Talk:Gambling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Gambling, an attempt at building a useful gambling resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Gambling is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
For older, archived discussion, see Archive.

Contents

[edit] Horse Racing Content

I think the info here on horse racing could use some expansion. I'm trying to learn about it but I have several questions:

  • What is the "morning line"?
  • How do you find out odds of place and show bets?
  • Let's say I place a bet the day before the race. Are the payouts according to the odds I'm given then or the odds just before the race?
  • Roughly, how are exacta and other bet payouts calculated?
  • From what I've seen I think the standard way to report results is to base it on a $2 bet. Is this true? E.g. the published payout from today's Preakness for an exacta is $85.80, but it doesn't say how much you would have had to bet to win that.
  • What is "boxing" of a bet?

It seems like maybe horse racing should have its own article. --Duozmo 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

I'm wondering whether this page needs some temporary protection. The same edit is coming through from a range of IPs quite regularly ... --VampWillow 22:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There seem to be a few of us watching it. My bet (if you'll pardon the expression) is that the vandals will quit soon. Let's see if we can outlast them. JamesMLane 00:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is also possible to add that spammer URL to the bad URL list, thus then the article cannot be saved anymore if it contains that URL. But IIRC that needs some developer action, a "normal" admin doesn't have the power to do so. And anyway, I have added this article to my watchlist as well, so we can be sure to revert it quickly anyway. andy 07:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be listed under category:Crime and category:Organized crime. It is legal in a large amount of areas, and though gambling has a history of being involved with crime, it is more of a recreation.Scottbeck 16:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing fundamentally related about gambling and crime, and especially organized crime. It's like linking organized crime for a "sex" page -- sure sometimes crime is involved but that is just a coincidence.

[edit] fixed-odds gambling from mathematical and psychological standpoint

I am not sure if this belongs here, because the source is my observation and guessing (so it would classify as original research), so I write it here. What bookmakers call "odds" is often not the same as mathematical odds in probability theory, because sum of the "probabilites" (corresponding to bookmakers' odds) of all possible outcomes is often not 1. In fact, it's always greater than 1, which means that the odds are rigged against the player who bets and favor the bookmaker. Furthermore, by dropping this restriction on odds, bookmaker can take his uncertainty into account, creating odds which are always rigged in his favor. So, in fact, to beat the bookmaker, it is not enough to know the probabilities of event better than him (as long as he knows his uncertainty well enough). However, that's not how fixed-odds betting is usually perceived in public; I believe, it is advertised to be precisely opposite, that if you would have better guess than bookmaker, you could profit. But it can be made so you cannot beat it, if bookmaker wishes (and I believe, if he can, he does). If anyone wants to discuss these things further, you are invited to leave a message on my talk page. Samohyl Jan 00:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Roulette prediction

The gambling page seems to be pretty strong in its opinion that roulette is not a beatable game. Yet the roulette page mentions the "Eudaemonic Pie" book about a group of people who proved it is not so. It is easy to show that a slightly tilted wheel (I have found that about 0.02 radians of tilt is common) will only ever allow the ball to fall off at a certain part of the bowl. Most people don't notice this, because this doesn't result in a certain number or group of numbers being more or less common. However, it is possible to predict, without a computer, what area of the wheel the ball will fall off at, and make a bet on a single number at the last second or two, realising a substantial advantage. I know; I've done the maths and tried it out (all this was several years ago). I eventually gave up because I found I didn't have the discipline to gather the data necessary (you basically need to know where the high point is), and there is a trivial casino counter measure (call no more bets early, and/or balance wheels more often).

Given the fact that the Eudaemonic Pie / Newtonian Casino book has demonstrated the basic idea, and the book is well known, wouldn't it be correct under the neutral point of view principle to put roulette under the "beatable games" category with a rider such as "with physical prediction"? I don't intend on giving great details, just the fact that some sort of prediction based on the tilt of a wheel is possible. Or is that sort of thing just too controvercial for the Wikipedia?

--Mike Van Emmerik 13:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything to say here. If a wheel is flawed, of course the game can be beatable, but we aren't talking about cheating (intentional flaws) or bad construction (non-intentional. Roulette is mathematically unbeatable if the wheel is fair. We shouldn't go beyong that, because the next logical thing would be that slot machines are beatable if they are broken. 2005 19:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a tilted wheel isn't exactly flawed, just not installed correctly. I don't agree that it's anything close to broken slot machines. However, I do think now that anything said about this should be quite short. Perhaps I can dig up some information about the various Huxley wheels (Huxley is a major roulette wheel manufacturer), and how the various new versions of the wheel were supposedly designed to prevent various kinds of physical prediction. With some reference to back me up, perhaps a few short paragraphs would be appropriate. --Mike Van Emmerik 00:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Not installed correctly is the same thing as broken. But in any case, if you are talking paragraphs, that should be in a roulette article. At most one sentence should go here. 2005 05:27, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tothebarricades.tk: even a perfect wheel can be predicted with appropriate equipment (the classic shoe computer of the Eudaemons, for example). If this is encyclopedic knowledge, it belongs in a separate Roulette section, as noted above. I'm now of the opinion that this is just too controvercial and off topic to put in Wikipedia, though I initially thought it might be.

Gambling is fun.

[edit] Morality

The article could use a discussion of differing views on the morality of gambling. -- Temtem 22:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • Gambling is an evil. Fullstop. The only thing that I ever put on a horse, is myself once a week at a riding center. Anthony Appleyard 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is this a quotation or a personal observation? -- 64.60.140.146 00:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe it is a personal observation and a personal held belief. To each his own BetusSportsbook
      • And to each his section in this article, that's my vote. Various viewpoints should be investigated and represented. For example, I grew up hearing that the "christian" point of view was that gambling was wrong, yet I have yet to see a single verse that supports it. If there are any, they ought to be quoted. If not, that should be pointed out, and thus the view noted as more of a cultural thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.73.48.43 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Dice control

Why is dice control not debatable? (I'm not being argumentative; I genuinely don't know and would like to be educated.) Flat Earth Society is "not debatable" because for every bozo astronomer who claims it to be so, I could point to literally 100 different sources of real astronomers who contradict. Is the same statement true for dice control? Has the physics community truly spoken as one that it isn't possible? If so, then reference to that fact should be in the craps and dice control article. But if not . . . then why is not debatable? (Again, not making any particular argument for it myself. I don't play craps and admit I truly wouldn't know, one way or another.) Mwelch 07:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles can mention crackpot theories, but we certainly should not lend credibility to anything that hasn't demonstrated any concrete evidence at all. It's not up to the physics community to "not prove" something. Craps is mathematically unbeatable. Anecdotes from scamsters doesn't change that. Absent the slightest proof, anti-mathematical assertions are not something to waste time on. The day someone has some evidence, a debate could begin. 2005 07:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, then perhaps I'm not understanding the issue well enough. (And again, that's entirely possible because I don't play craps.) Certainly, there is no argument (I don't think) that craps is mathematically unbeatable if all six sides of each die truly have an equal chance of coming up. But, if I'm not mistaken, is not the whole theory behind dice control that you can throw the dice in such away that all six sides do NOT have an equal chance of coming up? In other words, it is supposedly a way to achieve the same type of effect as loaded dice, but just by setting combined with shooting technique, rather than by actually altering the dice themselves? Is that not the gist of it?
Craps certainly IS mathematically beatable if one operates with loaded dice. So IF it is possible to shoot them in such a way as to consistently achieve that same effect, then it's mathematically beatable in that way tpo. So the question then would be: is it really possible to shoot them a way that would achieve that effect? And that is indeed a question of physics.
So if there are books out there that purport to answer that question in the affirmative *through* the application of physics (which apparently there are), and if there are not other physics references that contradict that assertion (this is where the Flat Earth Society analogy fails to apply, I believe) . . . well then I don't see why there's no cause to debate.
Please note that I completely agree with you that no credence should be given to people who are obviously and demonstrably scamsters. And if that's the case with those who advocate dice control, then certainly no credibility should be given there. But if that is indeed the case, then again I think the references that support applying that "scamster" classification to them should be added to the articles about those theories.
Right nos, it seems to be just a matter of they say, "yes, you can" and you say, "no, you can't". Perhaps you're right, but if so, there should be some references that support that which we can add in to the craps and dice control articles, should there not? Mwelch 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want to cite a credible source about anything for any entry, then do so. There are no credible sources regarding dice control making craps beatable, so I don't know why you are wondering about this. If you know of a till-now secret MIT study proving the scamster claims, please cite it and there would be something to talk about. 2005 10:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
8-( I really don't think there's any need for sarcasm like that. I wondering about it simply because I don't know of any credible sources on it either way — neither giving it credence, nor debunking it. Perhaps there are a lot of references out there that effectively debunk it. I'm just asking (and not necessarily by you specifcally, but by anyone who is reading this and has such knowledge) to be educated as to what those sources are. What is so very puzzling about that? If I don't ask questions, how am I supposed to learn?
You've said that it's not up to physics to disprove dice control theory. But if the theory is not scientifically counter-intuitive and one wants to declare the theory as definitely false, then yes, the burden actually would be on physics to disprove it, before making such an absolute declaration. So is dice control theory scientifically counter-intuitive, and if not, has it been disproven with physics? I don't know.
1) It's certainly not scientifally counter-intuitive at a mathematical level. The pure mathematics of the game say that if you can get the dice outcome to be more predictable than random distribution, then the game is beatable. Really no two ways about that.
2) So is it scientifically counter-intuitive that such predictability could be achieved at a theoretical physics level? If you had a "perfect" shooting machine — one that could impart, time after time, with perfect precision, the exact same force upon the dice on every single throw, same dice set, same release point, same rotation, same angle of release, same speed of release, same distance between the two dice upon release, everything that, in the real world, is legally under the control of the human shooter -- then under that scenario is it scientifically counter-intuitive that you'd get some level of predictability in your results that would exceed random distribution? The only physical forces that couldn't be reliably replicated would be the air currents in the room that flow over the dice while their thrown and any changes in the surface friction, angle and rigidity of the table and of the back wall. Would the slight variations in those from throw-to-throw be enough to deny one some decent level of predicatability beyond random distributions? I'll freely admit that I don't remember my college physics well enough to be able to answer that definitively. Intuitively, I'd be inclined to think "no". That the results would be, while not 100% predictable, still more predictable than random distribution. And that therefore, under point #1, the game would in fact beatable in the thought experiment world.
3) If I'm right about that (and again, I'm freely admitting that I may not be; that's where I'm looking for a reference that would set me straight), then the final question would then be: can a human shooter in real world conditions re-create the repetition of primary forces created by the perfect machine in the thought experiment world? Certainly not. So they certainly aren't going to get the same predictability that we had in #2. BUT . . . is it really so counter-intuitive to theorize that certain humans, with good coordination, good concentration, and who have put in many, many hours of practice, could get close enough to being able to consistently repeat all of those forces that they could achieve at least a little bit more predictability than random distribution (because really, a little bit is all that would be needed to turn the math and make the game beatable)? And naturally, if I couldn't answer the question at the end #2 effectively, I definitely can't answer this one. 8-) So again, that's where I'm looking for anyone reading this to point the way to something solid which answesr it. That's really all I'm getting at.
And the reason is that because if there is no intuitive answer to the question, AND there is no non-biased scientific study on it (that I know of--again, if there is one, please do enlighten me; I genuinely welcome that) either way, then it just seems a little inappropriate to declare the theory as absolutely true OR to declare it as absolutely false. In that case, it would seem perhaps more appropriate to acknowledge the theory's existence and state that there is no current scientific evidence either supporting or refuting it.
On the other hand, if there is in fact a study that refutes, or even absent an actual study, just a basic flaw in the purported physics of it (e.g. the air flow changes really do have a greater effect than I might expect, or something like that) that someone can quickly point out, then that fact, I think, would make a good addition to the article on the theory itself.
Does that not seem reasonable? Mwelch 23:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The source for the claims on dice control that I included is http://wizardofodds.com/craps/crapsapx3.html, while the source for beating slot machines is "Robbing the One-Armed Bandits (2nd Edition): An Encyclopedic Guide to Finding and Exploiting Advantageous Slot Machines (Paperback) by Charles W. Lund, 2000 ISDN #0910575134. The references in the main article seem pretty streamlined so I'm not sure if the referenced should go there or here. Toonces 16:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I found Darwin Ortiz' book Gambling Scams: How They Work, How to Detect Them, How to Protect Yourself[[1]] quite informative on all forms of gambling cheats, prop bets, and con games. On pp.140-142 he specifically discusses dice control in private games, and at least renders it plausible. Unfortunately, I don't have access to my copy of the text, as I left it in the U.S., and I currently reside in Korea. I'd note that, from what I recall, he examines methods used by dice cheats in private games, not casino cheats, and the casino setup is expressly designed to foil attempts at dice control (whether out of genuine need, or simple overprecaution can be debated). It should also be noted that Ortiz is not personally a dice cheat, so he is mainly giving annecdotal evidence, which has cheats as its source, and may not be as reliable as his extensive knowledge of card cheats. But in any event, he describes specific techniques and alleges their effectiveness.
I can only now report vague notions based on what I read years ago, but there exists plausible theory. It should be noted that, if a player in a private game can "freeze" one die so that it is statistically more probable to come up on the number he wants than pure randomness, this amounts to a significant edge. Simply using the top die to freeze the bottom die as they strike the backdrop and fall together can increase the likelihood that the bottom die will fall as desired, without tumbling, but giving the impression of a fair throw (especially as, the times he fumbles his freeze, the toss really will tumble randomly). If it was possible to toss the dice so that the bottom die "freezes" a five 1/3 of the time, meaning the five comes up say 1/3 times on that die, instead of 1/6, this would significantly alter the chances of winning. I expand upon this possibility with some non-wiki-permissible Original Research below:
When rolling randomly, the shooter rolls a natural 7 or 11 on the come out 22.2% of the time. If he can freeze a 5 on the bottom die 1/3 of the time, then he rolls a natural 24.4% of the time. Similarly, a random roll craps out 11.1% of the time, but freezing a 5 on the bottom die 1/3 of the time reduces the chances of crapping out to 8.9% There's a very slight offset in the fact that the shooter is more likely to get a point of ten on the comeout, and less likely to get a point of five which is more favorable, but still this converts -1.4% disadvantage to the shooter, to an approximately 3% advantage to the shooter... and the shooter can presumably choose to freeze one die (with the same odds of success) to the most advantageous number when rolling his point.
A cheat would not have to be even this accurate to get an advantage in the game. But, if he was able to freeze a die even more reliably, and reserve his freeze attempts for only "important" rolls, such as when he has an unusually high amount of money at stake, he could make an edge and conceal his actions. Keep in mind, as this is the kind of play a crooked player might incorporate into other shady actions, a dice cheat in a private game might try to freeze a die while rolling to help an undisclosed accomplice who has placed a side bet against some mark... anyway, you see where this all leads. It's not a "sure thing," and presumably faces some risk (but less than shaved or loaded dice which can be proven if revealed), but it adds up to a significant edge for a professional gambling cheat.
I can't establish verifiably that such cheating is possible, and I would presume that even if it were possible, the very few dice controllers who are successful would be in a small minority among the wanna-be sharps who don't really have the skills. It's also possible that dice control could work in a private game setting while not being practical in a casino. At least it's presumably a lot harder in such a setting, if not impossible. Someone would have to do some serious further research to find verifiable sources on something like this. But at least in the context of talk pages, it's fairly debatable, though it will probably never lead to a reliable article.zadignose 18:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Games

Should we separate multi-player games? Poker is beatable, but it isn't really a casino game in that you are not playing the house. It's a multiplayer game, like bingo or backgammon -- FeldBum 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a casino game in the sense that it is offered in a casino. I don't think the Wikipedia has a definition of "casino games" as "games played against the house". That's not to say we couldn't define them that way, but it would require a lot of subtle changes on lots of articles. POker is clearly a beatable game played in casinos so I'd say leaving it how it is makes sense to me. 2005 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the table of contents on the right?

Oh I think I see, it's because the intro is so long. OK I will rephrase, "Why is the intro so long?". That I don't see. It seems to me (an innocent bystander) that the intro should stop in the 4th line at "... Material goods" and the rest should be in a new first section.I hope you dont object to this comment but, trust me, this article looks a mess when you stumble across it as I haveAbtract 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

I see you (2005 reverted my more elegant and therefore more user friendly layout. Could you explain why? Abtract 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mess up the page again. Its not funny. Leave the user friendly layout alone plaese. 2005 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain why my suggested layout is not better? Abtract 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from adding useless whitespace and mucking up a user-friendly and much more attractive design. C'mon. And just a suggestion, its nice for you to start contributing to the encyclopedia, but making random changes to the high profile, especially when they aren't user friendly, is not a good idea from a cooperation standpoint. Make use of talk pages, and then state YOUR case for changing what a dozen editors have contributed to. The burden is on you to justify changes, not the other way around. 2005 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had. The way it is right now looks peculiar and the eye is not led to the contents list. When I first looked at this article I thought my laptop was playing up and had somehow merged two parts of the article and sort of jammed the contents in on the right. All this because the intro is far too long. It surely is no accident that almost all articles have the contents on the left following a relatively short intro. I fully realise that this is entirely my opinion but I did give 2 days for a response to my statement that the article looks a mess as it now is. If I think this then maybe other visitors to the article feel the same. Would it not be a good idea to let me make the change and ask (here?) views from others who watch this article? Or do you own the article? Abtract 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Abtract's proposed change adds a lot of useless whitespace to the article, and it's much better with its current format. Lots of websites and web-pages use a right-justified menu of text links, so I don't think it looks peculiar or is user-unfriendly in any way. Rray 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Leave it alone please. Saying it looks a mess to you was not helpful. It looks much better the way it is, and you haven't made an argument why adding unfreindly whitespace makes any sense, so perhaps we can move on. 2005 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK OK I don't want to argue interminably. I am intrigued to know which other wiki articles have the contents on the right alongside a long intro in this fashion. If either of you could suggest a couple of good examples I would be interested to view them. Once I become convinced, I will naturally become a proponent of this method of eliminating whitespace from wiki and edit contents to the right wherever I can. Thanks, I presume you are both active in some sort of project to eliminate useless whitespace, maybe I could join you?Abtract 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC).

I think there are two problems here: One is that moving the table of contents to the right is highly irregular. Almost all articles on Wikipedia place the TOC to the left. Second, the table of contents is too long. This indicates that some sections might be merged, or that excess information might be moved to daughter articles. I don't particularly like either Abstract's version or the current one. Is there not some template to make the TOC left justify and have the introductory text flow directly to the right of it? — BrianSmithson 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Just change the word inside the tage from TOCright to TOCleft, and see what you think. 2005 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Yeah, that worked. It doesn't look much better. It would be better if there were a way to move the TOC down a paragraph or two but keep it left. But I still think the real problem is that the TOC is too long; in other words, sections should be joined or moved to daughter articles. But I guess it's not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. Should someone decide to make a featured article candidacy with this article eventually, it will likely have to be changed, but until then . . . . — BrianSmithson 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to spruce the article up a bit with some images from Commons. There are others there, so feel free to mix and match. This also allows us to move the TOC to the left again. Hopefully all will be satisfied with this look. — BrianSmithson 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to get rid of all the extra white space that's been inserted between the heading of "Unbeatable Casino Games" and the list of games? I'm not really super-familiar with formatting issues at the Wikipedia yet, but it's one of the first things I noticed on my screen.Rray 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I made some changes to remove whitespace. You can move photos that are set to the right immediately after a left entry. In other words, you don't have to start photos at the top of a section. 2005 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'perceived'

i seriously doubt that the social consequences of gambling are 'percieved'. You would be hard pressed to find any argument in favour of the social BENEFITS of arbitrary redistribution of wealth which are outweighed by the consequences regardless of how minor you may believe them to be.

I am inclined to agree that the wording as is indicates that the social costs are merely perceived and therefore not real; there will be a better form of words if we think on it. Abtract 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
I've had a go at improving it. Abtract 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC).
The existing language is fine. A weasel word like "can" adds nothing but a shot of pov, and also what is "uncontrolled gambling" supposed to mean? 2005 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It is very clear that gambling is addictive to some people and that it can bring social harm (to families, friends, business partners etc). This is particularly so when it is not controlled (or uncontrolled)by the individual or by the state. This is not a POV it is fact as surely you accept.Using the word perceived on the other hand implies that these social costs are imagined by some people rather than being real - this is s POV that flies in the face of the facts. My edit (sparked off by the tag someone else put on that you removed peremptorily) attempts to address the facts and to correct a slight imbalance in the way it was previously worded. Please consider this carefully and build on my edit (which is no doubt not perfect) rather than simply reverting it. Abtract 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC).
It is very clear that gambling is not addictive to some people, so that comment says nothing. The addictiveness of it is covered by another article and referenced here in a section. Your use of "controlled" is confusing at best, and plain wrong if meant some ways. Gambling that is not controled by the state does not necessarily have to have negative effects. Gambling that is uncontrolled by a human is different, but you seem to be talking about the government. Government regulations about home poker games for example likely have absolutely no effect on how good or bad they are. It is certainly not a "fact" that government control lessens (or increases) social hardships. Your POV assertion is way off base. "Perceived" does not imply imaged in any way. That seems to be the problem, that you aren't understanding what perceived means... look it up on dictionary.com. In fact, it makes a stronger point that what you are suggesting. The social costs of problem gambling are far more perceptible than statistical. But that is a bit neither here nor there. I'll add your edit without the "uncontrolled" part. (To simplify it, government control seldom impacts the social costs.) That loses the point of perception, but it isn't all that important anyway. 2005 07:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an outside view: This whole section could use with some source citations. If there's an argument over the social effects of gambling (and there arguably should be), it's best to present both sides, backed up by references. To avoid weaseling, use specific individuals instead of "some people" or "many researchers" and the like. — BrianSmithson 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social Costs/Politics

I think it would be good, somewhere, to have a discussion of the commentary on the social costs of gambling and the history of legalized gambling in the United States. I am sure that there would be disagreements and some difficulty in finding text that everyone agrees on, but if we stick to the principle that no one is expressing opinion, but we are merely reporting on the opinions expressed by others, then I think it can all be worked through. Here is a suggested (very rough) outline. Please feel free to correct me:

Gambling: The Social and Political Questions

1. Theories of why gambling is harmful

   A) Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems
       1) embezzlement cases where embezzler was raising money to pay gambling debts or just to gamble                           some more;
        2) other crimes of desperation, committed by gamblers facing large losses;
        3) dependents of gamblers (the unfortunate children);

2. Defenses

    A) Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun
    B) Libertarian defense-none of government's business

3. History of illegal gambling and attempts at enforcement

    A) Numbers rackets
    B) Rooster fights
     C) Organized crime involvement;
     D) Sports bookies;

3. Legalized gambling in the United States:

   A) Nevada;
    B) Horse racing;
    C) Dog Racing;
    D) State Lotteries;
    E) Supreme court decision opening the door to Indian Casinos
    F) Indian Casinos
    G) Congressional Action
     H) Further states permitting Casinos
        (i) Atlantic City
         (ii) Detroit
         (iii) others
The POV theories on why something is or isn't harmful don't have a place here, and are best dealt with by a sentence or two as they are in the article. Most of the other things have other articles. It seems like you may be wanting to dump the kitchen sink in here. For example, bookmaking has its own article. This article should not do more than mention it and then refer to the other article. In general we should be trying to move content from this article to more specific articles. 2005 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fact that those POV theories have been expressed by others in books and articles. Accordingly they absolutely have a place in Wikepdia, as the fact of their expression is of interest to many. I said these things should be "somewhere," so I was not saying that they should necessarily be in this article. I have now noticed the article on "gambling in the United States," which is good and addresses some of my concerns. I feel that this should be part of a disambiguation, however. I just do not think that one should have to finish the article on gambling to get to that link and that most people would just not think of searching for "gambling in the United States" as a separate article.

In general, however, although I agree that the various forms of gambling are of interest to many and certainly have a place here, I think that the history of how society has dealt with the question of to what extent gambling should be permitted and the observations of the behavior of gamblers and effects of gambling are of even greater interest to those wanting to understand our world. I believe these facts should be treated in a coherent manner, rather than being broken up between many different articles. I think that when someone searches for "gambling," they should quickly be presented with the possibility of exploring these facts.

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. POV theories are for books that present philosophies. This is an encyclopedia. 2005 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did, and I am at a complete loss. How on earth did you reach the conclusion that I am not approaching this from a neutral point of view??? I am genuinely curious. It seems to me that I have taken a completely neutral point of view.

If I may expand, it would be a bizarre error to confuse the neutral point of view requirement with a nonsensical requirement that no point of view be repeated in Wikipedia. Such a rule would entirely eviscerate the telling of history. "The American Civil war appears to have been started due to conflicting points of view, none of which can be repeated here due to the 'no points of view rule.'"

All I did was respond to your outline which proposes that POV be added to the article. It should not. I didn't say you had one point of view or another so I don't know where that came from. 2005 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


I never suggested in any way that POV should be added to the article. A discussion of various POVs is what I proposed. This is fuly in comportment with Wiki policy. That is why I am puzzled by your comment.

you make some very good points Tesint which would be easier to read if you signed your comments with tildes. in support of your arguement i quote here directly from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

This suggests to me that not only may published pov be included here but that they should be included to give the reader the full and unbiased information about gambling provided of course it is presented in a balanced way. Abtract 08:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As the above quote should make clear, but apparently doesn't, creating blatantly POV topic sections like "Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems" and "Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun" is inappropriate. Such structures are clearly to be avoided. Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Biased topics lead to the other side of the issue facing "do you still beat your wife" statements. The article can address topics where there is different POV in society, but that isn't the issue. Weasel word "Some people say..." structures must be avoided. Finally, while this article is already long, it would be tens of thousands of words longer if it attempted to seriously address the wide variety of opinion on "gambling". That scope is for books, not articles. We are better served by sentences like the first under legal aspects. Even in the choosing of what societal POV is presented would be wildly arbitrary. This article can handle sentences, not multiple essays. Of course if someone who thinks the article needs something were to write several sentences or a paragraph, then others could respond to that. 2005 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Will lose in the long run"

A common phrase applied to those who gamble with a negative expectation... but not necessarily true. One is still merely likely to lose in the long run. It is not definite. If you gamble with a negative expectation:

  • You are likely to lose if you play once
  • You are likely to lose if you play a few times
  • You are likely to lose if you play a million times

Which is my first point. Gambling with a negative expectation in the long run does not mean you are going to lose; it only means you are likely to. There is the (small) probability that you could play the game a million times and still come out on top.

It is true that this likelihood increases as time goes on (one's expected value increases proportionately... but it is important to note, not exponentially), but it never becomes infinite. The terms long-run and short-run are actually irrelevant. It is a pity that many seem to differentiate between gambling once and many times as though it's ok to do it once or twice but not many. While gambling many times with a negative expectation is worse than doing it just once (all things being equal), they are both mathematically the wrong choice. This blanket "Gamble once, ok, gamble ten times, bad" is a bad misrepresentation and gross simplification of probability theory. For example, consider two simple games; for both, one either loses x or gains x. (let's say x = 10). If for one game the probability of winning is 0.3 and for the other the probability is 0.49, note that if you play game one just the once you are expected to lose 4. If you play the second game a whopping thirty-nine times, you are only expected to lose 3.8. Hence, playing the second game "in the long run" is better than playing the first "in the short run". (of course if you played the first game thirty-nine times, you are likely to lose 76). What I am trying to get at as my second point here is that the statement if you play a game with a negative expectation "you are likely to lose in the long run" is true, but pointless. If you play a game with a negaitve expectation in the short run you are still likely to lose. There is no use for the "in the long run" statement at all.--Zoso Jade 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/a/m/Talk%7EGambling_a473.html"