If anyone gives you grief about Gambling, tell them to read this

[StockBet.com]

If anyone gives you grief about Gambling, tell them to read this:

https://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The article is full of half-truths.

For example: “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.

That’s just half-true, the richer people are, the less likely they are to play lottery games, especially in relation to their wealth.

The article identifies investing and gambling as involving skill and chance but the difference is that when you play casino games you are risking your money on a mathematical expected negative return (EV-) whereas when you start a business, that mathematical certainty is not there.

So, if that article is not able to persuade me, a person who doesn’t find anything morally wrong with gambling, is not going to persuade those who have moral views against it.

[StockBet.com]

The article is full of half-truths.

For example: “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.

That’s just half-true, the richer people are, the less likely they are to play lottery games, especially in relation to their wealth.

The article identifies investing and gambling as involving skill and chance but the difference is that when you play casino games you are risking your money on a mathematical expected negative return (EV-) whereas when you start a business, that mathematical certainty is not there.

So, if that article is not able to persuade me, a person who doesn’t find anything morally wrong with gambling, is not going to persuade those who have moral views against it.

Let's say that's true that rich people are less likely to play lotteries.  It still doesn't negate the statement that “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.  The rich may not play lotteries every week, but most have gambled on lotteries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-people-and-poor-people-play-the-lottery-2012-3

"Basically, the poor play all the lotteries. The rich just go for the big ones, but when the big ones happen, they do it at the same level as the poor."

90% of businesses fail.  What's the mathematical expected return for that?  Besides, mathematical expected return is not a factor on whether an activity is "gambling" or not.  

Read the definitions and examples of gambling from the 3 major dictionaries given in the article.

There are only 3 factors needed to define gambling:

1)  Stake
2)  Chance (risk, luck, etc.)
3)  Profit or Loss

If you buy insurance, you are gambling.  If you own stocks, you are gambling.  The dictionaries even cited business ventures as examples of gambling.

[phr0stbyt3]

You forgot one thing all this is from a gambling site if you check online you will find many things which go against gambling even if i had a gambling site i would post such situations and try to make gambling look good so i can get more revenue. Think about it is gambling involved skills how will that site still function won't it shut down because of people finding ways to make profit

[StockBet.com]

You forgot one thing all this is from a gambling site if you check online you will find many things which go against gambling even if i had a gambling site i would post such situations and try to make gambling look good so i can get more revenue. Think about it is gambling involved skills how will that site still function won't it shut down because of people finding ways to make profit

Read https://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

Boston University Law Review explains in detail how gambling and investing are identical.  Then they explain why there is a distinction:

"...gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering...both risk-taking activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history. At some point over 100 years ago, public attitudes of the two types of speculation diverged, with investing being labeled as socially desirable and therefore supported by law, and gambling being labeled as socially undesirable and therefore prohibited by law. This divergence was based not on any logical differences in the activities, but instead on the classes of people that participated in these activities and who profited from them. Stock brokers, stock exchanges, and their wealthy clients benefited from this legal distinction; working class gamblers and bookmakers did not."

In other words, playing poker and investing are identical activities of wagering. But society became snobby and denigrated activities carried out by the working class.

Why does the government come down hard on online gambling but not futures or options trading?  According to Boston University Law Review:

"The fierceness of the federal government's official stance [against online gambling] until one realizes the one factor that is at stake in traditional investing, online investing, and traditional gambling, but not at stake in Internet gambling: money"

Essentially, the government cares mainly about making or losing money. Using morality as justification to block private online gambling operators is spin or pretext for the real reason, which is to block competition.

In addition to the obscene amount of money that governments make from lotteries, check out the fees and taxes that the Nevada government charges a casino. According to gambling-law-us.com, the fees can be over $1,000,000 and the taxes can be multiple millions. Few businesses in other industries would need to pay this kind of money to the government, in order to be in business. One would assume that the government would want to protect this cash-cow.

Many casino games require skill, such as Poker and Black Jack.  A judge ruled that Poker is a game of skill:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/21/13399810-poker-is-game-of-skill-not-chance-new-york-judge-rules-upping-internet-ante?lite

Many gambling activities involve skill.  As long as there is chance (risk) and it has these 3 factors, then it is gambling:

1)  Stake
2)  Chance (risk, luck, etc.)
3)  Profit or Loss

[gentlemand]

It reads like self justifying bilge. If people want to gamble then that's fine. Dressing it up as something remotely worthwhile is somewhat pathetic. It has no redeeming value. It employs people and provides a bit of fun for some. That's it.

[StockBet.com]

It reads like self justifying bilge. If people want to gamble then that's fine. Dressing it up as something remotely worthwhile is somewhat pathetic. It has no redeeming value. It employs people and provides a bit of fun for some. That's it.

The article is not trying to dress it up.  You should refer to it if anyone gives you grief about gambling.

Essentially, what the Boston University Law Review and the 3 top dictionaries are saying is that most people gamble all the time, except they like to be snobby and call it "investing" and denigrate other activities like Poker that are "identical activities of wagering".

[ralle14]

If anyone gives you grief about Gambling, tell them to read this:

https://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

Nice article. Took me a several minutes to finish but worth the read. A lot of interesting facts that kept me reading it until the end.

How many people die from gambling per year? If it is such a problem, then why doesn't the government ban lotteries, which is the worst form of gambling? Why does the government promote it and push it heavily?

This question though. Very true but not in all places. It's a better way of funding the government than having to let them increasing the percentage on taxes.

[MinerHQ]

It reads like self justifying bilge. If people want to gamble then that's fine. Dressing it up as something remotely worthwhile is somewhat pathetic. It has no redeeming value. It employs people and provides a bit of fun for some. That's it.

The article is not trying to dress it up.  You should refer to it if anyone gives you grief about gambling.

Essentially, what the Boston University Law Review and the 3 top dictionaries are saying is that most people gamble all the time, except they like to be snobby and call it "investing" and denigrate other activities like Poker that are "identical activities of wagering".

How do you know most people gamble all time because of these things applicable only to the addicted people and if I'm not wrong many people do it for fun and only sometimes. I used to bet on cricket matches on selected matches to enjoy my free time but after directbet is closer so far I never bet even single time in any cricket games.

[cpfreeplz]

This is one giant eyeroll honestly. We get it, you own a gambling website. This isn't exactly changing people's minds about gambling lol. Lots of people here gamble and those that don't won't we swayed by a study from Boston U. I can find studies that support lots of things, but it doesn't mean it won't ruin your life when you can't stop.

When someone is giving you grief for gambling, it's because you dragged them into your mess and you probably ruined their life too. Maybe point them in the right direction and stop being a degenerate.
http://www.psychguides.com/guides/compulsive-gambling-symptoms-causes-and-effects/

Drinking is totally fine. Being an alcoholic is an illness. Just like gambling.

Rebuttal?

[michaelch]

Gambling is playing games of chance. Most times, these games of chance have a negative expected return and very poor long-term chance of profit. This is in spite of your skills or knowledge.

Investments on the other hand, such as in stocks or in business, requires a great deal more skill and knowledge. Not only that, but the level of profit depends greatly and is influenced by your skill and knowledge.

[Don Pedro Dinero]

The article is full of half-truths.

For example: “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.

That’s just half-true, the richer people are, the less likely they are to play lottery games, especially in relation to their wealth.

The article identifies investing and gambling as involving skill and chance but the difference is that when you play casino games you are risking your money on a mathematical expected negative return (EV-) whereas when you start a business, that mathematical certainty is not there.

So, if that article is not able to persuade me, a person who doesn’t find anything morally wrong with gambling, is not going to persuade those who have moral views against it.

Let's say that's true that rich people are less likely to play lotteries.  It still doesn't negate the statement that “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.  The rich may not play lotteries every week, but most have gambled on lotteries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-people-and-poor-people-play-the-lottery-2012-3

"Basically, the poor play all the lotteries. The rich just go for the big ones, but when the big ones happen, they do it at the same level as the poor."

90% of businesses fail.  What's the mathematical expected return for that?  Besides, mathematical expected return is not a factor on whether an activity is "gambling" or not.  

Read the definitions and examples of gambling from the 3 major dictionaries given in the article.

There are only 3 factors needed to define gambling:

1)  Stake
2)  Chance (risk, luck, etc.)
3)  Profit or Loss

If you buy insurance, you are gambling.  If you own stocks, you are gambling.  The dictionaries even cited business ventures as examples of gambling.

The difference between rich people and poor people playing lottery is the % of their monthly income dedicated to gamble. And yes, it doesn’t negate that statement but it is not going to persuade someone who has moral views against gambling that there is not something morally wrong with it.

There is no mathematical expected return when you set up a business. 90% of businesses fail on average nowadays but that can be 50% or 99% in ten years and failing depends on the person or people who set up the business whereas the mathematical truth for casino games remains the same and the person playing can’t do anything about it.

And I don’t think you are gambling at all when you buy insurance, for example. You are buying security. We could say here that the mathematical return is negative because insurance companies always pay less than they charge (otherwise they go bankrupt) but if I live in a flat I’d better get a home insurance because for a small amount I don’t need to worry if by accident water starts flowing or there is fire and I have to pay for my neighbors’ repairs.

So, I re-affirm that you are not going to persuade anyone who has moral views against gambling that it is morally correct.

[karmamiu]

The article is full of half-truths.

For example: “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.

That’s just half-true, the richer people are, the less likely they are to play lottery games, especially in relation to their wealth.

The article identifies investing and gambling as involving skill and chance but the difference is that when you play casino games you are risking your money on a mathematical expected negative return (EV-) whereas when you start a business, that mathematical certainty is not there.

So, if that article is not able to persuade me, a person who doesn’t find anything morally wrong with gambling, is not going to persuade those who have moral views against it.

Let's say that's true that rich people are less likely to play lotteries.  It still doesn't negate the statement that “Most people, including the rich and middle class, gamble on lotteries”.  The rich may not play lotteries every week, but most have gambled on lotteries.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-rich-people-and-poor-people-play-the-lottery-2012-3

"Basically, the poor play all the lotteries. The rich just go for the big ones, but when the big ones happen, they do it at the same level as the poor."

90% of businesses fail.  What's the mathematical expected return for that?  Besides, mathematical expected return is not a factor on whether an activity is "gambling" or not.  

Read the definitions and examples of gambling from the 3 major dictionaries given in the article.

There are only 3 factors needed to define gambling:

1)  Stake
2)  Chance (risk, luck, etc.)
3)  Profit or Loss

If you buy insurance, you are gambling.  If you own stocks, you are gambling.  The dictionaries even cited business ventures as examples of gambling.

The difference between rich people and poor people playing lottery is the % of their monthly income dedicated to gamble. And yes, it doesn’t negate that statement but it is not going to persuade someone who has moral views against gambling that there is not something morally wrong with it.

There is no mathematical expected return when you set up a business. 90% of businesses fail on average nowadays but that can be 50% or 99% in ten years and failing depends on the person or people who set up the business whereas the mathematical truth for casino games remains the same and the person playing can’t do anything about it.

And I don’t think you are gambling at all when you buy insurance, for example. You are buying security. We could say here that the mathematical return is negative because insurance companies always pay less than they charge (otherwise they go bankrupt) but if I live in a flat I’d better get a home insurance because for a small amount I don’t need to worry if by accident water starts flowing or there is fire and I have to pay for my neighbors’ repairs.

So, I re-affirm that you are not going to persuade anyone who has moral views against gambling that it is morally correct.

                                        Actually you are right. Depends on someone's income monthly and how much does he have to risk or he can afford to lose, while some rich people have it only like their penny or a little amount to lose. In gambling whether you were rich or poor, it doesn't really matters, every person has different kinds of point of view about gambling, you cannot force them what to do. Well anyway i can refer this link to some of my friends who are gamblers, maybe it could give them a little insight about what you were trying to point out.

[btcprospecter]

An interesting article and it also illustrated that most things in life are a gamble anything that involves risk is a gamble and the world has being built upon this. Without risk and reward alot of people would no have accomplished the success they enjoy today.

[Junko]

I don't think anyone has personally ever given me grief about gambling in real life - at least not anyone I care about. If anyone were ever to give me grief about my gambling, I would just nod my head and smile. Seriously, showing them some article and/or trying to debate and argue and trying to justify or rationalize your position will just be a big annoying waste of time for the both of you.

[Hydrogen]

One thing interesting about gambling is, its theoretically possible to turn $0.01 into more than a million dollars inside a month. It fits the old, "if you were offered a job where your pay was $0.01 on the first day & every day it doubled for a month, would you work there" analogy. 31 straight wins of even odds (compounding interest) can turn $0.01 into more than $1M.

The earning potential is extremely high. Which is probably why is alluring to many.

There isn't a big difference between gambling and investment in stock markets, bonds, forex and similar trade based platforms. Investment carries less risk, and lower risk is usually correlated with lower earning potential. That's the main difference.

[gentlemand]

One thing interesting about gambling is, its theoretically possible to turn $0.01 into more than a million dollars inside a month. It fits the old, "if you were offered a job where your pay was $0.01 on the first day & every day it doubled for a month, would you work there" analogy. 31 straight wins of even odds (compounding interest) can turn $0.01 into more than $1M.

The earning potential is extremely high. Which is probably why is alluring to many.

There isn't a big difference between gambling and investment in stock markets, bonds, forex and similar trade based platforms. Investment carries less risk, and lower risk is usually correlated with lower earning potential. That's the main difference.

That's pure, unfettered delusion.

Anyone who jumps into it expecting it to make them rich is certifiable. There are skill based corners like poker. The rest is pissing in the wind.

Stock markets and forex are based on verifiable factors like earnings, profit and economic conditions. Throwing coins at a dice game, no.

[Oilacris]

One thing interesting about gambling is, its theoretically possible to turn $0.01 into more than a million dollars inside a month. It fits the old, "if you were offered a job where your pay was $0.01 on the first day & every day it doubled for a month, would you work there" analogy. 31 straight wins of even odds (compounding interest) can turn $0.01 into more than $1M.

The earning potential is extremely high. Which is probably why is alluring to many.

There isn't a big difference between gambling and investment in stock markets, bonds, forex and similar trade based platforms. Investment carries less risk, and lower risk is usually correlated with lower earning potential. That's the main difference.

That's pure, unfettered delusion.

Anyone who jumps into it expecting it to make them rich is certifiable. There are skill based corners like poker. The rest is pissing in the wind.

Stock markets and forex are based on verifiable factors like earnings, profit and economic conditions. Throwing coins at a dice game, no.

They do really have different categories when it comes on how to make money on those games. Poker and sports betting would really somehow can be studied with just our skills and knowledge and a little bit luck for sure we would really have the edge. Forex and Stocks are on different story but these things arent really relying on luck alone.