Are Playing Cards Evil ???

[Popeyesays]

"Card Counting" is bad for the casino, but try as they might how can they call it cheating?

As long as it is an individual effort, they haven't much claim. They are more on the watch for teams of people that go into a casino and scout out the right table to have on of their partners sit down at.

Regards,
Scott

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Card Counting" is bad for the casino, but try as they might how can they call it cheating?

It's not cheating. Casinos have the right to choose their customers, though, just like any other business. Your local buffet may kick you out after your 20th trip to the salad bar, but that's not illegal either... just not in the best interest of the business.

As long as it is an individual effort, they haven't much claim. They are more on the watch for teams of people that go into a casino and scout out the right table to have on of their partners sit down at.

Actually, I believe it's fairly easy to spot when a single person does it: when one person bets the table minimum for hand after hand, and then switches to the table maximum when the probabilities are in his favour, it's hard to miss what's going on.

On the other hand, I remember the strategy of the "MIT Blackjack team" that they did the TV special about; they'd have several people, each following the same strategy the entire time:

- lowball betters: there'd be one person at each blackjack table, always betting the minimum and watching the cards
- high roller: one guy would only play a few hands at each table, but would always bet the maximum, and then wander around again.

When the lowballers realized that the players' odds were maximized, they'd secretly signal the high roller over. He'd play several hands until the odds went down and then leave (at the insistence of the girl on his arm who said she was "bored", IIRC). Because no player ever changed the way that he or she bet, it was more difficult for the casinos to spot.

But again, none of this is cheating. Casinos can kick out anyone they want, though, and if you come back after that, you're trespassing... that's what's illegal in all of this.

 

[SoyLeche]

Actually, I believe it's fairly easy to spot when a single person does it: when one person bets the table minimum for hand after hand, and then switches to the table maximum when the probabilities are in his favour, it's hard to miss what's going on.

Reminds me of this.

 

[Draka]

Okay, First off, this thread is way too long IMO. And I honestly can't bear to read all of it. Some threads keep me rapt up in every word, this one...every few posts and a skimming seems to suffice. As such, it is possible that someone may have already covered what I am about to say, but I feel like throwing my opinion into the fray anyway.

This thread first started off with the unbelievable claim that little factory mass-produced waxed pieces of paper that you can buy at the local dollar-mart are evil. I personally didn't know anyone was selling evil for a $1.19 myself.

As I see it, this led to the conversation of gambling with those cards and the evils of gambling. That someone can lose all their money and be unable to provide for themselves and their family and whatnot. That gambling was a sin.

Now, we have the conversation of playing in the stock market and day trading and investments and such. And somehow...this is okay because it is not gambling. Well, it is gambling...just not with playing cards. You have just as much possibility to lose all your money with bad investments as you do with bad hands at poker. Hasn't anyone heard of the stock market crash? There are all kinds of things that can rip the rug out from under you in the market. All it takes in one bad storm in the right place and your money is gone...poof. I hear words of "it's worth the risk" and such. Well, risk is exactly the word associated with gambling. You play a game of risk in order to try to get more back than you put in. You win some, you lose some. How is that not gambling? You can try to say it isn't to make yourself feel as if you aren't doing anything wrong, but if one honestly believes that gambling is a sin then they are deluding themselves into sin when they play the market by slapping different words onto what they are doing. False justification.

This whole thread is unbelievable. Unbelievable claims. Unbelievable word play.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I hear words of "it's worth the risk" and such. Well, risk is exactly the word associated with gambling. You play a game of risk in order to try to get more back than you put in. You win some, you lose some. How is that not gambling? You can try to say it isn't to make yourself feel as if you aren't doing anything wrong, but if one honestly believes that gambling is a sin then they are deluding themselves into sin when they play the market by slapping different words onto what they are doing. False justification.

I agree completely.

I don't think gambling is sinful (though like many things I recognize that it can become an unhealthy habit for some), but I recognize gambling when I see it.

 

[FFH]

This thread's too long.

 

[nutshell]

Now, we have the conversation of playing in the stock market and day trading and investments and such. And somehow...this is okay because it is not gambling. Well, it is gambling...just not with playing cards. You have just as much possibility to lose all your money with bad investments as you do with bad hands at poker. Hasn't anyone heard of the stock market crash? There are all kinds of things that can rip the rug out from under you in the market. All it takes in one bad storm in the right place and your money is gone...poof. I hear words of "it's worth the risk" and such. Well, risk is exactly the word associated with gambling. You play a game of risk in order to try to get more back than you put in. You win some, you lose some. How is that not gambling? You can try to say it isn't to make yourself feel as if you aren't doing anything wrong, but if one honestly believes that gambling is a sin then they are deluding themselves into sin when they play the market by slapping different words onto what they are doing. False justification.

The difference is there is a near certainty that you will lose over time by gambling (cards, slots, etc.) and a near certainty you will increase your money by investing.

It's apples and oranges.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The difference is there is a near certainty that you will lose over time by gambling (cards, slots, etc.) and a near certainty you will increase your money by investing.

That's flat-out untrue.

For example, buddies who get together once a week for poker, all of equal skill, will break even on average.

If you buy stock on margin and it goes down, you lose money... big time (not that buying on margin is the only way to lose money, just that it greatly magnifies your risk). If you put in 10%, say, and your stock becomes worthless, your losses end up being 1000% of your original investment. This is one of the things that exacerbated the stock market crash that brought about the Great Depression.

I'd wager ( ) that people who say things like "there's a near certainty you will increase your money by investing" have never gone through a major market downturn.

 

[SoyLeche]

That's flat-out untrue.

For example, buddies who get together once a week for poker, all of equal skill, will break even on average.

If you buy stock on margin and it goes down, you lose money... big time (not that buying on margin is the only way to lose money, just that it greatly magnifies your risk). If you put in 10%, say, and your stock becomes worthless, your losses end up being 1000% of your original investment. This is one of the things that exacerbated the stock market crash that brought about the Great Depression.

I'd wager ( ) that people who say things like "there's a near certainty you will increase your money by investing" have never gone through a major market downturn.

Of course it's going to depend on your skill and tactics, in either case. If you can count cards you are almost certainly going to win money in blackjack. You may end up breaking even at a weekly poker game with friends. You will almost certainly lose money over the long haul on slot machines or any other casino game.

You can be stupid when investing. You can fail to realize that there are risks that the market won't compensate you for. If you have a diversified portfolio and reballance it according to your changing situation, however, you may have some short term losses, but over the long term you will almost certainly increase your money.

 

[nutshell]

That's flat-out untrue.

For example, buddies who get together once a week for poker, all of equal skill, will break even on average.

If you buy stock on margin and it goes down, you lose money... big time (not that buying on margin is the only way to lose money, just that it greatly magnifies your risk). If you put in 10%, say, and your stock becomes worthless, your losses end up being 1000% of your original investment. This is one of the things that exacerbated the stock market crash that brought about the Great Depression.

I'd wager ( ) that people who say things like "there's a near certainty you will increase your money by investing" have never gone through a major market downturn.

Actually it's true.

When you drive down the streets of Vegas and see a Casino advertising 99% payout, do you know what that means?

Have you seen the stock market trends? Of course there are hickups, but over time, it goes up.

An anecdote about you and your buddies is hardly evidence of anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you seen the stock market trends? Of course there are hickups, but over time, it goes up.

"It" being the total market overall. Many individual corporations have failed over the years. To a large degree, it's hit-and-miss whether your pick will be the next IBM or the next Nortel.

And even if you diversify enough that your portfolio generally follows the upward trend you describe, there have been many points in history that the "hickups" you talk about last long enough in human terms that disastrous consequences can befall the investors.

Do you think the knowledge that the market will go back up again some day is any comfort to the newly-retired person staring down the barrel of a decade-long recession just as he reaches the point when he's relying on the money he invested?

An anecdote about you and your buddies is hardly evidence of anything.

It wasn't an anecdote, it was a hypothetical example. And I wasn't relying on experience as "evidence of anything", I was relying on a basic understanding of probability and statistics.

 

[nutshell]

"It" being the total market overall. Many individual corporations have failed over the years. To a large degree, it's hit-and-miss whether your pick will be the next IBM or the next Nortel.

And even if you diversify enough that your portfolio generally follows the upward trend you describe, there have been many points in history that the "hickups" you talk about last long enough in human terms that disastrous consequences can befall the investors.

Do you think the knowledge that the market will go back up again some day is any comfort to the newly-retired person staring down the barrel of a decade-long recession just as he reaches the point when he's relying on the money he invested?


It wasn't an anecdote, it was a hypothetical example. And I wasn't relying on experience as "evidence of anything", I was relying on a basic understanding of probability and statistics.

You ignored my first question. Why? Because I'm right.

I'm not saying that the stock market doesn't have bad times. I'm saying that, mathmatically, it goes up over time.

Therefore, gambling = down / investing = up

Apples and oranges.

 

[SoyLeche]

Do you think the knowledge that the market will go back up again some day is any comfort to the newly-retired person staring down the barrel of a decade-long recession just as he reaches the point when he's relying on the money he invested?

Hence the need to reballance. Someone near retirement shouldn't have much of their investments in stocks anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You ignored my first question. Why? Because I'm right.

No, because I've only driven down the streets of Vegas once, but I didn't notice that particular sign.

I'm not saying that the stock market doesn't have bad times. I'm saying that, mathmatically, it goes up over time.

Therefore, gambling = down / investing = up

Apples and oranges.

So when the stock market is down, which it does do from time to time, it's a gamble?

And in the shorter term, like the day-trader timeframe that FFH talked about, the volatility is greater; the statement that the stock market generally goes up over time is only true over time. When you look at things over days or weeks, it's just as likely to go down as up. You can do research to make your bet more certain, but fundamentally, it's no different than a gambler reading the Racing Form and doing some research prior to betting on a horse race.

Hence the need to reballance. Someone near retirement shouldn't have much of their investments in stocks anymore.

Yes... except nutshell is claiming that the stock market isn't a gamble. If this were the case, there would be no need to rebalance and shift things out of equity before retirement.

 

[nutshell]

No, because I've only driven down the streets of Vegas once, but I didn't notice that particular sign.


So when the stock market is down, which it does do from time to time, it's a gamble?

And in the shorter term, like the day-trader timeframe that FFH talked about, the volatility is greater; the statement that the stock market generally goes up over time is only true over time. When you look at things over days or weeks, it's just as likely to go down as up. You can do research to make your bet more certain, but fundamentally, it's no different than a gambler reading the Racing Form and doing some research prior to betting on a horse race.


Yes... except nutshell is claiming that the stock market isn't a gamble. If this were the case, there would be no need to rebalance and shift things out of equity before retirement.

I didn't say it wasn't a "gamble." I said one goes up and when goes down. Basically, when you invest you're playing the role of the house. Also, you're focusing on daytraders (as you pointed out) and I'm focusing on the long term. My original post regarding investing was countering another poster's assertion that investing by a church is wrong because it's like casino gambling. I've demonstrated that smart investing is something else.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say it wasn't a "gamble." I said one goes up and when goes down. Basically, when you invest you're playing the role of the house. Also, you're focusing on daytraders (as you pointed out) and I'm focusing on the long term. My original post regarding investing was countering another poster's assertion that investing by a church is wrong because it's like casino gambling. I've demonstrated that smart investing is something else.

When churches investing came up, it was in the middle of a discussion of whether day trading constituted gambling, so I think things may have gotten a bit muddled.

As for churches, though, hopefully we both agree that generally, when you're choosing investment, the higher the expected rate of return, the greater the risk. Do you think there's a point where the risk becomes so high that it's not appropriate for a church or a charity to be taking it?

Also, for a church or charity, investing money has a huge opportunity cost: the world is in need now, and money can be used to ease those needs. If investing a sum of money means that it's unavailable for some time to save immortal souls (through some missionary campaign, perhaps) or physical lives (through poverty relief programs or funding cures for diseases, for example), then this moral and spiritual cost needs to be factored into the decision-making.

 

[Katzpur]

Are knives evil?
Are guns evil?

Are wars evil?

The one dollar bill can EASILY be viewed as an occult talisman.
(and it certainly IS in certain circles)
Just look at the "seal".
Whose ancient esoteric "symbolisms" are these?
In "whose" "god" exactly do we trust?......
As we handle/charge the en"graven" images day in and day out?

Money keeps men indebted to a handful of elite banking families.
Are we not to remain indebted to God alone?

Without money,
It would be all "hearts" and "go fish".
the cards could not destroy anyone.
(unless used to paper cut ones wrists)

So is the money evil?
If so....
will you stop "playing" your life's hand with it?
Or will you keep "charging" the talisman?

Oh my gosh! Here's a poster who actually addresses the OP! Will wonders never cease?

 

[kateyes]

I don't think objects are inherently evil. Anything can be used in a evil way--but that doesn't make the object itself evil.

 

[nutshell]

When churches investing came up, it was in the middle of a discussion of whether day trading constituted gambling, so I think things may have gotten a bit muddled.

Agreed.

As for churches, though, hopefully we both agree that generally, when you're choosing investment, the higher the expected rate of return, the greater the risk. Do you think there's a point where the risk becomes so high that it's not appropriate for a church or a charity to be taking it?

Yes. The church/charity must invest wisely.

Also, for a church or charity, investing money has a huge opportunity cost: the world is in need now, and money can be used to ease those needs. If investing a sum of money means that it's unavailable for some time to save immortal souls (through some missionary campaign, perhaps) or physical lives (through poverty relief programs or funding cures for diseases, for example), then this moral and spiritual cost needs to be factored into the decision-making.

The LDS Church is able to use it's wealth now while investing at the same time. I don't have the details, but I believe another poster provided them earlier in the thread.

 

[Draka]

Blah blah blah blah blah...if there's a risk you are taking with your money by putting it out there on anything with the hope of a better return...it is gambling. Twist around your definitions all you want. Make all the excuses you think will fly with the pigs. It doesn't matter. It is still a form of gambling.

There's nothing inherently wrong with gambling. Let's make that clear. But to say one thing is gambling and is bad and another form of gambling isn't really gambling and therefore ok is just lying to yourself. Have some consistency. Certain people here seem to think that gambling is bad...unless they are the ones doing it in a certain form...thereby excusing themselves. Screams of hypocrisy to me.