Gambling: Is It Getting To Be A Problem??

[InfiniteNow]

So we disagree. Oh well. Cheers. ;)

 

Also, never said "excessive" risks.

 

 

TTFN.

[Bio-Hazard]

Actually had Michael Franzese stop at my college about a few weeks ago. Man, he preached, and preached, and preached. Ugh. I got his autograph like some other people cause he was near chicago and I figured if he got shot the autograph would be worth some money.

 

To tell you the truth, I don't mind gambling. In a places where people are already broke and poor, they can only get more poor and broke. Being broke is just normal and people adjust very quickly to it around here. We've somewhat turned against the idea of money slowly, but surely.

 

I assume in areas where there are high-income families it could certainly bring down the economic and social welfare of their communitiy. However, in a such a place as where I live, the people are already poor. In Illinois gambling is considered illegal.

 

If you want my view on Illinois, I think Illinois is full of corrupt old men who don't want people mooching off profits from them. In other words, they want the money to go in their pocket, not the casino's.

 

I support gambling. I believe it would bring money to poorer areas.

 

I'm very good when it comes to cards. People at time would call me a cheater because I'll say what cards they have. I know how to count very well. However, I don't have any place to gamble so I'm bored out of my mind.

[Cedars]

Why do we hunt for valuable resources? Why is there a need for resources?

 

But if you go simply one step further, then you will see that individuals would be more inclined to gamble ... "I bet you I can steal that lion's kill while it sleeps..." if there are potential mates also awaiting the hunted resource... and that mate would be more likely to stay if the hunter could provide resouces to the child.

 

It's tough for me here to go into a long treatise on the complete works of evolutionary psychology, but I think the basics have been outlined here for you.

 

We hunt for valued resources based on our internal drive to survive. The lion does not establish the territory to attract the lioness, he establishes the territory with the best resources for self. The lioness joins that male because the resources are attractive to her also. She will have a better chance of survival. A pride with wealthy resources is then able to ensure the survival of the offspring. The evolutionary drive is about self-survival. The benefit to offspring comes from that drive.

 

This is why when another male does take over a valued territory via war with the existing male, the lioness (for the most part) do not leave with the departing male. They stay for resources. It is not the attraction to the male that makes them stay; it is their comfort with the available resources. That is the primary psychology behind these motives. Sex is a secondary benefit for the dominate male and the ensuing pride attracted to his territory based on this primordial push to survive. I would imagine this is why we cannot encourage pandas (and many other species) to reproduce easily in captivity. It is the resources that are lacking, not the evolutionary sex drive.

 

This is also why women are curious about resources before committing to a man on a more permanent level. Given the opportunity, most women will pick the man with the most resources (whether real or imagined for the future) most of the time, even in our 'advanced' state of human consciousness.

 

It is the hunt for valued resources that drives the gambler and brings the attached adrenaline rush when all 7s comes up on your line, not sex. The adrenaline rush needed during the hunt. The basic evolutionary drive explaining the attraction to gambling for most people.

[EWright]

We hunt for valued resources based on our internal drive to survive. The lion does not establish the territory to attract the lioness, he establishes the territory with the best resources for self. The lioness joins that male because the resources are attractive to her also. She will have a better chance of survival. A pride with wealthy resources is then able to ensure the survival of the offspring. The evolutionary drive is about self-survival. The benefit to offspring comes from that drive.

 

This is why when another male does take over a valued territory via war with the existing male, the lioness (for the most part) do not leave with the departing male. They stay for resources. It is not the attraction to the male that makes them stay; it is their comfort with the available resources. That is the primary psychology behind these motives. Sex is a secondary benefit for the dominate male and the ensuing pride attracted to his territory based on this primordial push to survive. I would imagine this is why we cannot encourage pandas (and many other species) to reproduce easily in captivity. It is the resources that are lacking, not the evolutionary sex drive.

 

This is also why women are curious about resources before committing to a man on a more permanent level. Given the opportunity, most women will pick the man with the most resources (whether real or imagined for the future) most of the time, even in our 'advanced' state of human consciousness.

 

It is the hunt for valued resources that drives the gambler and brings the attached adrenaline rush when all 7s comes up on your line, not sex. The adrenaline rush needed during the hunt. The basic evolutionary drive explaining the attraction to gambling for most people.

 

This has somehow turned into a BIOLOGY/EVOLUTION topic, rather than anything to do with the initial post.

 

If you're playing games that require a series of sevens to show up on the same line, you're already a loser when it comes to gambling and you have very little hope of gaining valuable resources over the long run.

[Racoon]

Gambling isn't a problem for many people. They buy a lotto ticket, maybe drop a Hundred at the BlackJack table.

 

But there aren't any good statistics either for the amount of people who have serious issues; which is more than I think people realize because you can Hide a gambling problem a lot better than you could hide a drug or alcohol problem...

 

What about States? Lotto, Video Poker, Sports Action??

 

Oregon, here in particular, Cannot even fund their schools properly! :D IF it wasn't for Statewide Institutionalized Gambling, they would have NO MONEY for schools and other services!

 

States are funding Schools with proceeds from gambling.

So what? No big deal?

Gambling has State Budget Secretaries "Hooked" on gambling revenue.

They Can't live without it!

Seems things are a little screwed up when to pay for Schools, You have to have Gambling. :lol:

Native Americans also rely very heavily on Gambling.

Obviously someone is making out like Bandits.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a New Casino in the sky in Las Vegas everyother month. ( Las Vegas..... Lost Wages :) )

 

Again, Utah and Hawaii are the only states that do not.

What about your State?

[Cedars]

This has somehow turned into a BIOLOGY/EVOLUTION topic, rather than anything to do with the initial post.

 

If you're playing games that require a series of sevens to show up on the same line, you're already a loser when it comes to gambling and you have very little hope of gaining valuable resources over the long run.

 

There are always multi-dimensional aspects to consider when issues of people and behaviors becomes the topic. The original question asked one thing and further discusion brought up another question related regarding what is the evolutionary impulse related to why people gamble. Refer to post #9 to refresh your memory.

 

It is a valid issue to contemplate in this setting for some, and if you dont enjoy that aspect your free to not participate.

 

As far as my own playing of video games for money, I do not participate. However, as I indicated in my first responce to this thread I do know people who have developed a gambling problem. Additionally, people DO play video slots with multiple win options, whether its 7s or diamonds or pieces of fruit. It was a good choice of words to help all who read the post understand exactly what I was refering to.

[Cedars]

Gambling isn't a problem for many people. They buy a lotto ticket, maybe drop a Hundred at the BlackJack table.

 

But there aren't any good statistics either for the amount of people who have serious issues; which is more than I think people realize because you can Hide a gambling problem a lot better than you could hide a drug or alcohol problem...

 

 

The only stats I could find were here and they do not indicate a large impact:

http://sportsgambling.about.com/od/gamblingaddiction/a/Addiction_Facts.htm

 

I dont consider 4-6% a significant problem considering what the averages are for any complusive behavior in the general population.

[Racoon]

I think you are making the case against me Cedars! :hyper:

Touche.

 

The way that Mike Franzsece guy was talking had me awestruck!

Mafioso turned anti-gambling spokesman. Very compelling.

 

I still think that States shouldn't be so hooked on Gambling revenue to fund schools and social services.

But who cares where the money comes from?, as long as its there.

Sin Tax, speeding tickets,....

 

I appreciate your insight and rebuttal.

 

Off to Bird watching! :hyper:

[Cedars]

Oregon, here in particular, Cannot even fund their schools properly! :hyper: IF it wasn't for Statewide Institutionalized Gambling, they would have NO MONEY for schools and other services!

 

States are funding Schools with proceeds from gambling.

So what? No big deal?

Gambling has State Budget Secretaries "Hooked" on gambling revenue.

They Can't live without it!

Seems things are a little screwed up when to pay for Schools, You have to have Gambling. :hyper:

 

They can live without it, what they are avoiding is raising the rest of the states taxes to pay for it without the gambling revenue. Or they are allocating less of the rest of general fund monies to education and spending it elsewhere. They know how much of the lottery money goes into the coffers and add less of the other revenue to that final education total. Lottery proceeds has risen each year since its inception in Minnesota.

 

The thing that bothers me about my states gambling proceeds is how much is given to business. If I remember right its 50% for business development, 20% for education and 10% for environment. The rest is for payouts and administration of the gambling.

 

Native Americans also rely very heavily on Gambling.

Otherwise there wouldn't be a New Casino in the sky in Las Vegas everyother month. ( Las Vegas..... Lost Wages :hyper: )

 

Again, Utah and Hawaii are the only states that do not.

What about your State?

 

From the Star-Tribune June 10, 2002:

Unemployment and poverty rates on Minnesota Indian reservations dropped by a third during the 1990s, according to the latest figures from the Census Bureau.

 

On the reservations of Minnesota's seven Chippewa and four Sioux bands, the total unemployment rate dropped from 17 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2000.

 

Statewide, unemployment declined from 5 percent to 4 percent.

 

The percentage of reservation families living in poverty declined from 28 percent in 1989 to 19 percent in 1999. Statewide, the poverty rate dropped from 7 percent to 5 percent.

 

Rest of article here, Click on June 10, 2002:

http://www.maquah.net/miscellany/casino06.html#June_10_2002

 

Tribal casinos: the big five states

 

Indian casinos in just five states account for about 60 percent of the total revenue collected by tribal gaming nationwide, according to a new report. Revenue refers to the total amount wagered, minus payouts to winners.

 

2003 revenue, in billions

California $4.2

Connecticut $2.0

Minnesota $1.4

Arizona $1.2

Wisconsin $1.0

 

Sources: Analysis Group, Indian Gaming Industry Report

[Cedars]

I think you are making the case against me Cedars! :hyper:

Touche.

 

The way that Mike Franzsece guy was talking had me awestruck!

Mafioso turned anti-gambling spokesman. Very compelling.

 

I still think that States shouldn't be so hooked on Gambling revenue to fund schools and social services.

But who cares where the money comes from?, as long as its there.

Sin Tax, speeding tickets,....

 

I appreciate your insight and rebuttal.

 

Off to Bird watching! :hyper:

 

OK I'll stop now. But you should know I had more :hyper:

[Racoon]

Dagger in the Heart.........

 

Ok, I concede.

 

I am glad Indians have a way of getting a lot of money! They deserve it.:hyper:

 

Gambling may be a problem for a minority, Just Like everything else.

Not a bigger fish to fry.

 

Your comments and information are logically constructed.

Where do I sign the treaty?

 

Cant win em' all! I am gracious and humble.

I learned to be a little more savy when it comes to reacting to charismatic figures.

 

Your rep points are well earned Cedars!

Now what kinda' birds have you been seeing out there in Minnesota?

Got owls out there?

I love their hoots at night! :hyper:

[Cedars]

Your comments and information are logically constructed.

 

Your rep points are well earned Cedars!

Now what kinda' birds have you been seeing out there in Minnesota?

Got owls out there?

I love their hoots at night! :hyper:

 

Thank you for the compliments!!

 

I updated birding yesterday. Today I didnt get to see much. Very busy with a new project in the home and gathering parts to rebuild a car (someone else is doing that work). I am very excited about both projects!

[EWright]

There are always multi-dimensional aspects to consider when issues of people and behaviors becomes the topic. The original question asked one thing and further discusion brought up another question related regarding what is the evolutionary impulse related to why people gamble. Refer to post #9 to refresh your memory.

 

It is a valid issue to contemplate in this setting for some, and if you dont enjoy that aspect your free to not participate.

 

:lol: Well when I entered the conversation it became singular in dimension, to put it scientifically. In my comment you are referring to, I stated how the discussion began relative to the direction it took. You then refer me to post #9 as if to correct me, but there was no error in my initial comment in regards to the original post. Being as you are from Minnesota also, perhaps I should have you for dinner so I discuss the topic more thoroughly over you.

[TheBigDog]

EWright, how do you do it? What is your game of choice, and how do you maintain an edge?

 

Bill

[EWright]

EWright, how do you do it? What is your game of choice, and how do you maintain an edge?

 

Bill

 

Thanks for the interest BD. I don't engage in any 'casino' games because, as I've stated here, they can not be beat over the long run. That is, unless you hit a big jackpot at some point, which is akin to winning the lottery, which I don't partake in either. Poker on the other hand, pits you primarily again other players, not the house.

 

Almost all players win at some point in the short run or they would not be coming back for long. However, most do not take it serious enough to consider the long term implications. They go out for a Friday night and hope to score, and sometimes they do. But most who are not to the point that they are aware of their long term wins/losses, are losing over the long run. Many play low limit games such as $3/6 Hold 'em, and after perhaps averaging themselves over the longer run with other players of similar skill, sometimes winning, sometimes losing, only the house has won.

 

However, players who pay attention to their long term winnings and know such things as their ROI (Return On Investment) relative to the amount that they've wagered (primarily a tournament consideration) then have a very realistic interpretation as to how much they are earning and can expect to earn over the long run.

 

For example, if you play $30 sitngo single table tournaments and have an ROI of 30% and play 12 games a day, you can predict very assuredly that you will earn (30*12*.30*365=) $39,420 over the next year. Now obviously, this is based on playing every single day of the year, but you can adjust accordingly. And when you feel comfortable with your game and move up to say the $50 buy in... you can expect a raise in your rewards (and you didn't even have to ask the boss) proportionate to the amount you've moved up, provided that your ROI remains steady. If it drops, adjust accordingly to predict the returns, but also work on improving your game to get it back up.

 

The bankroll will then build itself and soon you'll be moving up to higher limits. However, since quitting work, much of my winnings must now go toward the same thing a paycheck would go toward, which means the bankroll does'nt move up as fast as I'd like, nor can I take excessive risks by moving up too fast.

 

Another factor that is vitally important is to base your ROI on LONG-TERM results. You cannot go out and play a handful of these tournaments and view the results as a realistic interpretation of expectations. I based my own on about 2000 tournaments before giving up my regular job. Also, althought I play virtually all day every day, no one can sit home playing 12 sitngoes all day every day... you have to mix it up and get out and play live, etc. I travel to local casinos for live games to give myself a break at home and will be in Vegas at the end of next month. There I will play one to two longer multitable tournaments each day in order to work on that game and get a better feel for it (the trip and losses are also a tax write-off). I'm not going to party, to get free drinks, or anything else but work on my game (ok, I'm taking my mom for her birthday too since I have a spare bed and will show her around the town).

 

If you decide to try your hand at it, be prepared to lose a lot of money slowly in the beginning and pay for your lessons like anyone else. The fastest way to learn and avoid losses is to absorb all of the info you can find about the game. Also, get away from the low limit games as soon as you're prepared to move up, so that you can better diminish the amount the house takes relative to your stakes. You will also diminish the amount the house takes if you focus on tournament play.

[Cedars]

Well when I entered the conversation it became singular in dimension, to put it scientifically. In my comment you are referring to, I stated how the discussion began relative to the direction it took. You then refer me to post #9 as if to correct me, but there was no error in my initial comment in regards to the original post. Being as you are from Minnesota also, perhaps I should have you for dinner so I discuss the topic more thoroughly over you.

 

The person I was responding to in #9 had an interest in that dimension. I was not attempting to correct you, only remind you of why the thread seemed to take a one directional turn.

 

You and I are in agreement for the most part over whether gambling is getting to be a problem. We have different points to make regarding this issue. My approach was on the broader aspect of gambling, yours seems to be on the individual level. Both approaches have value. But I really had no point to make regarding your posts, pro or con. If you felt left out or ignored, I apologize.

[EWright]

The person I was responding to in #9 had an interest in that dimension. I was not attempting to correct you, only remind you of why the thread seemed to take a one directional turn.

 

You and I are in agreement for the most part over whether gambling is getting to be a problem. We have different points to make regarding this issue. My approach was on the broader aspect of gambling, yours seems to be on the individual level. Both approaches have value. But I really had no point to make regarding your posts, pro or con. If you felt left out or ignored, I apologize.

 

Apology accepted.