Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I started a thread on this topic before, but it's nearly two years old, so rather than post in it, I'm just starting this one. One thing that's changed since then is that I actually became a gambler myself and made $16k last year from it. (I was certainly not happy when tax time came, which, oddly enough, happened on my birthday this year.)

Any thoughts on gambling will be appreciated, but I'll start us off with how most anti-gambling legislation does not make sense. I've yet to find any examples, at least in the United States (but I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of the world were similarly ign'ant) where legislators really know where they're talking about. And sometimes the anti-gambling crowd in general doesn't really get it, either.

Here's an example. Back in late 2004, when we were thinking of getting a state lottery and legalizing casino poker -- both of which happened -- I remember hearing on TV that some people didn't want to see games like roulette and craps, calling it "we don't want this to be like Las Vegas". I don't see how this argument is anything but, well, stupid, to put it bluntly. Slot machines take away a lot more money from people than a game like craps (assuming the people play craps somewhat reasonably, and I believe many do). So you can't make an argument that craps is financially riskier to the average gambler. It's a more social game, and it's more exciting to many people, but are those really bad things? Is it bad to have fun when you gamble? Shouldn't fun be the entire point, since you're never gonna beat the house in the long run anyway? Where's the problem here?

I'm always amazed at how people seem to place lotteries and one-armed bandits at the bottom of the "severity" ladder of gambling, considering that such games involve no skill, aren't much fun to play (which robs some gamblers of the enjoyment that they're supposed to have), and they suck up more money from more people than anything else. What doesn't make sense to me is that gambling is "evil" partly because of how it sucks up money, yet whenever legislator decide to legalize only a few forms of gambling, they invariably choose some of the worst forms of gambling. WTF?

So, yeah... I don't really know where I'm going with this, I'm too tired and I'm about to go to bed. What are your guys' thoughts, either on that particular aspect of it, or gambling in general? Online gambling, maybe?

- Kef

Woot. Gambling rulez.


I believe that since casinos are private organizations, logically they should be allowed to present any gambling game they please, regardless of moral aptitude.
The following statement may be slightly off-topic, but I'll say it here anyway to let off steam: People who say that Texas Hold'em (in layman's terms, poker) requires no skill and is entirely based upon the hand sthat have been drawn. This is entirely false. Even famous mathematician John von Neumann supported that poker was quite a challenging experience and was a perfect example of the exercise of game theory and how it relates to the nuclear arms race and fiascos of his time, such as the Cold War, as well as many war strategics in the past.
While most games involvin game theory do have a rational way to play them, Hold'em is different in that the players must interact with each other and fool the other players using clever bluffs and ruses, while other "games" generally treasured and enjoyed by the general populace, such as chess, are not really "games" at all.

Thus there are tactics and rationalities of gambling.

_________________

Would the average lottery player spend more money than the average casino gambler? The lottery obviously takes in more money since more people play, but I guess I've never heard of people playing the lottery that much.
Also, I think one reason why they only legalize the lottery is because gambling in poker is highly addicting, but the lottery is controlled by the state and isn't really. It makes some sense.

_________________

I don't even see why gambling is considered "bad". I mean, the government still gets their cut of the winnings, don't they?

Sometimes I honestly think that these moral crusaders hate all fun and enjoyment...

Absolutely correct. I wanted to make that point, too, but I had already gone on about poker vs. other gambling in the old thread, I think. People who argue that the game involves no skill either aren't familiar with it or aren't good players and want an excuse for why they always lose.

- Kef

So THAT'S why I lose every night!! Seriously, with anything in life, there'll always be people who say that stuff is luck or "requires no skill", simply because they're horrible at it.
If poker were to depend purely on the cards you're dealt, then (assuming the cards are being randomly shuffled), over the course of a night of cards, nobody would ever have much of a net loss or win.
With that said, LUCK does play a big role in an individual hand. Someone who's been playing for a week can beat one of the "World Poker Tour" pros on one hand. Over the course of a game, that luck is completely wiped out by skill, though. Kenny Rogers wasn't lying when he said "You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to hold 'em.." You really do.
Of course, I don't play to win money. Taking my friends' money IS fun, but it's about way more than that. It's about being together, having crazy conversations, and making fun of people we don't like. The only reason we play with any money at all is just so that people will take the game seriously.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Exactly. Luck does play a huge, huge role in the short term -- something I know all too well from experience, and it even drives pros crazy -- and the "short term" is longer than one might think... but statistics clearly show a long-run advantage to skilled gamblers. Granted, it's a small percentage of gamblers, and it's commonly estimated that only 10% of all poker players are able to win consistently at the game (assuming normal casino conditions), which probably isn't all that far off the mark.

I'm burned out on playing poker in a professional capacity right now, but I'd probably like to play in a casual card game, maybe $.25/.50 no-limit. Too bad I don't have anybody to play with...

- Kef

What these "Moral crusaders" believe is that people get carried away some people can't afford to gamble like they do.The issue from my side is many people can't draw the line.

You're right, many people can't draw the line. Still, that doesn't mean that people who CAN say "ok, that's it for now" should not be allowed to enjoy themselves.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

My own opinion is if we banned everything that could hurt somebody, we'd have nothing left.

Exactly.

At some point, people need to be accountable for their own actions.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Agreed. I don't see why there's a problem - if some one gambles irresponsibly, it's their own fault, not yours. People shouldn't try to protect other's from themselves, if they want to gamble all of their money, let them. Don't ruin it for the people who know how to think for themselves.

The only problem with this is that, usually, when someone has a gambling problem, they not only waste their money, but also someone else's.
Still, not everyone that gambles is a compulsive gambler, so banning gambling isn't the answer.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I guess it is someone's choice but it just bugs me that those who compulsively do so are cleaned up or taken care of by us.

Well, i don't care what people do about obsessive gamblers as long as it doesn't affect those who gamble wisely.

What you end up with is more poverty and problems but Like i said if someone ruins their life thats their choice but these people are being helped by our taxes.