babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Social Costs of Legal Gambling

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Social Costs of Legal Gambling
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 11:23 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Do we want to be in this business? Click.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Man With No Name
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3771

posted 24 February 2003 11:34 AM      Profile for Man With No Name     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whenever I go to Montreal, I go to the casino for bit and play blackjack. Loads of fun, but I lose mostly (oh well). Many of my friends and relatives who like going to casinos have no problem.

I'd love to be a blackjack dealer, oh so glamorous LOL.

The vast majority have no problem with gambling. The minority that do should get help. The release signing and barring from the casino should be strictly enforced; however the most damning piece of evidence against the plaintiff is near the ed of the article.

quote:
His wife and family support him, he says, and he hasn't played a VLT since his boss confronted him three years ago.

In other words 'smarten up or you're fired'. And it worked. He has no case.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it certainly deserves board space right beside the McDonald's thread, because they're basically the same issue: knowing when to say NO.

Personally, I'm a little tired of all of these "addicts" whose addiction only comes to light when it serves their purposes.

Having 18 beers? You're just having a good time, right buddy? Oooops! Hit someone with your car? Well, now you're an alcoholic with diminished responsibilities! In fact, you might be able to sue the beer company for selling you the beer that got you drunk and made you run someone over! Let's ignore the fact that calling you a rummy yesterday would have been tantamount to picking a fight... today you're a tragic victim!

Perhaps these addicts could wear some kind of MedicAlert bracelet like other people with diseases do. I'd be a little more inclined to believe that someone was a gambling addict or a sex addict or a love addict if it looked like they were consistent in this evaluation of themself and willing to do something to help themselves.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Personally, I'm a little tired of all of these "addicts" whose addiction only comes to light when it serves their purposes.

You mean like going onto to "Oprah" to discuss one's recovery as a means of recovering a failing music or acting career?

Self-centred behaviour is a characteristic common to most active and recovering addicts. Lawsuits and Oprah appearances are just extreme forms.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2003 12:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps these addicts could wear some kind of MedicAlert bracelet like other people with diseases do.

Better yet, maybe they should have to wear a sign. Or how about getting a target tattooed on their cheek so that people can spit in their faces when they walk down the street? Hey, that'll learn'em!


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 12:43 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You mean like going onto to "Oprah" to discuss one's recovery as a means of recovering a failing music or acting career?

Worse yet are the ones who'll go on Springer and do it just for the brief attention. And it certainly makes for what some people must find compelling television.

"Next up: Love addicts! That's right - they're not just selfish assholes who enjoy the pleasurable sensations associated with having sex as much as possible... they're bona-fide medical victims who deserve your sympathy just like victims of other less sensational diseases, like leukemia!"


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 12:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Or how about getting a target tattooed on their cheek so that people can spit in their faces when they walk down the street? Hey, that'll learn'em!

Why would people spit in the face of someone wearing a medic alert bracelet? Does this happen to epileptics or diabetics?

I'm just pointing out that if you suffer from a real disease, you typically know it and acknowledge it. Addicts seem to get pretty testy when someone points out their addiction to them, but if there's a buck in it, they're the ones happy to draw that target on themselves. Have you ever seen the loopy things that people will confess to on Springer?

What's so wrong about people being upfront about illnesses *before* it benefits them if they're going to be upfront *after*?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 12:54 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm just pointing out that if you suffer from a real disease, you typically know it and acknowledge it. Addicts seem to get pretty testy when someone points out their addiction to them, but if there's a buck in it, they're the ones happy to draw that target on themselves.

So, are you saying that addiction is not a medical condition? That alcoholism isn't a disease, for example? Do you know more than the American Medical Association on this matter?

Lots of people deny illnesses and ignore taking steps to do something about it -- people with clinical depression, schizophrenia, bowel disease. Those are "real diseases" too.

Yes, it is unfortunate that addicts are sometimes opportunistic and "play victim." So do politicians and members of Babble. So what?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 12:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that addicts are sometimes opportunistic and "play victim." So do politicians and members of Babble. So what?

So we don't need to humour them in it.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 01:00 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. We don't need to humour them about it. My concern with your previous post was what might have been the belief that addictions aren't "real diseases."

I don't wear a MedicAlert that identifies me as an alcoholic. I do wear an AA ring, though. The symbol might make a nice tat on my butt cheek.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 01:10 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
My concern with your previous post was what might have been the belief that addictions aren't "real diseases."

I think addictions are, to some people, very real diseases, but to others are a perverse sort of scapegoat for their own bad choices. Both of my parents were alcoholics - they drank too much, and often inappropriately. But they never blamed anything on their drinking except drunkenness. If anything they saw their problem as giving them more responsibilities, not fewer.

And for the record: I have grave doubts about "food addiction", "love addiction" and "sex addiction". I think these terms have been coined to give permission to people to overindulge in obviously pleasurable acts. Being greedy feels good - there's no need to medicalize it beyond that.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 01:23 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And for the record: I have grave doubts about "food addiction",

Actually, the brain chemists are starting to see evidence that certain foods can lead to brain interactions that resemble those of other addictive substances.

I think that wherever someone continues to "use" instead of address problems, and that "using" continues to reduce the desire to address the problems -- we have the pattern of addictive behaviour. At least, that's the architype in the literature of systems thinking and systems dynamics.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 01:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, the brain chemists are starting to see evidence that certain foods can lead to brain interactions that resemble those of other addictive substances.

Well, call me when they find someone who's addicted to bran. Or cod liver oil. I don't really need any brain science to know why someone might want to eat the whole tub of ice cream. Ice cream tastes good! Same with chocolate. Same with fried food.

BTW, given my druthers, I'll happily sleep until well past noon. Does this make me an official "addict", or am I just lazy?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 01:35 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually, those "good tasting" foods also seem to be the ones that most mimic the effect of other narcotics on the brain.

If your sleep habits affect your ability to function, and you choose to continue sleeping (ie. procrastinating) rather than come to terms the problems, then you are showing addictive behaviour.

Consider the corporate CEO who repeatedly threatens his or her staff with termination if the results don't get better instead of getting to the actual problems with that business. Is such a person behaving addictively, or is he or she simply "an asshole?" Perhaps both.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 02:13 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If your sleep habits affect your ability to function, and you choose to continue sleeping (ie. procrastinating) rather than come to terms the problems, then you are showing addictive behaviour.

Procrastinating! You know it's misinformed, insensitive bigots like you who keep the issue of Sleep Addiction in the closet! How dare you compare my tragic illness with simple procrastination. Procrastination is a choice. Do you think I'd lay around in bed all day if I had a choice?? Would I slowly ease myself from my 14 hour slumber, padding toward the kitchen for my 2pm "wake up coffee" if I didn't have to??

Sleep releases a number of chemical compounds into the brain, resulting in relaxation, drowsiness, and possible dreams of sex with supermodels: all very addictive! And why should I "come to terms" with my addiction? I didn't ask to be addicted to sleep! The rest of the world needs to come to grips with ME, that's what needs to happen.

For example my employer needs to immediately drop the punitive and insensitive "rules" about coming in at 9 am and staying until 5 if I want to collect my full pay. That may be fine for someone who isn't a bona-fide victim like me, but how am I supposed to sleep past noon and still satisfy "the man"? Hmm?

You might just as well give in to me now instead of forcing me to hire F. Lee Bailey and sue all your asses for not taking my suffering seriously. I've got a greedy lawyer. Now all I need is a greedy doctor, a bored news reporter, and an empty news cycle and I'll have the money and recognition of my pain that I so richly deserve!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 02:17 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More power to you.

By the way, there is a converted house two streets over from where you live that hosts meetings of Sleep Addicts Anonymous every two hours each day. How would you feel about taking in 90 meetings in the next 90 days?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 02:25 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Forcing me to go out of my way to "fix" a problem I didn't ask for is just more "blaming the victim"! I want to blame someone else, not me.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 February 2003 02:28 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No one is forcing you. I simply asked if you were willing is all.

OH NO! Is this thread degenerating into.... GULP... Optative Theatrics?

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: paxamillion ]


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 03:28 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
OH NO! Is this thread degenerating into.... GULP... Optative Theatrics?

Wouldn't that require an audience?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 24 February 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree Mr. Magoo.

Too many of these so-called addictions are really just a way to rationalize some pretty lame behaviour.

Smoking, alcoholism, and similar addictions I can understand. But casino gambling? Come on. Don't get in your car, don't drive to Niagara Falls, or Rama, don't valet park your car, don't walk in and all down the line.

Addicted to gambling? Stop gambling. Its pretty simple.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lima Bean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3000

posted 24 February 2003 04:41 PM      Profile for Lima Bean   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For some, but not for others.

In this happy day of VLT's everywhere, gambling can be harder to avoid than your post suggests.

It's a much bigger problem than you're giving it credit for.


From: s | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In this happy day of VLT's everywhere...

Hm. Don't believe I've ever sat in front of one. And I live, work and shop in downtown Toronto. Where does one have to go to encounter these things? Banks? Grocery stores? School? Where is "everywhere"?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 24 February 2003 04:59 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah but you still have to go a place where they are. You still have to walk from your car into the back of some bar where the VLT's are. You still have to fish 50 bucks out your wallet or purse and slide it in the slot.

You have to choose to do all these things before you do the thing you are supposedly addicted to.

I can buy chemical dependency and alcoholism. I don't buy "behavourial" addictions. As Mr. Magoo said lots of things are really pleasurable, even gambling, and methinks some people just don't want to quit, want being the operative word.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 24 February 2003 05:04 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Being addicted to Rabble is at least free.

[ 24 February 2003: Message edited by: Non-partisan partisan ]


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 February 2003 05:10 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmm... 2 questions:

1) can I really be addicted to Rabble?
2) is Judy Rebick rich?

(I'll just be over here hatching a plan...)


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 25 February 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm kind of on the fence with this one.

Initially, when they opened a casino in London, I was against it because it was an out of town corporation who wanted to open up. Obviously, that would create a financial drain on the city as we're not a border town.

However, when the Western Fair Association, a local concern owned by the city opened up a Casino, I wasn't opposed.

Yes, I know there are people who have problems with gambling. But how far are we going to go to protect people from themselves?

It was my thinking then, and still-- with some reservations-- that banning casino gambling goes to far to the "busy body" side of things.

Here are some reservations though. It was my impression that the law required games of chance to display the odds of winning in some prominent place. A look at some lottery tickets, and questioning some patrons of casinos tells me this impression is wrong.

I think gamblers should be told, for example, what the odds are of winning at a roulette table, or black jack, or the slots. And that information should be displayed prominently at the game site.

As far as addiction goes, there are some similarities between gamblers and substance abusers. In talking to both, I find that many (not all) are addicted because they are chasing that first "high" they experienced. If a persons first experience gambling was a moderate to big win, chances are pretty good that they'll try to achieve that "high" from winning over and over.

And, the odds are calculated by casinos to take gross advantage of those people.

The other obvious problem is that casinos and lottery tickets pray on the hopeless-- much like the intoxicating substance industry does. They offer the illusion of the quick buck to those who don't have any.

Would I ban that? No. Would I own or operate a casino? No. I'm not a sleaze ball.

As a tax on the gullible, I can' really object too strenously against gambling. If you don't want to appraise yourself of the horrendous odds disadvantage to winning, or, you find losing entertaining, that's the individuals look out.

But as a tax on the hopeless? People who bilk money out of people like that probably laugh when they see a blind person trip.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 February 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, the odds are calculated by casinos to take gross advantage of those people.

Actually the odds are "calculated" by the nature of the games themselves, and are such as to take equal advantage of all people. Now some of those people probably don't have the extra money to throw away, at least by our reckoning, but who are we to say?

quote:
People who bilk money out of people like that probably laugh when they see a blind person trip.

It's only "bilking" if it's done under false pretenses. Otherwise it's just a plain old gamble. Don't like the odds? Don't bet.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 25 February 2003 01:00 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Smoking, alcoholism, and similar addictions I can understand. But casino gambling? Come on. Don't get in your car, don't drive to Niagara Falls, or Rama, don't valet park your car, don't walk in and all down the line.

I recognize the difference being the absence of a substance. However, the medical community treats compulsive gambling as a mental health disorder. For example, in my region, there is a counselling program for compulsive gamblers as well as a GA meeting.

My friends who are recovering tell me the "rush" for them was every bit as compelling as alcohol or narcotics.

I ask the question about us wanting to be in "this business" as a society. I agree that because gambling can become harmfully compulsive for some doesn't mean that it should be "illegal" in any way.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 26 February 2003 01:59 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's only "bilking" if it's done under false pretenses. Otherwise it's just a plain old gamble. Don't like the odds? Don't bet.

Lotteries and casinos are not up front about the odds, so it is bilking.

"A plain old gamble" would be you and I with a deck of cards playing seven card stud. When you invent a rule that your two pair beats my flush, then that thar's cheatin', plain and simple.

I wouldn't outlaw it-- but don't ask me to think casino operators are fine upstanding citizens, either.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2003 02:24 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lotteries and casinos are not up front about the odds, so it is bilking.

Er.. if you're at the blackjack table, you're showing a 10, the dealer's at 18... what exactly are your odds?

If you want to know what your odds were before you even stepped up to the table, read a book. It's not exactly a Freemason secret


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 26 February 2003 02:46 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I buy a lottery ticket occasionally. I do so fully cognizant of the astronomical odds against me. The only reason I buy one is that the odds are infinitely against me if I don't buy a ticket at all. It would be fantastic to win, and I could lose the two bucks between the couch cushions and never miss it, so it's all the same.

Hoever, I have a friend who does not share my cavalier attitude when buying his tickets. He is someone who sees himself as having little hope of ever attaining even modest financial security for his looming old age. He participates out of desperation. He is not alone -- I have heard several clients (all welfare recipients) of their desperate sprees at the Great Canadian Casino. All because the gambling industry plays to their desperation -- as opposed to their greed, because they all know the odds are totally against them. These are people who do not see the benefits of investing in Bonds or Mutual Funds as providing the pay-off they need. So, it is a problem in that situation. Sure people make choices -- from the handful of options they are given. It's not like our society doesn't glorify risk-taking. We just don't highlight the need to plan before risk.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2003 03:00 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have heard several clients (all welfare recipients) of their desperate sprees at the Great Canadian Casino.

OK, let's assume that gambling is (somehow) their best option. Are they at least playing the game(s) with the best odds of winning?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 26 February 2003 03:01 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Er.. if you're at the blackjack table, you're showing a 10, the dealer's at 18... what exactly are your odds?

Good illustration, Mr. Magoo. One is prevented from approximating the odds, because if one keeps track of the cards played-- a skill that some have-- one is thrown out as a "card counter" and-- get this-- "a cheat" who gets blackballed by all the casinos.

Thank you.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2003 10:20 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You're always welcome to "approximate" the odds on any game. And on games like Roulette, those odds don't change much.

Counting cards refers to either:

a) a rare "Rain Man-like person who can keep track of all of the cards in a typical 6 deck throw. This does not calculate "your odds of winning", but rather it calculates your odds "in order to win".

b) far more often a person who, with the aid of technology, has found a way to keep track of all of the cards, or relay the cards played to someone offsite who can manage this information and calculate exact odds with a computer.

You're also mixing up one's overall odds of winning, with their chances at any one hand.

The latter is all but incalculable for the average mathematical mind. The former is a well documented function of the rules of the game. Again, anyone who feels the game is unfair, after finding out what their overall odds are, is not obligated to play. Unfortunately, most casino patrons enjoy the loud games like slots, or the "high stakes" games like Roulette, and the actual overall odds of winning don't factor into their choice anyway.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 February 2003 10:48 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Er.. if you're at the blackjack table, you're showing a 10, the dealer's at 18... what exactly are your odds?

Well you'll never go bust with one more card.

Actually Mr.Magoo, another pretty simple method of counting cards is applying a +1 to ten cards or higher, and a -1 to 9 or lower.

You end up seeing all the cards in Blackjack so if you can count all of the other players hands quickly, and your at -9, the odds of pulling a face card next are that much higher.

Its more effective the deeper in the deck you are but it can give you a real edge.

Another casino game with pretty good odds is craps, which people shy away from because it appears to be really complicated. It does have some pretty stupid wagers. (I love to see idiots plunk down $20.00 and yell for the "hard 8"), but ride the pass line and double when you can and you can make a pretty good day of it.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2003 11:07 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Interesting! Clearly an educated gambler. This brings to mind another point though: at their root, all games of chance are games of probability. And by probability, I mean math. If you "don't like math", or feel you "aren't good with numbers", then it really doesn't matter whether the casino makes up huge signs with your approximate odds on them or not... you won't have the mathematical ability to do anything meaningful with them.

As a classic example, ask your friends or coworkers this: If I flip a perfectly fair, legal, unaltered coin 10 times, and it comes up heads all 10 times then what are the chances it will come up heads on the 11th flip? Then, for bonus marks, ask them what the chances were of it coming up heads 10 times in a row.

Many will exhibit one or the other type of gambler's fallacy, ie: some will say that since the coin "is on a run" that it will most likely come up heads again. Others will say that the coin "is due for" coming up tails.

Of course if the coin is, as we said, fair and legal, then it has the same 50/50 chance of coming up either heads or tails, regardless of it's history.

And if they don't immediately answer "1 in 2-to-the-tenth", or "1 in 1024" as the actual odds, then being "allowed" to count cards wouldn't help them. Their dislike of mathematics is handicapping them, not the casino.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 26 February 2003 11:28 AM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Come on, 10 heads in a row, thats a million to one.

Edit: The only gambling that should involve the phrase "its on a run" is horse racing, which in many ways is the easiest form of gambling to "win" at.

Love those expressions:

I'm due
I'm chasing, been chasing all night
I've got the MO (as in momentum)
This tables cold

And, as I am loathe to brag but sometimes the opportunity presents itself. I was using my little system in Las Vegas last year, and was sitting at a table with 3 people who, after a few obvious minutes, had no idea what they were doing.

I had 14, and my count indicated I was sky high at +12 with about 10 cards to go. I can guarentee you that there was not another face card in the deck. So I turn to the couple beside me and I said, I'm pulling a 7, bet you $100.00. (I still could have lost because I can't differentiate 9s and 8s from lower cards.)

The guy looks at the cards on the table, which is useless after going through 6 decks, and says, nah, you'll bust.

Damned if that 7 didn't come up. I wasn't breaking the bank so the dealer didn't pay much notice, but it felt pretty sweet.

[ 26 February 2003: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 26 February 2003 11:36 AM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again, my question -- is gambling a business we want to be in as a society?
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 26 February 2003 12:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'd rather the question be phrased backward to that: Is gambling a business we want to avoid as a society?

No. Not without a better reason than "some people like it too much".


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 27 February 2003 05:10 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Niether do I believe we should outlaw something because a small percentage of the population doesn't have the capacity to deal with it, when the vast majority can choose not to use, or derive innocent entertainment value from it.

Would that all our laws were so constructed.

However, that being said, I'm also free to conduct myself in a manner that is disposed to think of those who run casinos as a type of con artist.

[ 27 February 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 27 February 2003 12:09 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've read some horror stories about gambling addiction and the results are rather esthetically displeasing.

Quite frankly, do we want more people who go to casinos soiling their underwear so they don't get up from a slot machine?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 27 February 2003 12:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe we could buy them some Pull-Ups (they look just like big-gambler underwear!)

Seriously... there can't be as many people soiling their britches gambling as there are soiling their britches drinking - and we still sell alcohol.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy Shanks
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3076

posted 27 February 2003 03:30 PM      Profile for Tommy Shanks     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been in Casinos and watched someone sit at a slot machine and lose all day and not move because the machine is "due". I've seen people poach machines where someone has had a long dry streak, again because its "due".

Sad, superstitous, behavoiur. Someone though who'll sit there and soil themselves hase more problems though then gambling.

As Mr.Magoo noted above, probably the first is their expectation of what they'll win (not the "Huge Score" not on slots).

But what of it? To borrow from another thread, that's their choice. I go to Casinos in a place like Vegas because its a fun diversion for a couple of hours.

If I find myself on a bus to Rama on a Tuesday morning in February, I might change my mind....


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca