Gen Z GAMBLING ADDICTION Is Taking Over, NY SUES Over Loot Boxes As Casinos POP UP EVERYWHERE
Tim Pool examines Gen Z's gambling addiction surge, linking New York's lawsuit against Valve over loot boxes in Counter-Strike 2 to a broader conspiracy where casino moguls like Miriam Adelson seek monopolies. He argues this strategy aims to centralize revenue, shut down private clubs like the Lodge Card Club, and distract youth from politics through ubiquitous addiction. Ultimately, the discussion suggests a deliberate cultural reshaping where all chance-based games face strict licensing, potentially eroding traditional gaming spaces and political engagement. [Automatically generated summary]
There is no question that gambling in the United States is on the rise massively, with the most notable problem being sports betting and the addiction young men have to it.
But casinos are also popping up all over the place.
New York is set to have, what, four casinos?
Chicago will be opening balleys on the river.
No longer will it be reservations, Vegas, or Atlantic City.
They are everywhere.
And I point this out quite a bit.
Where we are, within two hours driving, there are nine casinos, not to mention all of the various casino apps that are getting legalized in each individual state.
But wait, my friends, there's more.
You see, the big story here, it's not just about this lawsuit from New York's Democrats against a video game company.
It's about why they are doing it.
It's not just about video games.
It's also about the Lodge Card Club in Austin, arguably the largest private poker club in the world being shut down by the Texas authorities.
It is why it is all happening.
And of course, there is one very obvious and easy reason to understand.
And then maybe some conspiracies.
But the obvious reason is that powerful moneyed interests want the sole licenses to run gambling in the states where they operate.
This includes Texas as well as New York.
And that means any, any function that is close enough to gambling will get shut down by the cronies in politics who are going to receive lots of lobbying dollars from the casinos that want to run it all.
But here's the big story that started last month, which may kick off a nuclear bomb in trading card games, in casinos, in sports betting, and that is New York State's lawsuit against Valve for loot boxes.
Now, I know most of you know what loot boxes are, but for those that don't, let me explain.
You will either buy in-game currency or use real dollars to purchase a quote-unquote loot box.
It is a mystery product that you don't know what you're going to get, but you have a general idea of things that may appear inside yours.
You will spend money.
It will burst open and you will receive digital items in the game.
Some of these items are particularly rare and can be traded amongst players for cold, hard cash.
That is, I'll spend, let's say, 10 bucks, open up a loot box, and I get a bunch of junk that's worth nothing.
And I can't really trade it, so I kind of just lost the $10.
But then I buy another one and I crack open the ultra-rare super rifle skin for my video game character that someone desperately wants.
Well, I say to them, I'll give it to you for $1,000.
In fact, Letitia James of New York points out, one of these secondary items sold for over $1 million.
The argument then is you are wagering money for a chance to win something of great value, and that is gambling.
But what does this mean for Pokemon cards and Magic the Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh!
And what will this mean for any card game?
Well, I've been talking quite a bit about this for some time, and I think the important context here to understand is one, Democrats have launched a war against a video game company, one of the most prominent, accusing them of gambling.
Washington State has filed a class action suit for the same reason.
And the precedent set in court, now that there is legal standing, could have repercussions for everything.
Most notably, of course, Pokemon trading cards, which I have been harping on for some time.
And the kids who play these games say it's not gambling, to which I agree.
But now things are getting interesting.
Why?
Because the powerful moneyed interests behind casinos want the exclusive right to host gaming for everything.
And of course, while these things have largely been illegal for most of American history, the states want to make money somehow, and so they're cutting a deal.
We will give you sole rights over gambling.
You're going to kick us back a lot of money.
What happens then when video game companies, card games, or otherwise have some element of gambling that takes away from the casinos?
Why would the casino lobby groups give up that access?
They won't.
And that means they're going to lobby Democrats and Republicans to say, only I may have the right to host these games.
Which means, ladies and gentlemen, you want to get a loot box?
It's going to have to be through a licensed and regulated casino where they will take a portion of the money and the government will take a cut.
Ultimately, the big picture is not so much about whether or not you agree or disagree with gambling.
It is the fact that gambling is here to stay and it's going to get a lot worse.
Now, I know many of you actually think negatively of gambling.
I do as well.
There's a question we can ask about what does it mean to gamble?
And everybody has a little bit of a different definition.
In West Virginia, the governor, while he was AG, argued fantasy sports was not gambling because it was skill-based.
You needed to use your knowledge of the sports to make appropriate plays for which you could then make money.
That's not chance.
That's pure knowledge.
But many people have made the argument then that there are a lot of things that are considered gambling, but wouldn't be because they're skill-based.
I suppose the argument then is how much skill and when.
The big picture, my friends, Gen Z is listless.
They are demoralized and they are turning to gambling for their reprieve.
I've got a bunch of examples, my friends, of instances in which young people who should not be gambling are gambling and trying to claim it's not gambling and risking their lives.
The question then becomes beyond all of this, where have young men gone?
They're checking out of politics.
They're not having families.
They're not working.
What are they doing?
And what we are seeing, gambling influencers popping up like crazy.
Guys, this is going to get wild.
The bigger picture on all of this is what is happening to our society.
And the conspiracy that I mentioned?
Well, the conspiracy theory would be that this is all on purpose, making gambling in casinos ubiquitous like bread and circuses.
Everybody will be distracted by their vices.
They will not focus on the political and they will sit down, shut up, and have fun.
But let's start here and talk about what's going on, my friends.
What is happening with the lawsuit over loot boxes and how this is going to basically make the rich richer and the casinos bigger and take away what you know and love or like.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com and join our Discord community.
We got tens of thousands of people hanging out every day.
This is not gambling, my friends.
When you become a member, you're supporting the work we do right here.
That money is used so that we can do all of this and operate as we do and make these videos.
And you'll be hanging out with like-minded individuals.
So if you want to build something, make something, or teach, join the community to build this network.
New York sues Valve over loot boxes, calling them illegal gambling.
We have this from Letitia James, the New York State Attorney General.
This is what she wrote.
She basically says, Valve has games, including Counter-Strike 2, Team Fortress True, and Fortress 2 and Dota 2, enable gambling by enticing users to pay for the chance to win a rare virtual item with significant monetary value.
In Valve's most popular game, the process resembles a slot machine with an animated spinning wheel that eventually rests on a selected item.
The randomly selected virtual items have no in-game functionality, but can be sold online for money, with one item reportedly being sold for more than $1 million.
Now, let me just pause real quick and ask you a question.
If there was a vending machine and it said, for $20, you will get a mystery box.
Inside that box, you may find something worth $10 or $200.
Prices may vary, but you don't know what you're getting.
Is that gambling?
Honest question.
I think most of you would say yes, and I would completely agree.
Exchanging money for a chance to win something of value is gambling.
I have here this Breaker Brothers Pokemon mystery box that I bought at a vending machine at Apple Valley Mall.
On the back, it reads, get ready for a surprise with our Pokemon mystery slab.
Inside, you'll find one graded Pokemon card valued between $10 and $200.
Who will you discover?
A beloved classic or a new champion?
Well, indeed, the card in here is actually only worth $7.
Only $7.
Now, is that gambling?
Back in the day, original slot machines didn't give out money.
They gave out packs of gum.
So you'd get three cherries.
You'd get a piece of cherry gum.
Yeah, bubblegum.
You would then go next door and sell the gum to a shop for money.
We get it.
It was gambling, and that was the workaround.
Right now, we're seeing much the same thing.
There are people who buy these loot boxes just to try and get rare items they could sell later on.
Now, here's where it's interesting, where everything starts breaking down and getting crazy.
New York and Washington are going after loot boxes.
They say this.
The current status quo understanding within the video game industry with respect to whether loot boxes constitute gambling rests on whether the loot box mechanisms fulfill three core common elements of gambling laws, consideration, chance, and a prize.
So long as one of these three elements is not met, a loot box is not gambling.
The chance element is inevitably met in any form of loot boxes, but the consideration element can arguably be avoided by making loot boxes acquirable only by exchanging virtual currency that itself arguably has no value.
And the prize element can arguably be avoided by making the loot box drop account locked, where no loot box can be transferred, sold, or cashed out.
So one thing you could do is, let's say you have a vending machine that accepts either US dollars, which can be converted into, let's call them mystery coins.
But mystery coins can be acquired for free on your account.
Now, it's very difficult to acquire through our vending machine company.
Let's say we have a little game you can play.
And for every hour you play, you get one coin.
Well, the point is, after you accumulate 100 coins, you can purchase one mystery box.
So it's free, right?
Or for $10, you will just get those virtual coins, and you'll get 100 of them.
And then you can buy it right away.
Now, of course, the in-game currency has no monetary value because it can be earned for free.
That's not gambling.
It's a sweepstakes.
And that's effectively what a lot of companies are doing.
Not this one particularly, but that's one element there, one path they're going to try and eliminate this as gambling.
They say it's important to note, the status quo understanding is based on collective statutory interpretation among video game attorneys and is not settled law.
Indeed, not even the question of whether trading card packs constitute gambling is actually settled.
In the 90s and 2000s, many plaintiffs sued trading card manufacturers under RICO laws.
All of these cases were eventually dismissed for lack of standing because the plaintiffs could not prove an injury.
They had received the benefit of the bargain.
By receiving physical cards in exchange for money, they did not suffer a gambling loss.
These cases did not rule on the merits of whether trading card packs fall under the definition of gambling as such term is used in various gambling laws.
Q New York v Valve.
New York's Attorney General Letitia James accused Valve of violating both Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which prohibits gambling, and penal law 225.05 and 225.10, which criminalize unlawful gambling activity and promotion of such unlawful gambling activity.
Now, hold down near a gosh darn minute.
She may only be suing Valve, but the precedent here will affect every trading card game with booster packs.
Valve has issued a public statement in response to the complaint, essentially analogizing their loot box system to physical trading cards.
Yeah, that's not going to help.
There's also potential meaningful distinction between how physical trading cards are wholly owned by the purchaser and digital skins are technically licensed.
Valve is also subject to a consumer class action complaint in Washington.
Well, there have been many arguments that these cards, loot boxes, Pokemon boosters, are literally gambling.
There are people who don't play the game and they buy boosters hoping to get those ultra rare cards or to see their value go up.
There's no guarantee that you're buying it and thus it's gambling.
Let me be honest, guys.
As someone who plays Magic the Gathering, for the most part, professional players or high-skill players who play in tournaments do not buy booster packs in a hope to receive the cards they need.
In fact, they just buy the cards direct from shops.
Where do the shops get them?
Someone is gambling on the booster packs, hoping to get rare cards they can then sell for greater cash.
Indeed.
So if I need a card for a deck, I don't open a booster.
I buy it directly.
I don't gamble.
It's a risk.
No, I just need the card.
Now, ultimately, as I've talked about this quite a bit, the question and what I'm bringing up is not to harp on gambling again, like I've been doing for some time, but to bring up how this is the future of American culture.
This is going to take over, my friends.
Mark my words.
The reason we are seeing, in my opinion, Letitia James go after Valve is not because she's offended they would break the law.
It's because if it is involving the law, Resorts World, Caesars, Penn Entertainment, all of these casinos have the exclusive rights to control games of chance for money.
And if they open the doors to allow you to do it, it runs the risk of them losing control.
So they're going to spend every dollar they have ending anything that could be construed as gambling.
Unless the law has changed.
Take a look at this from Time Out New York.
It's official.
Three new casinos are coming to NYC.
Here are the details about three casinos that were granted official licenses to operate in New York City earlier this week.
The story, of course, is from last December.
So what's happening now?
The state's gaming commission has approved Hard Rock, a hard rock complex next to City Field.
We are going to get, what do we got?
Resorts World near JFK, as well as Balleys in the Bronx.
Noticeably absent, notably absent, is Jay-Z's Times Square Casino, which did not receive a license.
The three approved casinos will generate billions of dollars for the MTA, education, create tens of thousands of jobs, and deliver real benefits to the surrounding communities.
It's coming, people.
It is going to happen.
We are moving into a world of artificial general intelligence.
They are saying that we're going to lose all of our jobs.
So how will people live?
I imagine they're going to try and implement some kind of universal basic income for some jobs or for people, but I don't know how that plays out because people will just decide not to work, as we've long argued.
But what will people do with their days?
Games of chance for entertainment.
I don't think this ends well, my friends.
I don't think it ends well, but I guarantee you, this is where we will be.
From March 9th, The Wall Street Journal, I'm a college student.
Gen Z sports betting is wrecking my friends' lives.
Among my college peers, using apps to bet on sporting events has become a dangerous rite of passage.
March Madness will only add fuel to the fire.
Apps after app after app popping up everywhere, allowing you to make bets on sports.
There was a funny story where apparently some athlete was upset apologizing for the bad spread because it negatively impacted sports betting.
You know what the big picture is, my friends?
Let me show you this from Texas Monthly.
How a Vegas billionaire's plan to bring casinos to Texas went bust.
The behind-the-scenes story of Miriam Adelson's failed bet to legalize gambling and the right-wing activists and mega donors who stood in their way.
Interesting.
I'm going to give you my thoughts and opinion.
I believe that Letitia James is suing likely because there are casinos coming to New York and they probably said, listen, if it involves gambling, we own it.
I don't care what it is.
If loot boxes are allowed, it will create precedent that individuals can gamble outside of casinos as long as they meet certain loophole criteria.
If we're going to operate in your state and generate revenue, we must control any and all gambling.
To put it simply, my friends, the argument I've made, and I made on my Tim Pool show channel, as I'm an avid poker player, notably Texas Hold'em, not other poker games.
Well, there's a handful that I play.
Texas Hold'em is entirely a game of skill.
And that's my argument.
And I have argued that because of the expansion of these casinos, sooner or later there's going to be a lawsuit pertaining to Pokemon, Magic, and Yuga.
I'm also very avid Magic the Gathering players.
I often point out.
I got Magic Cards all over the place behind me.
There has not been any precedent set on what's called the predominant factor test for these card games, which means they need to prove to the courts they are not games of chance.
The problem is that the laws in most states, especially like New York, don't specify that factor.
It's just been the courts have decided it.
No, the law literally says any card game.
Well, these trading card games are card games.
So let's bring it back to the political because I don't want to harp on just card games.
I did that in my Tim Pool show segment.
I want to talk to you about why this is happening.
Miriam Edelson is one of Trump's biggest donors.
I believe, what are they?
On the Mirage or the Venetia.
I don't remember which casinos they own.
They want casinos in Texas.
Well, a lot of right-wingers in Texas don't want it because they think gambling is degeneracy.
And they're not wrong, but it's going to happen.
So in New York, here's the threat.
Kids are playing video games where they, let's just hypothetically, you pay $10 or $10 equivalent.
You get a loot box, you get a rare item, you can exchange that for money.
They're saying, listen, sooner or later, these lawsuits will be adjudicated and we must win.
Because if you're allowed to wager something for a chance to win prizes, people won't go to our casinos.
And if we're going to make any money for you, we have to have full control.
And guess what Letitia James says?
And it's hypothetical.
As the AG, she says, you're right.
We're projecting billions per year in tax revenue from all of these casinos.
Billions.
In order for us to receive those billions, all gaming, gambling, or anything like it must occur in these casinos.
That means any money wagered up front on any game of chance must be controlled by the casinos.
Tell me why.
These trading card games that have operated in a gray area, why would the casinos allow them to operate freely without license?
They are losing something that they control.
And then an argument is made.
I could make a new trading card game.
I did, actually.
It's called Debate Me.
It functions very similarly to Texas Hold'em, but it uses new cards with a different value ranking system.
Thus, it is not poker.
So I can just legally have Debate Me tournaments?
The answer is yes, because these trading card games operate in a gray area.
Until there is a lawsuit where an individual has standing and can claim it's gambling, it's going to be allowed.
And no one who's lost a Pokemon tournament has ever argued it was gambling because they like the game.
Thus, no individual player is ever sued with standing.
But what about an AG?
What about an AG who says, this is gambling?
A wager is made on a card game of chance.
And it's taking revenue away from our tax base because this is supposed to be legally in a casino.
Now, the casino may actually say, we don't want to host Pokemon cards, tournaments.
We don't care about that.
But we don't want new games and variants of card games to emerge that we would have to force into court.
So let's put it this way.
Poker is a specific game, a variant of games that use suits and cards.
What if you make a game that doesn't use suits?
What if it uses magical elements?
What if it uses monosymbols and has a convoluted value ranking system that the average person doesn't understand?
It'll take you a day or two to figure out the rankings, but then you're smart enough to play poker with those cards, or at least a facsimile of.
Do you think the casinos will just let you do that?
I don't think so.
Take a look at this from Texas Monthly, how a Vegas billionaire's plan to bring casinos in Texas went bust.
They say, the town hall was proving to be yet another disaster for the Las Vegas Sands Corporation.
The Irving Convention Center was jammed with several hundred angry North Texans.
They held signs that read, don't Vegas My Irving, and circulated flyers warning that predatory gambling breeds crime, failed marriages, and addiction.
Three days later, on March 17th, let me get the exact date on this one.
It's from last year.
A city commission was set to consider a contentious zoning change.
It would permit Sands to someday build a destination resort complex on land adjacent to the site of the demolished Texas Stadium, the home of the Dallas Cowboys, until 2008.
The proposal also conspicuously allowed for a casino as part of the resort.
It was a peculiar concept.
Other than two Native American-owned properties in far-flung parts of the state, casinos are banned in Texas.
But Sands was planning for the future when it hoped the legislature would ask voters to amend the state's constitution to allow for gambling, a future it was furiously trying to make reality.
Pause.
A few weeks ago, I was invited to play on the World Poker Tour wildcard stream at the Lodge Card Club in Austin, Texas.
I am an avid poker player, and I was going to play on stream with some other semi-pros and pros.
It was going to be a fun game.
Promotional marketing for me, good fun for everybody and the family.
Unfortunately, the Lodge Card Club in Austin was raided by the authorities and shut down.
Curious, everybody's wondering why it happened.
Well, here's the thing.
Gambling's illegal in Texas, except two individuals or more are allowed to wager poker amongst themselves.
It is an affirmative defense.
Texas basically said, we're not banning poker among friends.
We're just banning casinos.
So what happens?
Well, a card room opens up saying we're a private club.
Individuals can play poker among themselves.
In the olden days, it was very, very simple.
You pay a membership fee and you pay hourly to beat the club.
But when you're playing poker, you're playing between you and the other person.
That was the law.
In fact, they tried to shut them down and lost.
Thus, card rooms began to pop up all over the state.
They operate under what people refer to as a gray area, but is explicitly legal.
It's defended.
It is an affirmative defense.
However, the TABC, that's the Alcohol Bureau in Texas, shut down the largest, arguably largest card club in the world, saying money laundering and illegal gambling.
The question is why?
One conspiracy theory, which honestly I'm not sure that I believe, but may be the case, you'll get this.
Ken Paxton is the Attorney General.
I'm a big fan.
He does great work.
Ken Paxton is the Attorney General.
He is running for the Senate.
He is, I believe he's getting Trump's endorsement.
He's in a runoff with Cornyn, and many believe he will win that Senate seat.
But he's currently the attorney general, and he needs Trump's endorsement to win.
He flew to meet with Trump the same week the lodge was shut down.
He leaves, and the rumors are he's getting an endorsement.
What does that mean?
One of Trump's largest donors is Miriam Adelson, who wants to open casinos in Texas.
Now, again, it's conspiratorial.
This is what I was hearing from some of the poker players.
They think, they think that Ken Paxton ordered his people go after the biggest card club, the lodge, shut them down, send a message, we are shutting these things down.
Why?
Because he wants Trump's endorsement.
Trump needs a favor for Miriam Adelson, who wants casinos in Texas.
And these card rooms are operating in what they define as a gray area, and it interferes with her ability to open a casino.
Or more importantly, when they finally do open those casinos, they do not want competition.
They must own gambling.
Now, I'd make the argument, I don't necessarily believe that's the case, largely because Miriam Adelson lost, and because the existence of these card rooms actually provides legal cover for her to open casinos, in which case, may actually be beneficial that they exist because she can argue, look, you allow this.
It could be that she went to the state and said, you allow poker rooms.
And they said, well, we shouldn't.
And she's like, well, as long as you do, I can have a casino.
And they went, then we're going to shut them down.
But I will say this.
Considering they are popping up, considering this is one of Trump's biggest donors, I'd make the argument, my friends, that the game here is actually quite simple.
They want to open casinos in Texas.
There are many card rooms that are operating, and they will get in the way.
They already tried to open a casino and Texans blocked it.
But I guarantee you, you bring in some more crony establishment figures, even some Democrats, and they are going to argue for the economic benefits of casinos.
And these card rooms are in the way.
So I'm not saying I know that's true, but there are many people in Texas who believe that's exactly what happened.
So let me just tell you the timeline of events.
Tuesday morning, the Lodge Card Club is raided and shut down.
Friday, I believe it was Friday of that week.
Was it?
It might have been the next week, actually.
But let's just say within that week, within a week or two, Ken Paxton flies to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Donald Trump.
And it seems like he will be receiving that endorsement.
I don't want to play those games.
I like Ken Paxton.
He's probably like the best AG in the country.
He's filed a ton of lawsuits on behalf of the people that have worked out really well.
And I'm sure many of you are arguing, well, good, shut down these gambling rooms.
They shouldn't exist.
The only argument is people believe it's not to end gambling, but to pave the way for large casino resorts and to move the card rooms, shut them down, so the casinos will own it.
This is the game that's being played, my friends.
Here's, this is from Andrew Hremer.
If he walks and talks like gambling, it's probably gambling.
How popular video game loot boxes likely violate Texas gambling laws from 2025.
Interesting, I must say, my friends.
Here's the big play.
Gambling is here to stay.
You may not like it, but there is nothing you can do to stop it.
That's the reality.
International casinos exist.
There's no law for the most, well, for the most part, it's not illegal for an individual to gamble.
It's illegal for an institution to offer gambling.
So what we're seeing now is tons of people streaming gambling through crypto international casinos.
It don't matter anymore.
I did a stream the other day playing poker on Bette Rivers, a certified Google advertiser, and Google explicitly told me I am allowed to play and live stream with Bett Rivers.
Now, I'll stress this.
Poker is a wholly different beast, specifically Texas Hold'em.
Let's say PLO, let's say, you know, pineapple and badugi.
These are different than five-card stud and other just overt poker gambling games like tech, like like, I'm sorry, like three-card poker and four-card poker and things like that.
It's resource management.
If you want to say no direct wagers on the outcome of cards is fine, then tournaments should be legal.
But casinos own them.
And the question is why?
A tournament is money paid up front where you play a resource management game where the chips have no real cash value and you either win or you lose.
That's it.
So why is that considered gambling?
By all means, if you want to consider it gambling, that's allowed, but understand what that's going to mean.
So long as there's a tournament for it, think about what that means for every major city.
You want to have a board game tournament?
Is there a dice rolling element of chance?
You've got to call the casino and say, we're having a monopoly tournament.
Why wouldn't the casinos want that?
Now, by all means, you might argue, that's silly.
Casinos are never going to try and take over a monopoly.
Agreed.
And they will face a battle from Nintendo and Hasbro and other big companies.
But if I was a casino operator and I was going to open a casino in New York City, in fact, New York is going to open three.
The first thing I would do as attorney general, I'd say, okay, anything wagered on chance is being shut down as of right now.
If you want to do it, you got to pay a fee to the casinos.
Why?
Because the casinos pay me.
Ain't that a...
I was talking with West Virginia, people in the government, and they told me the casinos here are very powerful.
They make so much money.
How do you beat them?
And they want all of these games owned and regulated by them.
The hammer drop?
The argument that I've made is because there are unregulated card games that have never faced the predominant factor test, there is an open door for a multitude of lawsuits every single time a new trading card game is played or made.
In which case, you either have to say all chance games for money, fortunately, it's gambling.
All skill games of perfect information, not gambling.
But this wouldn't mean that Pokemon Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh! Or Conox out and all these games are going to be considered gambling because chance is a substantial element of those games.
Or you might argue, Tim, you're wrong.
I think it's a skill game.
I play magic.
Here's the issue.
And I ask you guys to comment below to tell me what you think.
Do you believe the state courts, the state lottery commissions, will want to adjudicate every single new trading card game that comes out or card game in general?
No, they're not going to.
So what will they do?
They will require licensing for all new trading card games before they can be sold or played.
Why not?
You think the casinos are going to let them just allow people to make games of chance that can be played for money?
I don't think so.
The big picture.
Obviously, you know I care about this issue.
I've talked about it quite a bit.
But for all of you that are less interested, the bigger picture is that Gen Z are becoming gambling influencers.
This is taking over.
There will be casinos everywhere.
They will lobby.
They will control.
And young people are going to film it.
More and more new influencers are popping up every day.
This, my friends, is the next big cultural zeitgeist.
Mark my words.
Have you not been paying attention?
Here's a story from July from Poker News.
Poker vlogger Corey Eyring risks entire net worth on one hand.
And oh boy, was he gambling.
For those that don't know, I'll explain it to you.
The board had five cards, 978310.
Now, that means there's 7, 8, 9, 10 of hearts.
That means the strongest possible hand would be the Jack of Hearts for the complete high.
Well, actually, to be clear, it would be Jack Queen, giving you 8, 9, 10, Jack Queen, a queen-high, straight flush.
Corey Eyring had just the ace.
That gives what's called the nut flush, meaning if there wasn't a sequence of hearts, the ace would be the highest value.
But because it went 7, 8, 9, 10, the ace will lose to Queen Jack, just a single Jack, and just a single six.
He was in for, I think, $100,000.
No, no, it would be $50,000.
I'm sorry, $50,000.
He had, what did he have left?
Did he have $85,000?
I don't know how much he was in for.
He put all of his money in with just the ace, which we would call that the fourth nuts, the fourth strongest hand.
And then he said, I'm going to mix up my cards, and if I flip over the ace of hearts, I will call you.
So he was gambling, pure gambling.
He didn't know if he was going to win or not.
And so he said it to chance.
50-50.
If I flip over the right card, I call.
That is gambling.
And that is what we are seeing heavily among young people.
In fact, in this one hand, I would largely say it was not gambling, this move that he made where he lost $30,000.
He tried to do an all-in bluff in an area where I think it didn't rightly make sense, but he got called by someone who had a good hand, calculated the odds, thought that the story didn't make sense and made the bet.
Some people said to the guy who called, how could you have called there?
But based on the play, I actually think it does make sense.
His call was good, and Corey risked everything poorly.
My point ultimately is this.
You can gamble on anything.
Cash games of poker, some people are gambling, some people are not.
It has an element of gambling that you're risking money on the outcome of cards, but the individual hands dealt, it's not the whole game.
The whole game is the four hours you play.
When you go on streams, they say you must play for four hours, unless you lose everything and you have no choice.
My point ultimately is, do you believe that casinos are going to allow any element of chance games that they could control to be played anywhere else?
And with this, it's to show you a Gen Z guy who is trying to build a personality by making insane risks entertainment.
When I play games, like if you watched my stream last night on the Tim Pool channel at Tim Pool on YouTube, you can watch it.
$200 was my buy-in.
That's it.
I am not playing to make tons of money.
I'm playing just for the skill and the thrill and a resource management game.
I would never risk millions of dollars in any one of these games.
That's ridiculous.
I play small.
I play long-term because for me, it's not about money or gambling.
It's about tracking my skill in the game, my ability to read people, my math capabilities, my resource management, and whether or not I'm a long-term winning player.
For young people, it is shock content entertainment, and it is taking over.
Tell me what you want.
Say gambling is bad.
The big picture is, oh boy, is it coming.
And special moneyed interests are coming.
Trump tried to open a casino.
Trump had the Taj Mahal, I think, right?
That's that what he had in Vegas?
Was that what he had?
The Trump Taj Mahal?
I don't remember.
And he's got a big donor who wants casinos.
They are going to expand it.
They're going to go after your video games.
They're going to go after your card games.
It's coming.
I guess in the end, the only thing I can really add to this is, you know, what do you do about Gen Z being addicted to gambling?
I don't see how you ban it, especially when Trump's got a gambling ally.
Tell me what you think.
Smash the like button, my friends.
Share the show with everyone you know.
We got more coming up throughout the day.
Thanks for hanging out, and we will see you all in the next