February 2, 2006
Patrick Conley's Flawed Gambling Arguments
There are, at the very least, two major problems with yesterday’s Patrick T. Conley op-ed in the Projo on the subject of gambling. The first is his disingenuous description of a casino…
A lottery operator does not wager or hazard his own property against that of others. The lottery operator is neutral and earns revenue by taking a portion of the ticket sales. The lottery operator is not itself a contender for the prize.Mr. Conley implies that the house hazards its own property against that of others, that the casino is taking some sort of risk. It is not. Allow me to amend Mr. Conley's description and add some detail necessary for understanding how a casino works…Casino gambling, on the other hand, is a banking game, in which the operator has a fund, or "bank," against which everybody has a right to bet, the bank being responsible for paying all the funds. The casino banker competes against the players, taking on all comers, paying all winners, and collecting from all losers.
Casino gambling, on the other hand, is a banking game, in which the operator has a fund, or "bank," against which everybody has a right to bet, the bank being responsible for paying all the funds. The casino banker rigs the gaming rules to guarantee that there will always be more losers than winners, then competes against the players, taking on all comers, paying all winners, and collecting from all losers.The casino gets to set the odds so that it always wins in the end. There is no "hazard" to the casino operator.
Second, Mr. Conley tries to rally support by appealing to the surly libertarian streak that exists in Rhode Islanders by labeling the state’s current involvement with gambling as socialist…
By insisting that the state be a casino banker, rather than a mere regulatory broker, the court, in effect, is demanding the establishment of socialized gaming.This too is disingenuous. Current proposals for bringing casino gambling to Rhode Island would place casino gambling in RI under the control of a private monopoly. Using the government to create a private monopoly and to barr competitors from entering the market is every bit as socialistic as direct government control.
If Mr. Conley, or any other Rhode Islander really favors gaming, but not socialized gaming, a simple solution is possible. Intoduce an constitutional amendment that legalizes gambling in RI without giving any party exclusive rights to own or operate a casino.
I also wonder what to make of the revelation in today's ProJo that one of the questions on the Casino poll centered around whether those polled supported Gov. Carcieri or Lt. Gov. Fogerty:
But the poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates apparently went deeper than disclosed, into Rhode Island politics, Republican Governor Carcieri's reelection chances and public perceptions about the involvement of Harrah's Entertainment, the Las Vegas-based international gambling conglomerate bankrolling the West Warwick casino drive.
Should we expect some casino money entering the gubernatorial race?
Posted by: Marc Comtois at February 2, 2006 1:26 PMGambling is stupid unless you are the house.
Any society that stakes its future on gambling is stupid and possibly even insane.
Think about it this way.
100 people go to work and 100 people go gambling. Of the 100 people who go to work 100% of them end up with more in their pocket than when they started. Of the 100 people who go gambling (on average) 98.3% end up with less in their pocket than when they started. This is simplistic but you get the idea.
Saving money is a lost art. I would venture that gambling is a major reason for this phenomenon.
J Mahn
PS. The next argument for gambling will focus on its entertainment value.