It's superficial to view them as partners or allies. They are a bit of both.
They are splitting a cake.
They are working together as partners to attract a big cake but they are also competing for the split.
That makes their relationships really complicated - either one gets too greedy to the point of hurting the biz and the cake to split will be way smaller.
Let's say a fish deposit 50$ to a poker site. First hand he plays he losses that to a pro. The house takes 5% of the pot up to 3$ which is the max for a single pot.
So the pro got 47$, the house got 3$ out of that 50$. Would you be happy about it if you were the house and invested money in attracting the fish?
The gov generally taxes the house more than it taxes the pro. Therefore it's in his best interest for the house to get as much of a cut as possible instead of the pro.
Still, the gov is involved in all the systems, it can be more profitable for him to sabotage a system like smoking if he things the same people will turn to booze instead and he gains more from them that way.
That detail aside, the house and the gov generally have the same interest and both of them "hate" the pro.
The problem is: the pro is still their customer even though in most systems he is not needed, everything will work without him just as well if not better for the house and the gov.
They cannot say "Go away! We don't want you, fuck off!".
Public image, elections, laws, etc.
So what they have to do is to discreetly discourage pro action while encouraging fish action.
If you are a car insurance company you do your best to chase away the moron driver(the pro) to your competition but in a polite way.
It's important to keep this in mind if you are either the house or the pro: the other is mostly your rival and only in a tiny way your partner.
No comments:
Post a Comment