"Disclosure: Polymarket has partnered with Substack, providing new tools tailored for writers and publishers. While Racket News accepted the partnership, it declined the money in accordance with our mission that we accept zero dollars in outside financing."
This needs a lot more explanation and sounds like a story itself.
What does "Racket News accepted the partnership" exactly mean?
How much money was offered to you, and who exactly made the offer and what did the offer exactly entail. Please provide exact dollar amounts and what actions were required of Racket in order to be paid.
The text you posted above makes it sounds like you took the deal but not the money.
Selling out for free really is missing the point completely.
Oh I read the links. And just like you when you read them, I saw that there was no mention of money at all--just "tools" to get substack writers to do free for PR for polymarket. Now obviously substack is getting paid to push this crap--which should be a big red flag for everyone, writers and readers alike.
But Matt was offered a deal to promote polymarket for cash money that is not being offered to substackers that don't put up numbers--because no one is shit stupid enough to do free PR for polymarket, so they have to grease the palms. Duh!!! You aren't stupid enough to do free PR for polymarket without getting paid--right?
Now according to text provided by Racket--they took the deal, but not the money. I'm not making that part up--I'm just going by what they wrote.
Obviously consideration doesn't just involve cash--which is exactly the trade that polymarket is trying to make with substack peons. Give polymarket a sloppy blowjob in your substack and you get a chart 30 seconds faster. Again only a complete idiot would take that deal.
So consideration doesn't have to be cash. So either Racket is getting something in consideration for their submission or they are working for polymarket for free.
Are you going to take the "deal" from polymarket? Are you going to embed and inject polymarket PR into your substack for a fucking chart? You didn't take the deal did you?
Racket's own confession needs much clarification.
Imagine having so little to say that someone can buy your voice. That is incredibly depressing.
"Imagine having so little to say that someone can buy your voice. That is incredibly depressing."
Imagine having so little to say that you try to stir up a bogus conspiracy with zero evidence for internet points. Especially when you can't even read a basic press release before posting your bullshit.
You're a fucking joke.
If you want to accuse Matt of "selling out" bring extensive receipts, or shut the fuck up and get a life. Bye now.
There are so many of these paid deals going on with anyone who has an audience that Racket could do nothing but post "Reveal The Deal" articles 24/7 and still barely touch the corruption.
And everyone knows about them because everyone gets the offers. It's literally the news story that writes itself but the media ecosystem is so inbred and corrupt that nobody touches it.
It's the two button sweaty choice meme:
[] Reveal the Deal [] Take the Deal
---
For the same reason that Hasbro paid big bucks to be the bad guy in 'Ted 2'--even 'critical' journalism is very effective PR.
Fascinating premise, that people and companies in media are corrupt if they accept money except, perhaps, from a diffuse group of small contributors. But then, the writers can be influenced by what draws the most contributions, tailoring their writing to generate the most money from whatever ideological niche pays best. The only course is caution, because everyone has biases.
Obviously subscriptions are completely different than taking money to promote products inserted into purported journalism.
If Matt has no problem working for polymarket for free, why in the hell are readers paying him money? Why doesn't he do us the same favor, and work for free for us instead of polymarket?
Paying Racket to work for polymarket for free sounds like a shit deal as a paying subscriber.
It’s not just products, it’s promoting policies that may benefit the donor without disclosing the tie. Matt has started a section that illuminates the ties of some purportedly disinterested experts, which makes effective caution easier.
Imagine that you have a youtube channel and you talk about gardening, and you connect with people and grow your viewership. I own a seed company and I want to advertise my seeds. So I go directly to you and make you this offer.
Say these words on your show and I will give you $5,000--
"I found this variety of tomato that is possibly the best tomato I have ever tasted--and it is so easy to grow. I buy a bunch of different seeds from a bunch of different places and I had forgotten where I got these seeds from and it took me an hour of going back through my stuff to find it--but you can get this variety called 'Sunshine Moon' at a place called...hold on I wrote it down...McSeedly Seeds."
So it's just a commercial written to not sound like a commercial because it is much more effective that way. It can be something very overt, like my example, or you might get paid just to drink a specific brand of energy drink on camera. Just drink it during your show. Or you might be paid to insert a chart created by polymarket into your broadcast. Or if you ran a place like substack you would be paid by polymarket to convince substack writers to insert favorable mentions about polymarket into their substacks.
Everybody gets a piece.
The internet has no rules about advertising so there is so much backdoor hidden advertising--that's where the money is as a creator and a platform. Viewership is monetized by selling hidden advertisements.
None of this is really new. Product placement in films and television has been going on forever. Public Relations is the art of placing your client's messaging directly into news stories--and that has been around forever.
What is different now is the wild west lack of laws and disclosure, and the whole media ecosystem now depends completely on embedded advertisements.
Thanks for the time you gave to explain what you meant by "the deals everyone's getting." I have a feeling I'll be seeing McSeedly Seeds everywhere, now.
We should all be making plain to each other each mcshittification we detect wherever it may be found, before no one's left who can remember a time when every public space wasn't infused with value extraction.
Yes, it's unclear what it means that Racket accepted the deal, but not the money. For the moment, and in conjunction with your explanation, I loosely interpret this to mean that Racket can use "tools" that are provided through the polymarket/substack deal, but there will be no monetization of reader attention through using Racket's credibility to push secret embedded ads or to flash polymarket graphs. The links provided explained nothing, which seemed like obfuscation on the part of Substack.
"mcshittification" and "infused with value extraction" is the perfect way to say it.
The polymarket tools can be used by anyone who has a substack. You don't have to agree to any deal to do free PR for polymarket. The tools just make it easier to do free PR for polymarket.
What I suspect the "deal" is...I think the deal was for cash and promotion. I suspect that substack is promoting substacks in the algorithm who participate in this mcshittification as part of the deal they made with polymarket.
I'm not saying that Racket signed on to the co-promotion part, but no one is cutting a deal to use substack's crappy tools to do free promotion for polymarket using charts--so I don't think the Racket's deal is about that.
I have no evidence for this at all, except that X and a tons of other sites sell algorithmic placement for cash--and it is exactly what I would do if I ran polymarket and/or substack.
I am a hustler with very suspect morals who would gladly sell out for peanuts except that I am way too loud and unfiltered. If someone offered me cash to sell my voice the first thing I would do is loudly tell the world--who is offering, for what and how much--not out of moral imperative, but because it is funny as shit. Why wouldn't you tell everyone? It's like being stuck in an elevator with Tom Cruise. Why wouldn't you tell everyone?
Ultimately that is my complaint. It's not even one of morals. You either yell about the bribes or you don't. You can either make grits while twisting one up or you can't. It's not about morality. It about making grits.
Why wouldn't you tell everyone? It hilarious.
I'm much more worried about substack's behavior right now than the ambiguity in Racket's statement. Good people don't survive on bad platforms--and unfortunately Matt is not really a tech person. Lock in (tech or otherwise) is a big mountain to climb long before you get to morality.
It is the cornerstone of mcshittification. If a person could leave, they wouldn't be in chains. And with lock in, cause and effect does work that way.
I foresee a future where people, looking back to these days, will smile and shake their heads at Polymarket and cryptocurrency. The way we now look look at Madoff and Ponzi and tulip bulbs.
I had a back-and-forth with Grok about Polymarket. I couldn't see any value add whatsoever. Grok told me it was useful for hedging and fast information dispersal. I allowed as we already have tools for hedging and a move in Polymarket would be precisely the same as a move in the underlying commodity. Grok agreed. When I asked why I got such a rosy response to my first request, Grok told me the response came from the marketing propaganda of Polymarket and its supporters, not any kind of analysis.
Prediction markets are great for at least two reasons. First, now when someone has some deranged stance I can say: if you’re so sure, go place a bet on it and show me your conviction. If you’re 100% convinced Trump will do X, go place a bet then. I think it can be great socially if used well. Luxury beliefs need to be made expensive. There’s so many times I wish I could have had this tool in conversations past.
Second, certainly insiders place bets on some contracts. One could argue this is “unethical” and maybe it is on some level - but the benefit is that it is a powerful source of information. Mainstream media says one thing, polymarket strongly favors another outcome. If insiders are tipping the scales, fine, I’d rather that then have to resort to cnn or even Substack for my information where the incentive structure does not skew towards truth. No one bets a million on a contract they believe will go the other way.
In both cases, when money is staked, people don’t bet against what they actually believe.
I’m sure it’s also a risk for gambling addiction etc but it’s not like addicts didn’t have a place to go before prediction markets.
Net, I think it COULD be a good thing for society. But we’ll see how it plays out because it’s happening.
Haha, I agree totally with the first. The second... I don't know... Spending a million dollars to move a Polymarket proposition is not much different that paying a pollster to put out a poll showing a position/candidate looks better than the reality. But maybe you're right about the political propositions. But things like the price of oil, or the stock market, I just don't see how Polymarket adds any kind of "signaling" (or hedging) not already covered by futures, options, spot prices, after-hours trading, etc.
Yeah for me it’s more about political and ideological issues. Like fake polls versus polymarket - polymarket was right on Trumps election. If there was a “will climate change cause the whole world to burn by 2030?” I’d bet my net worth in that contract. Or defund the police - will this decrease or increase urban crime in this city? Or whatever. So that sort of thing could be very interring going forward. I’m really interested in the concept of “luxury belief” and how to make it costly for those that normally are sheltered from the costs of their stances.
Yikes - making $$ off war - war profiteers - who knew?
We are at war with Iran now. It’s eerily reminiscent of Iraq and WMDs – be very, very afraid. Was Iran an imminent threat? IDK.
But I do know that the timeline began in 1953, not 1979, yet most timelines, including Trump’s WH press release, begin in 1979 with the hostage takeover.
Why doesn’t anyone ask why Iranians hated us so much to chant, Death to America? “They are jealous of our freedom.” Yeah, right.
Thanks. That's disheartening, but understandable. We need honorable people like Joe Kent in the administration. Tulsi said last year about the same thing - not an imminent threat.
'Why doesn’t anyone ask why Iranians hated us so much to chant, Death to America? “They are jealous of our freedom.” Yeah, right.'
What about the hundreds of thousands chanting "Death to the Ayatollahs, Freedom for the people"? The Mullahs proved that the Shah was the lesser of the evils. Sad, but true.
“Following the prediction market payouts over the Iran strikes, Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said last week they were crafting a new bill to block the president, vice president, and other officials from trading event contracts.” I sure hope “officials” includes Members of Congress and staff.
Would love to hear more about how a partnership with Polymarket benefits Racket News. How about giving us an explanation on the benefits received and how it makes you more productive and we end up with a better reader experience. These guys give odds on when shit is going to get blown up, right?
Wow, so we've come from college basketball point shaving scandals 50 years ago to...betting on real world events involving death and destruction. Now, however, we know the level of corruption / insider trading / and outcome buying is about to explode...congress is getting involved. We need a new government organization to "keep this under control". I nominate Nancy Pelosi to lead the effort, as the most experienced, seasoned leader in the field...//kidding, kinda, sorta, maybe, yeah no I'm not...
So, this is okay to bet on but Pete Rose is still not in the HOF because he bet on his own team and ability? God may be getting uninterested in saving us. WTF?! :(
I think the bigger story on these gambling websites, including sports betting, is how many young men are losing $ thousands per year. But we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they can't afford to move out of their parents' basement.
We’re (taxpayers) supposed to subsidize them “ The housing crisis” so they can continue to bet on investor owned betting markets. Just get the idiotic taxpayer to keep subsidizing return on investment.
"Disclosure: Polymarket has partnered with Substack, providing new tools tailored for writers and publishers. While Racket News accepted the partnership, it declined the money in accordance with our mission that we accept zero dollars in outside financing."
This needs a lot more explanation and sounds like a story itself.
What does "Racket News accepted the partnership" exactly mean?
How much money was offered to you, and who exactly made the offer and what did the offer exactly entail. Please provide exact dollar amounts and what actions were required of Racket in order to be paid.
The text you posted above makes it sounds like you took the deal but not the money.
Selling out for free really is missing the point completely.
Click the link in the disclosure you quoted, the word "tools" is a hyperlink.
Selling out sucks, but accusing someone of selling out when you can't even read the linked press release is fucking retarded.
Oh I read the links. And just like you when you read them, I saw that there was no mention of money at all--just "tools" to get substack writers to do free for PR for polymarket. Now obviously substack is getting paid to push this crap--which should be a big red flag for everyone, writers and readers alike.
But Matt was offered a deal to promote polymarket for cash money that is not being offered to substackers that don't put up numbers--because no one is shit stupid enough to do free PR for polymarket, so they have to grease the palms. Duh!!! You aren't stupid enough to do free PR for polymarket without getting paid--right?
Now according to text provided by Racket--they took the deal, but not the money. I'm not making that part up--I'm just going by what they wrote.
Obviously consideration doesn't just involve cash--which is exactly the trade that polymarket is trying to make with substack peons. Give polymarket a sloppy blowjob in your substack and you get a chart 30 seconds faster. Again only a complete idiot would take that deal.
So consideration doesn't have to be cash. So either Racket is getting something in consideration for their submission or they are working for polymarket for free.
Are you going to take the "deal" from polymarket? Are you going to embed and inject polymarket PR into your substack for a fucking chart? You didn't take the deal did you?
Racket's own confession needs much clarification.
Imagine having so little to say that someone can buy your voice. That is incredibly depressing.
"Imagine having so little to say that someone can buy your voice. That is incredibly depressing."
Imagine having so little to say that you try to stir up a bogus conspiracy with zero evidence for internet points. Especially when you can't even read a basic press release before posting your bullshit.
You're a fucking joke.
If you want to accuse Matt of "selling out" bring extensive receipts, or shut the fuck up and get a life. Bye now.
"sounds like a story itself": yes!
There are so many of these paid deals going on with anyone who has an audience that Racket could do nothing but post "Reveal The Deal" articles 24/7 and still barely touch the corruption.
And everyone knows about them because everyone gets the offers. It's literally the news story that writes itself but the media ecosystem is so inbred and corrupt that nobody touches it.
It's the two button sweaty choice meme:
[] Reveal the Deal [] Take the Deal
---
For the same reason that Hasbro paid big bucks to be the bad guy in 'Ted 2'--even 'critical' journalism is very effective PR.
Fascinating premise, that people and companies in media are corrupt if they accept money except, perhaps, from a diffuse group of small contributors. But then, the writers can be influenced by what draws the most contributions, tailoring their writing to generate the most money from whatever ideological niche pays best. The only course is caution, because everyone has biases.
Obviously subscriptions are completely different than taking money to promote products inserted into purported journalism.
If Matt has no problem working for polymarket for free, why in the hell are readers paying him money? Why doesn't he do us the same favor, and work for free for us instead of polymarket?
Paying Racket to work for polymarket for free sounds like a shit deal as a paying subscriber.
It’s not just products, it’s promoting policies that may benefit the donor without disclosing the tie. Matt has started a section that illuminates the ties of some purportedly disinterested experts, which makes effective caution easier.
Please say more! I'm not wanting to be the dummy here, but what are the offers that everyone gets? I'm 100% out of the loop!!!
Imagine that you have a youtube channel and you talk about gardening, and you connect with people and grow your viewership. I own a seed company and I want to advertise my seeds. So I go directly to you and make you this offer.
Say these words on your show and I will give you $5,000--
"I found this variety of tomato that is possibly the best tomato I have ever tasted--and it is so easy to grow. I buy a bunch of different seeds from a bunch of different places and I had forgotten where I got these seeds from and it took me an hour of going back through my stuff to find it--but you can get this variety called 'Sunshine Moon' at a place called...hold on I wrote it down...McSeedly Seeds."
So it's just a commercial written to not sound like a commercial because it is much more effective that way. It can be something very overt, like my example, or you might get paid just to drink a specific brand of energy drink on camera. Just drink it during your show. Or you might be paid to insert a chart created by polymarket into your broadcast. Or if you ran a place like substack you would be paid by polymarket to convince substack writers to insert favorable mentions about polymarket into their substacks.
Everybody gets a piece.
The internet has no rules about advertising so there is so much backdoor hidden advertising--that's where the money is as a creator and a platform. Viewership is monetized by selling hidden advertisements.
None of this is really new. Product placement in films and television has been going on forever. Public Relations is the art of placing your client's messaging directly into news stories--and that has been around forever.
What is different now is the wild west lack of laws and disclosure, and the whole media ecosystem now depends completely on embedded advertisements.
Thanks for the time you gave to explain what you meant by "the deals everyone's getting." I have a feeling I'll be seeing McSeedly Seeds everywhere, now.
We should all be making plain to each other each mcshittification we detect wherever it may be found, before no one's left who can remember a time when every public space wasn't infused with value extraction.
Yes, it's unclear what it means that Racket accepted the deal, but not the money. For the moment, and in conjunction with your explanation, I loosely interpret this to mean that Racket can use "tools" that are provided through the polymarket/substack deal, but there will be no monetization of reader attention through using Racket's credibility to push secret embedded ads or to flash polymarket graphs. The links provided explained nothing, which seemed like obfuscation on the part of Substack.
"mcshittification" and "infused with value extraction" is the perfect way to say it.
The polymarket tools can be used by anyone who has a substack. You don't have to agree to any deal to do free PR for polymarket. The tools just make it easier to do free PR for polymarket.
What I suspect the "deal" is...I think the deal was for cash and promotion. I suspect that substack is promoting substacks in the algorithm who participate in this mcshittification as part of the deal they made with polymarket.
I'm not saying that Racket signed on to the co-promotion part, but no one is cutting a deal to use substack's crappy tools to do free promotion for polymarket using charts--so I don't think the Racket's deal is about that.
I have no evidence for this at all, except that X and a tons of other sites sell algorithmic placement for cash--and it is exactly what I would do if I ran polymarket and/or substack.
I am a hustler with very suspect morals who would gladly sell out for peanuts except that I am way too loud and unfiltered. If someone offered me cash to sell my voice the first thing I would do is loudly tell the world--who is offering, for what and how much--not out of moral imperative, but because it is funny as shit. Why wouldn't you tell everyone? It's like being stuck in an elevator with Tom Cruise. Why wouldn't you tell everyone?
Ultimately that is my complaint. It's not even one of morals. You either yell about the bribes or you don't. You can either make grits while twisting one up or you can't. It's not about morality. It about making grits.
Why wouldn't you tell everyone? It hilarious.
I'm much more worried about substack's behavior right now than the ambiguity in Racket's statement. Good people don't survive on bad platforms--and unfortunately Matt is not really a tech person. Lock in (tech or otherwise) is a big mountain to climb long before you get to morality.
It is the cornerstone of mcshittification. If a person could leave, they wouldn't be in chains. And with lock in, cause and effect does work that way.
Hmmm...a distinction without difference?
I have to point out that the disclosure itself is just a hidden advertisement for the polymarket/substack tools.
Pure genius and beyond hilarious.
That is a chef's kiss of pure super sleaze.
Standing ovation!
I foresee a future where people, looking back to these days, will smile and shake their heads at Polymarket and cryptocurrency. The way we now look look at Madoff and Ponzi and tulip bulbs.
I had a back-and-forth with Grok about Polymarket. I couldn't see any value add whatsoever. Grok told me it was useful for hedging and fast information dispersal. I allowed as we already have tools for hedging and a move in Polymarket would be precisely the same as a move in the underlying commodity. Grok agreed. When I asked why I got such a rosy response to my first request, Grok told me the response came from the marketing propaganda of Polymarket and its supporters, not any kind of analysis.
Prediction markets are great for at least two reasons. First, now when someone has some deranged stance I can say: if you’re so sure, go place a bet on it and show me your conviction. If you’re 100% convinced Trump will do X, go place a bet then. I think it can be great socially if used well. Luxury beliefs need to be made expensive. There’s so many times I wish I could have had this tool in conversations past.
Second, certainly insiders place bets on some contracts. One could argue this is “unethical” and maybe it is on some level - but the benefit is that it is a powerful source of information. Mainstream media says one thing, polymarket strongly favors another outcome. If insiders are tipping the scales, fine, I’d rather that then have to resort to cnn or even Substack for my information where the incentive structure does not skew towards truth. No one bets a million on a contract they believe will go the other way.
In both cases, when money is staked, people don’t bet against what they actually believe.
I’m sure it’s also a risk for gambling addiction etc but it’s not like addicts didn’t have a place to go before prediction markets.
Net, I think it COULD be a good thing for society. But we’ll see how it plays out because it’s happening.
Haha, I agree totally with the first. The second... I don't know... Spending a million dollars to move a Polymarket proposition is not much different that paying a pollster to put out a poll showing a position/candidate looks better than the reality. But maybe you're right about the political propositions. But things like the price of oil, or the stock market, I just don't see how Polymarket adds any kind of "signaling" (or hedging) not already covered by futures, options, spot prices, after-hours trading, etc.
Yeah for me it’s more about political and ideological issues. Like fake polls versus polymarket - polymarket was right on Trumps election. If there was a “will climate change cause the whole world to burn by 2030?” I’d bet my net worth in that contract. Or defund the police - will this decrease or increase urban crime in this city? Or whatever. So that sort of thing could be very interring going forward. I’m really interested in the concept of “luxury belief” and how to make it costly for those that normally are sheltered from the costs of their stances.
Fascinating.
Yikes - making $$ off war - war profiteers - who knew?
We are at war with Iran now. It’s eerily reminiscent of Iraq and WMDs – be very, very afraid. Was Iran an imminent threat? IDK.
But I do know that the timeline began in 1953, not 1979, yet most timelines, including Trump’s WH press release, begin in 1979 with the hostage takeover.
Why doesn’t anyone ask why Iranians hated us so much to chant, Death to America? “They are jealous of our freedom.” Yeah, right.
At least get the timeline correct: https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/make-persia-great-again
Counterterrorism Director just resigned. A scathing takedown of the Trump administration and Israel.
Thanks. That's disheartening, but understandable. We need honorable people like Joe Kent in the administration. Tulsi said last year about the same thing - not an imminent threat.
John Leake posted his resignation letter: https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/counterterrorism-director-joe-kent?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Boy, oh boy.
I don't like his fixation on Israel, but this increases the pressure to open the Strait of Hormuz and end this operation soonest possible.
Lindsey Grahams don't want to know facts.
I have truly been amazed at how many documentaries and explainers begin with, "It all started in 1979..."
Exactly!!!
'Why doesn’t anyone ask why Iranians hated us so much to chant, Death to America? “They are jealous of our freedom.” Yeah, right.'
What about the hundreds of thousands chanting "Death to the Ayatollahs, Freedom for the people"? The Mullahs proved that the Shah was the lesser of the evils. Sad, but true.
Not to mention Iran-Contra..
“Following the prediction market payouts over the Iran strikes, Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said last week they were crafting a new bill to block the president, vice president, and other officials from trading event contracts.” I sure hope “officials” includes Members of Congress and staff.
Nancy Pelosi please call your office.
But the President is only required to give Congress 48 hours advance notice, that's why the bets come in at the last minute.
Congress has not declared War since WWII. Don't think they've ever cut off military funding (that would be construed as treason?)
Would love to hear more about how a partnership with Polymarket benefits Racket News. How about giving us an explanation on the benefits received and how it makes you more productive and we end up with a better reader experience. These guys give odds on when shit is going to get blown up, right?
Love, Curious Glitterpuppy
I thought they were maybe advertising for one another. Even Stevens.
So, Polymarket has an “ethical red line”. Sure they do. LMAO. Just like the mafia and the demokrats….
You forgot republicans. All of them are corrupted criminals
Not all. But most. My father is an uncorrupted Republican. Of course, he died in 1970
Time for a new wager?
BREAKING NEWS:
CUBA IS TWO WEEKS AWAY FROM HAVING A NUCLEAR BOMB!!!
I can feel it in my bones.
I thought Turkey was next?
Obama failed in his coup attempt there in 2016 (but did good in Egypt, Honduras, and Ukraine).
I think it was but that was before the current fiasco reared its ugly head.
The whole thing is pathetic. This is what society has come to? I'm checking out soon and happy about it.
That's a horrible thought. Can't claim to be immune to it my own self.
Wow, so we've come from college basketball point shaving scandals 50 years ago to...betting on real world events involving death and destruction. Now, however, we know the level of corruption / insider trading / and outcome buying is about to explode...congress is getting involved. We need a new government organization to "keep this under control". I nominate Nancy Pelosi to lead the effort, as the most experienced, seasoned leader in the field...//kidding, kinda, sorta, maybe, yeah no I'm not...
“Hold up, ell tee, I just gotta put in this Polymarket trade before we go in.”
High-tech Roman Colosseum
So, this is okay to bet on but Pete Rose is still not in the HOF because he bet on his own team and ability? God may be getting uninterested in saving us. WTF?! :(
Truly disturbing. Feels like we are getting closer and closer to a Hunger Games culture. The barbarians are at the gate.
EXACTLY!
I can’t believe you didn’t mention this absolutely bonkers story of death threats to a reporter in Israel. https://www.timesofisrael.com/gamblers-trying-to-win-a-bet-on-polymarket-are-vowing-to-kill-me-if-i-dont-rewrite-an-iran-missile-story/
Wow.
Time to retire “fun fact”. It’s become the new “ick” in the lexicon.
I think the bigger story on these gambling websites, including sports betting, is how many young men are losing $ thousands per year. But we're supposed to feel sorry for them because they can't afford to move out of their parents' basement.
We’re (taxpayers) supposed to subsidize them “ The housing crisis” so they can continue to bet on investor owned betting markets. Just get the idiotic taxpayer to keep subsidizing return on investment.
I can't even get ahead and buy a house, or even nice clothes to date a woman, because I spend $20k a year on draftkings and only make $100k a year.
We need laws to subsidize my gambling!!!!!
It is concerning to me that Polymarket has partnered with substack. I’m glad to know that Racket won’t be participating.
Indeed!
The government used to be controlled by criminal organizations; NOW, the government is the criminal organization.