Gambling... Right or Wrong?

[jgh7]

Is gambling ethically right, wrong, or neither? Does it depend on the degree to which you gamble? Does it depend on your reasons for gambling? Does it depend on the type of gambling you do? Does the bible have any quotes relating to gambling?

[2ndRateMind]

I read in a book once on this topic. It seems that if you want to gamble, and are looking for best odds, you should go to your friendly local casino and put everything you will ever gamble in your life on black (or red, or odd, or even, or high or low as you prefer) in one game of European casino roulette, and either walk off having doubled your money, or take your loss on the chin. Otherwise, if gambling becomes a habit, the house margin erodes your results considerably. That margin being 1.35% on a single game. But the more you play, the more you pay.

Then again there is the D'Alembert system. You start with 1 chip on black, etc. If you win, (48.65% chance) you get 2 chips back, and switch to red, etc. If you lose, (51.35% chance) you put 2 chips on black. If you win, you have gambled 3 chips, and won 4 chips. And switch. If you lose again, your next stake is 4 chips. And so on and so forth. This cycle of of play would yield a profit of 1 chip for each cycle, and would guarantee a small return on every visit to the tables. Were it not for the fact that the casinos invariably impose a maximum bet limit, so you cannot persist in this way for an indefinite number of bets.

If horses are more your kind of thing then I once visited a race course with a veteran of the tracks who told me you should look for a three horse race, and bet on the outsider. I don't know why this works, but it seems to. Still on horses, then, it seems that the best jockeys get the best rides, so it makes sense to to follow the jockey, not the horse.

So I guess my conclusion is: by all means gamble. But if you do, be intelligent about it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Difflugia]

This cycle of of play would yield a profit of 1 chip for each cycle, and would guarantee a small return on every visit to the tables. Were it not for the fact that the casinos invariably impose a maximum bet limit, so you cannot persist in this way for an indefinite number of bets.

Even without the house-imposed limit, you won't have an unlimited stake. Since you're doubling your bet each time, it won't take that many losses to bankrupt you, no matter how much money you bring. If you lose nine times in a row, you've lost over a thousand dollars ($1023) and your next bet would have to be $1024 just to regain your lost stake plus net your dollar profit. Bringing $10000 instead of $1000 only extends your allowed losing streak by three.

[2ndRateMind]

This cycle of of play would yield a profit of 1 chip for each cycle, and would guarantee a small return on every visit to the tables. Were it not for the fact that the casinos invariably impose a maximum bet limit, so you cannot persist in this way for an indefinite number of bets.

Even without the house-imposed limit, you won't have an unlimited stake. Since you're doubling your bet each time, it won't take that many losses to bankrupt you, no matter how much money you bring. If you lose nine times in a row, you've lost over a thousand dollars ($1023) and your next bet would have to be $1024 just to regain your lost stake plus net your dollar profit. Bringing $10000 instead of $1000 only extends your allowed losing streak by three.

Exactly that. The arithmetic reminds of the story of the Asian individual who invented chess. When promised by the king he could have any reward he wanted, he replied 'Oh, my needs are modest! Give me 1 grain of rice on the first square of the board, 2 on the second, 4 on the third, and so on.' When the king discovered that by square 64, the inventor was asking for more rice than the country had, and could produce, he got angry and had the inventor put to death.

Best wishes, 2RM

[JurJar]

It may be bad, it may be good... The issue whether you choose it or no, that's all.

[The Barbarian]

I don't get it at all. When lotteries started up in various states, I said to myself that the pleasure of anticipating what might happen if I won, would be worth a dollar or two, and I figured I'd do that regularly. But I never did. It just seemed pointless.

And most people who win big, say that a year or two later, they were no happier than before they won. I figure that being happy for a whole year is pretty good, but I still don't buy a ticket.

[2ndRateMind]

I don't get it at all. When lotteries started up in various states, I said to myself that the pleasure of anticipating what might happen if I won, would be worth a dollar or two, and I figured I'd do that regularly. But I never did. It just seemed pointless.

And most people who win big, say that a year or two later, they were no happier than before they won. I figure that being happy for a whole year is pretty good, but I still don't buy a ticket.

Yes, I think that is what you buy with a gamble. The idea of a good deal of money, and what you might do with it. For my part, I would buy a cottage in Cornwall UK, 'save' a decent amount of money to spend each month, and with the rest, give to my favourite charities. I don't suppose for one moment I will ever win a jackpot, but I derive a certain amount of satisfaction just on the slender chance that I might, and what I could do with an outrageous amount of spurious cash.

Best wishes, 2RM.