If Betting Were Taxed Like Cigarettes - A Health Levy on Every Stake - Would You Still Bet?

[FadeThePublic]

Thought experiment with a sharp edge.

Cigarettes in the UK carry roughly 75% tax on retail price. Government's explicit acknowledgment that the product causes harm and society pays the cost.

If betting faced equivalent treatment - say a 10% health levy on every stake, ring-fenced for gambling addiction services - would you still bet?

Not would you approve of the policy. Would you personally still bet at your current volume.

And whatever your answer is: what does it tell you about your relationship with this?

 

[SharpEddie47]

Straightforward answer first: yes, I'd still bet.

But the math changes meaningfully.

My current ROI sits around 4-5% after costs. A 10% levy on stakes doesn't just reduce profit. It eliminates it entirely and pushes me negative before I've placed a single bet.

So the honest answer is: I'd still bet but I'd have no rational justification for doing so.

Which raises the question of how much my rational justification is doing for me currently.

I tell myself I bet because the edge is real. Remove the edge mathematically and apparently I'd still bet.

That's information.

 

[TaffyTipster]

Yes I'd still bet.

Smaller volume maybe.

But Saturday without some money on the rugby is just... Saturday watching rugby.

That's honest.

Also the tax idea makes sense to me honestly.

Cigarettes fund some of their own health cost. Betting probably should too.

The addiction services in Wales are underfunded. Someone's paying for that and it isn't the bookmakers.

 

[CoachTony_Bets]

I'd still bet.

And the fact that I answered that before even calculating whether I'd be profitable tells me something.

Ran the numbers just now. At my stake levels a 10% levy probably costs me £800-900 annually. Would tip me from slightly positive to clearly negative on a true cost basis.

Still bet.

So I'm not betting because it's profitable. I'm betting because I'm betting.

I knew that probably. It's different to have it confirmed by a hypothetical tax.

 

[ParlayPrincess_88]

Yes obviously I'd still bet.

I'm already losing money so what's a little more loss with better social purpose?

At least the tax would go somewhere useful.

But the question of what it reveals about my relationship with betting.

I think it reveals I'm paying for the experience not the outcome.

I knew that intellectually. Saying it clearly is different.

I pay to feel the thing. The tax is just a higher ticket price.

 

[Klaus]

Would stop or significantly reduce.

At current stake levels the levy would eliminate my margin entirely.

If betting is negative expected value I do not bet.

I recognize this makes me different from most in this thread.

But I also recognize that the discipline which makes me say this has never been fully tested at the level Conor experiences.

It is easy to claim you would stop when you have never faced genuine compulsion.

I am not certain my rationality would survive that test.

 

[oli_sussex]

Would continue but would restructure completely.

The levy changes the minimum edge required to achieve positive expected value.

Would eliminate lower confidence bets. Increase selectivity significantly. Probably bet a quarter of current volume.

But would not stop.

Which tells me the activity itself has value beyond the profit.

Exchange career gave me a framework for denying that.

The honest answer to this question removes the framework.

 

[DublinDegen]

yes i'd still bet...

immediately yes without thinking...

which is the whole answer isn't it...

didn't calculate anything... didn't think about whether it made sense... just yes...

if they taxed breathing i'd still breathe... feels about the same level of choice...

the tax question is well designed actually because it removes the fig leaf...

can't tell myself i'm doing it for profit... can't claim it's rational investment...

just: i do this because i do this...

 

[FadeThePublic]

Conor hitting the core of it immediately.

The tax removes the fig leaf. Good way to put it.

Most serious bettors have some version of the profitable narrative. Edge-finding. Disciplined approach. Not like the mugs.

A levy that guarantees negative expected value strips all that away.

And apparently we'd still bet.