This matter of casino "ethics"
By definition, casinos are the LAST place to seek anything ethical.
C'mon.
Their entire purpose is to persuade supposedly intelligent people to play games they can't and won't win ... in the long run.
Free alcohol, no clocks, comps ... all are legal arrows in the casino's quiver.
People know going in that the whole place is rigged, yet still they come.
Perhaps a better question would be "Should we allow casinos to proliferate, knowing the weakness of people and the propensity of people to become addicted?"
Quote: NicksGamingStuffNot just because I work in one
I must have missed it.... where did you get a job?
Should bars and liquor stores be shut down because people may become alcoholics?Quote: MrVPerhaps a better question would be "Should we allow casinos to proliferate, knowing the weakness of people and the propensity of people to become addicted?"
Should cigarettes be outlawed because people become addicted?
Should TV be eliminated because people become couch potatoes?
Should restaurants be closed because almost everyone is overweight?
Should . . .
As for the rest of your rant, I don't understand. The odds are easily available. When I run across a game I don't know, I pull out my phone and look it up on WoO, ferchrissakes. You don't have to drink alcohol; I never do when gambling. No clock? EVERYONE is carrying a watch or a cell phone.
I mean, the deal is right out there for everyone to see. Nick has it exactly right. Almost to a person, the people who gamble in casinos know the deal, and they're fine with it. Folks like pleasure, and they'll pay for it.
Next.
Everything else, from clocks, to free alcohol, windows, cheques (ha!), etc, may or may not be inducements for the player to buy the more expensive games (ie to wager higher denominations). But all that is under the players' control. You don't have to drink, you can look at a watch, you can remind yourself that chips are real money, and so on. You cannot have a different view, because there's no window. But so what? there are no windows in any number of restaurants I can think of, either, including many buffet dining rooms. they must want you to eat all day long...
These inducements, BTW, are no worse than the saleswoman at the car dealership showing you a more expensive car than the one you want, or the clerk at the dress shop trying to sell you a purse to go with an outfit.
Why would anyone knowingly choose to play games they are doomed to lose?
Ask the man on the street: "Excuse me sir, but could I induce you to lose your life savings, in the hope of chasing an elusive chimera?"
He'd tell you to piss off.
Ethics involves right and wrong; inducing people to play games, while expecting / knowing they will lose, is wrong, i.e. unethical.
Only our weakness, masked as a need to be entertained, or our addiction, allows the farce to perpetuate itself.
*of course, I go to casinos a lot, so WTF do I know?*
Quote: MrVI argue that by design, casinos are unethical.
Why would anyone knowingly choose to play games they are doomed to lose?
Ask the man on the street: "Excuse me sir, but could I induce you to lose your life savings, in the hope of chasing an elusive chimera?"
He'd tell you to piss off.
Ethics involves right and wrong; inducing people to play games, while expecting / knowing they will lose, is wrong, i.e. unethical.
Only our weakness, masked as a need to be entertained, or our addiction, allows the farce to perpetuate itself.
*of course, I go to casinos a lot, so WTF do I know?*
I disagree with you. Just because you see a thing a certain way does not mean it is that way. Is profit unethical? Islam believes that charging interest on borrowed money is usury; non-Muslims see it as commerce. Should one be allowed to profit from another's need? If so, then one should also be allowed to profit from another's desire.
Quote: Mosca. Should one be allowed to profit from another's need? If so, then one should also be allowed to profit from another's desire.
Careful ... slippery slope ahead ...
Many enjoy the temporary release and pleasure of hard drugs, such as heroin and methamphetamine.
Others desire to have intercourse with barnyard animals, or young boys.
All of the above are damned as wrong, and unethical.
No, the test is not "desire..."
Quote: MrVCareful ... slippery slope ahead ...
Many enjoy the temporary release and pleasure of hard drugs, such as heroin and methamphetamine.
Others desire to have intercourse with barnyard animals, or young boys.
All of the above are damned as wrong, and unethical.
No, the test is not "desire..."
So, casino = pedophilia?
Quote: MrVI argue that by design, casinos are unethical.
Why would anyone knowingly choose to play games they aetc.)re doomed to lose?
Because I enjoy playing them. There are arcades (Like Dave and Busters) where you play games of varying skill sets that even if you WIN you get no money in return. All the games from a purely financial aspect are 100% negative EV.... you are paying to play them. In a casino although all games are meant to be negative EV variance sometimes shines on you and you can walk away with more than you came with. And when you find a 'chink in the armor' of a casino, well, exploiting that is more enjoyable than most any other leisure activity I persue.
I believe strongly in individual reponsibility. As long as the casino does not cheat (use a rigged RNG, throw out a few high cards from a blackjack shoe, etc.), none of the tactics mentioned before are unethical. (cheques, clock lack, window lack, free alcohol, {did someone mention scantily clad women dealing higher house edge games?})
Quote: MrVThe whole thing is an oxymoron.
By definition, casinos are the LAST place to seek anything ethical.
C'mon.
Their entire purpose is to persuade supposedly intelligent people to play games they can't and won't win ... in the long run.
Free alcohol, no clocks, comps ... all are legal arrows in the casino's quiver.
People know going in that the whole place is rigged, yet still they come.
Perhaps a better question would be "Should we allow casinos to proliferate, knowing the weakness of people and the propensity of people to become addicted?"
This whole post is an example of the chickified, nanny-state we have become. Oh-my-god-we-must-not-build-casinos-because-some-lump-may-lose. People can get addicted to almost anything. The internet itself is said to be addicting to some, should we ban it? Chocolate hooks some folks, get rid of it?
If you can't handle it, keep out of the casinos. Deal with losses. As Tony Soprano put it, "A grown man made a bet, he lost. He made another one, he lost. End of story."
Rephrase the question: Is the operation of casinos ethical?
Quote: MrVCareful ... slippery slope ahead ...
Many enjoy the temporary release and pleasure of hard drugs, such as heroin and methamphetamine.
Others desire to have intercourse with barnyard animals, or young boys.
All of the above are damned as wrong, and unethical.
No, the test is not "desire..."
Wow, playing Pai Gow Poker, Roulette, slots or dice is akin to shooting smack or crank, or mounting barnyard animals.
I would say that different people desire different things, and some things desired are in no way wrong, damned or unethical. And should be paid for.
Does anyone ask if the window displays at Macy's are "unethical" because of the way they are arranged to show off the fancy designer dresses and accessories? Is a jewelry store owner being "unethical" when he puts the diamond rings in the display case at the front of the store? Does anyone complain that putting the higher-priced soup on the middle shelf at the local grocery store is "unethical"? Is the Chevy dealer "unethical" because he has a Corvette in the showroom?
Stores inside shopping malls don't have windows, and I can't recall seeing clocks on the wall in any of them, but nobody complains that it's "unethical" because it makes them stay there longer and spend more money.
A casino is not a non-profit organization, it is a business that is supposed to make money, and they spend a lot of money on marketing in order to increase their profits. They sell entertainment instead of soup or cars and they have every right to do whatever thay want in the way of what they include in their buildings in order to make a bigger profit, from using certain colors in the carpets to having slot machine bells ring in a certain musical key to the way the gaming floor is laid out. Ethics has nothing to do with it and casinos are not unique when it comes to using psychology to generate bigger profits for themselves.
It's because anything reasonable and useful done by a casino for its customers is considered an unethical illicit lure to separate people from their money - which is the goal of every normal for-profit business anyway, from pharmaceutical companies (Viagra, Botox) to booksellers (Amazon) to computer companies to Hollywood movie studios.
Frankly, I am stunned by the amount of casino-bashing and gaming industry bashing that goes on at a gamblers' forum. It's not a love-hate relationship.
Pharmaceutical companies cannot sit on the street and hawk its medicine. TV commercials that mention the name of the medication and its purpose MUST also mention all of the side effects and the warning to "talk to your doctor". Amazon and every other single retailer who works on line in the United States must show you the final amount being charged to your credit card and your purchases. These are all laws.
Casinos on the other hand receive a solid portion of revenue (25 - 52% depending on the study) from PROBLEM gamblers, (defined as the 2-5% of the gambling population designated as having a gambling problem). Take Watanabe for example. Where would Caesar's be today if Watanabe had not lost $200 million? That's ethical behaviour -- to feed someone prescription drugs and alcohol to a known gambling addict?
Casinos let drunk people gamble. Casinos encourage problem gamblers to continue gambling. They make the entire experience addictive. And that's where I think casinos are not operating ethically.
I know that I'll get slammed for not pointing out the liberatarian point of view and that people are responsible for their own behaviour. But there needs to be a protection of society component in gambling that goes beyond the current government regulation, in my opinion. The corporation (the casino) should take on some responsibility to ensure that problem gamblers are thwarted. Maybe it's a matter of handing out a problem gambling pamphlet to everyone getting a new player card. The problem with this of course is that 1/2 the Las Vegas strip would not exist had it not been for the very small part of the population that funds a very large portion of the casino's revenue. It is this small portion of the population that is living day-by-day trying to figure out when their next gambling trip is going to be, where are they going to get the money from (including defrauding their workplace, pawning their wedding ring, etc) that casinos love.
I'm sure that Pfizer/Lilly would be swimming in cash if Viagra/Cialis commercials didn't have warnings on them, and I'm sure that without government regulation, emergency rooms would be filled with people with boners and dried up wives as the corporations would simply concentrate on selling their medication to everyone. I'm sure that Philip Morris and Reynolds would be the two richest companies in the world today had the government not cracked down on cigarette smoking, for certainly, they as a corporation would not spending a frickin' nickel on discouraging anyone (including children) from smoking even though there are long standing proven harmful health effects. Yet even our liberatarian friends (I hope) would have a difficult time stating that the corporations should not be responsible for the health effects of smoking on the population or that corporations should not be responsible for warning people on the health effects of having a boner for 7 days straight.
You see, the casino industry is not responsible for ANY externalities caused by problem gambling. If someone becomes a gambling addict and rob their workplace (which happens ALOT), it's their responsibility. Because the government is so hooked to their tax revenue, there is very little regulation in place to protect the problem gamblers (where 30-50% of their revenue comes from). And that's where I believe that the gambling industry is unethical. Alcohol, for example, is the easiest way to ply people away from their money, and it's provided for free. Clocks are not present, because the lack of knowing the passage of time extends the gambling session. Slot machines are made to be addictive, and you don't know what your expected loss is going to be.
I didn't say casinos should be abolished.
I said they are unethical.
They are.
Not everything is unethical. Some things are mistakes. Stick gives me the dice, I pick my two, then the person to my right decides they really do want to shoot (no bet on line when dice moved to me). The bet is placed and stick takes the dice back and gives them to the other guy. I ask him "Really?" and the box allows it. Color up and talk to the pit boss about it. Not unethical, just a mistake in procedure.
Quote: DJTeddyBearShould bars and liquor stores be shut down because people may become alcoholics?
Should cigarettes be outlawed because people become addicted?
Should TV be eliminated because people become couch potatoes?
Should restaurants be closed because almost everyone is overweight?
Should . . .
For those who think that businesses can do no wrong, I challenge you to come up with something that a casino or one of these other businesses mentioned in this thread could legally do that you would find unethical. Os is everything legal really OK?
Quote: MrVPlease spare me the Libertarian BS.
I didn't say casinos should be abolished.
I said they are unethical.
They are.
Others say they are ethical, and just find to go to. Millions go, as they go to their favoriite pub.
Question: do you patronize casinos, believing that they are unethical?
They do, which is more than pubs and liquor stores do, never handing out that information. It's up to the alcoholic not to go into pubs and liquor store, and the problem gambler not to enter into casinos.Quote: boymimboThe corporation (the casino) should take on some responsibility to ensure that problem gamblers are thwarted. Maybe it's a matter of handing out a problem gambling pamphlet to everyone getting a new player card."
Quote: boymiboThe problem with this of course is that 1/2 the Las Vegas strip would not exist had it not been for the very small part of the population that funds a very large portion of the casino's revenue.
Huge portions of the population (both American and foreign) visit Las Vegas, - NOT a very small portion. 45 million people go through McCarran Airport each year, that ain't ain't a very small part of the population.
Quote: boymiboIt is this small portion of the population that is living day-by-day trying to figure out when their next gambling trip is going to be, where are they going to get the money from (including defrauding their workplace, pawning their wedding ring, etc) that casinos love.
Yes, that is a small portion of the population.
Quote: boymiboI'm sure that Pfizer/Lilly would be swimming in cash if Viagra/Cialis commercials didn't have warnings on them,
these guys are swimming in cash from it.....
Quote: boymiboand I'm sure that without government regulation, emergency rooms would be filled with people with boners and dried up wives as the corporations would simply concentrate on selling their medication to everyone.
.....and no, emergency rooms are not filled with men with explosed d]cks and women with dried up private parts, that's just off the wall. Many countries sell Viagra/Cialis over the counter like aspirin (Thailand comes to mind) without it being a public medical issue or menace.
Quote: boymiboI'm sure that Philip Morris and Reynolds would be the two richest companies in the world today had the government not cracked down on cigarette smoking, for certainly, they as a corporation would not spending a frickin' nickel on discouraging anyone (including children) from smoking even though there are long standing proven harmful health effects. Yet even our liberatarian friends (I hope) would have a difficult time stating that the corporations should not be responsible for the health effects of smoking on the population or that corporations should not be responsible for warning people on the health effects of having a boner for 7 days straight.
Many people had greatly abandoned smoking as a silliy and stupid habit. No one, even sex maniacs eating Viagra like vitamin C chewable, get 7-day erections. A few, maybe, but that would be their last time before "loss of penis."
Quote: boymiboYou see, the casino industry is not responsible for ANY externalities caused by problem gambling. If someone becomes a gambling addict and rob their workplace (which happens ALOT), it's their responsibility.
That's right, the addiction problems of any individual is the responsibility of any individual. Robbing a workplace for gambling is not common; such employees are generally quickly terminated and arrested, and most employees are reliable. Most casino employees don't rob the casino, it's the players who more often try, especially with the hole-carding attitudes I see among players both at work and expressed at forums as "an okay action to do." Robbing a workplace for money for any reason is more common.
Quote: boymiboBecause the government is so hooked to their tax revenue, there is very little regulation in place to protect the problem gamblers (where 30-50% of their revenue comes from).
There is a huge amount of regulation that gaming outlets must comply with. That comment is inaccurate. There are also G.A. meetings up the kazoo in this town and others. The player's behavior and personal management, along with huge amounts and opportunities for his recovery is available, and it's up to the player to use this to his betterment.
Quote: boymiboAnd that's where I believe that the gambling industry is unethical. Alcohol, for example, is the easiest way to ply people away from their money, and it's provided for free. Clocks are not present, because the lack of knowing the passage of time extends the gambling session. Slot machines are made to be addictive, and you don't know what your expected loss is going to be.
People would whine "cheap-ass casino" and "casino conspiracy" is we suspended courtesy beverage service as a casino offering, and you'd see the whining at this board on that if that happened. You can know what your expected loss is going to be if you use your own stop-loss limits.
Quote: boymimbo
Casinos receive a solid portion of revenue (25 - 52% depending on the study) from PROBLEM gamblers, (defined as the 2-5% of the gambling population designated as having a gambling problem).
Casinos let drunk people gamble. Casinos encourage problem gamblers to continue gambling. They make the entire experience addictive.
Bars serve problem drinkers and bartenders are often the legal custodian of a customer's disability funds.
Casinos please a wide variety of the population with problem gamblers being a small segment of the customers
There are loads of memos that I'd like to post about what happened with Tom Flynn's surveillance team and Caesar's.
Basically they kept Terrance Watanabe in the casino passed out pissing his pants drunk on tables and gambling. They even supplied him with hydrocodone.
Unfortunately for Caesars, the dealers voted the union in at the worst possible time and were not able to cover the scam up through dealer intimidation like they could have in the past.
For what it's worth, I don't bet the line except when shooting. If the dice are two positions to the right, when he sevens out, I'll ask the guy to the right if he's gonna shoot.Quote: RonCStick gives me the dice, I pick my two, then the person to my right decides they really do want to shoot (no bet on line when dice moved to me). The bet is placed and stick takes the dice back and gives them to the other guy. I ask him "Really?" and the box allows it. Color up and talk to the pit boss about it. Not unethical, just a mistake in procedure.
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor what it's worth, I don't bet the line except when shooting. If the dice are two positions to the right, when he sevens out, I'll ask the guy to the right if he's gonna shoot.
I can see that situation--the thing was that this guy was buying in at this point and he did not make any attempt to put out a line bet until after I had already sent the dice back, moved my hand for a second, and was ready to pick them up and hurl them (I used to set them without trying to influence them, now they fly as soon as they get in my hands)...
Quote: DJTeddyBearFor what it's worth, I don't bet the line except when shooting. If the dice are two positions to the right, when he sevens out, I'll ask the guy to the right if he's gonna shoot.
I can see that situation--the thing was that this guy was buying in at this point and he did not make any attempt to put out a line bet until after I had already sent the dice back, moved my hand for a second, and was ready to pick them up and hurl them (I used to set them without trying to influence them, now they fly as soon as they get in my hands)...
Quote: DJTeddyBearReally? Most places will not let someone new shoot if they didn't have any bets up for the prior shooter.
Yep...Coushatta, last weekend. I colored up and spoke with the pit. I don't like to play when I am angry, so I went and had a cold one and came back after the crew rotated a bit...it was just a mistake, not an attempt to cheat or anything...
There were two scenes in particular that made me think of this thread.
The first was early on when an Asian whale was leaving, a big winner. He was at the airport, on the casino's private jet, when, after waiting a while he's escorted off because of engine failure. De Niro's narration says that they told their pilot to lie and tell the whale there was engine trouble. They got the whale to return to the casino, where he eventually lost it all back, and then some.
That, I would say is unethical.
Is that the same as offering a big winner a free room? They achieve the same goal - to get the player to remain, and lose it back.
The other scene was when the BJ cheating team was back-roomed.
That was typical mob revenge. Clearly illegal. But considering the cheating, was the revenge unethical? I'm inclined to think not.
Quote: DJTeddyBearI was watching Martin Scorsese's Casino today. (1995, Starring Robert De Niro, Sharon Stone and Joe Pesci.)
There were two scenes in particular that made me think of this thread.
The first was early on when an Asian whale was leaving, a big winner. He was at the airport, on the casino's private jet, when, after waiting a while he's escorted off because of engine failure. De Niro's narration says that they told their pilot to lie and tell the whale there was engine trouble. They got the whale to return to the casino, where he eventually lost it all back, and then some.
That, I would say is unethical.
Is that the same as offering a big winner a free room? They achieve the same goal - to get the player to remain, and lose it back.
I would say not. The movie example was a ruse, a dupe. Both the movie and real life examples are a means to the same end, but one involves dishonesty.
I've a question - WE, as in knowledgable gamblers, know of casino "tricks". Whether these tricks are secondary effects (such as the cheques arguement) or the main purpose (free rooms), if we KNOW about them, does that change if they're "ethical" or not? Or does it maybe change whether we THINK they're ethical?
Although I don't agree, I can understand the non-ethical stance, whether it be the cheques, the rooms, the booze, whatever. But on the same hand, I would find it hard to complain about getting screwed if I knew I was getting screwed going in. If you coin flip your buddy, where he gets paid $1.00 per win and you get paid $0.95 per win, you know you're behind the 8ball. If you decide to chance coming out on top of variance, but lose, can you really complain about it?
Quote: Face
If you coin flip your buddy, where he gets paid $1.00 per win and you get paid $0.95 per win, you know you're behind the 8ball.
Yeah, but if your buddy bought the drinks and picked up dinner, you can accept the terms, especially if you like the game of coin flip.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe other scene was when the BJ cheating team was back-roomed.
That was typical mob revenge. Clearly illegal. But considering the cheating, was the revenge unethical? I'm inclined to think not.
Rosenthal states that the BJ scene happened but was far from typical. A lone counter would merely be given a very firm tap and asked to leave.
The team in question was cheaing the casino for six figures per year. In the scene the big player has a rack or two of lavenders which are $50K per rack. The cage is heard saying, "$100 thousand." Today's value might be $250K. Thus a bit of a stronger message needed to be sent. I doubt they would smash hands on a regular basis as that is bad for business. Sooner or later you smash the wrong hand.
Ethical? IMHO if you are a thief you lose your expectation (notice I do not say "right") to ethical treatment.
Quote: FaceWhether these tricks are secondary effects (such as the cheques arguement) or the main purpose (free rooms), if we KNOW about them, does that change if they're "ethical" or not?
Knowing that you are being treated unethically does not change the fact that it is unethical. But, as i stated in my clock answer, someone doing something that they believe is sneaky and unethical, but being totally ineffective in the result, is not relly being unthetical, but instead just stupid.
Quote: FaceOr does it maybe change whether we THINK they're ethical?
I think the polls are generally indicating that may be the case.
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe first was early on when an Asian whale was leaving, a big winner. He was at the airport, on the casino's private jet, when, after waiting a while he's escorted off because of engine failure. De Niro's narration says that they told their pilot to lie and tell the whale there was engine trouble. They got the whale to return to the casino, where he eventually lost it all back, and then some.
That, I would say is unethical.
Me too, Good scene. In the real world, the player would have been irate at the casino for inconveniencing him with the jet being faulty on his time, or maintained as such, and may have said:
1. Take me to the airport, I'll fly Pan Am.
2. If this casino inconveniences me as such, I shall not return here. Perhaps the Nuggent or Caesars maintains their equipment well, and has backups for their customers needs.
A man smart enough to become a whale would know the deal with business. Casino hosts also know the deal that screwing over their customers, especially whales always comes back to haunt them.
Quote: DJteddybearThe other scene was when the BJ cheating team was back-roomed.
That was typical mob revenge. Clearly illegal. But considering the cheating, was the revenge unethical? I'm inclined to think not.
Imagine a scenario where a mom and pop business in an ethnic enclave like a grocery gets robbed, and the proprietors get the upper hand when the #1 son goes to town with the stick-up artist.
Quote: TheNightFlyI'm not even close to being on Dan's side of this argument but I think the question of casino ethics should be put to bed. You pays your money, you takes your chances and if you don't know what's going on, more fool you.
Not even I would go that far: "You pays your money and takes your chances." I actually don't think that is enough: Casinos have to follow ethical rules in fairness to the games and players, the players never need to take chances that the casino is run by Sam "Ace" Rothstein and his mob sidekick in this day and age.
If casinos weren't regulated, and I hadn't seen both the straight-up business approach and the oftening "bending-over backwards to allow something for the customer" (reset a Pai Gow hand, floorman overrides a no-roll on a "number" roll, a player 'didn't mean to hit' after he busted his hand, etc.) I'd be less inclined towards my position.
If there were a narrow gap between my views and the views of the typical gambler on the casino's versus players' integrity instead of an expansive gulf, I'd have trouble sleeping at night.
My view is that casinos are heavily regulated, follow the rules, give generous comps and courtesies, appeasing countless bossy and obnoxious players at the tables (who at times who feel it is their God-given right to abuse workers on their perceptions under the guise of receiving customer service), - and the casinos are fine in carrying it out.
Players often try to skirt the rules, and seemingly feel all petty cheating acts against businesses are ethical if the business is in gaming, and I draw the line on a player's attempt to carry out a cheating action who feel vainglorious about these actions.
A stated casino jackpot really pays that figure, while a stated government figure is a different ball of wax.
I assume this is one of the problems that Mike had in government work.
Considering how complex the annuity payouts are for some of the state lotteries, I think they do a pretty good job of being quite clear about the jackpot payout and its cash value. They often list the advertised value as "sum of annuity payments", and the image below is what I currently see on the NC web site for the next Powerball lottery. That promo seems mighty clear that the Jackpot payout is estimated to be $46 million with an estimated $28,600,000 cash value. Where is the deception in that? Yes, there is a 50% house edge, but they don't seem to be misrepresenting the jackpot to anyone who can read.Quote: SanchoPanzaIf you're all fired up about ethics, look at all those state lotteries that advertise the annuity total as if it was the actual cash value.
Which lotteries do you see presenting their sum of annuity payments as if it is a present/cash value?
Quote: DocWhich lotteries do you see presenting their sum of annuity payments as if it is a present/cash value?
The Web sites are by and large clearer, as your Web site from somewhere indicates. The radio, television and newspaper advertising is not.
The whale tried that.Quote: PaigowdanMe too, Good scene. In the real world, the player would have been irate at the casino for inconveniencing him with the jet being faulty on his time, or maintained as such, and may have said:Quote: DJTeddyBearThe first was early on when an Asian whale was leaving, a big winner. He was at the airport, on the casino's private jet, when, after waiting a while he's escorted off because of engine failure. De Niro's narration says that they told their pilot to lie and tell the whale there was engine trouble. They got the whale to return to the casino, where he eventually lost it all back, and then some.
1. Take me to the airport, I'll fly Pan Am.
If you recall, the whale got in the plane in the afternoon. When the "engine trouble" forced him off the plane, it was nighttime. The next shot is, they're in the terminal and they're at a ticket counter, and the casino manager (Don Rickles) turns to the whale and says he can't believe they missed the last flight.
They kept the whale on the casino jet all evening!
All three sell things that are highly addictive. The casino industry realizes a substantial part of its total revenue (25 - 52%) from "problem gamblers". This is a very small percentage (2 - 5%) of the general population that are addicted to gambling. The tobacco industry have a unique stance where most of its users are addicted and the negative health effects are obvious. The alcohol industry is similar to gambling where you have a small subset of addicts who ruin their lives and the lives of their families through alcoholism.
The alcohol industry is not really regulated. Different states have different regulations as to what you can buy in grocery stores. But in all cases, alcoholic or no, you can go to the liquor store (grocery store) and buy whatever you want and consume whatever you want. There are warnings on most bottles of alcohol usually related to pregnancy. States get revenue from taxation on every bottle of alcohol that they sell, and use the revenue (beer, $.278 / gallon, wine $.79/bottle, liquor $3.79 / gallon presumably) to fund the health and social effects of alcoholism.
My view on gambling is that the tools and resources need to be there to fight gambling addiction. Thousands of lives are ruined every year due to losses on gambling and the effects on their families. I also believe in personal responsibility: it's not up to the casino to ensure that you don't go over the limit (though many states have self-exclusion programs). However, I think the casinos (via regulation) should have some responsibilities to REDUCE the ability to become addicted.
(1) More presense of anti-gambling tools (pamphlets on problem gambling, perhaps a small problem gambling center, more information on self-exclusion, facts on gambling).
(2) Posting the MAXIMUM house edge on their slot machines so you know what your theoretical loss is going to be. It may stop some players from gambling.
(3) Limiting alcohol consumption and stopping players from gambling when intoxicated.
(4) Background checks on players who are playing $500 tables and above (to combat money laundering, fraud, and to ensure that the source of their funding is legal).
For the great majority of players, gambling is a fun way to spend an evening, but for a small minority, casinos are very addictive and since the government is collecting revenue and is allowing these casinos to exist, they should also take care of the negative externality of the addicts.
Quote: DocConsidering how complex the annuity payouts are for some of the state lotteries, I think they do a pretty good job of being quite clear about the jackpot payout and its cash value. They often list the advertised value as "sum of annuity payments", and the image below is what I currently see on the NC web site for the next Powerball lottery. That promo seems mighty clear that the Jackpot payout is estimated to be $46 million with an estimated $28,600,000 cash value. Where is the deception in that? Yes, there is a 50% house edge, but they don't seem to be misrepresenting the jackpot to anyone who can read.
Which lotteries do you see presenting their sum of annuity payments as if it is a present/cash value?
That may or may not be a fair representation. It depends on the "alternative use of money" value they used.
Quote: boymimboRealizing that this is a gamlbing website, I guess I would compare the casino industry to the alcohol or tobacco industry.
All three sell things that are highly addictive. The casino industry realizes a substantial part of its total revenue (25 - 52%) from "problem gamblers". This is a very small percentage (2 - 5%) of the general population that are addicted to gambling.
I want to understand your position more clearly. Are you suggesting that a 2-5% problem gambling rate is equivalent to a 70%+ smoking addiction rate (70% = those smokers who want to quit but can't)?
Because, based on that measurement, gambling is not highly addictive at all. The vast, vast majority of the population either (a) doesn't like gambling or (b) doesn't have a problem with it. While I agree that problem gambling is a very bad thing for those who experience it, it seems a stretch to compare gambling to tobacco use. Nicotine is physically addictive in nearly 100% of people who use it. So is caffeine, for that matter, but presumably you don't find an ethical dilemma with Starbucks as opposed to Caesars Entertainment, even though Starbucks' TTM revenue is more than 3x greater.
The argument against casinos always seems to boil down to circular reasoning based on a predisposition to dislike casinos. It's interesting that most people lump gambling in with other traditional vices such as alcohol, tobacco, or harder drugs as opposed to entertainment such as baseball, movies, or video games. Electronic Arts also reported greater TTM revenue than Caesars, and its products expose countless minors to bloody war simulations. Minors aren't even allowed to gamble in casinos.
Ethics? Please. Let's all be honest and admit that this whole question of ethics comes down to what we do or don't like. Cheating and fraud are unethical. Offering a game with transparent rules and operating it properly under those rules isn't unethical. If it were, everything you spent money on would be unethical.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of ethics?Quote: MathExtremistLet's all be honest and admit that this whole question of ethics comes down to what we do or don't like.
Quote: dictionary.comEthics: that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions
Quote: MathExtremistCheating and fraud are unethical.
Only if you don't like cheating and fraud or consider them to be bad.
Quote: MathExtremistI want to understand your position more clearly. Are you suggesting that a 2-5% problem gambling rate is equivalent to a 70%+ smoking addiction rate (70% = those smokers who want to quit but can't)?
Because, based on that measurement, gambling is not highly addictive at all. The vast, vast majority of the population either (a) doesn't like gambling or (b) doesn't have a problem with it. While I agree that problem gambling is a very bad thing for those who experience it, it seems a stretch to compare gambling to tobacco use. Nicotine is physically addictive in nearly 100% of people who use it. So is caffeine, for that matter, but presumably you don't find an ethical dilemma with Starbucks as opposed to Caesars Entertainment, even though Starbucks' TTM revenue is more than 3x greater.
The argument against casinos always seems to boil down to circular reasoning based on a predisposition to dislike casinos. It's interesting that most people lump gambling in with other traditional vices such as alcohol, tobacco, or harder drugs as opposed to entertainment such as baseball, movies, or video games. Electronic Arts also reported greater TTM revenue than Caesars, and its products expose countless minors to bloody war simulations. Minors aren't even allowed to gamble in casinos.
Ethics? Please. Let's all be honest and admit that this whole question of ethics comes down to what we do or don't like. Cheating and fraud are unethical. Offering a game with transparent rules and operating it properly under those rules isn't unethical. If it were, everything you spent money on would be unethical.
First off, let me say that I love to gamble, but i think that the casino industry and the government can do more to protect problem gamblers. It's the acts of the casino (not telling you what the edge is on some games, plying you with alcohol, creating addictive games that bleed you for money) that I feel is unethical.
Baseball, movies or video games are also forms of entertainment, but the social damage of becoming addicted to one of those forms of entertainment is far less than the potential that a gambling addiction has to destroy lives. IMO, IGT is an entertainment company and not a gambling company though their primary equipment is gambling machines.
And I will say that a casino that lets a gambler lose $200M over a year while feeding him painkillers and alcohol is patently wrong.
EA puts ratings on its game and they leave it up to the parent to ensure that the games kids play are not violent.
