : gambling :: weed : cigarettes

reply
gottorf
11 minutes ago
[-]
> I'm still not sure if banning this activity counts as freedom. I believe that grown consenting adults do have a free will and should have the ability to destroy their lives if they so choose

America is the land of the free, but I think there have been and will continue to be reasonable disagreements on the question of, free to do what? It's evident that "freedom" isn't a pure, unrestricted thing in the anarchist sense. We all agree that through the democratic process, laws can be made to declare some things not free to be done.

And to the degree that various taxpayer-funded social programs exist, the cost of grown consenting adults destroying their own lives are directly borne by the rest of us.

> but outright banning prediction markets and casinos is definitely not the right one

In general, I think a gradual "ban" in the form of taxation is often times better, especially for things that society is trying to discourage out of its sinful or destructive nature; think cigarettes.

reply
myroon5
19 minutes ago
[-]
One difference between federal-level prediction markets and state-level gambling is that most states had limited gambling to 21+, so most state governments wanted more nuanced options than outright bans
reply
SoftTalker
22 minutes ago
[-]
> some kind of limits should be enforced by governments

I'm not sure why we think this works.

Gambling is considered bad, and banned in many states, but many of those states run a lottery. This is just a straight up theft from the poor who are least well equipped to understand they are playing a rigged game, and not rigged in their favor.

reply
gottorf
10 minutes ago
[-]
> Gambling is considered bad, and banned in many states, but many of those states run a lottery. This is just a straight up theft from the poor who are least well equipped to understand they are playing a rigged game, and not rigged in their favor

I think gambling is almost a natural instinct in humans, and a state-run lottery may be a relief valve for that itch to be scratched in a controlled manner.

reply
ZeroGravitas
8 minutes ago
[-]
It can be seen as a way to undermine illegal lotteries.

That rationale gets undermined if the state lottery is widely advertised in a predatory manner though.

reply
soco
9 minutes ago
[-]
The contract between citizen and state is that we offload some rights and responsibilities to the state, which in turn does things and protects us. How's addiction handling in this pciture, should the state protect us from it? Like it should protect us from unruly neighboring states, unemployment, financial ruin, whatever (I'm not focusing on a particular country)?
reply
mcmcmc
41 minutes ago
[-]
One distinction I think really needs to be included in any gambling bans is whether it’s a game of chance or skill. Betting on yourself is quintessentially American. I’d argue betting on someone else’s game of skill (eg sports betting) is a game of chance.

Would be interesting to see how a new prohibition amendment on gambling on games of chance would work.

reply
fragmede
11 minutes ago
[-]
GLP-1s reputedly address the same reward center as gambling for some people, so there's that.
reply
lizknope
10 minutes ago
[-]
I'd like to first see all advertisements for gambling banned. Then lets take a look at the data after 1-2 years.

Or if you allow it put a warning like the surgeon generals warning on tobacco. Clearly state that most people lose money.

Smoking is legal but advertising cigarettes is illegal. I grew up in the 1980's where smoking was everywhere. We even had a smoking area at school. Today I don't know anyone that smokes. Obviously people still do but it is much less common

reply
bitmasher9
5 minutes ago
[-]
I think this approach of allowing something to quietly operate legally is a really interesting model.
reply
jcfrei
18 minutes ago
[-]
I'm surprised prediction markets don't get more support here on HN. There's a lot of benefit in having a probability estimate for various kinds of events. One example of many: https://polymarket.com/event/may-2026-temperature-increase-c

These markets are a straightforward way to cut through all the noise of the current media conglomerates. Rather than getting bombarded by inflated headlines a glance at polymarket or kalshi is often enough to know whether something is actually happening or it's just the media corporations trying to get your attention.

Of course there should be limits with regards to what kind of markets are allowed on these platforms. But in a lot of areas there's genuine price discovery happening that's not available anywhere else.

reply
ZeroGravitas
4 minutes ago
[-]
That market doesn't look very useful. Seems to resolve only a few days before at the time that weather forecasts would be available.
reply
gottorf
8 minutes ago
[-]
Funny, someone cheated a temperature-related bet a few weeks ago: https://www.npr.org/2026/04/23/nx-s1-5797876/polymarket-pari...
reply
ekianjo
5 minutes ago
[-]
And those weather stations only have 1 degree celsius precision?
reply
jerf
14 minutes ago
[-]
They don't work. They only work if all the participants in prediction markets don't notice their incentive to cheat the market. One example of many: https://moneywise.com/investing/cryptocurrency/polymarket-ri...

A market that only works as long as participants in the market also pretend that they aren't in a market is nonfunctional.

Let all reasoning be silent when experience gainsays its conclusion. The beautiful libertarian theories have failed.

reply
jrflo
6 minutes ago
[-]
I think this is far from widespread. It's very difficult to tamper with the majority of markets, and nearly impossible to do so without getting noticed (hence, the news story about this case).
reply
mcmcmc
15 minutes ago
[-]
90% of the activity is sports gambling or insider trading, there’s no benefit that outweighs the negatives
reply
ekianjo
7 minutes ago
[-]
Very difficult to have good faiths actors participating in prediction markets. A lot of manipulation is possible and of course insider trading.
reply
throwaw12
46 minutes ago
[-]
Coming soon:

* researchers found that prediction markets are actually good for your wellbeing

* lobby group is lobbying to fight against Utah lawmakers who are working against the wellbeing of people in Utah

reply
Sol-
27 minutes ago
[-]
Shame that prediction markets seem to have failed a bit, since they seem in principle like a good idea. You force participants to have skin in the game and remove the usual mood affiliation and ideological bias that afflicts the professional commentariat in the media.

Perhaps a solution instead of banning them would be to create a class similar to accredited investors that are allowed to participate. And stuff like market manipulation should just be prosecuted in old fashioned ways like we prosecute any crime.

reply
WarmWash
24 minutes ago
[-]
I think they should be legal, but the amount of marketing and pushing around them is so bad.

It's like you make something legal, and some group of people try as hard as possible to push the limit as far as they can, and in turn ruin for everyone.

reply
carabiner
52 minutes ago
[-]
As I get older I'm starting to realize, the Christians were right about everything.
reply
SoftTalker
14 minutes ago
[-]
Not sure I'd go as far as "everything" but the wisdom on how to live, how to treat others, behaviors that are good and bad, etc. is all pretty solid.
reply
matheusmoreira
28 minutes ago
[-]
Same experience here.
reply
exabrial
49 minutes ago
[-]
can we stop calling them "prediction markets" and please call them what they actually are: gambling
reply
egorfine
43 minutes ago
[-]
Some prediction markets can be gambling, some not. Gambling is a broader category that does not include all of the prediction markets.
reply
mcmcmc
39 minutes ago
[-]
Can you provide examples of prediction markets that aren’t gambling?
reply
SoftTalker
21 minutes ago
[-]
When you have information/know the outcome in advance.
reply
mcmcmc
13 minutes ago
[-]
So it’s still gambling for the other participants who don’t have that insider knowledge then. If one person at a blackjack table is counting cards, does that make it not gambling for everyone else?
reply
miltonlost
13 minutes ago
[-]
Ah, insider trading! Or playing a rigged game and then taking money from people not in on the game. So fraud!
reply
walletdrainer
7 minutes ago
[-]
You can come upon such information by other means

In sports? Perhaps you just observe a player get injured in a car accident and bet based on that.

reply
askl
20 minutes ago
[-]
The ones where you have insider information.
reply
ekianjo
4 minutes ago
[-]
Its not gambling if you can influence the outcome
reply
xixixao
40 minutes ago
[-]
Honest question which I think is at the heart of the question: What’s the difference between these and NYSE / Robinhood?
reply
matheusmoreira
31 minutes ago
[-]
Abtractly, there is no conceptual difference. Everything is a gamble. We are always betting on everything. We are always positioning ourselves in relation to everything else in the world. Often unconsciously and unknowingly.

It becomes problematic when we make a game of it and add financial stakes. Gambling is a lot like drugs in its ability to hijack the brain's reward circuits. I stopped investing in cryptocurrencies because seeing +400% profits was like crack. I never gambled any money I couldn't afford to lose but there are people out there who were leveraging their entire lives to FOMO into markets.

reply
jrmg
38 minutes ago
[-]
You actually own something when you buy stock.
reply
patrickk
22 minutes ago
[-]
reply
ryandrake
20 minutes ago
[-]
You own the same thing when you buy a lottery ticket. You own a paper entitling you to an unknown amount of future money based on uncertain events.
reply
mcmcmc
35 minutes ago
[-]
Buying a share of a company affords marginal utility outside the value going up or down, in that you ostensibly have a vote on how the company is run
reply
throwaway85825
41 minutes ago
[-]
Some industries chang names every 10 years to avoid regulation. Loan sharing became Buy Now Pay Later.
reply