ProblemI have a moral dilemma about gambling
      – BorgClown, 2009-04-19 at 05:20:55   (18 comments)

On 2009-04-19 at 05:35:39, BorgClown wrote...
Recently I went to a local casino. I made about $100 USD, and my wife about $150. Since it's tedious but relatively easy to make money if you stick to a consistent strategy, I wondered if there was something fishy going on. It turns out that the owner is related to drug dealers, and so the casino is a good candidate for money laundering. Now, my dilemma is: Should I take advantage of it to make some earnings, or shouldn't I go there because that would be supporting organized crime? I already have an answer to that, but I want to hear your input anyway. Maybe I'll even change my mind.
On 2009-04-19 at 05:37:22, BorgClown wrote...
Oh, BTW, my wife started to go there about a month ago. This is the sixth time she's gone there, and she's always returned with profit. The most was about $700 USD, and the least about $50.
On 2009-04-19 at 06:27:43, Baslisks wrote...
Aren't the drug wars tearing up your country?
On 2009-04-19 at 07:53:24, BorgClown wrote...
Tearing up is an overstatement, but there's definitely a strong (although declining) response of the organized crime. It looks like they're beginning to move to Central and South America, where the law is less harsh. It's very good to see them losing their influence here, but as long as there is a market in USA, the drug dealers won't be eradicated.
On 2009-04-19 at 08:17:20, Baslisks wrote...
I keep telling the mootherfuckers we need to decriminalize but no one listens... Well america is going to shit anyways, so don't worry much.
On 2009-04-19 at 08:25:58, BorgClown wrote...
If drugs are legalized, I suspect it will start by making legal to have drugs for personal consumption, which won't do shit for stopping the dealers. There has to be a complete legalization of drugs, even synthetic, commercial and prescription ones. Their profitable underground market would transform into a taxable and regulated business.
On 2009-04-19 at 08:28:43, BorgClown wrote...
Sure, addicts and psychos will make urban society even shittier, but the organized crime will have to compete for the remaining sources of easy money. Thoughtless prohibition fosters organized crime.
On 2009-04-19 at 08:31:28, BorgClown wrote...
@Baslisks: Hey, you haven't provided me with any sensible advice for my problem, you insensitive friend.
On 2009-04-19 at 16:13:41, Thelevellers wrote...
I'd say that if you make a profit every time you are hurting rather than aiding, though I guess any income you give becomes legal, and that's possibly the aim?! Lose some overall, but whats left is legal. I would say that unless you are buying drugs of em to it's probably more good than bad... I may well be wrong on that though! :)
On 2009-04-19 at 17:58:15, BorgClown wrote...
Money laundering means reporting way more profits than earned. The business doesn't necessarily needs to lose, and even if it does, loses are insignificant compared to the dirty money made taxable and hence legal.
On 2009-04-19 at 18:12:40, Baslisks wrote...
I say you gamble till you make enough money to assemble an army of vigilantes, then you spring your well coordinated battle plan. PROFITS!
On 2009-04-20 at 17:20:58, Lee J Haywood wrote...
My view is that you'd be foolish to make too much money in any one visit. So long as you're only taking small amounts and doing so for the pleasure of going there - not for the winning - then the only problem is that your ability to regularly win takes away the point of gambling in the first place.
On 2009-04-21 at 02:14:01, BorgClown wrote...
I don't think it's ability, although having used random numbers many times makes me more aware of probability than "luck", and setting a loss limit helps too. But I really think the (electronic) games are more forgiving on purpose, it feels too easy. That's why I suspected of money laundering.
On 2009-04-21 at 02:15:31, BorgClown wrote...
I guess I'll have to checkout how other peoples play, so I can confirm the too-easy theory.
On 2009-05-05 at 14:30:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
If you have a moral problem with gambling, then don't gamble. Don't expect others to stop because of your moral problem though.
On 2009-05-06 at 01:39:17, BorgClown wrote...
I've read a lot about slot machines lately. They, as expected, give less than what's put in (usually 5-10%, depending on the settings), the quid is that they usually give back to different people. The modern ones can be remotely adjusted to take as much as 25%, that's what gamblers call a bad day. OTOH, they can retain as low as 2.5%, so that's a good day. It looks like the few times I went were good days, and the last time I went was a bad one. I lost about $20 USD, although my wife managed to profit $200 USD even that day. So they are not giving free money away, which in no way means they're not laundering money. Anyway, it lost the novelty factor, so the moral one won and I ceased to go. My wifey still likes it though, I wonder how would she manage at poker or roulette.
On 2009-05-06 at 07:47:59, Lee J Haywood wrote...
So between you you profited US$180? If the odds were stacked against you, as ought to be the case in gambling, you'd expect the house to win consistently with rare wins. But surely there are other benefits to going there, e.g. food, drink and conversation?
On 2009-05-06 at 20:25:41, BorgClown wrote...
Yes, we did, me contributing $-20 =( About the rare wins, the customers would get bored pretty quick. The psychology gambler is generally losing little by little, but the occasional heavy wins keep him gambling. Suppose you start with $10 and win a $50 bonus. Would you stop and checkout or continue gambling? Most people will continue, even to the point of losing the original $10.