He is wise to stay away from gambling, but his comment "even gambling has a chance to produce some sort of financial return" is quite naive. It is not literally untrue, but gambling is one of two things:
Set up in such as way that probability will 100% make the casino money (I.E you will be losing money).
If you come up with a plan that makes probability work in your favour & it works, the casino will restrict you from gambling
This might not apply to poker & a small few other gambling games, but if you play poker professionally then it becomes like a job, and it will take a lot more work to become good & make money than most other professions.
tl;dr, the probability that there is a financial return in gambling is an illusion
Spoiler
The Casino doesn't want all of your money, and they certainly don't want it all at once. They have enough experience and expertise to realize that killing the golden goose is short sighted.
If you think of Casinos as a private taxing enterprise, it becomes much more obvious.
They want a %off the top of all the money spent. They are willing to give back some big returns, so long as the overall percentage meets their budget. They are willing to take more in than their budget requires, but they are very leery of seriously offending their tax base.
It is certainly possible for any one person to win a lot of money from the Casinos. In fact, they need a few people to occasionally win big to lure other people in.
They are willing to pay out a good chunk (90% plus is common) of what they take in, because they want gamblers to keep going and feel that they are on the verge of winning big.
Now, if enough people won large enough amounts the Casino would surely step in to limit their losses.
I have a few friends that can and have won consistently at certain Casino games (non-poker) because the odds are not always in the house's favor if you know what you are doing.
The Casinos very rarely shut down the table because my friends never try to win more than a couple hundred in a day. What usually happens, is their "luck" draws in other players. These new players do not know how to consistently win and their poor playing gives the casino the advantage again.
Sometimes these other players actually work for the casino, usually though it's just uninformed or impulsive players.
This ability to consistently win does NOT apply to most casino games, and certainly would not apply to any big winnings.
The comment "even gambling has a chance to produce some sort of financial return" is not naive at all. The comment does not say the overall return will be profitable. Any given act of gambling does have a chance of producing a large return. The chance is very slim, but it does happen.
If no one ever got a return or win on any gambling, the casinos would quickly go bankrupt.
Compare that to supporting PoE for the chance of generating a return. Is GGG offering a chance to win double your supporter pack costs back? Not also, that financial return was specified. In other words, there might be benefits achieved from supporting GGG that do not involve personal economic gain.
That's the gist of the comment, and it rings true.
Casinos are actually a way for the government to tax the black market.
People who make illegal money go to the casino to wash it, the casino takes their cut (17%)
The government taxes the casino's profits and also collects income tax from those who work in the casino.
This is what casinos are for but no-one wants to admit it.
The system was working well in the UK until about 5-8 years ago, someone got all high and mighty and tried to dissuade money laundering, introduced a load of new procedures and penalties for turning a blind eye to it. The amount of money laundered fell, the governments income from casinos fell so, as governments do, they raised the tax they charged on casino profits. This cut into the casinos bottom line, mass redundancies, massive drop in 'comping', attempts to entice clean middle class people to come and play casually;high turnover of low value(low risk) customers. (please note GGG; this is a shitty model to adopt)
All that black market economy money they don't get to tax anymore.
Money laundering still goes on, just nowhere near the level it did previously.
Casinos are still profitable, just nowhere near the level they once enjoyed, and much of the profit is actually via cost cutting rather then investment(aside from the mayfair ones which have benefited a great deal from those who can afford to fly out of the middle east for as long as it takes to settle down). I know a few that closed down as they couldn't cut their overheads enough to carry on, mainly with regards to the rent; Piccadilly one several years ago, one in Paddington five or so years ago and most recently the Golden Nugget wherever that was, near the Trocadero.
Last edited by Mammatus on Mar 1, 2014, 4:39:05 AM
I actually don't gamble much. I think I'm aware how easily I could ruin myself doing so. Here in Australia, gambling is much less taboo than in certain other first world countries. I grew up experiencing trips to the races where my folks would place a bet or two on my behalf. One of Australia's most sacred days is celebrated with national gambling on a flip of two coins.
It's pretty much in our blood but only a fool a) gambles money he can't afford to lose and b) isn't fully prepared to lose everything he puts in.
I fear I'd be such a fool, so I stay away from the temptation.
In a way supporting GGG is both smarter and dumber than gambling the money. On the one hand, I know the money is going to a good cause. On the other, even gambling has a chance to produce some sort of financial return.
In the end, once you're talking about disposable wealth, it all comes down to whatever will bring the biggest smile to your face. For a lot of people, that means self gratification. To others, it may mean spoiling friends and loved ones. I'm blessed and cursed in that they are one and the same for me.
This dude's English is so awkward, did he even go to school?
I hold a creative writing degree, with honours, and worked on an English PhD for three years. I freelance edit/assess novel manuscripts and theses, with several of the works I've treated being successfully published. I even helped write those forum guidelines no one cares about, and have informally proofed some of Chris' posts. Back when I could edit posts secretly I sometimes fixed his typos. :)
I'm not sure why people are suddenly accusing me of being ESL or uneducated. Maybe it's the fact that I've been using a tablet to post these past few weeks, since I can't sit at the computer for long due to post surgery pain.
Either way, yeah. I went to school. I even did fairly well.
PS I just realised you're that genius who accused GGG of being racist over that silly Chinese thread. Yeah, you can go away now.
Charan you don't need to defend yourself against random internet dross - don't you know how people are? In this life, all you should do is what makes you happy. I can see this game brings you a lot of happiness as it does a lot of people, fantastic :)
I really would like to know what peeps were coming up with.
Pretty sure mine will be in 1.1.
Two Rulers aren't doing monsters.
The fourth is a mystery to me.
Why would you NOT do a monster? That's way more epic than a unique item since instead of helping players, you get to kill them lol.
Also, I'm sure your monster has to fit the lore. So how long have you known about the "theme" of the expansion? Cause we didn't find out til beginning of February, right?
Honestly, I'd rather make 8 more items than a monster. Only reason I didn't is because I am the Ruler of Wraeclast. There are others with the title, but they fly way under the radar. I bought the pack first, so the responsibility fell to me. Making items is fun. Designing a monster was just work.
I have known bits and pieces about sotv for a while but my monster is not thematically linked to any of it. The critter could be added to the game as it exists today.
Im glad you fly the ruler flag (tag) on the forum. I cant wait to kill your monsters, lol. I hope i dont become its main source of fiber.
