There are two types of gambling:
Type I Gambling: games of chance in which, over many plays, the odds favor no particular participant.
Type II Gambling: games of chance in which, over many plays, the odds favor one of the participants.
[In the following, all gambles are assumed to be fair, with no party cheating]
Type I includes things like poker, betting on the horses, and betting on sporting events. In poker, for instance, I may draw a better hand than you in some particular game, but over many games we will draw that particular hand with equal frequency. More broadly, the situation in which I have one specific hand and you have another specific hand will occur no more frequently than the situation where the hands are reversed. So if we play a lot of poker, over the course of time differences in our winnings will be a measure of some actual skill - either the reading of faces or (and I think this is the point of poker) the skill of interacting with chance events themselves. Knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em kind of thing. Sporting events and horse races are the same. Assuming there is no hidden information available to the bookies but not the bettors, these gambles will, over time, be a measure of the skill of the bettors against the skill of the bookies. The bookies are really good, but there is nothing in principle that says some Joe at the track can’t be better. If any type of gambling should be legal it is Type I.
In Type II gambling on the other hand, you can’t win over many plays. The best you can do is be ahead for the moment. All casino games are of this type, Roulette, BlackJack, Craps, the Slots, etc. [Aside: No one has found a way to make a casino game into a Type I game, but a mathematician did once figure out a way to make BlackJack a Type II game favoring the player, through card counting. The casinos caught on right quick and adapted by using multiple decks].
Type II games are simple tools for taking money out of one person’s pocket and putting it in another’s. They prey on some weakness of the human soul that a psychologist could explain better than I; gamblers are not just simply suckers - there really is something about the human makeup that draws people into this activity to their own detriment, even though they often KNOW at the time it is to their detriment (and often that of their families). The rationalization mechanisms kick in. A whole slew of feelings are aroused, similar to those experienced by drug addicts refusing to acknowledge that they have a problem. It is a vice at least as clearly as drugs are, and much more clearly, IMO, than sex. If any type of gambling should be illegal it is Type II games.
Yet we have the opposite situation. Type I games are outlawed most places, while Type II games have sprung up in casinos all over the country in the past decade. It is seen as quick fix easy money for the communities that host the casinos.
The crucial point is this: Type II gambles, despite being rather obvious con games, with demonstrably negative social ramifications, are always justified the same way: The House Is Deserving.
You would think the nation’s churches would take a stand against something like this type of gambling, but instead they use Type II games themselves to raise money. Is it wrong? How can it be when the proceeds benefit the church? In other words, The House Is Deserving.
The State Lotteries have been described as a tax on the foolish poor. They are even more obviously Type II games than those in the casinos, with far worse odds. Yet the money goes to help the elderly, or prop up the mass transit system. The State is the beneficiary, and that means all of us, so how can it be wrong? The House Is Deserving.
American Indians have moved into the casino business. Just what The Nations need to have their humanity finally recognized by the larger society; just what they need to instill their youth with a sense of self-respect after the stomping their culture has taken; do something productive! But of course, it’s okay if Indians run these con games because after all, we’ve treated them badly and owe them so much: The House Is Deserving.
The not-so-subtle implication here is that the house is more deserving of our consideration than their victims.
More deserving, too, than the broader societal detriment gambling causes. Remember when the belief was that you got rich in America by being smart, industrious, and educated? (never mind whether it was completely true or not; people believed it, and that made some of them go out and do it). How much has the view changed, that now the way to success is that one lucky ticket. Riches are the result of random, chance events - the evidence is before us, again and again. Hell, the government advertises the fact. [ul]It’s not in your control[/ul], it’s a matter of luck. If you weren’t born an heir, you better just start buying lotto tickets.
Well, damn it, I’m deserving too. Why can’t I open a casino - excuse me, a “gaming establishment” - and start fleecing the sheep, uh, er, entertaining the tourists? I’ll bring jobs to the community. I’ll generate revenues for the city!
But apparently I’m not sufficiently deserving to be able to prey on my fellows’ character weaknesses like the church, the state, and beleaguered minorities. They’ll never let me do it.
