|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 8, 2017 20:11:37 GMT
Lucky you, with open minded and rational parents; my dad was seriously serious until the day he died, and my 94 year old mother is still serious. When she turns on the proselytizing, my usual answer is, "Well, in this country you are free to believe that." Then I change the subject... When it came to core religious views I made my parents aware of my views but we wouldn't talk about it too much, knowing nobody was going to change their mind. My parents manifested their conservativeness in different ways. My dad remained suspicious on moral and social issues like alcohol, drugs and even how trustworthy Catholics were, while my mom had a more liberal in that way. On the other hand, my dad was more open to potentially blasphemous humor (he loved Monty Python's Life of Brian, not so my mom). My dad too, had just a bit of a naughty streak - he actually laughed at that 'dancing' joke, especially since he was the one who forbade me to have ballet lessons (and I am clumsy to this day, and it's all his fault)! |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Nov 8, 2017 20:17:08 GMT
Give the church "seed" money and it doubles your chances for an afterlife. The bingo and raffles make sense - see above - but I had a Catholic co-worker who, EVERY WEEK for the 13 years we worked together, played the POWERBALL. And never won, not even enough to break even. She was really good about doing good works, though... helped older neighbors in her area. There's no way to break even in a game where the house (the government in this case) has an advantage of close to 50%. You are either on of the very few who gets extremely lucky and wins the jackpot or one of the other large amounts or you are a net loser. In between those two extremes is a population of zero. At least with the three main casino games - blackjack with a house advantage of around 1% against players playing the best strategy (I'm not going to discuss the largely mythical card counter here), baccarat with a house advantage of less than 1.2%, and craps where the house advantage can easily be as low as 0.4% - here you at least have a chance over a reasonably short amount of time and you can play a lot longer even though you will eventually lose your entire stale. With the lottery it's simply win big or lose it all. There is no "win a little" over the long run or short run. The best thing about the lottery is most players are only risking a few dollars a week but in areas where it is the only form of gambling legally available (giving the state a monopoly on a business that is guaranteed to turn a profit) it is far too easy for people to lose control and go broke. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 8, 2017 20:24:22 GMT
The bingo and raffles make sense - see above - but I had a Catholic co-worker who, EVERY WEEK for the 13 years we worked together, played the POWERBALL. And never won, not even enough to break even. She was really good about doing good works, though... helped older neighbors in her area. There's no way to break even in a game where the house (the government in this case) has an advantage of close to 50%. You are either on of the very few who gets extremely lucky and wins the jackpot or one of the other large amounts or you are a net loser. In between those two extremes is a population of zero. At least with the three main casino games - blackjack with a house advantage of around 1% against players playing the best strategy (I'm not going to discuss the largely mythical card counter here), baccarat with a house advantage of less than 1.2%, and craps where the house advantage can easily be as low as 0.4% - here you at least have a chance over a reasonably short amount of time and you can play a lot longer even though you will eventually lose your entire stale. With the lottery it's simply win big or lose it all. There is no "win a little" over the long run or short run. The best thing about the lottery is most players are only risking a few dollars a week but in areas where it is the only form of gambling legally available (giving the state a monopoly on a business that is guaranteed to turn a profit) it is far too easy for people to lose control and go broke. So, in addition to knowing a lot about guns and country music and 'gangster' science - according to Erj - you are the go-to guy on gambling?  |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Nov 8, 2017 20:28:19 GMT
There's no way to break even in a game where the house (the government in this case) has an advantage of close to 50%. You are either on of the very few who gets extremely lucky and wins the jackpot or one of the other large amounts or you are a net loser. In between those two extremes is a population of zero. At least with the three main casino games - blackjack with a house advantage of around 1% against players playing the best strategy (I'm not going to discuss the largely mythical card counter here), baccarat with a house advantage of less than 1.2%, and craps where the house advantage can easily be as low as 0.4% - here you at least have a chance over a reasonably short amount of time and you can play a lot longer even though you will eventually lose your entire stale. With the lottery it's simply win big or lose it all. There is no "win a little" over the long run or short run. The best thing about the lottery is most players are only risking a few dollars a week but in areas where it is the only form of gambling legally available (giving the state a monopoly on a business that is guaranteed to turn a profit) it is far too easy for people to lose control and go broke. So, in addition to knowing a lot about guns and 'gangsta' science - according to Erj - you are the go-to guy on gambling? I taught mathematics for fifteen years before deciding I'd rather just stay home and shoot stuff. Just about everything I'm interested in can be linked to my interest in mathematics. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 8, 2017 20:37:41 GMT
So, in addition to knowing a lot about guns and 'gangsta' science - according to Erj - you are the go-to guy on gambling? I taught mathematics for fifteen years before deciding I'd rather just stay home and shoot stuff. Just about everything I'm interested in can be linked to my interest in mathematics. See? There it is, kids, math IS useful!  If I had been teaching kids for fifteen years, I would have rather gone home and shot stuff, too. It's kind of amazing you didn't shoot THEM; I would have. (See? Good thing I never had kids... or taught.) |
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Nov 8, 2017 20:53:45 GMT
I taught mathematics for fifteen years before deciding I'd rather just stay home and shoot stuff. Just about everything I'm interested in can be linked to my interest in mathematics. See? There it is, kids, math IS useful! If I had been teaching kids for fifteen years, I would have rather gone home and shot stuff, too. It's kind of amazing you didn't shoot THEM; I would have. (See? Good thing I never had kids... or taught.) I taught college, mostly community colleges everywhere from Nashville to Las Vegas. My anxiety kept me from staying in one place very long. I lived in Flagstaff for a little over a year and it felt like a lifetime. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 8, 2017 21:04:17 GMT
See? There it is, kids, math IS useful! If I had been teaching kids for fifteen years, I would have rather gone home and shot stuff, too. It's kind of amazing you didn't shoot THEM; I would have. (See? Good thing I never had kids... or taught.) I taught college, mostly community colleges everywhere from Nashville to Las Vegas. My anxiety kept me from staying in one place very long. I lived in Flagstaff for a little over a year and it felt like a lifetime. Interesting; I have roots a mile deep, here in rural Misery (Missouri). When I die, they will have to just burn the house down; I've been in my house for over a quarter of a century. Or maybe just an "everything for a buck" estate sale... |
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Nov 9, 2017 1:04:50 GMT
Give the church "seed" money and it doubles your chances for an afterlife. The bingo and raffles make sense - see above - but I had a Catholic co-worker who, EVERY WEEK for the 13 years we worked together, played the POWERBALL. And never won, not even enough to break even. She was really good about doing good works, though... helped older neighbors in her area. She's not alone. As a mathematician, I would say that more than 99% of the Powerball players never get enough to break even. It's the snowball's-chance-in-Hell hope that keeps 'em coming back. The lottery is a tax on the desperate and mathematically stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 9, 2017 1:51:58 GMT
Isapop It's ridiculous to think of gambling as an investment. The context would be that no effort is provided in obtaining the riches and that is accurate. Also, the gambler does not look at it as a high probability for failure. They are expecting a win on the first try. The only difference between gambling and investing is that in investing you have a reasonable expectation of getting a return on your money, while in gambling you do not. This provokes the question: what counts as a "reasonable expectation" of getting a return on your money? In some casino games this can be precisely defined by the house's advantage mathematically, but in games like poker where the house simply takes a rake or charges for seat rentals, things aren't so clear, because then your expectation depends on your decision making amid a myriad of known and unknown factors relative to your bets, and that decision making can be better or worse than that of others. Gambling or investing? I personally think there's a spectrum between the two, that there's not a clearly defined point where a gamble becomes an investment and vice versa. It really depends on the known and unknown factors and the skill required (if any at all) to assess those factors and make decisions. The less skill required, and the more the knowns/unknowns tilt against your favor, the more like gambling it becomes. Similarly, there are "gambling" games like poker and blackjack which can require a certain amount of effort. Any game where you can make decisions that can rely on more than just guessing can require effort. This doesn't mean one can't just guess at such games, but you can't win that way. Gamblers will look at things differently depending on their mentality and the game. Some gamblers think they have an advantage in games where they don't, while others think they have an advantage in games where they do; some do it for fun not really expecting to win anything, but are prepared to be surprised (and thrilled) if they do. It really depends on the person. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 9, 2017 2:18:23 GMT
Isapop It's ridiculous to think of gambling as an investment. The context would be that no effort is provided in obtaining the riches and that is accurate. Also, the gambler does not look at it as a high probability for failure. They are expecting a win on the first try. The only difference between gambling and investing is that in investing you have a reasonable expectation of getting a return on your money, while in gambling you do not. This provokes the question: what counts as a "reasonable expectation" of getting a return on your money? In some casino games this can be precisely defined by the house's advantage mathematically, but in games like poker where the house simply takes a rake or charges for seat rentals, things aren't so clear, because then your expectation depends on your decision making amid a myriad of known and unknown factors relative to your bets, and that decision making can be better or worse than that of others. Gambling or investing? I personally think there's a spectrum between the two, that there's not a clearly defined point where a gamble becomes an investment and vice versa. It really depends on the known and unknown factors and the skill required (if any at all) to assess those factors and make decisions. The less skill required, and the more the knowns/unknowns tilt against your favor, the more like gambling it becomes. Similarly, there are "gambling" games like poker and blackjack which can require a certain amount of effort. Any game where you can make decisions that can rely on more than just guessing can require effort. This doesn't mean one can't just guess at such games, but you can't win that way. Gamblers will look at things differently depending on their mentality and the game. Some gamblers think they have an advantage in games where they don't, while others think they have an advantage in games where they do; some do it for fun not really expecting to win anything, but are prepared to be surprised (and thrilled) if they do. It really depends on the person. Again, I don;t think gamblers routinely look at probability or risk unless they are mathematicians. If they think through winning logically, then it may be a perfectly fine career move I guess. The primary difference between investments and gambling is ownership or promise of ownership at the most basic. So while it is very possible to lose a lot or everything when investing since risk plays a role, it is based on the overall thing owned being worthless. Further, there usually isn't an attachment o other people losing. There are things like shorting, but even then it's going against the grain of what everyone else is thinking will make money. Gambling is largely based on paying a buy-in to see if you can get the house or other players buy-in too. It's built on everyone losing but in the gambler's mind, the goal is to be the one person that wins the whole thing even though it's more likely he'll be one of the losers. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 9, 2017 2:28:21 GMT
I guess I should add that even though investing is different than gambling in my opinion, the same qualities could be manifested - greed, selfishness, reliance on luck, addictions, that make gambling a danger.
Sin is often about what we really desire as opposed to what we actually do, so the primary reason to avoid gambling is based largely on how it makes us feel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 9, 2017 2:46:04 GMT
The only difference between gambling and investing is that in investing you have a reasonable expectation of getting a return on your money, while in gambling you do not. This provokes the question: what counts as a "reasonable expectation" of getting a return on your money? In some casino games this can be precisely defined by the house's advantage mathematically, but in games like poker where the house simply takes a rake or charges for seat rentals, things aren't so clear, because then your expectation depends on your decision making amid a myriad of known and unknown factors relative to your bets, and that decision making can be better or worse than that of others. Gambling or investing? I personally think there's a spectrum between the two, that there's not a clearly defined point where a gamble becomes an investment and vice versa. It really depends on the known and unknown factors and the skill required (if any at all) to assess those factors and make decisions. The less skill required, and the more the knowns/unknowns tilt against your favor, the more like gambling it becomes. Similarly, there are "gambling" games like poker and blackjack which can require a certain amount of effort. Any game where you can make decisions that can rely on more than just guessing can require effort. This doesn't mean one can't just guess at such games, but you can't win that way. Gamblers will look at things differently depending on their mentality and the game. Some gamblers think they have an advantage in games where they don't, while others think they have an advantage in games where they do; some do it for fun not really expecting to win anything, but are prepared to be surprised (and thrilled) if they do. It really depends on the person. Again, I don;t think gamblers routinely look at probability or risk unless they are mathematicians. If they think through winning logically, then it may be a perfectly fine career move I guess. The primary difference between investments and gambling is ownership or promise of ownership at the most basic. So while it is very possible to lose a lot or everything when investing since risk plays a role, it is based on the overall thing owned being worthless. Further, there usually isn't an attachment o other people losing. There are things like shorting, but even then it's going against the grain of what everyone else is thinking will make money. Gambling is largely based on paying a buy-in to see if you can get the house or other players buy-in too. It's built on everyone losing but in the gambler's mind, the goal is to be the one person that wins the whole thing even though it's more likely he'll be one of the losers. Professional gamblers routinely look at probability/risk, even if they're just intuitively assessing such things. Most old-school professional poker players intuitively understood how to win even if they only had a fraction of the mathematical understanding that today's wunderkind math-whiz pros have. The ownership angle only works in investments involving shares, which not all investments involve. But even then, I think it's a distinction without a difference; the idea is still that you're risking money because you think the potential reward will be greater than the risk. That's what professional "gamblers" do, but they're doing it with games rather than businesses or real estate or whatever. Not everyone needs to lose in order for a gambler to win depending on the game. In poker tournaments, the top X players will win more than their buy-in. In a cash game, one or two terrible players can allow everyone else to walk away a winner (this is often what happens in high-stakes games where a majority of top-level pros will be playing with a handful of rich businessman who are recreational players). Also, again, depending on the game, the gambler may NOT be more likely to be one of the losers. You think if you sit a top level poker pro at a micro-stakes game dominated by recreational idiots that play by "guessing" that the pro is most likely to be one of the losers? I might also add that in some games, it's even OK to "more than likely be one of the losers" if your expected gain over time is still more than the risk. This is how poker tournaments work; even pros will lose MOST of the time, but the times they win/cash will typically cover all the times they lose and then some. To put it another way: if someone offers you $100 to your $1 on a die roll and you take the bet, are you really gambling? You'll lose $1 83% of the time (so "most of the time"), but win $100 17% of the time. Your Expected Value is $16.17. Is that really "gambling?" Because someone could make a good living doing that all day long! Most investors would kill to have those kinds of ROI odds! |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 9, 2017 12:51:11 GMT
Eva Yojimbo , CoolJGS☺ Investing is a completing different thing than gambling. Only derivatives are somewhat comparable to gambling. Most other forms of investing are completely different than gambling. Also, it is a big misconception that people earn a lot by investing smartly. Yes, one in 100s do earn a lot just like lucky gamblers who hit jackpot or lottery also earn a lot. There are 3 types of efficient market theories in finance. Weak form of efficient market theory, semi-strong form and strong form. Many researches have proven that semi strong form of market efficiency is true for most of the developed economies. According to semi-strong form of efficient market hypothesis, share prices already reflect public as well as historical information of a stock which implies that technical as well as fundamental analysis are useless. Thus you can't predict undervalued stocks or short sell overvalued stock and hope to earn money. That means you can't earn over risk free rate in the long term. More and more research has proven that on average passive investment is better than active investment and thus trying to earn money by being a smart investor is more or less a myth. That said, not being able to earn over risk free rate in the long term is not the same as losing money like people do in gambling. That's where the difference lies in investing and gambling. Only extremely foolish people who are completely reckless lose tons of money by investing. Most of the people accomplish different things by investing than earning huge profits. People and corporations manage risk and hedge against their risk exposures by investing in different assets. People can use investment as a form of storing wealth. There are two types of risk inherent in any stock. The systematic risk (also called non-diversifiable risk or market risk), which you cannot predict accurately and which you cannot reduce. The other risk is non-systematic risk or diversifiable risk. This kind of risk can be almost totally eliminated by buying assets that have weak correlation among themselves. Research has pointed out that by having 30 or more diverse stocks (and assets) one can almost completely eliminate non-systematic risk. Thus, market risk is the only risk for any well managed portfolio. But the thing is whether you have a portfolio or not, you are bound to be affected by market risk or systematic risk anyway. For example, you can lose your job in recession. Thus, investment industry is not comparable to gambling unless one has very limited knowledge of the industry. Apart from that investment industry has innumerable benefits to society and how it increases liquidity and reduces transaction costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 9, 2017 13:10:29 GMT
And I should have added in my previous post that investments bring you steady slow of income in form of dividends (for stocks) and coupon payments (for bonds) while gambling does nothing of the sort. While, investment can't make you super rich, it makes a lot of sense if you plan it carefully.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 9, 2017 14:23:19 GMT
And I should have added in my previous post that investments bring you steady slow of income in form of dividends (for stocks) and coupon payments (for bonds) while gambling does nothing of the sort. While, investment can't make you super rich, it makes a lot of sense if you plan it carefully. Although the definition is sound, investments are more than stocks and bonds which is why I made it a bit more vague. There's really not much of a line in the sand in terms of what can be an investment as long as there can be a rate of return on it. Income doesn't need to be factored until it's sold. As you say, there are investments that that do provide income through ownership. You can also make a good deal of money in relatively fast fashion. Day traders buy and sell stocks incrementally and see small returns everyday that could actually add up to double or triple or more of a return in a matter of months to a year which is all considered short term. House flippers do this too. Both are risky though and are similar to gambling when no research is involved. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 9, 2017 14:25:41 GMT
Aj_June, I did not want to imply that gambling and investing were close to identical, merely that at both their cores what you have is the similarity of risking money for a potential reward greater than that risk. In investing, these risks/rewards and the factors that go into calculating their probability are known in a way that, as you say, unless you're extremely foolish you aren't going to lose a ton of money and are much more likely to make money, especially by reducing what risk you can. In most gambling you really don't have that. However, there are certain types of gambling games that are closer to investing in the sense that those with a greater level of knowledge about the game can calculate factors affecting the risk/reward probabilities better than others, and are thus much more likely to win (especially in the long run) the same way one is more than likely to "win" in the long run investing. If this weren't so you wouldn't have professional gamblers, and it's also why you don't see professionals at certain games that are always for the house like roulette. You're also definitely right in noting that there are some ways in which they don't overlap at all, like steady income via investments.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 9, 2017 14:34:15 GMT
Eva YojimboAgreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule. I don;t believe Vegas is filled to the brim with professional gamblers. Otherwise, they might actually lose more money than they take in. Investment is larger than shares. Investment is anything that has a return or a goal of return. Ownership also doesn't need to be collateral. So with a share of a company, you do own a share. However, with a bond which is just a loan, that is also an asset you own until it's paid back AJ mentioned derivatives as a possible exception but even they have an underlying asset. The further away from an asset you get, the more likely it becomes like a gambling product. Agreed to an extent. Here in KY, horse racing is big and it's possible to win off a losing horse...I think. I've never played. That said, gambling is still much more like a contest or game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Nov 9, 2017 14:52:16 GMT
Eva Yojimbo Agreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule. I don;t believe Vegas is filled to the brim with professional gamblers. Otherwise, they might actually lose more money than they take in. Investment is larger than shares. Investment is anything that has a return or a goal of return. Ownership also doesn't need to be collateral. So with a share of a company, you do own a share. However, with a bond which is just a loan, that is also an asset you own until it's paid back AJ mentioned derivatives as a possible exception but even they have an underlying asset. The further away from an asset you get, the more likely it becomes like a gambling product. Agreed to an extent. Here in KY, horse racing is big and it's possible to win off a losing horse...I think. I've never played. That said, gambling is still much more like a contest or game. "Agreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule."
So, apparently professional poker players, and those who bet on a horse race after they've looked at the backgrounds and past performances of the horses, and card counters who have learned how to optimize their blackjack play are exempted from the guilt of the sin of gambling because they work harder to win. Gambling is only a sin if you take it less seriously. (If I buy a stock simply because I like the name of the company does that count as a sin?. I ask that only to help illustrate the mindlessness of designating certain kinds of monetary risks as sins and not others.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Nov 9, 2017 15:04:01 GMT
Eva Yojimbo Agreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule. I don;t believe Vegas is filled to the brim with professional gamblers. Otherwise, they might actually lose more money than they take in. Investment is larger than shares. Investment is anything that has a return or a goal of return. Ownership also doesn't need to be collateral. So with a share of a company, you do own a share. However, with a bond which is just a loan, that is also an asset you own until it's paid back AJ mentioned derivatives as a possible exception but even they have an underlying asset. The further away from an asset you get, the more likely it becomes like a gambling product. Agreed to an extent. Here in KY, horse racing is big and it's possible to win off a losing horse...I think. I've never played. That said, gambling is still much more like a contest or game. "Agreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule."
So, apparently professional poker players, and those who bet on a horse race after they've looked at the backgrounds and past performances of the horses, and card counters who have learned how to optimize their blackjack play are exempted from the guilt of the sin of gambling because they work harder to win. Gambling is only a sin if you take it less seriously. (If I buy a stock simply because I like the name of the company does that count as a sin?. I ask that only to help illustrate the mindlessness of designating certain kinds of monetary risks as sins and not others.)
My very first post:  |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Nov 9, 2017 15:29:22 GMT
Eva Yojimbo Agreed. However, I view that as an exception to the rule. I don;t believe Vegas is filled to the brim with professional gamblers. Otherwise, they might actually lose more money than they take in. Oh, I absolutely agree pro gamblers are in the minority; most simply gamble for fun and without any real thought at all. Investment is larger than shares. Investment is anything that has a return or a goal of return. Ownership also doesn't need to be collateral. So with a share of a company, you do own a share. However, with a bond which is just a loan, that is also an asset you own until it's paid back AJ mentioned derivatives as a possible exception but even they have an underlying asset. The further away from an asset you get, the more likely it becomes like a gambling product. We're basically in agreement here. Agreed to an extent. Here in KY, horse racing is big and it's possible to win off a losing horse...I think. I've never played. That said, gambling is still much more like a contest or game. Basically agree again.  |
|
