Gambling in general is contrary to distributive justice. Money is pooled and distributed in the hands of few, in part on the basis of luck.
Maybe an argument can be made that pooling the money in fewer hands: affords greater utility to the few that collect, greater utility is derived through the process for all participants, and utility is generated even for the losers who can rationalize the loss as the rejection of the material.
People more articulate than myself have expressed this notion, though I think
John Rawls would reject a utilitarian argument and posit that affronts to distributive justice are not welcome in a well-ordered society.