Gambling, A Short Analysis

Rushcourt71

"People seem to enjoy throwing away their money, feeling that they’re bound to win next time.

Statistics show that the possibility of winning the lottery is one in five million.

Winning the lottery is as likely as being hit by lightning and then bitten to death by a rattlesnake in the emergency room!

Never believe that you can make money from any form of gambling.

The lottery and racetracks make money; gamblers lose it.

Gamblers borrow money from their family, friends, and relatives when they run short of money.

They may lie to the people who trust them, often committing crimes when they cannot borrow any more.

Finally, they become like a car with no brakes, completely unable to stop! This is the definition of addiction and helplessness.

Why are people eager to gamble?

Probably because they want to make easy money.

If they expect to make money gambling, they must expect others to lose.

The purpose of life is to develop a good personality and contribute to others and the world.

If everyone wanted to take, not give, our society would be in chaos.

Selfish people will most likely end up as failures in life."

(Source: Kim, In-hwan. All True Stories: 33 Life Lessons (P. 52). Sunshine. Kindle Edition.)

KH_Hirsch

But isn't lottery in essence a game of "give" and for a few a game of "take"? The reason why lotteries are being played despite the odds (and I believe one in five million isn't the worse) is that for a relative small sum of money you buy the possbility of a rather big or at least big enough fortune to invest into such lottery.

And a lot of (state organized or sponsored) lotteries contribute to a good cause as well. Only a certain percentage is being handed out as price money (and everybody knows that) while the rest goes to beneficial causes.

So in this case taking is generally giving.

Rushcourt71

I am not sure everyone will agree gambling is more for 'give' and less for 'take'. While it helps if gambling institutions say they 'give' to charities, the amount 'given' and how it is given is never something we lose sleep over.

We are living in a commercialised and very 'free enterprise system' today, which both linguistically and politically is 'survivalist', 'selfish', about self sufficiency and maximum profit, hardly concepts and ideals that serve for the benefit for society or the masses in general.

As to the small amount of money used, it builds up over the years and as the source indicated a lot of it is 'wasted' over time, while I agree the possibilities are indeed endless, however the difference between the gambler and the those in charge of the lottery is that 'the house' if I may use that word, is not allowed to lose. Ironically, it does not believe in gambling for itself, it only believes in profit and must make something.

For an individual who is not an investor, winning one or a few times is a success. In reality, it is a loss unless you know what to do with it. It can actually make you poorer and for a time un-wiser as well.

Gambling institutions remember also have to pay tax, so the government/s [where it is legal] insists on also making money and hence that is another reason why they [gambling institutions] cannot rely on luck [or to use the word 'gambling' for themselves] alone. They must make a profit, otherwise in a competitive market they will not only not survive, but the government will either replace them or others will come and take their place and try to prove how they will do better.

In the same way, state sponsored lotteries will take between 1-5% [and that is all what they will tell us, the truth may not always be known]. To a government [or a private institution, 1-5% per person is actually a lot of money if there are thousands or even millions of people who use the lottery]. And unlike us they do invest and know how to as well. Again they do not believe in gambling either for themselves, only for us. They also must make a profit.

So hence, 'take' is more important than 'give' at least for now.   

KH_Hirsch

It's clear that the initiator of the lottery (or the gambling) is trying to make a profit and yes, it will make us poorer in the event that we lose. However gambling or playing is deeply ingrained in us and in most countries I would assume we're also educated in the way that "the winner takes it all" (to quote ABBA). So there is a natural tendency to risk something for a positive outcome.

The question to me is how much may the "something" actually is. If one plays roulette the chances are 1/35 assuming the person plays "plein" meaning a single number. And yes, the house will always have a higher rate of winning since there is the extra "0" for it. But to win 1mio I have to bet roughly 28k on that number, I don't know a person who would do that. If you can bet 2 and you have a chance of winning 1mio I'm sure that a lot of people will think about it and do it irrespective that the chances are 1/40mio in that case. It's still a loss but if the person can afford the 2 without taking over things away.

And coming back to the "good cause". I seem to remember that in Germany organizations which support handicapped people get money out of the earnings, in the UK parts go to the National Heritage Fund and so on. And yes, there are costs to cover but costs generally mean income for other people.

Assuming that individuals will provide the same amounts without an incentive and just a tax receipt or a good feeling hasn't really worked out in this part of the world. There will always be people who donate for a good cause but never enough, so ultimately it would be the state who would need to fund it and thus us again. If others volunteer to "donate" money knowing the probabilities I do actually prefer that approach.

Rushcourt71

Thanks for your reply. I personally do not gamble in the game sense of the word and do not see anything good in it. Perhaps in some forms of gambling there is a greater chance of losing, while in others it is higher. In the same way some countries may contribute higher towards 'good causes', I don't believe however the underlying benefit is to help people. You mentioned for example the UK. Some years ago, Camelot, was made responsible for the national lottery. While it officially claimed that a certain percentage went towards charity, it actually amounted to only 6p after costs (and not per person either) while the government and even Camelot itself took a greater share. Even the charities however were not worthwhile, they were designated to causes the government selected and none of them were targeted towards people.

Surveys found British people had fallen for the government hype that by participating in the lottery they were giving in charity and as such, the number of charities in the UK reported vast losses due to a fall in people contributing altogether following the introduction of the national lottery.