Gambling -- moral or immoral?

[highnote]

Found the website below while I was searching for information about gambling.

Would be interested to hear other's thoughts about the arguments the website below is making.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutZZcRFFoIMBRb1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NXU4MnF kBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRfN g--/SIG=12k623tjq/EXP=1158857433/**http%3a//www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/gambling.php

[46zilzal]

do what you think is right. Forget someone else's yardstick of morality

[1st time lasix]

You only go around once in life. No replays, do overs or second chances. Everyone in this society should be free to do what they wish provided no else is hurt by it. I believe that gambling is a great past time in moderation. It provides a little exitement, fun and passion for people that have to be responsible in other areas of their lives.....the social problems associated with it begin with abuse or addiction. I don't need a politician, lawyer or bible thumper telling me what to do with my liesure time or hard earned money!

[highnote]

I agree with you 46, lasix,

My problem with the website I linked to is that they don't have a very good understanding of gambling and it's importance to many areas of study.

The website tries to make the argument that gambling is immoral because the loser of a gambling transaction does not receive compensation in the form of money.

It's not always about money. If we use their arguement then we should not pay money to attend sporting events or movies. We don't get money in return for attending them, do we?

However they say it is OK to buy insurance because we are buying "peace of mind".

But when we attend a sporting event or movie we are gambling that we will be entertained with a good game or plot. If the game or movie is lousy, what have we gotten in return -- nothing. It's a gamble.

In the case of insurance we are paying for a feeling - peace of mind. In the case of a sporting event we are paying for a feeling -- excitement. In the case of a movie we are paying for a feeling.

I would argue that in gambling because we are paying for a feeling -- excitement, satisfaction, fun, etc., it is entertainment.

What the website also fails to address is that when you buy a ticket to a movie or sporting event or bet on a horse race you are also supporting a segment of the entertainment industry. The people who run the industry get paid a salary or consulting fee and with that money they buy cars, clothes, food, cars and pay taxes.

So I think their argument is weak. And it shows they do not understand gambling as entertainment. And they don't understand the economic role it plays.

Here are some good links:

http://www.ssrn.com/update/ern/ernann/ann087.html
http://www.jgbe.com/
http://www.predictionmarketjournal.com/

[csperberg]

If there is a God it surely loves gamblers since they pray to it more than any other group of people. :D

[highnote]

If there is a God it surely loves gamblers since they pray to it more than any other group of people. :D

It? You mean , She. :D

[csperberg]

I know "it" is very imformal, but to me to call "it" a he or she is to put "it" on a human level and "god" is far from human. That alone I guess is another topic for another time..lol

[highnote]

I know "it" is very imformal, but to me to call "it" a he or she is to put "it" on a human level and "god" is far from human. That alone I guess is another topic for another time..lol


If you were an ancient Greek, Eygyptian or maybe even a Hari Krishna you could say "they". :D

[OTM Al]

They lose me completely when they claim that the stock market and insurance are not gambling. They are in every sense. Of course you can also read their just as well researched and logically construed arguement why evolution is sinful and creationism is proper.

[1st time lasix]

As a benefit...they are now offering long term care insurance at my employer. I told them that in my eighties/nineties...I plan to be going to the sports book in Lake Tahoe daily eating ice cream...will have two hookers on call for my sponge bath and wine sipping....when the money is gone....I am jumping in the lake tied to an anchor to be with Fredo. Maybe we can a group rate??????

[kenwoodallpromos]

ITO (in their opinion) gambling is anything they say it is. That is why there is no direct bible quotes as to gambling being wrong.
Gambling is only wrong when it distracts from more important things.
Many Christians give to churches as a gamble to get blessings.

[Stevie Belmont]

In the begining the church was a supporter of racing in the USA. Mainly because of Reverend James Blair. He was the big wig in the church during the late 1600's. He founded the college of William and Mary. His prominance was in the state of Virginia. He helped Williamsburg, VA at that time to be the capital of horse racing. Not only was he the authority in terms of matters of faith, he was the authority in racing as well.

That was a long time ago. Interesting tid bit i'd thought I would throw out there.

[Robert Fischer]

Whats immoral is the !@$#!% price of good information these days :D

[sq764]

Found the website below while I was searching for information about gambling.

Would be interested to hear other's thoughts about the arguments the website below is making.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutZZcRFFoIMBRb1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NXU4MnF kBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRfN g--/SIG=12k623tjq/EXP=1158857433/**http%3a//www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/gambling.php
Most of the churches around here have nightly bingo games and weekly trips to Atlantic City and Dover Downs..

They can make their own conclusions :-)

[PlanB]

What a Great Thread. I kinda agree with everyone. We all say thumbs up,
shhh, i can tell.

[pic6vic]

If the stock market is not gambling, tell that to those who had money with that hedge fund that lost 4.6 billion betting on Natural gas futures

[Wiley]

pic6 is right on with the hedge fund comparison. The futures market in natural gas looks more volatile than the daily feature at Belmont. Funny Brian Hunter the Amaranth trader who lost close to $5 billion in the market still has a job and when he was up $2 to 3 billion last year I am sure benefiters of his work did not look at him as a gambler - then it was investing. We need to get more guys like Hunter into racing.

My moral position on playing the ponies is like others that it does provide commerce and employment to a wide varieties of people so we are contributing to that, though my wife doesn't agree with me. Plus to me it is like purchasing entertainment and it is a sport with an upside. I also don't consider myself a gambler because I am taking performance information and knowledge of the sport to purchase a piece of that horse or horses for a minute or two at a time in exchange for the opportunity to benefit from my own ability and knowledge. The way I see it unique knowledge prospers on a daily basis in the business world so why should racing be looked at any differently.

[Valuist]

The only immoral thing about gambling is the high takeout that the legislatures and track operators have decided upon.

[njcurveball]

This does not compute!!!! Either driving a car or buying car insurance is GAMBLING! Take your pick! :bang:

Looking at the web-site LOGICALLY it gives four rules.

My first thought was driving a car.

1.) Any street, any time

2.) MY CAR, MY HEALTH!

3.) YEAH! It's called INSURANCE!

4.) ONCE AGAIN! YEAH! It's called INSURANCE! :D

The Insurance companies, lawyers, et al, agree to take someone elses possessions EVERY DAY!



1. A game of chance or skill - any event of uncertain outcome.

This may be a game the gamblers play among themselves or may be some event that would have occurred anyway (such as the outcome of an election or sports event).

2. The stakes

Each player places at risk some possession of material value.

3. The agreement (wager or bet)

Before the game each player agrees to risk losing his possession in exchange for the opportunity to take the possessions of others, depending on the outcome of the game.

4. Lack of fair compensation

No goods or services of fair value are given in exchange for what is lost. The loser will give up his possessions without being recompensed, and the winner will gain possessions without repaying the loser.

[Stevie Belmont]

Walking out of the door in the morning is a gamble.

[TurfRuler]

Found the website below while I was searching for information about gambling.

Would be interested to hear other's thoughts about the arguments the website below is making.

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geutZZcRFFoIMBRb1XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0NXU4MnF kBGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANCVlRfN g--/SIG=12k623tjq/EXP=1158857433/**http%3a//www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/gambling.php

My one word respone: KILLJOYS and I have not read the website yet.

[Dan Montilion]

You mean there is drinking and gambling going on? OOOHHH MAAN!

[PaceAdvantage]

How is the stock market gambling for those who actually know what they are doing?

[highnote]

How is the stock market gambling for those who actually know what they are doing?


PA,
It always seems like I'm playing devil's advocate and that I disagree with you. I don't mean to. My way of understanding the world is trying to see the other side. Psychologists call it mismatching. So I'm a mismatcher.

OK, so with that out of the way, let me answer your question.

The folks running Long Term Capital supposedly knew what they were doing (Some of their members were Nobel Prize winners) and they lost so much money the feds felt like they had to bail them out because they feared the economy would melt down. Personally, I feel the free market should have been free to run its course.

Warren Buffett offered to take over their positions at pennies on the dollar. He understood that their positions would eventually converge and he'd make a big profit from a good investment. Instead, the LTC investors got a sweetheart deal. They still lost money, to be sure, but it could have been worse. And I feel they should have taken their lumps.

Maybe the feds will bail me out for buying Microsoft at 85. Or maybe the feds will reimburse all the small investors that put money into Enron -- their losses were in the billions, too.

But I digress.

LTC gambled that the rare event, the black swan, would not occur -- or they didn't consider it could occur. They had no plan in place to deal with the black swan. They overbet and that led them to gambler's ruin.

We horseplayers know better than to overbet -- or at least we are supposed to! :D

Had LTC applied Kelly wagering they might still be in business -- assuming they got the probabilities right!!

So I would say they were gambling, even if they thought they weren't.

[PaceAdvantage]

How does presenting the example of one firm's (or two firms, or three firms, or x firms) blowup prove that investing or trading the stock market is equivalent to gambling?

Define gambling.....

[DrugSalvastore]

I personally find the act of going an entire day without gambling on something to be immoral.

[bigmack]

Define gambling.....
Any transaction that's based on one party's gain and another's loss is gambling.

How is the stock market gambling for those who actually know what they are doing?
Define "know what they are doing"?

The difference is that more times than not the total amount thrown on the table doesn't go tootles as it does with horses. That doesn't make it any less risky for the one throwing down the dough.

[highnote]

How does presenting the example of one firm's (or two firms, or three firms, or x firms) blowup prove that investing or trading the stock market is equivalent to gambling?

Define gambling.....

I'm not saying investing or trading is gambling anymore than I am saying that poker or horse race betting is gambling. You can be a lousy investor and lose money. You can be a lousy poker player and lose money.

If you keep losing money then at some point your are either gambling, lack common sense, or enjoy the pain of losing.

What I am saying is that what looks like investing may actually be gambling and what looks like gambling may not necessarily be gambling. I wouldn't say that playing poker is investing of the same sort as buying stock in Hewlett Packard. But on some levels it is. A good poker is investing his/her time in a profitable pursuit.

Getting back to LTC -- they were heavily leverage and when the market moved against them they couldn't meet their margin requirements.

I have never used so much margin that I couldn't cover. Their is a small chance the stock market could go to zero and I'll lose all my money. But even if it does, I will not owe money on margin for those worthless stocks.

In my case, and in most people's cases, the downside risk is covered. LTC gambled (or erroneously assumed) that the black swan would not appear. When it did they were not prepared. Were they gambling or taking bad risks or subjects of bad luck? Probably a little of all three.

Gambling usually involves a wager on an event with a short time to the outcome whereby the individual(s) correctly predicting the event receives some sort of consideration from an individual(s) who offers odds the outcome.

That's not a very good definition. Wikipedia has a decent definition, but they never once use the word "consideration" which I think is an important aspect of gambling.

[twindouble]

To me there's no question that gambling is part and parcel to nature and life as we understand it to be. Even devote religious people are gambling on having it right in my opinion. There isn't anything that I know of where there's no risk involved so it doesn't surprise me the most humans are willing to gamble on most anything, including a mate. A good handicapper gambler or investor will try to limit the risks. As handicappers we can argue as to how we go about limiting that risk. To me the best things that came about on all fronts of our lives were due to someone willing to gamble, in some cases with their life and that's still going on today and it's morally right to do so, as long as your not chopping peoples heads off to win or causing unnecessary pain.

T.D.

[46zilzal]

If the stock market is not gambling, tell that to those who had money with that hedge fund that lost 4.6 billion betting on Natural gas futures
the stock market is gambling with some folks getting inside information but at the heart of it, it is the same thing.

[PaceAdvantage]

So theoretically, anything with ANY amount of risk = gambling, is that what most are saying in this thread? If it isn't a 100% mortal lock, dead-certain outcome, then it is gambling.

Not my definition of gambling, I'll tell you that.....but I suppose, technically, it fits into the dictionary definition:

1.to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.

although many would contend that the stock market is not a game of chance, just like some like to argue that Poker is a game of skill, not chance.....or handicapping on a horse race is a skill.....

All of this talk really just depends upon your LIFE EXPERIENCES at certain things, like the stock market. If you've lost $$$$ in the stock market, you're more likely to think it is akin to gambling on the roulette wheel. If you've enjoyed success in the stock market, you're less likely to think of such a thing as gambling.

Who is right, and who is wrong? That's a very difficult question to answer with any sense of certainty.

[twindouble]

So theoretically, anything with ANY amount of risk = gambling, is that what most are saying in this thread? If it isn't a 100% mortal lock, dead-certain outcome, then it is gambling.

Not my definition of gambling, I'll tell you that.....but I suppose, technically, it fits into the dictionary definition:

1.to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.

although many would contend that the stock market is not a game of chance, just like some like to argue that Poker is a game of skill, not chance.....or handicapping on a horse race is a skill.....

All of this talk really just depends upon your LIFE EXPERIENCES at certain things, like the stock market. If you've lost $$$$ in the stock market, you're more likely to think it is akin to gambling on the roulette wheel. If you've enjoyed success in the stock market, you're less likely to think of such a thing as gambling.

Who is right, and who is wrong? That's a very difficult question to answer with any sense of certainty.

Nothing is and never will be a "mortal lock", be it horse racing or stocks. Those that make money in the markets or horse racing limit the risks, what's risky to one can be a good investment to others, varring levels of exprience and knowledge come in to play. It's still a gamble because unforseen things can happen, like Barbaro, a sad example. Who would think Enron was going fail? The dot com's, were to risky, no source of revenue from the get go. Bellamy Road was going to be the fastest thing going 118 Beyer. :rolleyes: Tell me people wern't gambling. Anyone who says they had bad luck buying dot coms has a screw loose, they gambled and lost.

T.D.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, but those that traded wisely made a fortune in the dot coms. You state that "The dot com's, were to risky, no source of revenue from the get go," yet this is precisely what rewarded those who knew how to play the game. With great risk, comes potential great reward.

Without any risk, or any measurable risk, there is always a commensurate lack of reward.

[twindouble]

Yes, but those that traded wisely made a fortune in the dot coms. You state that "The dot com's, were to risky, no source of revenue from the get go," yet this is precisely what rewarded those who knew how to play the game. With great risk, comes potential great reward.

Without any risk, or any measurable risk, there is always a commensurate lack of reward.

That I agree with the risk reward point, it's still a gamble though. It's my nature to take more risk than the average person, after all I play the horses but I still try to limit that risk. Those that got rich on the dot com's were the institutional brokers raking the IPO's prior to offering. I didn't buy into them for the reason I mentioned. The average investor just gambled and were losers before they started buying. That don't apply to gambling on he horses.

T.D.

[highnote]

Without any risk, or any measurable risk, there is always a commensurate lack of reward.


Well, here I go again -- mismatching. To a large extent, you are correct. However, I tend to "always" look for exceptions.

"always" is the key word in your sentence. "usually" would be a better word. Splitting hairs, I know.

Since I first read Ed Thorp's "Beat The Market" back in 1980 I have always been interested in finding "low-risk, high-return" investments. They are hard to find. Usually, they are anomolies of some sort. But they do exist. The best example off the top of my head is the "Dr. Z" system for place and show.

Another example comes right from Thorp's book -- "warrant hedging".

Another example, though not as good, is "option hedging" -- go long the stock and short the option and capture the option premium as it approaches expiration.

Another racing example is hedging on the betting exchanges -- go long the horse at a high price then lay it at a low price.

Another is the "Turn of the year effect" where you go long small stocks and short Dow stocks near the end of the year. Tax loss selling drives down small stocks near the end of the year. After the turn of the year they tend to recover. You short indexes rather than actual stocks. Some of these aren't as good as they used to be since word of them has spread.

But I am sure there are more out there and I keep my eyes open for them.

[PaceAdvantage]

Some of these aren't as good as they used to be since word of them has spread.

It's interesting you state this, as I was tied to the whipping post not too long ago on this site for suggesting that the more people that adopt a certain stock trading system, the less the returns will become. These people who were doing the whipping were claiming "the more the merrier", as this will only serve to drive the price of your stock up as more people pile into the equity.....

But, when you examine what happens in the stock market, it's exactly the same as the tote board in horse racing. The more people who bet on a horse, or jump into a stock at the same time, the WORSE your payoff is going to be in the end.

Why? Because the stock market is all about finding and trading INEFFICIENCIES. This is where you make your money. If you believe the stock market (or the horses) are efficient markets, as some do, then you have to believe you can't make a dime, and you shouldn't be in either one.

However, the more people that discover and attempt to profit on these INEFFICIENCIES (whether they be an undervalued stock, or an undervalued horse), the more likely it is that this INEFFICIENCY will become a FAIRLY PRICED ITEM. Thus, your profit window is CLOSED, because the more people that participate, the faster the inefficiency is CORRECTED, and the less likely you are to PROFIT from a trade (or a bet, as your odds are hammered down).

This is why, just like in horse racing, it is NOT GOOD to have lots of people playing the same profitable system or method. Sooner or later, it will cease to be profitable, as the market becomes more and more efficient in that previously inefficient area.

[highnote]

It's interesting you state this, as I was tied to the whipping post not too long ago on this site for suggesting that the more people that adopt a certain stock trading system, the less the returns will become. These people who were doing the whipping were claiming "the more the merrier", as this will only serve to drive the price of your stock up as more people pile into the equity.....

But, when you examine what happens in the stock market, it's exactly the same as the tote board in horse racing. The more people who bet on a horse, or jump into a stock at the same time, the WORSE your payoff is going to be in the end.

Why? Because the stock market is all about finding and trading INEFFICIENCIES. This is where you make your money. If you believe the stock market (or the horses) are efficient markets, as some do, then you have to believe you can't make a dime, and you shouldn't be in either one.

However, the more people that discover and attempt to profit on these INEFFICIENCIES (whether they be an undervalued stock, or an undervalued horse), the more likely it is that this INEFFICIENCY will become a FAIRLY PRICED ITEM. Thus, your profit window is CLOSED, because the more people that participate, the faster the inefficiency is CORRECTED, and the less likely you are to PROFIT from a trade (or a bet, as your odds are hammered down).

This is why, just like in horse racing, it is NOT GOOD to have lots of people playing the same profitable system or method. Sooner or later, it will cease to be profitable, as the market becomes more and more efficient in that previously inefficient area.

Nothing for me to mismatch here. :mad: Just kidding. Everything you say in your reply makes perfect sense to me. :)

[Topcat]

This is pretty heavy-duty question and my first response is to say that we are investors or striving to be investors andnot gamblers. However, the question deserves a serious answer and may be critical to our success in that if we think it is immoral we will lose to punish ourselves.

Up front let me say I do not believe gambling in, of itself is immoral, and at the same time I do not believe in moral relativism nor doing whatever you want as long as it does not harm somebody-it is too easy for people to rationalize that what they are doing doesn't harm anybody. e.g. I had a neighbor once who told me he stole to support his drug habit and he did not think that was wrong or really harming anybody because he only stole from those who had a lot. Obviously he didn’t think I had a lot.

On the link cited: The theological reasoning in the link cited is flawed and arguing toward a position from the go-get.

I believe the Catholic Theological position is a more logicial. and consistent with Scripture.

"On certain conditions, and apart from excess or scandal, it is not sinful to stake money on the issue of a game of chance any more than it is sinful to insure one's property against risk, or deal in futures on the produce market. As I may make a free gift of my own property to another if I choose, so I may agree with another to hand over to him a sum of money if the issue of a game of cards is other than I expect, while he agrees to do the same in my favor in the contrary event. A bet is essentially a contract and there is nothing in sound morals to prevent me from entering into a contract with another to hand over to him a sum of money. "

Interestingly enough they suggest that,

"It is not gambling, in the strict sense, if a bet is laid on the issue of a game of skill like billiards or football. The issue must depend on chance, as in dice, or partly on chance, partly on skill, as in whist. Moreover, in ordinary parlance, a person who plays for small stakes to give zest to the game is not said to gamble; gambling connotes playing for high stakes. "

Now before you all convert to Catholicism <G> I see that they state that gambling can become immoral if:

"What is staked must belong to the gambler and must be at his free disposal. It is wrong, therefore, for the lawyer to stake the money of his client, or for anyone to gamble with what is necessary for the maintenance of his wife and children."

Hmmm.. I had not even thought of that one betting other people’s money <G>

They do have conditions:

“The gambler must act freely, without unjust compulsion and
there must be no fraud in the transaction, although the usual ruses of the game may be allowed. It is unlawful, accordingly, to mark the cards, but it is permissible to conceal carefully from an opponent the number of trump cards one holds. "

Hmmm.. Nuts no marked cards! <G> .

And finally they do warn against lying, excesses and disregarding civil laws and say that it that case it may become immoral.

[highnote]

I believe the Catholic Theological position is a more logicial. and consistent with Scripture.

We Catholics have a way to get around a lot of things. :) I grew up Methodist. I became Catholic as an adult. As far as gambling goes Catholicism is better for me. :ThmbUp:

"gambling connotes playing for high stakes. "

That is relative. Michael Jordon or Charles Barkley might bet $1,000 per hole at golf. To me that would be gambling given my golf skills. To them, that would be boring.

And finally they do warn against lying, excesses and disregarding civil laws and say that it that case it may become immoral.

Again, "excess" is relative. If I only gamble 5 days per week that might be OK, but 24-7 might be excessive.

[Dave Schwartz]

As Charles Emerson Winchester the third said (on more than one occasion), "Let me be succinct:"

"Gambling is one of the great joys of life, right up there with wine, women (especially the right one), and song. Providing that none of these rule or ruin your life or the lives of those whom you accept responsibility for, it is certainly not immoral.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[highnote]

As Charles Emerson Winchester the third said (on more than one occasion), "Let me be succinct:"

"Gambling is one of the great joys of life, right up there with wine, women (especially the right one), and song. Providing that none of these rule or ruin your life or the lives of those whom you accept responsibility for, it is certainly not immoral.



Regards,
Dave Schwartz

Nice post, Dave. I couldn't agree with you more.

[Indulto]

Again, "excess" is relative. If I only gamble 5 days per week that might be OK, but 24-7 might be excessive.All my relatives are excessive. ;)

Is it worse to "Shop until you drop" or to wager on simulcasts until your eyes glaze over? :D

[bigmack]

How does weighing the concept of the market being gambling have anything to do with the genesis of the thread?

If my interests moved more in the way of the market vrs. horse racing I would consider starting a forum about trading.

They haven't - So here I am, on a pace handicapping board, in a thread about the morality of gambling reading about the market and some folks opinion that it's a far cry from gambling.

:bang:

[highnote]

How does weighing the concept of the market being gambling have anything to do with the genesis of the thread?

Evolution, I guess. Or digression. :D

...So here I am, on a pace handicapping board, in a thread about the morality of gambling reading about the market and some folks opinion that it's a far cry from gambling.:bang:

If it weren't for differences of opinions we wouldn't have horse racing. If it weren't for horse racing PA wouldn't need to exist. If PA didn't exist I'd probably be on some stock market forum discussing whether or not the stock market is gambling and if gambling is moral or immoral. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

How does weighing the concept of the market being gambling have anything to do with the genesis of the thread?

If my interests moved more in the way of the market vrs. horse racing I would consider starting a forum about trading.

They haven't - So here I am, on a pace handicapping board, in a thread about the morality of gambling reading about the market and some folks opinion that it's a far cry from gambling.

:bang:

All excellent points, and I had the very same thoughts as I was replying to some of these posts. Now that we are aware, let's hope we don't deliberately continue to take the thread off topic like 46 and light did elsewhere.....lol

HOWEVER, if you do read the website that was linked in the ORIGINAL post in this thread, the STOCK MARKET appears as a subject matter, does it not?

In any event, allow me to get things back on track.

I don't think that gambling is immoral.

[ratpack]

If there is a God it surely loves gamblers since they pray to it more than any other group of people. :D

God's name probably gets mentioned more the closer you get to the finish line in both Racing and Sex

[laff]

I really don't know if gambling is moral or immoral. All I know is that prayer is good. And I do more praying at the track than most people do at church.

[Overlay]

What about a distinction based on whether an activity's outcome is determined solely by luck, and the expectation is negative from the start for every player on every bet, as in most casino games (which seems to me to meet the definition of pure gambling), as opposed to one (as PA mentioned) where reasoning and/or skill can affect the player's final result, and where it's at least theoretically possible to win consistently (such as blackjack, poker, or horse racing and other pari-mutuel games), even if (as with horse racing) it's not possible for every player to come out a long-term winner?

[Dave Schwartz]

Overlay,

I really don't think these things are an issue.

As far as I can see the issue is destructiveness and addiction.

I used to have a business partner (about 15 years ago) who was convinced that Amway was the way to real wealth for him. He became so addicted to it that he absolutely destroyed his existing computer business.

I believe his wife would have been pleased if he just had a gambling problem.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[jetermvpbaby]

"forget someone else's yardstick of morality"

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[depalma13]

Faith is the biggest gamble life has to offer.