What do you mean here by front run? Don't most of these exchanges use normal limit books with visible resting orders available to trade against?
My understanding was that these shops were acting more as market makers, with the idea of guaranteeing liquidity and tight spreads in some number of markets.
If you think the listed bid-ask spread is mispriced you're more than welcome to move the market to whatever price you think is more appropriate.
Your comment made me really, really sad. Please tell your friend that there is someone out there, someone random, someone who will never meet them, who appreciates them and the work they've done over their career.
If you are on social media, maybe reach out? Like museum pages. Comment. Did you go to DC on a school trip? Maybe post it's impacts, or what you enjoyed/remember? Or just 'imagine a job where you get to positively impact so many peoples' lives! You all are doing good things!"
We need to tell each other we are seen. We aren't alone. To keep our heads up. We will get through this together if we keep our heads up. Only when they can force us to cry alone do they win. They are weak and want unnatural things, which is why they are flooding the zone trying to break us all down separately and make us feel isolated/powerless. Every football team defense 'floods the zone' every field goal/extra point kick. It doesn't work. Don't let it work here.
We aren't brave and will just complain from the sidelines, but we can at least cheer on those not on the sidelines. It's never been easier to express support. Hit up peoples/institutions socials and tell them they are seen, tell them keep their heads up because we do support them.
Yeah, as someone who lived through this entire saga first-hand as well, it's...an OK article but it's really missing a lot of things.
DFS, in particular, was and is very legitimately a game of skill. (In fact, looking at it from an Elo perspective and from the perspective of "Who should win?", it's more of a game of skill than the sports themselves!) There was absolutely no reason for it to be made illegal, other than to protect the tribal gaming interests in California and Florida. They pushed back so hard and with such little justification that the tide really, really turned against them in a much more broad way than they ever anticipated.
The ironic thing is, Matt King at FD and Jason Robins at DK probably would have been perfectly happy if the outcome had been that they be allowed to merge and that DFS is legalized and regulated. Instead Robins is a billionaire and Flutter made the best corporate acquisition of the 2010s.
The article itself is garbage and I strongly believe it's AI generated.
But even on top of that, the coverage of this issue is severely lacking. There were already many online sports books "legally" HQ'd in the Caribbean or other offshore locales. They were pointed to as proof of how much money could be made and money won. That's the story. We allowed greed to addict millions of young men on sports gambling because we lost our spines in this country.
It doesn't matter if it's a game or skill it not. It's still gambling and it's still terrible. You can even argue that games of skill for money are worse than pure chance game because there is one more mechanism for people to get addicted: delusion of having an edge.
If DFS is legal roulette should be legal as well because it has fewer negative consequences for society.
I know it's popular narrative among pro gamblers that games of skill deserve a different (better) treatment but it's just self serving nonsense in my view (I've spent most of my adult life in a gambling world as both a pro player and software developer).
That’s not true. Poker is only legal in a few states where gambling otherwise isn’t. (This was true still back when gambling was legal in far fewer states.)
A game that is both skill and gambling (of which there are many) still generally is regulated as gambling.
It's the opposite on both counts.
There is additional mechanism to get addicted - delusion of having an edge. If you're a bad addicted player you will also lose more (cause others have an edge over you bigger than casinos at their games).
Chess is the biggest game on Twitch, but getting addicted to it is pretty rare, and you certainly don't hear of people losing their house over their chess addiction.
Chess is a great game but it is rare to play for money because you have a very accurate rating system and no luck, so you know to a high degree of certainty who is going to win before the game starts unless the players are very close in rank. You can’t fool yourself easily.
With games of skill that also have a strong luck element (poker, fantasy sports, betting horses, etc.) you can fool yourself very easily into thinking the odds are in your favor when they are not. If you won you thought it was because you played better, if you lost you got unlucky, and if you don’t track it (even many professional players don’t) you may have a hard time even knowing after a long sample size where you stood.
Gambling relies on the ability of anyone to get lucky and win on any given day mechanisms rely on inconsistent rewards.
People don't play it for money. I mean specifically they don't bet on outcomes of their own games. This is what gambling is.
Chess wouldn't be as addictive anyway. You need a bit more luck ingrained in the game mechanics to trigger the addiction mechanisms. In games of skill like poker people get deluded all the time because they see lucky wins of their opponents and unlucky losses of their own. People are very bad at making judgements about probability so a lot of them get deluded into thinking "if only unlikely X didn't happen 3 times recently I would be ahead".
This happens in both poker and sports betting. In both games you can always pick some unlucky events (ball hit the post, referee gave an unjustified penalty, the only card falling on the river) and point to them to say "if only" while missing all the small lucky events on your side.
Of course it is. It automatically presents a clear and obvious conflict of interest, by which no reasonable person would assume zero impact.
No one gets paid $150,000 to not say what they're supposed to, and even then, they lost the case. It was unconvincing and, to quote the judge, "he cherry-picked and misrepresented study results and refused to acknowledge the role of genetics".
I mean shit, that's marginally better than the absolute garbage of Wakefield but not by much. It's embarrassing that this is where we are.
Are you seriously stating that all law which has paid expert witnesses is now suspect solely because the expert is paid? Remember, Wakefield spoke garbage, paid or not. He had undisclosed conflicts of interest, his co authors retracted and the BMA withdrew his licence in the UK, his paper was retracted by the journal he published in.
The Dean was paid openly, directly, by one side of a case. As far as I know the meta analysis, which btw I do not think justifies the public health statements being made, has NOT been retracted, there are questions about methodology.
As you note, the case was lost. The judge used his discretionary powers to discount his evidence, and rightly so but the same judge will sit trial on case where he accepts the paid evidence of experts, routinely.
Paid expert witness are of course suspect. Judges and juries still have to use their critical thinking skills to evaluate the statements from the expert witness. They are not accepted at face value.
> Are you seriously stating that all law which has paid expert witnesses is now suspect solely because the expert is paid?
Yes, I would make that affirmation, specially if the expert is being paid 150k for about a month's worth of work. But suspect doesn't mean guilty, only that there's a conflict and it should be acknowledged.
Let's say you're listening to a podcast extoll the virtues of a high protein low carb diet. You'll assign a mental probability that they're correct. Does that prior probability change if you learn they've signed a protein shake company as a sponsor the same day the podcast was released?
As someone who broadly identifies as a former Republican, and by that I mean your classic small-government, leave-me-alone type, I absolutely abhor what has become of the GOP. It's just so, so embarrassing.
With that said, he's the CEO, he represents the interests of the company and the shareholders. Given that the corrupt fat fuck President clearly punishes companies that are not sufficiently prostrate before him, it's the right thing to do despite it being morally and ethically empty.
Yup. 100% get the business aspects. Will still never buy another Apple product as long as he’s in charge. Puts me in a tough place for phones, I suppose, since Google is fundamentally worse for the world.
I think that’s the fitness function of the Trump admin, but not the fitness function of RFK Jr who has been chasing this for decades. He clearly cares more about simple narratives than any factual truth.
Susquehanna. Jane Street. Two Sigma.
It's not some rando two towns over. The PMs get paid to front run access to these market makers, who crush the retail bettor, er, predictor.