I think the same amount of healthy and problem gambling would take place in aggregate regardless of whether there was a PFG casino among a set of casinos. But maybe some people would choose to migrate that activity toward the PFG casino, so that more good could happen (they’re offering the same odds as competitors).
It comes down to whether you’re OK with getting involved in something icky if the net harm you cause to gamblers is zero and you can produce significant good in doing so. For me, this doesn’t really pose a problem.
I don’t see any reason to believe that the same amount of gambling would take place in aggregate. Most entertainment businesses grow the market and this one is promoting new motivations for potentially different people to participate in an activity which is often addictive. And if you’re running a bricks and mortar casino you’re facing the same high operating costs as the competition: I don’t see any reason to believe you’d reach profitability without putting in similar amounts of effort to entice new players, encourage people to return on days they weren’t planning to gamble and encouraging people to shovel more money into machines after they’ve already lost more than they planned.
I think you pointed out the ickiest part of this proposal very well, though: I’d be motivated to encourage people to donate (gamble) more then they were planning to.
I don’t find brick and mortar casino of this type compelling, for this reason.
In the online case expenses should be relatively low given the existing infrastructure
I think the same amount of healthy and problem gambling would take place in aggregate regardless of whether there was a PFG casino among a set of casinos. But maybe some people would choose to migrate that activity toward the PFG casino, so that more good could happen (they’re offering the same odds as competitors).
It comes down to whether you’re OK with getting involved in something icky if the net harm you cause to gamblers is zero and you can produce significant good in doing so. For me, this doesn’t really pose a problem.
I don’t see any reason to believe that the same amount of gambling would take place in aggregate. Most entertainment businesses grow the market and this one is promoting new motivations for potentially different people to participate in an activity which is often addictive. And if you’re running a bricks and mortar casino you’re facing the same high operating costs as the competition: I don’t see any reason to believe you’d reach profitability without putting in similar amounts of effort to entice new players, encourage people to return on days they weren’t planning to gamble and encouraging people to shovel more money into machines after they’ve already lost more than they planned.
I think you pointed out the ickiest part of this proposal very well, though: I’d be motivated to encourage people to donate (gamble) more then they were planning to.
I don’t find brick and mortar casino of this type compelling, for this reason. In the online case expenses should be relatively low given the existing infrastructure