> In order to be the more attractive alternative to the state lottery, bookies pay 600 to 1.
I don't disagree with you, but I would modify my claim of empiricism to mean "in the absence of a state lottery".
There's more than one reason the bookmaker ought to be more generous, which relate to the benefit of state backing:
you can be sure the rake is not going to be used for the public good, and
if the bookmaker takes heavy losses and bankrupts, you can't be sure you'll get your big win even after beating the odds.
See also e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448 You can be sure the casino wouldn't have cared to comment on Phil Ivey's methods until they were facing a significant net loss. Would they have returned his stake if he was unlucky enough to make a loss? Would they have bothered to sue if he had won a small amount? He suffers here also for the extent of his luck.
I don't disagree with you, but I would modify my claim of empiricism to mean "in the absence of a state lottery".
There's more than one reason the bookmaker ought to be more generous, which relate to the benefit of state backing:
you can be sure the rake is not going to be used for the public good, and
if the bookmaker takes heavy losses and bankrupts, you can't be sure you'll get your big win even after beating the odds.
See also e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29543448 You can be sure the casino wouldn't have cared to comment on Phil Ivey's methods until they were facing a significant net loss. Would they have returned his stake if he was unlucky enough to make a loss? Would they have bothered to sue if he had won a small amount? He suffers here also for the extent of his luck.