How much of a gambling problem do you have?

http://knowcasinos.com/game_info/problem_gambling/start_test.php

I was labeled an "at-risk" gambler, the lowest of the three rankings. So I guess that's good, or at least not terrible. I'll admit that there have been times when I got carried away and lost more than I wanted to...and more than I cared to admit to my parents. But I think that applies to almost everyone who's been in a casino in their lives.

I've never borrowed (much less stolen) money just to finance gambling, though...I'm pretty careful about making sure all my bills and living expenses are taken care of before I make a casino trip.

Well, that was just silly.

For my lifetime, the test indicates that I'm a problem gambler. The main reason for this is likely that my bankroll has increased over my lifetime. Guess what, so has my salary and my net worth. Apparently budgeting 5% of my salary for a gambling bankroll is a very bad thing. I need help.

And this year I'm "at risk". Apparently this is because I'm spending some time planning a future gambling trip. I guess if I packed a bag full of cash and ran off willy-nilly to Vegas without planning my bankroll and strategy I'd be ok, but that fact that I'm laying out a plan is a problem. I don't have a gambling problem, I've got a planning problem.

Quote: PapaChubby

Well, that was just silly.

Some questions just don't apply. For example, one question asks something like "Have you tried to cut down on your gambling?" I've never tried to because I've never gambled much. A latter question asks whether Ive succeeded in cutting down. Well, no, because I've never tried, because I've never had to.

Quote: PapaChubby

Well, that was just silly.

For my lifetime, the test indicates that I'm a problem gambler. The main reason for this is likely that my bankroll has increased over my lifetime. Guess what, so has my salary and my net worth. Apparently budgeting 5% of my salary for a gambling bankroll is a very bad thing. I need help.

And this year I'm "at risk". Apparently this is because I'm spending some time planning a future gambling trip. I guess if I packed a bag full of cash and ran off willy-nilly to Vegas without planning my bankroll and strategy I'd be ok, but that fact that I'm laying out a plan is a problem. I don't have a gambling problem, I've got a planning problem.

Oh, never mind. I guess "problem gambler" isn't such a bad thing, as it is only a score of 3 on a scale of 0 to 10. And "at risk" is a score of 1. I guess the scale is such that anyone who's ever gambled is "at risk".

Just a recruiting tool for Gamblers Anonymous.

Quote: PapaChubby

Well, that was just silly.

I scored 2, then one.

I agree, seems to me the trigger for "you have a problem" is indeed set too much towards hair trigger. For example, only take the test if you have been up or down $100 in your life. Please. And what idiot would write a test with a subjective part to it, such as "Have there ever been periods lasting two weeks or longer when you spent a lot of time thinking about your gambling experiences"? [emphasis mine]

Seems simplistically subjective and silly. "Spent a lot of time thinking of gambling" for example. Suppose I handicap sports and take hours to do so. Or practice basic strategy at a site online. What is wrong with that.

I maintain most people with a "gambling problem" really have a "losing problem" and in reality would find some kind of self-destructive behavior no matter what.

Quote: AZDuffman

Seems simplistically subjective and silly. "Spent a lot of time thinking of gambling" for example. Suppose I handicap sports and take hours to do so. Or practice basic strategy at a site online. What is wrong with that.

I maintain most people with a "gambling problem" really have a "losing problem" and in reality would find some kind of self-destructive behavior no matter what.

Very true and well said.

im a pathological gambler apparently.

Asking a group of gamblers if they have a gambling problem is like asking members of the SF Giants if they like baseball. But in one case there are probable social problems involved so there'll be nothing but denial after denial.

I gamble in Nevada once a month and 3-4 times a week at local Tribal casinos with whatever I have leftover from my wages (and at times more than that), when I'm not playing I think about it and read forums about it more than I probably should, I toy with the idea (but don't like) that I am a pathological player, and I definitely would have better cars and a nicer home if I never had started.

BUT I'M DOING WHAT I WANT!!

Quote: JerryLogan

Asking a group of gamblers if they have a gambling problem is like asking members of the SF Giants if they like baseball. But in one case there are probable social problems involved so there'll be nothing but denial after denial.

I gamble in Nevada once a month and 3-4 times a week at local Tribal casinos with whatever I have leftover from my wages (and at times more than that), when I'm not playing I think about it and read forums about it more than I probably should, I toy with the idea (but don't like) that I am a pathological player, and I definitely would have better cars and a nicer home if I never had started.

BUT I'M DOING WHAT I WANT!!

The last part is the improtant part! Lets pretend someone goes to Vegas for a trip. You have "x" dollars. So say you can:

1. Get the nicest possible room
2. See a show
3. Shop at the Forum Shops at Caesars
4. Eat at the best places
5. Gamble

As for me, with Sigfried and Roy gone there is no real fancy show I care much about. Maybe if they have a Rat POack or Elvis Tribute Review. But even then, I just have never cared enough for shows to plunk down loads of cash for one. A clean room is <mostly> all that I need so I stay at the Flamingo instead of Wynn. I can't afford most of what is in the shops and think it is overpriced anyways.

I will eat at nicer places.

So that means I spend more of my time gambling or preparing to gamble in the case of handicapping a game. I don't feel deprived and indeed rather feel happier for it.

Oh, and that "nicer" car and house you could afford might really be just a bill for even more expenses and less to spend at the tables!

So I'll see you all at a Table Game here in PA on July 8!*


* Pending PGA Approval

The only one that put me at risk was "Have you ever lied about how much you lost?" Well, YEAH. Because I don't want her to know how much I HAVE.

The way I see it, gambling becomes a problem only when it either 1) interferes with your life (ie you spend so much time on gambling you neglect your family, if any, job, health, etc), 2) gets you in financial trouble (ie you borrow money to gamble, lose your paycheck in a day, etc). By the way, option 2 can happen to comps chasers who don't necessarily enjoy gambling all that much.

Other than that it's just a hobby. It may be more expensive than other hobbies, but then again maybe not. Hobbies like art collecting, or coin colelcting, or restoring old cars can be much more expensive and take up even more time.

BTW I wonder how that test would work on a gaming industry analyst who doens't gamble at all. he spends a lot of time thinking about gambling, after all ;)

Quote: Mosca

The only one that put me at risk was "Have you ever lied about how much you lost?" Well, YEAH. Because I don't want her to know how much I HAVE.

I sometimes lie not about how much I lost, but how I lost it. If I tell my dad I lost $200 in one craps session, he'll go on and on about putting that much money in one game. If I tell him I lost $100 at a craps session, and then another $100 later in the day at a second craps session, he'll shrug and say "But you had fun, yes?"

I found a statement on the intro interesting:

Quote:

The questionnaire should only be taken by people who have lost $100 or been down $100 at some time in their life.

$100? That's their minimum?


Whatever. I took the test. Here's my results:

Quote:

Score
Lifetime Score = 1
Past Year Score = 1
Max possible score = 10

According to the NODS topology, your lifetime score falls into the At-risk gambler category.

According to the NODS topology, your past-year score falls into the At-risk gambler category.

I get a score of 1 out of 10 and that puts me 'at risk'?

Quote: Nareed

The way I see it, gambling becomes a problem only when it either 1) interferes with your life (ie you spend so much time on gambling you neglect your family, if any, job, health, etc), 2) gets you in financial trouble (ie you borrow money to gamble, lose your paycheck in a day, etc). By the way, option 2 can happen to comps chasers who don't necessarily enjoy gambling all that much.

Other than that it's just a hobby. It may be more expensive than other hobbies, but then again maybe not. Hobbies like art collecting, or coin colelcting, or restoring old cars can be much more expensive and take up even more time.

BTW I wonder how that test would work on a gaming industry analyst who doens't gamble at all. he spends a lot of time thinking about gambling, after all ;)

I see it differently. When I'm in LV I see tons of the most raggedy-looking people at their local casinos putting in hours of play. I have made many friends there over the years and most of them play video poker and slots constantly out of a bad habit and not for a hobby. At my local Tribal casinos it's the same story, only I'm a part of it here. When I'm home or at work, I can't even go a day that I don't play without reading the forums or posting to them. I believe that satisfies my need for a "fix". And I know I am not hardly alone. I guess that can be filed under "interfering with your life" but I don't have personal problems like you mentioned.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I get a score of 1 out of 10 and that puts me 'at risk'?

In a WC Fields movie "The Fatal Glass of Beer" the notion that any participation at all in what is viewed as a Vice means doom, is pilloried. Bluenose silly notions often prevail in such an outfit as this.

That's not to say that anyone who gambles, or drinks, etc, need be smug, IMO. The dangers are real.

Quote: Mosca

The only one that put me at risk was "Have you ever lied about how much you lost?" Well, YEAH. Because I don't want her to know how much I HAVE.

IMO it is just plain old common sense to downplay your losses to your spouse. Sorry to corrupt all you who never would think of it.

Quote: JerryLogan

I see it differently. When I'm in LV I see tons of the most raggedy-looking people at their local casinos putting in hours of play. I have made many friends there over the years and most of them play video poker and slots constantly out of a bad habit and not for a hobby.

Sometimes what starts out as a pleasant diversion can turn into a kind of joy-less habit. That's happened to me a few times, sometiems with games, sometimes with other things. When I realize I've fallen into a habit I get nothing from, I stop it. But by then it's easy to stop.

Quote:

When I'm home or at work, I can't even go a day that I don't play without reading the forums or posting to them. I believe that satisfies my need for a "fix". And I know I am not hardly alone. I guess that can be filed under "interfering with your life" but I don't have personal problems like you mentioned.

Whether or not you have a problem is a determionation you should be able to make. Hobbies take up a lot of time, but they're supposed to take up a lot of time.

Quote: odiousgambit

IMO it is just plain old common sense to downplay your losses to your spouse. Sorry to corrupt all you who never would think of it.

AZACKLY.

I haven't taken the test yet, but I will just for fun. But I do believe there is a stronger relation with "problem gambling" and the type of game that is played. Just hearing the way people talk about their slot play always infers to me there is some kind of issue....they always talk about they have "X" amount of dollars that they are going to spend. While its very important to have a max you are WILLING to lose when gambling, they don't seem to play it that way. Its like they play until that "x" amount of dollars is gone. And then they are back the next day, or next week to do it again.

Beyond that, just watching people play machines would make any person question their level of addictivity. To sit at a spot for hours on end staring at a mahchine spin seems the defenition of some sort of addictive behavior. There appears to be no excitement they are are receiving from their play, they just keep hitting the button.

For me, when I'm playing table games, as soon as its starts to get boring, or I know longer feel excited about placing my bets and awaiting the outcome, that's when I get up and leave or take a break. I assume that there are very few, if any, dedicated slot players on this forum. Sure, we all have a few spins here and there.

All of that said, there is one form of gambling that I have personally seen have negative impact on more than one individual. That is sports gambling. There is something devilish about betting sports, becuase the bettor always feels they are good enough to gain the advantage. You combine that with what is already a passion for a lot of people - the sports themselves - and its a dangerous recipie. Add to that, if betting with a traditional bookie at home, you often don't have to put the $$$ up yourself, and you just settle once a week or so. This makes it really tempting to chase losses hoping to get to "even" before its settlement day. At least with casino sports book you have to have put up the cash upfront.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I took the test. Here's my results:
. . .
I get a score of 1 out of 10 and that puts me 'at risk'?

I think they are underestimating my risk.
Or their questions don't measure the right metrics.


Saturday morning the Wife & I, and my brother and his wife, are heading to Foxwoods for three days.

I come home and work for two days.

I leave directly from work Wednesday to go to A.C., where, on Thursday afternoon, I will be performing a wedding ceremony on the beach. (FYI: In addition to my day job, and occasional weekend DJ work, I am also a Reverend.) Instead of charging extra because of the 140 miles I have to travel to A.C. for this booking, I gave them a discount, because I needed an excuse to go to A.C.

I will be back in A.C. from 8/15 to 8/16 or 8/17 for a DJ convention. The convention lasts until 8/19, but I just can't take that much time off work.

I'll be in Vegas from 9/19 thru 9/25 - although two of those days and part of a third are for a Wedding convention, and at least part of another day will be for a Wiz Coffee/Lunch meeting. Part of another will be for a non-gambling project I'm working on.



So in the next three months, I have four confirmed casino trips.

But I don't have a gambling problem.....

Quote: ruascott

Beyond that, just watching people play machines would make any person question their level of addictivity. To sit at a spot for hours on end staring at a mahchine spin seems the defenition of some sort of addictive behavior. There appears to be no excitement they are are receiving from their play, they just keep hitting the button.

Being a 90% vp player and a 10% slot player, I don't have an issue with this because I basically resemble that remark. But I'll bet you EVERY AP who sits at their vp machines will cringe in fear, shame, and denial after denial as they read it. Then they WILL get angry.

Quote: JerryLogan

Being a 90% vp player and a 10% slot player, I don't have an issue with this because I basically resemble that remark. But I'll bet you EVERY AP who sits at their vp machines will cringe in fear, shame, and denial after denial as they read it. Then they WILL get angry.

I bet 75% of so-called "advantage" video poker players are addictive personalities who need a reason to justify their gambling habit. I include myself in that group, so I'm not throwing stones.

You have to know where this test is coming from. The NGISC, National Gambling Impact Study Commission, was established by an act of congress just after the republicans took over congress and passed the so-called contract for America in the middle 1990s. Then the Dean of the School of Government at Regent University became its chair. Regent University was created by Pat Robertson.

Another member of the commission is James Dobson--founder of "focus on the family" a producer of evangelical christian radio programming among other things.

It is clear that this test was created by the christian right-wing, people that are anti-gambling in the extreme. Their attitude is if you even think of making a bet, then you have a gambling problem. This test reflects that attitude.

Since the benchmark for taking the test is -$100, I suspect anyone who takes the test has a gambling problem by their definition. If you lose less than $100, you don't have a problem. I don't know if $100 is a total for a single session or an aggregate over a lifetime.

matilda -

Thanks.

That certainly puts it into perspective!

So Matilda, you gonna blame this on Bush? Or do you think that because it was released this week that Obama will finally man-up to something on his watch instead of becoming snippy and cowering out of the way when faced with even the slightest of criticism?

Quote: JerryLogan

So Matilda, you gonna blame this on Bush? Or do you think that because it was released this week that Obama will finally man-up to something on his watch instead of becoming snippy and cowering out of the way when faced with even the slightest of criticism?

Huh? He doesn't even mention Bush. Clinton was president in the mid 90s when this organization was founded. Don't invent arguments out of the air.

Quote: JerryLogan

So Matilda, you gonna blame this on Bush? Or do you think that because it was released this week that Obama will finally man-up to something on his watch instead of becoming snippy and cowering out of the way when faced with even the slightest of criticism?

I think matilda just gave the facts, and lets everyone else draw their own conclusions. I think everyone has done that fairly well, even before we knew the behind the scenes info. I really don't think this was on any president's radar. Nor should it have been; it is way too trivial.

Quote: ruascott

Beyond that, just watching people play machines would make any person question their level of addictivity. To sit at a spot for hours on end staring at a mahchine spin seems the defenition of some sort of addictive behavior. There appears to be no excitement they are are receiving from their play, they just keep hitting the button.

Could be. On the other hand I know some people who play slots because that's all they know how to play. They find risking money on it exciting, I suppose. I don't think every slot jockey is a gambling addict or has a gambling problem. Some, yes. But then you'll find gambling addicts in every type of game.

Quote: JerryLogan

So Matilda, you gonna blame this on Bush? Or do you think that because it was released this week that Obama will finally man-up to something on his watch instead of becoming snippy and cowering out of the way when faced with even the slightest of criticism?

Mr Logan:

What did I say that would make you think I would blame Bush? Maybe I love Bush. How did Obama get into my remarks? Why would you think that I have information as to whether Obama will "man-up". I am not sure what that term means, but it does provoke an image.

I do not understand how a statement of facts can cause the outrage that you express.

Speaking of facts, As Mr Teddys told you, Clinton was president. Also a fact, the Commission tendered its final report and recommendations on June 18, 1999. The test in question, IIRC, was a part of their study, so the test was created for or by the Commission before that date. Thus, since Obama was not in office your outburst is completely out of line.

Quote: matilda

Mr Logan:

What did I say that would make you think I would blame Bush? Maybe I love Bush. How did Obama get into my remarks? Why would you think that I have information as to whether Obama will "man-up". I am not sure what that term means, but it does provoke an image.

I do not understand how a statement of facts can cause the outrage that you express.

Speaking of facts, As Mr Teddys told you, Clinton was president. Also a fact, the Commission tendered its final report and recommendations on June 18, 1999. The test in question, IIRC, was a part of their study, so the test was created for or by the Commission before that date. Thus, since Obama was not in office your outburst is completely out of line.

You saw outrage in my reply? My apologies. Even the below has been typed with a steady hand.

FACT #1: You went the extra mile to explain how it was a "republican" congress that did something you didn't seem to approve of. Doesn't matter when it occurred or who was president.
FACT #2: As we move towards another republican takeover of congress resulting from the utter failure, arrogance, and demeaning nature of the dwindling Obama crowd in Washington, liberals are all in self-descriptive damage control.
FACT #3: Since you asked, "manning-up" is a term used to mock the actions of any lying weasel who is so deftly afraid of looking bad in public light, that he is forced to continually blame his predecessor for his own failures on his watch.

If you think these are facts, you have a bigger problem than gambling. Cool down relax.

Quote: matilda

If you think these are facts, you have a bigger problem than gambling. Cool down relax.

As I expected. You expose your hand as just another whining liberal unable to justify Obama's idiocy or why you voted for him.

Ahhhh....Relaxation as it finest!

The connection is the Republican courting of the conservative Christian faction, which helped gain votes but also gave a lot of legislation a moral tone, including this commission. I'm really surprised that anyone could think that this would reflect on any of the past 3 presidents; Clinton, Bush, or Obama. I didn't see it as such. It is simply a fact that in at least this instance government expanded in an effort to accommodate part of the voter base. In my almost 40 years of voting, that has been true for both Rs and Ds.

Quite frankly, even if matilda's post was a slight of Republicans... she would have slighted Republicans, but not another member of the forum. You, on the other hand, have attacked another member of the forum. That is very different, and the difference is very important.

Quote: Mosca

The connection is the Republican courting of the conservative Christian faction, which helped gain votes but also gave a lot of legislation a moral tone, including this commission. I'm really surprised that anyone could think that this would reflect on any of the past 3 presidents; Clinton, Bush, or Obama. I didn't see it as such. It is simply a fact that in at least this instance government expanded in an effort to accommodate part of the voter base. In my almost 40 years of voting, that has been true for both Rs and Ds.

Quite frankly, even if matilda's post was a slight of Republicans... she would have slighted Republicans, but not another member of the forum. You, on the other hand, have attacked another member of the forum. That is very different, and the difference is very important.

I'm a republican forum member. Read what you said again.

Deny it, then. Deny that you used her statement of a fact to attack a fellow forum member. Regardless of what you say, the words are there for everyone to decide for themselves. You cannot spin it, regardless of what you write. You did it.

Guys, I had no idea of that organization's connections when I posted the link and no agenda. I just thought it would make for some interesting discussion, which it has...up until now.

I'm not a forum moderator, but I think I can safely guess that neither the Wizard nor JB want to see a political flamewar on here (at least, not outside the Free Speech Zone forum)...so could we get back to the topic at hand?

All I can say is that the Tea Party can be laid blameless for any and all such problems. [g]

Quote: Mosca

Deny it, then. Deny that you used her statement of a fact to attack a fellow forum member. Regardless of what you say, the words are there for everyone to decide for themselves. You cannot spin it, regardless of what you write. You did it.

You're deflecting the issue. Didn't say that or deny anything, therefore, nothing was spun. Matilda attacked repubs, of which I am one; I responded in kind. Yes I should have known better. Liberals can't handle getting ANYTHING back. That's why MSNBC is watched by very, very few.

My last post on the subject. Fox always wins.

Oh my lord.

There is such a divisiveness among some Americans these days that began a long time ago, perhaps with Lewinsky-gate. Certainly it escalated through the Florida fiasco of 2000 and through the Bush years. Now a Dem is in power again and it's just as bad as ever.

I live in a divided household where I am solidly on the left and my wife is solidly on the right. I'm assigned at a client in Connecticut right now and some weeks we make the drive home to Niagara Falls which means I get to listen to alot of talk radio on the Thursday afternoon drive back on the mighty WGY in Albany. It starts with Rush, then with Hannity, then Savage. These shows I think fuel the divisiveness that goes on today and they use the overwhelming "liberal media" as their enemies -- the New York Times, all of the network news, the Washington Post, the LA Times, all of which were (any perhaps still are, depending on your point of view) great establishments. So the right discounts EVERYTHING that the "liberal media" publishes and the left discounts EVERYTHING on "Fox News" and on these radio programs when the truth is very likely very much in the middle.

There has to be moderation. Washington is getting little positive done because Congress and Senate muddles up the meaning of every bill to completely screw up something else. Health Care passes - perhaps a good thing in some corners, but buried in that bill is a tax measure that forces all businesses to send 1099s to all suppliers who are paid over $600/year, a major impact. Obamacare is a 2,000 page behemoth because of all of the demands from each congressman who get some interest in voting for that bill. It's disgusting. Government is not working, but that was true from either side, Dem or Republican.

Speaking of moderation, if I were to take that Gambling Quiz (and I've taken others before), I would be in the high risk category. Let's face the facts. If you're posting 10 or so times a day in this forum, you are thinking alot about gambling. You may have the means to afford your addiction, and you may say to yourself "well, I play low house advantage games, so I am smart about it". But just because you are "smart" about it doesn't not make you an addict... it just lowers the risk of financial ruin.

For me, I've lowered my gambling habit to twice a month, which to me, represents moderation. It is a habit, an addiction. I don't drink much, and I don't smoke at all. I'm happily married and I have a great job.

But I've been to the point where I've gambled with money I didn't have, pulled money out of credit to gamble, and thought way too much about gambling. A gambling addiction isn't the same as a drug, tobacco, or alcohol addiction. It's a psychological addiction which is replaceable by other forms of entertainment or distractions, be it movies, golf, a good baseball game, etc. If you watch your team play all 162 games of ball per year, you're probably a rabid fan -- a baseball addict. Some people have addictive personalities where they need more from life than what moderation provides them, and I think I'm probably one of those people. So was Einstein, Tiger Woods, and alot of great people in the world who dedicate their life to one task. So I don't feel too badly about it.

The problem with a gambling addiction is that in the casino, you're always on the losing side of the fence unless you have the Wizard's discipline to play only positive games (and in his reviews, he doesn't), so the more you play, the more you will lose, on average. So the gambling addiction has the power to hurt alot because of the financial impact and the actions you take to hide / sway that impact, which can range from lying to your spouse to embezzlement and theft. The addiction is also a great taker of time -- time that could be spent doing something else, so there is an impact it you say, skip work to gamble, or decide to mow the lawn next week because you want to gamble for 12 hours on a sunny day. At least with a drug or alcohol addiction, you can do both at the same time.

So for those of you on the forum who say you don't have a gambling addiction or problem, really take a look in the mirror and ask what your life would be life if all of the betting establishments in the world just disappeared.

Well said all around.

Quote: JerryLogan

I'm a republican forum member. Read what you said again.

For a whole 2 days and 12 posts, of which half have been spouting political crap.

There are about tens - if not hundreds - of millions of sites where you can debate politics and call people names all day long. This isn't one of them. The reason I like to come here is its a nice group of people that treat each other with respect. Maltida stated a fact, nothing more, nothing less, that the "test" was commissioned by an anti-gambling, religious-led group, that got its start with Congressional action.

Quote: boymimbo

The problem with a gambling addiction is that in the casino, you're always on the losing side of the fence unless you have the Wizard's discipline to play only positive games (and in his reviews, he doesn't), so the more you play, the more you will lose, on average.

Did you just call the Wizard a gambling addict :)?

Actually, I've often wondered about those reviews. How does he justify playing $150/hand blackjack at the hotels he is reviewing? My guess is that is he not counting into a six or eight deck shoe.

Everybody on this board is probably an addict. Otherwise, like you said, why would we be here? Categories of addiction are all relative anyway. My British friend who drinks copiously would probably be considered an alcoholic in the U.S. In the U.K. he is just normal.

Quote: boymimbo

For me, I've lowered my gambling habit to twice a month, which to me, represents moderation. It is a habit, an addiction.

A habit is not an addiction. Someone who gambles what he can afford using time he can spare is no more addicted to gambling than a sports fan who spends time and money following his favorite team is addicted to sports.

Nor is an interest in gambling an addiction, either. Many of the people in this forum are as interested in placing bets as in learning about the mechanics and math of the games they play. I'm willing to bet more than a few are more itnerested in analyzing games than in gambling.

The problem is gambling is deemed undesirable and immoral by a large part of society, not just Republicans. Look up the Wizard's blog post about Andy Rooney's smear piece on gambling, or merely recall Obama's criticism of holding conventions in Vegas. Therefore eny interest in gambling is "wrong" and any gambling is an addiction.

For me it's a hobby. It's something I find interesting to learn about and fun to do. I even play VP and some table games online for no money at all, just for fun, which isn't gambling (it's not gambling unless there are stakes involved).

Hobbies, diversions, entertainment, amusement are all necessary parts of life. Some people like art, tohers like sport, others like gambling, others like videogames. So what? If you spent as mch time on, say, music as you don on gambling, if you spent thousands a year attedning concerts and buying instruments, you wouldn't say you ahve a music addiction.

Quote: Nareed

A habit is not an addiction. Someone who gambles what he can afford using time he can spare is no more addicted to gambling than a sports fan who spends time and money following his favorite team is addicted to sports.

Nor is an interest in gambling an addiction, either. Many of the people in this forum are as interested in placing bets as in learning about the mechanics and math of the games they play. I'm willing to bet more than a few are more itnerested in analyzing games than in gambling.

The problem is gambling is deemed undesirable and immoral by a large part of society, not just Republicans. Look up the Wizard's blog post about Andy Rooney's smear piece on gambling, or merely recall Obama's criticism of holding conventions in Vegas. Therefore eny interest in gambling is "wrong" and any gambling is an addiction.

For me it's a hobby. It's something I find interesting to learn about and fun to do. I even play VP and some table games online for no money at all, just for fun, which isn't gambling (it's not gambling unless there are stakes involved).

Hobbies, diversions, entertainment, amusement are all necessary parts of life. Some people like art, tohers like sport, others like gambling, others like videogames. So what? If you spent as mch time on, say, music as you don on gambling, if you spent thousands a year attedning concerts and buying instruments, you wouldn't say you ahve a music addiction.

Very well said, indeed.

Quote: ruascott

For a whole 2 days and 12 posts, of which half have been spouting political crap.

There are about tens - if not hundreds - of millions of sites where you can debate politics and call people names all day long. This isn't one of them. The reason I like to come here is its a nice group of people that treat each other with respect. Maltida stated a fact, nothing more, nothing less, that the "test" was commissioned by an anti-gambling, religious-led group, that got its start with Congressional action.

It's funny that you chose to quote the political reply instead of the one where I said I was finished talking about it. If you can learn to let it go as I did then that respect will once again surface.

Quote: JerryLogan

It's funny that you chose to quote the political reply instead of the one where I said I was finished talking about it. If you can learn to let it go as I did then that respect will once again surface.

I can't resist this one. This post is positive proof that you did not let it go.

Quote: teddys

Actually, I've often wondered about those reviews [by the Wizard]. How does he justify playing $150/hand blackjack at the hotels he is reviewing? My guess is that is he not counting into a six or eight deck shoe.

Don't assume that he is playing without player edge, I seem to notice he is often taking advantage of a promotion and has figured out the freebie overcomes the house edge for the game. Of course I can't speak for him.

Quote: matilda

I can't resist this one. This post is positive proof that you did not let it go.

You're still reeling over losing the debate. Let it go.

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: teddys

Actually, I've often wondered about those reviews [by the Wizard]. How does he justify playing $150/hand blackjack at the hotels he is reviewing? My guess is that is he not counting into a six or eight deck shoe.

Don't assume that he is playing without player edge, I seem to notice he is often taking advantage of a promotion and has figured out the freebie overcomes the house edge for the game. Of course I can't speak for him.

I don't expect any advantage player would ever play without at least thinking they're playing with an edge of some kind. I hate flying, but I've been able to put my mind at ease when doing so by believing I'm flying with an edge because of the reward miles that I apply my own value to as needed. The difference is I always win when I fly.