I think this is a good question, I’m sorry you’re being downvoted.
I think the difference is that buying/betting on a house or stocks are not a zero-sum game. It is feasible for everyone to buy a house, all the houses to increase in real-world value, and everyone benefit. Likewise with stocks. And on top of that effect, the bets being made are useful for society at large to make better plans, because they are a measure of society’s best predictions. Sports betting on the other hand, is truly zero-sum (although I think you could make an argument that it's actually worse than zero sum). Additionally, it is not useful for society to predict which team will win some set of games. This is just wasted effort on a curiosity. There’s nothing wrong with that effort as entertainment, but it is bad to incentivize our minds to take up sports betting, as opposed to say finance, engineering, art, or anything productive.
Options markets are zero sum.
The important distinction between gambling and options is that there are many additional information sources available to bias the outcome.
Options are a Bayesian game. Jane Street is much more likely to win than I am, but there are still rare cases where I could come out ahead with very high certainty (I know something they don't).
Card counting and being escorted out of the casino aside, there aren't any ways to acquire private information in a gambling context.
Why? Both sides could use hedging, both sides could derive economic benefits, etc.
On a per transaction level, for every dollar someone makes on a put/call option, the other person has to lose equivalent. Even more when you factor in exchange fees
Hedging is just an additional transaction that limits the damage if the bet doesn't pay off. You can do the same thing in gambling.