Handicapping tip

Am I getting more cynical or are things getting worse?

Probably both.

The latest indication of my personality degradation is that whenever I find a court ruling that I think is a little weird, I immediately check to see who appointed the judge or judges.

Case in point, a recent ruling from a trio of judges in a case involving the gambling-or-maybe-investing company KalshiEX LLC. Kalshi wanted to enjoin the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement from applying a state law regulating sports betting to Kalshi.

Imagine going onto the Kalshi site and putting $100 on the New Jersey Devils to beat the New York Rangers. Do you think you’ve gambled or made an investment? Could you have done both?

You can decide that for yourself.

Here’s part of what the three federal appellate judges wrote:

“Kalshi is a financial services company that operates a designated contract market licensed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on which it offers event contracts, a type of derivative. Derivatives are financial tools that mitigate risk and derive their value from some underlying asset.”

You’re not risking your money on the Devils. You’re mitigating your risk.

Yes, the three judges were all appointed by Republicans — one Reagan, one Bush, one Trump.

Judge for yourself whether the ruling is a good or bad thing. The lesson here is a strategic insight: When betting on (or investing in) court rulings, find out who appointed the judge or judges.

Just like in horseracing, past performances and pedigrees are important information.

Breaking news (sort of): A federal judge in Minnesota last week denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have forced the federal government (i.e. the Trump administration) to release $259 million in Medicaid funding to the State of Minnesota that normally would have gone to the state.

This may or may not be reasonable. The judge was appointed by Trump. I feel guilty for pointing this out.

Or maybe I don’t.

Proper placement. Do algorithms have a sense of humor?

I didn’t think so, but I’m beginning to wonder. Case in point, the following ad which was almost certainly inserted by an advertising computer protocol:

I assume most of you are already guessing where it appeared. It was right after this paragraph in a recent New York Times article:

“Intuit’s behavior has been particularly egregious. ProPublica reported in 2019 that the company had concealed the landing page for the Free File version of its product so that it was invisible to Google and other search engines. It also created a stalking horse called TurboTax: Free Edition, which pushed users to pay for add-ons. After it got caught, the company abandoned the Free File program.”

You have to give Intuit credit for honest advertising — they do seem to know the industry inside and out. Not sure if they should have admitted it, though.