Effective Altruist Opportunity: Spin For Good is running a $1000 money added online blackjack tournament this week that’s 100% for charity. I’m currently one of the leaders but I’d definitely welcome some friendly competition.
It only costs $10 to enter and if you’re one of the top finishers, your charity wins a chunk of the full prize pool. Worst case, your $10 goes to charity. Best case, you get a high enough score to help pick which charities gets more of the money in the prize pool.
You can play for lots of great GWWC-recommended EA charities like: Against Malaria Foundation (AMF), Project Healthy Children (PHC), Schistosomiasis Control Initiative (SCI), etc.
8 Responses to “Spin For Good”
June 24
Nickolai LeschovI’d rather just donate, but I guess some others think differently?
June 24
Louie HelmI also donate. This is just something that’s a fun experiment I guess.
June 24
Nickolai LeschovOTOH, this is probably good as an additional avenue for promotion of charities to gamers: maybe some significant portion of those who play blackjack for charity would not participate in giving for charity? Probably there’s something in there for MIRI to think about.
By the way, how legal is poker in the USA? I know offline poker has been banned in Russia recently; some parties, with vested interests, probably, promoted campaigns like ‘poker is not a crime’, to no avail.
June 24
Louie HelmPoker is legal in casinos is the US. No legal online poker in the US right now except in Nevada and New Jersey.
June 24
Nickolai LeschovHow come ‘Spin For Good’ is legal, then? (the site won’t load for me)
June 24
Peter HurfordIf “for charity” is a legal loophole for Poker sites, maybe it’s also a legal loophole for prediction markets…
June 24
Louie HelmSpin for Good isn’t poker. It’s blackjack. But that does remind me that I have no idea how the laws apply to them. I’m simply assuming the author of Freakonomics bothered to figure it out before doing this.
June 24
Louie HelmSpin for Good isn’t poker. It’s blackjack. But that does remind me that I have no idea how the laws apply to them. I’m simply assuming the author of Freakonomics bothered to figure it out before doing this.