If anyone bashes Gambling, here is what they should know

[StockBet.com]

You might see a campaign in the media against online gambling.  If supposed moral authorities attack gambling, here is what they and you should know:

• Most People Gamble all the time (Without Knowing It)
  
• According to the Boston University Law Review:
  
  • Gambling and investing are identical
  • regulations on online gambling is mainly about money and blocking competition, not about morals or protecting consumers
    
  • The government discriminates, as it lets the rich gamble, but ban it from the lower class
    
• Extremely important activities are gambling activities
  
• Governments have "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" mantras, as they are the world's biggest operators and pushers of gambling
  
• Americans have lost way more to gambling on houses and stocks, than to Las Vegas.  Housing bubbles in the U.S., Canada, Australia and UK are partially or mostly created by their governments, luring millions to gamble on it.
  
• The filthy rich, such as Sheldon Adelson, is reversing the legalization trend in the U.S., in order to fend off competition.  Don't believe his employed and richly paid lobbyists, who claim that they are trying to protect consumers.  (The UIGEA helped fend off competition.)
  

For explanations of the above, read:

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

[grue]

• Most People Gamble all the time (Without Knowing It)
  

what's logic behind this?

• According to the Boston University Law Review:
  Gambling and investing are identical
  
  

no it's not. the expected value of almost all gambling games is negative, whereas the expected value of investments is positive (see: stock markets).

The government discriminates, as it lets the rich gamble, but ban it from the lower class

clarification needed

• Extremely important activities are gambling activities
  

clarification needed

• Americans have lost way more to gambling on houses and stocks, than to Las Vegas.  Housing bubbles in the U.S., Canada, Australia and UK are partially or mostly created by their governments, luring millions to gamble on it.
  

maybe because the amount of money spent on stocks is much greater than on las vegas?
[/list]

[Benjig]

You might see a campaign in the media against online gambling.  If supposed moral authorities attack gambling, here is what they and you should know:

• Most People Gamble all the time (Without Knowing It)
  
• According to the Boston University Law Review:
  
  • Gambling and investing are identical
  • regulations on online gambling is mainly about money and blocking competition, not about morals or protecting consumers
    
  • The government discriminates, as it lets the rich gamble, but ban it from the lower class
    
• Extremely important activities are gambling activities
  
• Governments have "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" mantras, as they are the world's biggest operators and pushers of gambling
  
• Americans have lost way more to gambling on houses and stocks, than to Las Vegas.  Housing bubbles in the U.S., Canada, Australia and UK are partially or mostly created by their governments, luring millions to gamble on it.
  
• The filthy rich, such as Sheldon Adelson, is reversing the legalization trend in the U.S., in order to fend off competition.  Don't believe his employed and richly paid lobbyists, who claim that they are trying to protect consumers.  (The UIGEA helped fend off competition.)
  

For explanations of the above, read:

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

As grue said it would be good if you clarify, anyway i think that the people sometimes bashes gambling because as it can be like an investment activity, it is more easy for almost all the people to fall into the addiction pathway and start to gamble just for the "adrenaline" not bringing attention to their pockets and time. (see hitler lost money to marklye) 

[Stunna]

• Most People Gamble all the time (Without Knowing It)
  

what's logic behind this?

• According to the Boston University Law Review:
  Gambling and investing are identical
  
  

no it's not. the expected value of almost all gambling games is negative, whereas the expected value of investments is positive (see: stock markets).

The government discriminates, as it lets the rich gamble, but ban it from the lower class

clarification needed

• Extremely important activities are gambling activities
  

clarification needed

• Americans have lost way more to gambling on houses and stocks, than to Las Vegas.  Housing bubbles in the U.S., Canada, Australia and UK are partially or mostly created by their governments, luring millions to gamble on it.
  

maybe because the amount of money spent on stocks is much greater than on las vegas?
[/list]

Agree with grue, investing is not "gambling" in my opinion. OP is trying to compare real life risk taking with negative EV gameplay.

The right argument to make is simply the fact that gambling is a fun activity that people should have the right to partake in if they please. Gambling for any reason other than entertainment is not a good idea.

[Lethn]

I have no problems with gambling, like with porn, computer games and the list goes on, the people who attack these kind of things are just a bunch of controlling assholes who want to interfere with peoples private lives, if you don't harm anyone or commit fraud with your money then it's nobodies fucking business what you do.

Oh wait, I just realised this suspiciously looks like a minor plug for your site and took you more seriously than I should have, nevermind.

[StockBet.com]

• Most People Gamble all the time (Without Knowing It)
  

what's logic behind this?

• According to the Boston University Law Review:
  Gambling and investing are identical
  
  

no it's not. the expected value of almost all gambling games is negative, whereas the expected value of investments is positive (see: stock markets).

The government discriminates, as it lets the rich gamble, but ban it from the lower class

clarification needed

• Extremely important activities are gambling activities
  

clarification needed

• Americans have lost way more to gambling on houses and stocks, than to Las Vegas.  Housing bubbles in the U.S., Canada, Australia and UK are partially or mostly created by their governments, luring millions to gamble on it.
  

maybe because the amount of money spent on stocks is much greater than on las vegas?
[/list]

If you read the sections entitled "Most People Gamble All The Time" and "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling , they will answer your questions and give you clarification.

I think you are saying that the expected value over multiple years on stocks is positive.  A professional poker player can make the same claim.  In the short term, you can lose just as often on stocks as a poker player.  Regardless, the expected value of an activity is not a defining factor on whether it is gambling or not.  See the three dictionaries' definition of gambling and Boston University Law Review's explanation at http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling.

Yes, the amount of money and hence the amount of gambling done on stocks is MUCH greater than on Las Vegas.  The honest stock market professionals will tell you that the stock market is the world's largest casino.

[greyhawk]

You might see a campaign in the media against online gambling. 

otoh, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=642090.0

[commandrix]

Yeah. There have been times when I felt like I was gambling when I was just doing my thing on Mintpal. And I've told people that just getting out of bed in the morning can be risky. I'm not against gambling, but I do think that people with gambling addictions need to get help before it reaches the point where they're taking out a second mortgage to keep their habit going.

[StockBet.com]

Agree with grue, investing is not "gambling" in my opinion. OP is trying to compare real life risk taking with negative EV gameplay.

Please see my reply to grue.

You don't need to take my comparison.  Three dictionaries and Boston University Law Review provide definitions, explanations and numerous examples that show investing is gambling.

The right argument to make is simply the fact that gambling is a fun activity that people should have the right to partake in if they please.

I absolutely agree with you that people should have to the right to partake in it if they please.  However, governments try to take this right away.  If you read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling , there is an excerpt from the Boston University Law Review paper:

"...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.

The decision to prohibit an activity should be based on a sound analysis of its costs and benefits, including whether any important freedoms are associated with that activity. Similar activities should be regulated similarly, without regard to traditional labels, pretextual and inconsistent morality arguments, or discriminatory categorizations based on class."

Now, Sheldon Adelson and his team of lobbyists are trying take or keep the right away.

Gambling for any reason other than entertainment is not a good idea.

If you've ever worked in the stock market, you will know that it is also entertaining.  Most professionals and retail investors won't openly admit to it, but they get excitement and fun from trading, similar to the fun and anticipation of winning a poker round, or seeing a winning number come up on the roulette table.  Some retail investors will use the word "fun" to watch the prices go up and down.  Watch CNBC.  With the "suspense" music, fast-paced speaking anchors and scrolling stock tickers, they try to instill a sense of urgency and excitement to the viewers and broadcast the stock market like it's a sports event.

The documentary called "Lucky" refers to lotteries as entertainment.  Stock market is much more entertaining than lotteries to most participants, except for the one participant who wins the lottery jackpot.

[StockBet.com]

You might see a campaign in the media against online gambling. 

otoh, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=642090.0

Yeah. There have been times when I felt like I was gambling when I was just doing my thing on Mintpal. And I've told people that just getting out of bed in the morning can be risky. I'm not against gambling, but I do think that people with gambling addictions need to get help before it reaches the point where they're taking out a second mortgage to keep their habit going.

You guys are correct that problem gambling or gambling addiction are not good.  Please read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling .  Here is an excerpt:

Based on the above three elements [stake, chance, profit/loss], millions of people also gamble on real estate. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's article: "Flip This House": Investor Speculation and the Housing Bubble: "At the peak of the boom in 2006, over a third of all U.S. home purchase lending was made to people who already owned at least one house."
...
People complain that users of online gambling or casinos can lose too much money. However, millions of Americans have lost way more money to houses and the stock market. The comparison is not even close. If these self-appointed moral authorities are concerned about others losing money, they should ban people from buying investment properties or stocks. They should also ban the millions of entrepreneurs because every year, the majority of them lose their shirts and waste several years of their lives trying to start a new business. They should also ban small business owners, as the far majority of them go bankrupt. The number of "problem gamblers" pale in comparison to the number of entreprenuers and small business owners and the amount that they lose.
...
Few activities in this world are perfect with no downsides. Driving provides significant value, but it has downsides as well. According to Wikipedia, approximately 34,000 Americans are killed in cars every year. But we don't ban driving.

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?

Cell phones provide significant value, but they distract people to the point of causing car accidents and walking into buses. However, we don't ban cell phones.

If you bought a house, hoping to make a quick buck by flipping it, then you were making a bet that the price will continue to go up. Calling "flipping" as investing was spin and spin is pervasive in society. Millions of people were doing this. Millions of these flippers lost on their bets, and lost big. Every one of us knows one or multiple people who lost money on houses. Few of us know people who lost this kind of money to "problem gambling", yet politicians keep attacking the gambling industry on this. I know several people, who bought multiple houses each and ended up losing hundreds of thousands each. Two lost essentially their life savings. One nearly did, still has three houses with two still underwater. Who is running a campaign to ban investment properties?

Losing 25BTC as MKRLE did, is chump change, compared to the money that millions of Americans have lost to houses and stocks. 

There isn't any campaign to ban investment properties, stocks, entrepreneurs, driving and cell phones, all of which have positive and negative aspects.  There is a campaign to ban online gambling, not for the moral or protection reasons that they will try to make you believe, but to block competition.

[bryant.coleman]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

[StockBet.com]

I have no problems with gambling, like with porn, computer games and the list goes on, the people who attack these kind of things are just a bunch of controlling assholes who want to interfere with peoples private lives, if you don't harm anyone or commit fraud with your money then it's nobodies fucking business what you do.

Oh wait, I just realised this suspiciously looks like a minor plug for your site and took you more seriously than I should have, nevermind.

The main attackers are the land-based gambling operators and entities that benefit from them, such as the government.  

There was a trend and momentum towards state-level legalization of online gambling.  According to Forbes, Sheldon Adelson, 5th richest person in the U.S., is reversing that trend.

The main reason that they are attacking online gambling, controlling you and interfering with your private lives, is not for the reasons that they spin and use.  The main reason is related to money and to block competition.

Yes, this is a minor plug for our site.  It is also a plug for all online gambling sites.  This topic was posted on the "Gambling" forum, mainly targeted to all of the other online bitcoin gambling operators and a call to arms.  (I don't know why, but it looks like someone moved it off of the "Gambling" forum.)  Hopefully, the blog will enable them to understand the true nature of the attacks in order to help defend our online gambling industry.  There is a reason why there are so many industry associations and lobby groups.  United we stand.  Divided we fall.

[StockBet.com]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

Can you elaborate on why they are full of shit?  How are each of their arguments flawed?

[bryant.coleman]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

Can you elaborate on why they are full of shit?  How are each of their arguments flawed?

Even a schoolkid would tell you that all this is crap:

1. Gambling and investing are identical
2. Most People Gamble all the time
3. Extremely important activities are gambling activities

What next? People will argue that smoking weed is identical to doing research on cancer drugs.

[greyhawk]

What next? People will argue that smoking weed is identical to doing research on cancer drugs.

Not sure if a clever reference to dank or just genuine circumstance.

[Ron~Popeil]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

Neither do we. Most of us don't even pay enough attention to know we are funding so much garbage.

The poorly kept secret about this kind of stuff is that researchers learn really early on that if they tell the government what it wants to hear they get more funding. If they tell the truth and it doesn't fit into the government narrative their research grants dry up. 

[StockBet.com]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

Can you elaborate on why they are full of shit?  How are each of their arguments flawed?

Even a schoolkid would tell you that all this is crap:

1. Gambling and investing are identical
2. Most People Gamble all the time
3. Extremely important activities are gambling activities

What next? People will argue that smoking weed is identical to doing research on cancer drugs.

Please present your argument on why those are crap.

Did you read the Boston University Law Review's paper?  Did you read the three dictionaries' definition and examples of gambling?  Did you read http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling ?

Here is an excerpt from http://stockbet.com/#/support/gambling

According to the documentary Lucky:

"More than half of all American adults play the lottery, making it, by far, the most popular form of paid entertainment in the country"

Just that one fact means that the majority of people gamble.

Here is another excerpt:

• Dictionary.com's definition for gambling includes:
  
  • "to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success."
    
  • "any matter or thing involving risk..."
    
• Merriam-Webster's definition includes:
  
  • "to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something"
    
  • "to stake something on a contingency"
    
  • "take a chance"
    
  • "something that could produce a desired result or a bad or unpleasant result"
    
  • "an act having an element of risk"
    
  • Examples include:
    
    • "The mayor is gambling with the city's future."
      
    • "people who lost money gambling in the stock market"
      
    • The mayor is gambling that the new policies will help rather than hurt the city."
      
    • Starting her own business was a gamble, but it paid off."
      
    • "She thought about starting her own business, but she decided it was too much of a gamble."
      
• Oxford Dictionary's definition is:
  
  • "Take risky action in the hope of a desired result:"
    
  • Examples include:
    
    • 'he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel'
      
    • '...it is always tempting as an investor to gamble on risky firms...'
      
    • 'Investors began gambling on future returns...'
      
    • 'Financial speculators, who are gambling on more chaos in the Middle East, are also pushing up prices.'
      
    • 'He's extremely talented and has good drive and business sense, but this is a gamble and could leave me in a bit of financial trouble if it fails.'
      
    • 'we decided to take a gamble and offer him a place on our staff'
      
    • 'If reliability is unknown or unknowable, then they just charge a high premium and take a gamble, hoping to spread a loss to other less-risky areas.'
      
    • 'Some guests want to know at the time of booking precisely what cabin they will have and others are willing to take a gamble in exchange for an upgrade.'
      
    • 'The money stream was very fresh, and they were willing to take a gamble on buying a house and spending as much or more on a remodel.'
      

Hence, you and almost everybody you know, gamble all the time.

A more stringent definition of gambling stipulates that the activity should involve the following:

• Stake
  
• Chance (Most activities involve chance even if there is skill)
  
• Profit or Loss
  

Even with this, most activities are in fact, gambling activities, because they involve the above. These include extremely important activites:

• Sales
  
• Marketing
  
• Investing (in anything)
  
• Insurance
  
• Starting a Business
  
• Drilling for Oil
  
• Mining for Minerals
  

You might have read gambling definitions from the government that differ from the dictionaries'. Their motive for trying to spin or change it is explained later.

Feel free to provide definitions from dictionaries that are more reputable than the above.

[StockBet.com]

Seems like the Boston University Law Review is full of shit. I don't know why the American tax payers are funding organizations like this, which dish out nothing other than bull-crap all the time.

Neither do we. Most of us don't even pay enough attention to know we are funding so much garbage.

The poorly kept secret about this kind of stuff is that researchers learn really early on that if they tell the government what it wants to hear they get more funding. If they tell the truth and it doesn't fit into the government narrative their research grants dry up. 

Boston University is a private school.  Do you know how much funding they are getting?

Throughout their paper, they are harshly criticizing the government in regards to online gambling.  I didn't see anywhere where they were writing things that the government wants to hear.  Quite the opposite.  Did you read the paper?  Please provide excerpts that support your claim.  Are you saying that "investing is identical to gambling" is what the government wants to hear?

[Bitcoin Magazine]

i gamble all the time.  but one thing i'm definitely NOT doing is putting 2750 btc on 75% satoshi dice

[the joint]

Penny auction sites are a nice example of online gambling.  They certainly aren't for investing, there are incalculable odds, and for every auction winner there are a handful of losers.