Gambling
Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at 10:26AM Out of all the classic sins of humanity, there’s one I really don’t understand.
I readily admit that at one time or another I have indulged in most of them, greed, gluttony, envy, spite, bullying, lying, cheating, stealing and fornicating.
The only biggie I’ve never done is murder, thought about it though.
However the one vice, or sin, or, as I heard it referred to this morning, ‘fun leisure activity’ I’ve never dabbled in is gambling.
By gambling I mean the specifically understood activity of making a bet, playing a slot machine or card game with the aim of leaving the experience with more money that you started.
The reason I’ve not indulged is not some moral repugnance for the activity, not some higher calling from which I take strength to resist the temptation. I just can’t be bothered. It holds no allure for me.
I spent some time in Las Vegas last year, although it’s a fairly insane place I had a great time, swam in the luxury pool, went out for fabulous meals, met extraordinary people, stayed up late and got a bit tipsy (for me that’s the same as most blokes getting totally bladdered, I’m a massive lightweight)
But never once did I feel the slightest temptation to gamble and the opportunities, as anyone who’s been to Vegas will verify, are ubiquitous.
So today I hear that due to the changes in the way we shop, the proliferation of absurd out of town shopping opportunities created by large corporations bribing easily swayed local councils, and the advent of online shopping, traditional British town centers are rapidly dying. Now the only businesses that are opening new outlets particularly in poorer areas, are betting shops, bookies, gambling dens or ‘fun leisure activity centers’ as I’m sure the soulless, crass management would refer to them.
I actually heard some dodgy sounding geezer say, out loud, with his mouth ‘fun leisure activity’ when describing the hundreds of new gambling pits being introduced. Imagine this man’s soul, no don’t, you’re will be tainted by the act.
But I believe in the human spirit, I believe it can be enhanced or soiled. I believe therefore that the very act of naming the activity of gambling as a ‘fun leisure activity’ will eat away at that spirit, turning it dark, ugly and full of self-loathing.
The more brutal side of this tragedy, much like the national lottery, is that generally speaking only the very poorest among us indulge on a regular basis. Sure, I have seen very wealthy gentlemen in high waisted red corduroy trousers have a flutter on the nags at the Cheltenham races, I’ve met an extraordinary maths genius who played poker for 3 months a year and that’s how he earned a very good living, but these are the exception. The vast majority of people who bet, with a fervent desire and need to win are among the poorest. And of course they don’t win, 99.99% of the time they don’t win. They don’t have a chance.
It makes me very sad every time I walk past a bookies shop, which let’s face it from an aesthetic point of view is a fucking ugly place, because it’s a dump which promises the very poor the tragically small chance of getting very rich.
I’ve thought about it a bit as you may be able to surmise, and I’ve realised I do in fact gamble all the bloody time.
I’ve gambled with my entire life and career, not twenty quid in my back pocket. I have spent my creative life punting ideas, plays, books, sketches, stand up comedy routines in the hope that they will catch on, that people will like them and I’ll earn a crust, maybe even a whole loaf.
I’ve lost and won, but thankfully, I’ve won about 45% of the time. Imagine if I’d spent my life doing what I’ve done and won .01% of the time as the poor sods who use the crappy bookies shops now soiling our once interesting high streets.
And just in case you’re wondering, no I don’t want to ban them, but I’d love there to be a general popular movement that spread the knowledge that they are leeches, pointless rip off artists who fleece the very poorest in our society and contribute negatively to our general well being. I’m all for that.
Reader Comments (10)
Whenever I've tried gambling - in a very small way - I invariably lose a small amount of money very quickly and have never been tempted to moving on to the losing a lot of money very quickly phase.
A friend of my used to call it the "idiot tax" because punters don't understand that the house always wins but I think a fairer description is the "hope tax" as people seek an easy escape from whatever they are escaping from. Which raises two points. First that people believe that their lives would be so much better if they were super-rich. We now know that this is factually incorrect. So long as they have a moderate amount of income to raise them out of the poverty trap, they will be happy. The actual figure is surprisingly low. Second, that this government are deplorable in the way they use this hope tax to fund projects that should come from central resources rather than encouraging those who can least afford to gamble. I am no great fan of Richard Branson, but I thought it was shameful he lost his bid to take over the National Lottery (a license to print) as a non-profit organisation to Camelot who no doubt have kept their executive bonuses very quiet.... after all, in times of recession you can be certain that the revenue from the hope tax will continue to flourish
One would hope that even the most uneducated understand that chances of winning much of anything in a betting shop or bingo hall or any such establishment are infinitesimally small. And that all it is really about is hope, having that small chance that it will pay out, because with hope, whatever it's source, you can get through far harder things than without it.
One would hope this, but so often I see the stereotype 'poor' person, spending money at the bookies, and on fags, and drink, and never seeming to do the things that middleclassed me assumes I would do should I be in the situation of saving all those pennies to put to use on re-education of some kind to find another job. Easier said than done I guess, as with many things.
That last paragraph sounded like it was about politicians, bankers or insurance companies. They all bleed us dry - at least bookies don't waste money doing it. They have a much better record than insurance companies in dealing with fraud anyway. I'm not advocating betting or bookmakers, but the comparison is a useful deterrent to any cold calling insurance salespeople.
Just saying!
Steven: "One would hope that even the most uneducated understand that chances of winning much of anything in a betting shop or bingo hall or any such establishment are infinitesimally small."
Unfortunately this is not true. Many people look a a lotto and say "I have a 50/50 chance - either I win, or I don't". When they repeatedly don't win, they blame it on bad luck. It never occurs to them that the game is rigged out of their favor - and therefore they are eager to try again the next time they have even a tiny amount of money in their pocket. This surprising misunderstanding of probability is not just found in the uneducated - even university educated friends of mine don't get this concept.
Robert, I know making gambling illegal isn't really a very libertarian thing to do. Obviously educating everyone about the probability of the games is better. But since that isn't going to happen soon (if ever), surely we can come up with some way to prevent the morally repugnant practice of taking advantage of the uneducated.
I always like to look down on the people buying their lottery tickets when I'm getting my fags.
Stupid gamblers!
The 'hope tax' idea is the one to remember; there are people in the situation where, with their full months wages in their pocket, know they can't make the rent and eat, but there's a chance that, with luck on their side, the horse they picked will cover the rent, food and maybe a Chinese on sunday. A horrible place to be. I'm not there myself, being financially buggered in different ways, so I don't have my mind taking that path. I still do the lottery though (not the euromillions, too expensive) as about a tenner a month will neither kill nor cure me, and a moderate win would sort out the next 5 years of graft and take away my terror of the bills going up. Different hope, different tax, different market. Still, I maybe next week...
Back when I was a student I worked for a bookies that rhymes with HilliamWill in London. It was profoundly depressing watching people lose money that they couldn't afford - as you point out so well in your piece. However, the worst thing was watching people complaining when they won. One day an old boy won 500 pounds. I congratulated him with a big smile and told him that that should brighten up his day. "No," he said, "I knew the horse was going to win and so I'm stupid not to have bet more - I should have taken way more than 500 off you". He then proceeded to lose his winnings over the course of the afternoon. Even when they win the punters are often miserable.
Rob, if people who gambled only won 0.01% of the time, there would be no gambling. The psychological mechanics of this type of addiction requires a win to occur "sometimes". In the human brain, this is about one in ten, or 10%.
I enjoy a good bit of hyperbole as much as the next man, but it's both untrue and silly to say that anyone who gambles loses 99.99% of the time. Most gamblers win "sometimes", but of course it depends on the risk the gambler exposes themselves to.
If someone only ever bets on the outcome of individual Tennis matches, where there are only two possible outcomes, they will probably win 50% of the time, more if they make informed bets based on past performance and avoid matches with long odds.
The difficulty comes when gamblers expose themselves to more risk for greater potential gain. Betting on who will win Wimbledon pays far greater rewards, as there are many more potential outcomes to the bet.
This system of risk and reward is present in all the popular forms of gambling. At the Roulette table one can bet on the (almost) 50/50 nature of Red vs. Black, or one can throw chips down on a single number to come up at 50-1 or 60-1. It's simple mathematics Rob, I would have expected you to be able to grasp the concept quite easily.
Perhaps you would have an easier time understanding the entertainment value, the allure and temptation to gamble if you actually knew anything at all about it. But no, here you are again, wading in and mouthing off about a subject you have demonstrated in your opening paragraph that you know nothing about.
It's true to say that betting shops and "Amusements" do attract the poorest in society and are guilty of exploiting them, but that's because of the unsavoury way in which these businesses tend to be run, not some fundamental problem in the concept of gambling, as you suggest.
While I haven't tried lottery, bookies, horses or football, I have visited a casino a few times. I'd say it's got parallels to alcohol. In moderation it's all good. The level of course, is highly individual.
You could savour a fine wine, and you can also get totally blistered. And then you can get addicted. I have visited the casino when I have set apart a small (very small) sum to lose.
The danger lies in the reason for going there. Is it to win a lot of money? Or is it to spend a nice evening in a special atmosphere?
For me it's all about visiting something very quaint. If I break even, very good. If I win a little (it has happened), you won't hear me complain!
But that's me ...