Gambling

[softwareNerd]

Someone started a discussion on gambling in an unrelated thread I have taken Jennifer's advice and started a new thread. While doing so, I figured I'd also poll people to see what they do. (I'm not polling on the morality of gambling, just on whether you do it.)

Personally, games like slots do not interest me. I am not interested in a pure gamble.

There are two contexts in which I act in a way that might be termed "gambling".

One context is where I play "the house". A casino, for instance, takes part in a gambling transaction, but I do not think this means that running a casino is a gamble. I place myself in this type of situation whenever I take a risk that I consider "worth it". This might mean buying certain shares, not accepting a job offer because I expect a better one will come along, not taking the extended warranty on the cheap electronic item I buy at Sears, and so on.

The other context is where I wager money on the outcome of an activity which I enjoy, to "make it more interesting". So, if I am playing bridge, I might wager a certain amount -- my friends and I used to play all night and the loser bought breakfast!

Before making a moral judgement, I think we need to define gambling. Is gambling the same as "risk taking"? How would you define it?

[JMeganSnow]

I'm wondering . . . I play RPG's where the success/failure of your character is determined via some kind of random method, usually dice. Would you consider this gambling? Or are you specifically restricting it to the gambling of money?

I play cards with my family sometimes and we like to play poker games. Usually we just deal out some chips and play until we get bored. Whoever has the most wins putting the cards away.

[softwareNerd]

I'm wondering . . . I play RPG's where the success/failure of your character is determined via some kind of random method, usually dice.  Would you consider this gambling? 

Is luck the only factor in "RPGs"? Is some skill and strategy involved?

I used to play card with chips. There too, if a game had too much of an element of luck, it never interested me. When I learnt to play bridge, I thought it was an ideal game. The element of luck determines whether you get good cards or bad. Yet, even with bads card (at least the way I scored it), one could use skill to do well.

Suppose there was a game where two people simply throwe dice. After doing that a hundred times, they add up the total number each threw and declare a winner. That would be a boring game. (Well, my 6 years old mighty stick with it -- but it would bore an average adult.)

Would I find it immoral, though? Well, only to the extent that doing something pointless is immoral.

Now, what if money were involved, and the "house was taking a cut". Now, I could not rationally expect to win. I might win one day, and lose another. In the long run, to the extent that chance alone is involved, I must expect to lose. yet, the thill is in the hope and expectation of winning. I think there is self-deception involved; and, to that extent it is immoral if done routinely.

[JMeganSnow]

Is luck the only factor in "RPGs"? Is some skill and strategy involved?

Role-Playing Games. The skill and strategy largely are involved in trying to avoid rolling any dice! Once you have to roll you're committed to whatever comes up, and bad luck can kill your character, an alter-ego you've probably invested some time and effort into, which is no fun.

I think the definition of "gambling" you're looking for would be along the lines of: "risking money on the outcome of a random or unknown activity in the hopes of gaining a reward in excess of funds initially forwarded."

I would consider "playing" the stock market (like a day-trader) to be gambling, but not investing in stocks (long-term), as that tends to be more diversified and is based on the fact that investing actually creates more wealth.

I always liked Marilyn vos Savant's statement on gambling (paraphrase): "If you lose money at gambling (the most likely outcome) it is a very poor way to spend it; you have recieved nothing except possibly a temporary thrill. If you MAKE money (unlikely) it is a very poor way to "earn" it; you learn nothing that would enable you to duplicate the result . . ."

You have not created wealth, merely redistributed it.

[BurgessLau]

I think the definition of "gambling" you're looking for would be along the lines of: "risking money on the outcome of a random or unknown activity in the hopes of gaining a reward in excess of funds initially forwarded."

This definition is helpful. Consider three examples as a test of the definition.

First, an example of gambling is rolling dice (assuming that is a random activity). Gambling in this strict sense would cover, perhaps, not only single activities which are "random" (another term needing definition?), but also situations where outcomes are based on so many variables (including free will) that there is no assured way of predicting an outcome in an economical way. (Acquiring knowledge is costly.) Predicting the outcome of a soccer match might be an example. Knowledge of the teams should lead to a reliable prediction -- if one could gather all the pertinent information.

A second example, to test the definition, would be playing poker, which is partly a random activity (if the cards are shuffled and dealt honestly), but also partly a skill. So, poker is gambling, but a mixed case.

Third, taking a certain job in hope that it will lead to a major career advancement later is not gambling in the strict sense you have defined it, but I could say metaphorically that it is a "gamble," that is, some factors are under my control and predictable but others are not.

[softwareNerd]

Some would say that buying a typical lottery ticket purely in the hope of winning is not rational.

However, some economists start with the assumption that the behaviour is rational and then try to figure out why it is so. Bernoulli started this. Such economists say that lottery-buyers value an additional million dollars more than a million times the $1 they spend on the ticket. If one assumes certain valuations, one can conclude that the behavior is rational.

[foofalah]

I make part of my living playing poker.

The above definition of gambling seems accurate. However, in some wagering games, your in-game decisions have no bearing on the long-term outcome. In craps or roulette or slots, for example, probability dictates that you are a loser in the long run. Every bet you make has a negative expected value.

Say I offer you the proposition: We play a dice game. Every time you roll a six, I pay you $10. Every time you don't roll a 6, you pay me $1. Since each number is expected to come out an equal number of times in the long run, in the end you will win. So say you roll the dice 600 times. ~100 times you'll win $10, and ~500 times you'll lose $1. So you'll win $1000 and lose $500 for $500 profit. Your EV (expected value) per roll is +83 cents.

Is that a rational wager for you? Sure as hell it is.

So as to whether or not it is rational to gamble, it can be, if you have odds in your favor.

For games against the house (craps, roulette, slots, etc.), there is lvirtually nothing that can be done to nullify the house edge (except in blackjack and very possibly in craps). The deck is stacked against you, as it were, and that's how Vegas stays around.

For games against other players, by contrast, the decisions you make *matter* and the game requires strict objectivity, calculation, and no room for emotionalism. Even taking into account short term luck, in the end, skillful players will win out over less skillful players. As evidence for this, note that there are professional poker players, but no professional roulette players. You can get *better* at poker by practice and reading books, but there is no way to be a better roulette player. So to my way of thinking, poker isn't *gambling* per se, unless you treat it that way (and if you do treat it that way, you won't win).

So, like the answer to most questions...it depends on the context.

If you are interested in a good author on gambling topics, try David Sklansky.

P.S. As an aside with regard to the lottery example...again it depends on the odds. There have been situations where the size of the jackpot in relation to the cost of the ticket has given the act of buying a ticket a slightly positive EV. You aren't *favored* to win the lottery in this case by simply buying a ticket; what it means is that in the very long run, given the odds and payout and enough trials, you would be slightly ahead overall. (In fact, I heard a story second-hand of a high school math teach who used a real-life example of a positive EV lottery situation for a lottery drawing that was about to occur. He students badgered him into buying a ticket, lest he be a hypocrite. He took this to heart, reluctantly bought some tickets...and he won!)

Edited February 18, 2005 by foofalah

[RationalBiker]

I play poker in a league usually twice a week. There's no entry fee and no buy in, so no real money is at stake. We accumulate points for final table performances which culminates with a final tournament of the top 120 players at the end of the season. The only monetary outlay is what you spend eating and drinking at the establishment. The tourney operators get paid by the bar/restaurant the same way a band would to bring in customers. The establishement makes money off customers which they would not normally have on their slow nights. This is a great exchange of values in my book! Depending on the venue, there are anywhere from 60-140 players / customers in the tourneys.

I have played cash games, but I don't do it nearly as frequently as I did a few years ago. I only play cash games with people I know or perhaps in casinos, though I haven't played poker in a casino yet.

I'm in agreement with others that poker is not strictly gambling. I think the amount of chance involved varies from player to player. Just about any hand can be a winner depending on how observant you are, where your sitting, how you play the hand, and how well you know who you are playing against among other things.

I love the game. I like playing head to head against people. I consider any money lost to be payment for the enjoyable time spent in the game. Other times, I get paid to have fun. I think it's important to distinguish what one intends to get out of the experience and how capable that person is of achieving that goal. There a people who go in to the game to win money, and they are good enough over the long haul to consistently accomplish that goal. I play fairly well, but I make no pretense that I could make my living off of professional poker. (yet )

[Michael Hopcroft]

Some would say that buying a typical lottery ticket purely in the hope of winning is not rational.

That sounds correct, although one wonders what other possible reason there could be for buying a ticket. There is absolutely no skill involved in a lottery game. Since the numebrs are completely random and each drawing is independent of all past and future drawings, there is no rational reason to believe that one "choice" of numbers to place your wgaer on is better than another.

Many people sell "Ssytem" that are supposed to make it easier to win the lottery. Although these people make less money than they would ahve if their system had actually caused them to win the Powerball jackpot, they make more money in the long run than the poor sap who buys the system and faithfully playes the lottery because they believe the system will help them win.

However, some economists start with the assumption that the behaviour is rational and then try to figure out why it is so. Bernoulli started this. Such economists say that lottery-buyers value an additional million dollars more than a million times the $1 they spend on the ticket. If one assumes certain valuations, one can conclude that the behavior is rational.

This rasies a separate, poltiical issue: Many governments have become utterly dependent upon rveenue from the lottery and other forms of state-run gambling. Is this simply another form of taxation, one that relies on deception rather than force? If a "service" such as intercollegiate athletics cannot be provided without gambling revenue, would it be better not to provide the service at all and keep more money in the pocjets of the taxpayers/"players"?

Also, is the very nature of gambling such that it is a morally acceptable busienss for an indivual or corporation to be in? Does anyone truly beenfit from the presence of an industry based on deceeption (they want you to think you can win, when in reality you can't in the long run)?

[realitycheck44]

This rasies a separate, poltiical issue: Many governments have become utterly dependent upon rveenue from the lottery and other forms of state-run gambling. Is this simply another form of taxation, one that relies on deception rather than force?

What is wrong with taxation is that it relies on the use of force. People have free will and buying a lottery ticket is a choice. Paying taxes is not.

Zak

[Michael Hopcroft]

What is wrong with taxation is that it relies on the use of force. People have free will and buying a lottery ticket is a choice. Paying taxes is not.

Zak

But the gold standard for a legtimiate transaction is that it avoids both force AND fraud. Since the lottery ticket is sold on a pormise that will essentially never be deliviered on, is that not fraud?

[softwareNerd]

Interesting Michael... while most here are assuming that "pure gambling" is irrational on the part of the player, you're asserting that it is immoral on the part of the casino.

I do not think casinos (or particular games within casinos) shoul;d be illegal, but are certain games (say slots) just immoral?

[JMeganSnow]

But the gold standard for a legtimiate transaction is that it avoids both force AND fraud. Since the lottery ticket is sold on a pormise that will essentially never be deliviered on, is that not fraud?

SOMEONE wins. You accept the terms of the deal when you buy the ticket. It would only be fraud if the a.) advertised false odds or b.) did not pay out.

[Chops]

I enjoy playing blackjack now and again, and poker is fun to play with friends. I don't gamble to "win big bucks" - I accept any losses as the cost of a night of entertainment, and any winnings are just icing.

Slots though, ugh, zero skill, almost zero fun. My wife likes em though.

Usually, though, if I go to the casino, is to join my wife and parents who both like it, and I just enjoy the free soda

[D'kian]

Slots though, ugh, zero skill, almost zero fun. My wife likes em though.

I say the same thing about Baccarat

I do play slots a little. Some of the newer video-based slots are fun for a while, say however $10 lasts on a penny machine. And I like Wheel of Fortune if I get a spin.

Moslty I play video poker and BJ. Next trip, now just a few short weeks off, I'll try a serious craps session.

Usually, though, if I go to the casino, is to join my wife and parents who both like it, and I just enjoy the free soda

You know there are free alcoholic drinks, too, right? On the upside the casino floor is the one place where a cocktail waitress won't mind a soda order; she gets tipped either way.

[Axiomatic]

After not only having read The Gambler by Dostoevsky but having spent half the day with a compulsive gambler watching him losing all of his money I will likely never gamble again. This experience has left a very nasty taste in my mouth to say the least.

[Lasse K. Lien]

This was a pretty huge bump from 2005, but regardless I would like to comment, even though the original poster probably is no longer paying much attention .

I've traveled around Europe and Africa the past year playing poker tournaments, and made a decent (not huge, but sifficient) profit. I love it, the andrenaline, the mindgames, the prestige, etc.

I also enjoy playing casinogames when im traveling, especially blackjack where you sit down knowing you'll get an on average about 98% return on your money, while having some drinks and cheering with your tablemates every time the house busts.

Its entertaining and social, and by no means immoral - unless you're wagering other peoples money (say you have a household, and bust your family budget on a drunken bend in Vegas) or wagering money you by no means can afford to lose and thereby justify the gambling to begin with.

[Greebo]

I enjoy games of partial chance, not total chance. The games where I have influence, albeit far from total influence, over the outcome - like Blackjack, poker, and other card games where choice is involved. I do not care at all for games where I simply play the statistical odds (craps, roulette, slots).

I particularly like blackjack and when traveling and the opportunity presents itself, I'll seek out a casino and play $5 blackjack. With a good group of people at the table, people can have a lot of fun trying to beat the dealer. (I have learned, however, not to take the last spot, because I'm not good enough for that seat. )

[Steven Tucker]

After not only having read The Gambler by Dostoevsky but having spent half the day with a compulsive gambler watching him losing all of his money I will likely never gamble again. This experience has left a very nasty taste in my mouth to say the least.

I am totally irresponsible when it comes to imbibing alcohol. For me to choose to drink alcohol is irrational and dangerous. The same would be true for people who lack the virtues necessary to avoid addiction to gambling. I play poker. I love putting my mind up against the minds of others with money on the line. I rarely win a lot, but I rarely lose anything at all. It is a rational endeavor. Given that most people that play poker are playing for the entertainment of it all, I allow them to pay me for their enjoyment. I don't play for fun, I play for money, and therefore play differently than people who play for fun. The same is true of people who play for the emotional high. I'm willing to allow them to pay me so that they can get their fix. Gambling addicts are acting irresponsibly when they choose to gamble, because they aren't playing for money, they are playing for a high.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Steven Tucker