6 comments

  • cm2012 0 minutes ago
    Sports gambling is a cancer for every sports institution and this protest is a step in the right direction.
  • mikeryan 41 minutes ago
    I really don’t understand how these markets survive a competent DOJ considering the rate they’re having to ban people for “insider trading”. Fully appreciate the Unions position here.
    • gavinsyancey 21 minutes ago
      Most competent people at the DOJ have either been fired or left. And the current administration seems to love insider trading, so long as they can be the insiders doing the trading.
    • santadays 29 minutes ago
    • wbl 33 minutes ago
      Insider trading is legal in commodities markets. If I am engaged in a hedging transaction I am doing so because I know about risks that I want to offload, and the buyer does also. You don't come to commodities markets without information.
      • gavinsyancey 0 minutes ago
        Hedging is not insider trading. Insider trading is trading based on material non-public information in breach of a duty or obtained through fraud. In that sense, it's more of a principal-agent problem.

        Also -- hedging is generally not done based on material non-public information, but rather to guard against known risks. Joe the farmer sells a bunch of wheat futures when he plants his wheat, not because he thinks the price will go down, but rather because if it does he goes bankrupt and he'd prefer to accept a known rate-of-return now.

      • CPLX 5 minutes ago
        Just for context that’s not quite accurate. There certainly is a distinction in the rule versus securities markets, which I know is what you mean.

        But it’s more accurate to say participants can trade on lawfully obtained material nonpublic information absent some independent duty not to use it, which is much narrower than saying insider trading is generally legal.

      • cucumber3732842 16 minutes ago
        Exactly. Pit mine sees who's buying what and is worried copper will go down. Datacenter people see who's inking deals and are worried it's gonna go up. They both need to get big fancy loans from their bankers to execute their upcoming projects. The bankers won't like to see unbounded risk on their balance sheets. A futures contract exists to solve this problem.

        Not that this excuses some of the absurd stuff that goes on on the online betting platforms...

    • Octoth0rpe 9 minutes ago
      > a competent DOJ

      The question answers itself.

    • lokar 19 minutes ago
      Corruption
  • burkaman 35 minutes ago
    This is about stopping a potential deal (https://frontofficesports.com/article/the-athletic-serious-t...), nothing finalized yet. They have allegedly abandoned the idea and claim that isn't because of the union demands: https://frontofficesports.com/article/new-york-times-union-k....
  • The_Blade 27 minutes ago
    what happened with Bill Simmons bragging about using his daughter's boyfriend to place proxy bets for him on FanDuel (who Bill is partnered with) is endlessly entertaining

    Trump Jr. just pumped 300 million into Polymarket and also has a stake in Kalshi so, i'm not sure who thinks the DOJ will really do anything. this is fentanyl on the phone but there will have to be a few examples like some low-levels House members or state senators alongside sports casualites

  • monideas 48 minutes ago
    [flagged]
    • fyredge 37 minutes ago
      Google was not helpful to me, but what exactly is the deal being discussed? Is NYT going to allow readers to place kalshi bets on their website / app? That would be even more damaging to young men IMO.
      • pibaker 14 minutes ago
        I'm placing a bet on "at least one NYT editor caught manipulating news stories so he can win Kalshi bets within one year" if a deal like this goes through.
      • input_sh 27 minutes ago
        I'm guessing it'll be something like the CNN deal where basically every story about elections would include "according to predictions on Kalshi..."
    • axpy906 30 minutes ago
      Predatory is probably the correct word. You’ve got better odds at a casino which says a lot.
    • pavel_lishin 42 minutes ago
      Why would they support a deal with a company doing harm to people?
      • _bent 31 minutes ago
        it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.
        • sire-vc 25 minutes ago
          That is what was meant and based on some of what they have published it is barely a joke.
        • monideas 22 minutes ago
          I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women.

          “Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo.

          Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.

      • santadays 34 minutes ago
        I read it as the liberal elite hate young men... so damaging them is a good thing.
    • retr0rocket 42 minutes ago
      [dead]