Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Prof is the milkman of human kindness,
he will leave an extra pint.Hold his hand for him and he’ll wake up!
In my opinion not all addictions are destructive. What is destructive about betting on horses providing you can afford your losses?
FOBT addiction for some people may be harmless enough.That’s just plain daft Prof.
Point is about gambling addiction (whether on FOBTs or horses) isat time of bet
there is no thought of "can I afford losses".
If you become addicted to gambling on horses Prof, I hope people are more sympathetic than you are to these unfortunates.
I’m not for banning FOBTs, but may be someone should look in to how they can be made less addictive.
If you are falling,
I’ll put out my hands.
If you are bitter,
I will understand.See my reply to getzippy.
Prof,
You wrote: "In my opinion not all addictions are destructive. What is destructive about betting on horses providing you can afford your losses?
FOBT addiction for some people may be harmless enough."That is what I was referring to, also pointed out by Ginger.
Obviously, your interpretation of addiction is very different to mine. However, I can be as black and white as you – they’re either addicted or they aren’t.
How an addiction can be less stupid and destructive if controlled is a paradox – you cannot control addiction. However, you may be better placed to give differing opinion on this.
You also wrote: "If you can’t be trusted to walk past a FOBT without pumping your whole life’s savings into them then you can’t be trusted to do anything."
Well, that’s pretty damning. Do you have children? If you do and one of them did have an addiction to FOBTs would you ostracise them from your life…as they cannot be trusted to do anything?
Zip
OK, this boils down to one thing: your definition of addiction is the same as the addiction industry’s model: a raging destructive thing. My definition is that it *can* be, but it can also be something controlled.
A wise old doctor once said to me: ‘Everyone is addicted to something’. Acoss the land, all sorts of addictions, from heroin to chocolate hobnobs, are indulged. Some cases result in minor personal problems, some don’t. What are you gonna do, ban EVERYTHING that YOU think is bad? What a totalitarian outlook.
What generally happens with addictions is that they are modified as the addict grows older. One would not realise this from hysterical press reports (and I am a journalist on a national newspaper so I know whereof I speak), but most people achieve a modicum of wisdom as they age.
Which leds me to my overall view of addiction as opposed to yours: addictions are in the end the problem of the addicted. The ramifications of their addiction on their families may be problematic as well but in the matter of actually sorting it out then no-one but the addicted can sort that out. You want anything that may be dangerous to those who can’t control themselves removed. I see this as a long slow road to virtual enslavement by the State. You need to learn the difference between license and liberty ie everything is permitted unless expressly not permitted, as opposed to, nothing is permitted unless expressly permitted. Your attitude will take us towards the latter. You might as well go and live in North Korea.Besides, if your priorities of banning things is destructiveness then why not call for cigarettes to be banned? They actually kill a lot of people every day.
Re my ‘can’t be trusted’ comment: Yes, I do have children and I would point out to them that if you are compelled to put every bit of money you possess into a slot machine if one happens to come into your line of vision, then you cannot be trusted to do anything until you have tackled this problem. No sensible or sane person could think or say anything else.
I hope this makes my position clear.
Prof,
Not so easy to be dogmatic about what "right-thinking people" means…
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s … lic+define]%23&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
You say: "In my opinion not all addictions are destructive. What is destructive about betting on horses providing you can afford your losses?"
Err, helloooo….do you really need to be told that betting on horses can be addictive? You seem so smart.
I do not agree banning FOBTs would lead to banning other forms of gambling. OK, it may set a precedent for banning a similarly destructive creation – such a bad thing?
I think this whole "freedom of the citizen" argument is missing the point.
FOBTs are a growing cancer that rivens England’s social fabric.
Should we legalise all drugs and prostitution, Prof? I just want to be sure where you stand on the liberalisation matter.
You believe the addicts would always find something else to be addicted to. I don’t.
If someone is introduced to cocaine, tries it a few times and then becomes addicted, would they have found something else if not introduced to that cocaine?
If you do, fair enough.
Personally, I don’t regard addicts, whatever their addiction may be, as idiots.
Zip
Ps, MissW – these terminals are meant to be random, unlike most slot machines (I’m not sure there really are any random slot machines?) and the stakes of the roulette makes slots small beer – £100 max for a 5 second spin on the wibbly wobbly wheel of death.
No, i don’t need to be told that gambling on horses is addictive. Read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. I contend that some addictions are less stupid and destructive than others – providing you have control over yourself and do not allow greed and stupidity rule your life. These are sins/vices that come into all areas of life. If you can’t be trusted to walk past a FOBT without pumping your whole life’s savings into them then you can’t be trusted to do anything. The jerk crying his eyes out because he’s lost loads of money in a FOBT is really crying because he’s realised he’s an idiot without a shred of self-control and that is a very frightening and sad thing. That however much you big-hearted addicted-to-cant (yes cant, gingertipster, look it up in a dictionary) guys want it not to be so is
his
problem. If it hadn’t been FOBT it would have been something else.
You say I’m cold hearted, primarily because it makes you feel and look good. But I’m extremely empathetic. I have suffered through my addictions at times but the suffering has led to wisdom. William Blake: The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.I am anti-drugs myself having spent many years in milieus where the full gamut of street drugs were abused. They do no-one any good in the long term and are particularly destructive and dangerous to children. They have no cultural or historical precedent in this country – beyond laudanum – and therefore have no framework of custom or manners surrounding them. They are just a menace.
I have no opinion on whether prostitution should be legalised. Those reformers like getzippy who think the problems of human behaviour can be solved by a few strokes of the legislator’s pen in Whitehall should look at Europe where prostitution was legalised in an attempt to end ‘street girls’ and the danger they were in. It didn’t work. For a number of reasons, mainly because you need to pass various health and safety checks, unlicensed street trade still flourishes. The reformist zeal has solved nothing.As for the milk of human kindness comment: As I say, I am empathatic and sympathetic to the plight of the destructively addicted (as opposed to the happily addicted. Look at gingertipster. He thinks he’s mr sense and control when it comes to gambling, but I would suggest he’s happily addicted to a minor vice that is mainly giving him pleasure. This analysis will be deemed wrong because there’s old one man in the world who can be right and that’s ol’ ginge. Broth of a boy!) but I know that the only way these people can lift themselves from their misery is by taking control of themselves and stop believing the addiction industry’s specious whining. They have become addicted to a con. They must look at that fact very closely.
Would you group a working man who says he is addicted, though in a non-destructive way, to good wine, poker, or buying expensive watches, would you group this man with someone addicted to sniffing glue or standing in Ladbrokes for five hours with a load of somali benefit cheats playing FOBTs? No, course you wouldn’t.
But after 14 years of Blair ‘we can cure everyone of everything by State control’ it seems people have gone a bit soft in the head.
Professorwotsist,
You say gambling on FOBTs is stupid and then ridicule them whilst championing turf and sex…things you admit to being addicted to.
What is stupid and pointless is a matter of subjectivity.
Only in the pub and internet discussions. In the real world, among what courts of law call ‘right thinking members of the public’ stupid and pointless is pretty obvious.
In my opinion not all addictions are destructive. What is destructive about betting on horses providing you can afford your losses?
FOBT addiction for some people may be harmless enough. For others, like the tearful mug in the link, they are destructive. I say tough tit. It’s the difference between liberty and license. For societies to remain free they must have citizens who can exercise freedom of choice and control themselves.
It all sounds really warm hearted to ban this and ban that. But one ban leads to another.
English history shows us that there is a force of destructive reformist zeal in these islands. One sees it in the reformation, the two hundred years of iconoclasm which followed it; one sees it in the destructive mantras which have torn through British culture for years, in architecture, education, law, health and social cohesion.
In the end you have the tail of legislation and the nanny state wagging the dog of the taxpaying law abiding public. I don’tcare
if FOBTs are banned or not. All I am saying is that the idiots who wreck their finances on them will go and do it on something else. Because they’re idiots.
To echo Miss Woodford, all those who are getting carried away with the babbling flock need to realise that any draconian gambling measure will drag the Turf in as well. This is because the Political Class
cannot tell the difference between one form of gambling and another
.
We saw this the other week when some thinktank had the bright (ish) idea of teaching schoolchildren about the odds in gambling and also racing form. Harriet Harman the great socialist, went berserk. She seemed to think racing was a game of total chance, no different to find the lady etc.This is thread that comes down to one distinction: the difference between liberty and license. We are all at liberty to pump FOTBs full of 20 pound notes. Most of us don’t because it’s utterly stupid. If government were to impose gambling controls we are suddenly merely licensed to spend a limited amount of cash. This is a small point but with wider implications. Many on the political left would like to see ever deeper state interference in personal liberty. They want to tell you what do because they think they know better. They may know better than our crying FOBT addict. But they don’t know better than us, do they?
In the next 20 years racing is going to be severely battered by health and safety, revenue rows, foreign competition from robust asian markets, emigrant bookmakers and animal rights. The last thing it needs is any puritanical drive to control gambling in this country. Let the jerks ruin themselves. It is an indication we are free to do as we see fit.There were shysters taking bets on the chariot races in Rome 2000 years ago. And there they are today.
At least bookies have roughly a 130% overround nowadays as well. I’ve read tweets from reliable sources that say Caeser’s bookie was running at 250%.
Roman Centurion: I’ll have 50 sestertii on Dettorix.
Bookie: OK.
RC: Ooh, actually can I have that each-way?
Bookie: I’ll have you thrown to the lions if you keep on, son!Mind you, each way paid a third in ancient rome’s chariot races. Ladbrokes stopped that. Ain’t you read Cicero’s book on the subject? ‘A Licence to Print Sestertii’
There were shysters taking bets on the chariot races in Rome 2000 years ago. And there they are today.
At least bookies have roughly a 130% overround nowadays as well. I’ve read tweets from reliable sources that say Caeser’s bookie was running at 250%.
Roman Centurion: I’ll have 50 sestertii on Dettorix.
Bookie: OK.
RC: Ooh, actually can I have that each-way?
Bookie: I’ll have you thrown to the lions if you keep on, son!I don’t feel superior to the jerk at all.
Hmmm…
Mike
What a wonderfully comprehensive answer.
I almost laughed when I read about this jerk pumping money into a machine and then crying.
I can imagine you did.
Tell me, were you laughing at his misfortune or your innate superiority over him?
Was it the
schadenfreude
of his misery that made you so amused or the unblemished perfection of your own life?
Remember, all you need is ignorance and confidence and success is assured.** You sound
very
successful to me.
Mike
**Not sure who first said this but I doubt it was from a derivitive mobster flick
I laughed at the absurdity of his behaviour. It is
absurd
. I don’t feel superior to the jerk at all. I’m addicted to quite a few things, but they are not unreasonable things to be addicted to. I am addicted to drink, sex, the Turf, good food,etc. But these things are reasonable, they deliver, *mostly*. They are not a BLATANT con, they give something straightaway, be it aesthetically or whatever. To become addicted to a FOBT is like becoming addicted to banging your head against a brick wall.
It’s stupid, and if we didn’t live in a culture addicted to finding ‘victims’, it wouldn’t matter.
OF COURSE the bookies who run these things are scum. OF COURSE! But the world is full of shysters. There were shysters taking bets on the chariot races in Rome 2000 years ago. And there they are today.
The important point is that you don’t arrange society around protecting idiots from themselves. Because that way lies the hyper controlled nanny state. As the philosopher Edmund Burke said: the less control from within meand the more must be applied from without ie just because a few jerks can’t run their lives properly it in’t worth creating a semi totalitarian state. I mean, where does it end? Ban pubs cos there are alcoholics?
Let’s be sensible, please.How infantilised we have all become!
I almost laughed when I read about this jerk pumping money into a machine and then crying.
I don’t gamble on fixed odds betting machines. They are for w***ers.
We live in an epoch where all sorts of bad behaviour is justified by being grandly termed an illness. Gamblers who just want to win without effort, study or complication, who just want to be lucky all the time, well, what are they? Stupid and childish. It is tantamount to declaring you want a blow job from a sexy stranger every time you leave the house. Nice idea, but hey; there’s this thing called reality. Get an edge or get out of the way.
If shrinks called gambling addicts chronic mugs there would be less gambling addicts parading their illness around.As superpunter and casino manager De Niro says in Martin Scorsese’s Casino:
the cardinal rule
is to keep them playing…and keep them coming back.
The longer they play,
the more they lose.
In the end, we get it all.
It’s all been arranged to get your money. . .I think mentioning how rubbish the all-weather is on a day when there’s no turf racing is an excellent way to draw attention to its shortcomings.
Sure, there are occasionally some half-decent races but most of its pisspoor and parts of it are IN MY OPINION AND PROTECTED BY THE MEDIA LAW DEFENCE OF FAIR COMMENT AND AN HONESTLY HELD OPINION insultingly artful, if not actually criminal. Certain columnists have said this in the Daily Bookie’s Advert, sorry, the Racing Post, but they seem to vanish from its pages fairly rapidly.
Off the top of my head, most of bent racing investigations seem to revolve around all-weather rubbish.
One thing is clear to me: if racing was forced to attract new audiences on the basis of the all-weather, the sport would be in far deeper trouble than it is already.
I was once upbraided by one of the great moralists on here for referring to ‘the scum bookie’ , but really, what else can you call these internet shysters?
The upbraider might well have been me. Nice to know I’m considered great at something, even if it’s moralising
So, what else can you call these internet shysters?
If you can be bothered, write to the gaming committee at the house of commons, yr MP and all other gambling regulatory bodies and related publications. These firms do things knowing it’s a pretty safe bet no one will complain. Take my online bookmaker – who will remain nameless lest Cormack senses a conflict of interest with one of his advertisers – they recently massively raised the mimimum bet in live roulette from £1 to £10, a hike of 900 per cent. They lost my custom straight away. I have sent my letters. How many addicts won’t walk away?
It was all done to guarantee punters take heavier losses and have to play longer on the margins to offset what they are losing on the numbers. I was once upbraided by one of the great moralists on here for referring to ‘the scum bookie’ , but really, what else can you call these internet shysters?I think it is very simple: Saturdays are a gambling feeding frenzy: a hell of a lot of money changes hands over racing and there are many losers as well as winners. I think this, plus Saturday night drinking, combine to give the common-or-garden racing fan a sort of combined hangover.
I like things the way they are. I’ll buy a racing post on a sunday to have a digest on the previous day’s form. If I fancy something in the afternoon’s cards I’ll have a small punt but usually I don’t bother. Even if I’ve had a really good saturday I will be unwilling to start ‘work’ again combing the form. Even if it was good racing I would think: hey, that was yesterday; today I just want to get on the p**s.
Saturday is the big. Long may it remain so.
Further to avoiding under Class 3s.
A little while ago I tried an experiment with an all-weather card. I thought: ‘I’m a pretty reasonably good punter. My single bets keep me in profit except now and again at the dodgy seasonal switchovers, particularly when three-year-olds return to the Flat. But I’m not frightened of cavalry charge sprints, big field chases in extreme conditions, love cheltenham, found Oiseau de Nuit at a VAST betfair price in the Grand Annual etc anything decent with a dose of form I will have a go at. I usually win or put a horse in the frame for the National etc.’ So I decided to carefully study the form of a few Class 6s on the all weather and make some theoretical bets. Did I win? Did I ****. Two of the winners could never have been backed by the sane man. There is a lesson here.
Superb post. I particularly agree with sticking to Class 3 and above. Personally I don’t do anything outside of pattern company, excluding handicaps other than at the Festival and Nationals, but do NOT get sucked into the equine lottery that the Professor describes so accurately (fantastic term btw, you hold the copyright on that? Permission to use it with friends?).
I’d also add;
11) NEVER EVER EVER EVER change your mind. Once you’ve made your mind up with a firm selection due to instinct or form or anything else, do not sway from that selection. Occasionally it will pay off – normally it won’t.
The same applies for a horse you don’t rate. If you think a particular horse is crap or a dog, don’t back him, and if you find a race where that horse is running & he ends up being your selection because you think he’s better than the others, don’t back him and leave the race well alone.
Equine roulette? Be my guest! Another phrase often crosses my mind when watching all weather racing: GIANT ESCALADO!
Go to the British Horseracing Authority and download their guide to handicapping horses. It will give you good overview of that side of the game.
General rules I have found to be useful:
1) NEVER have a bet, a real bet, unless you have read the form for every horse in the race and thought about the chance of each one.
2) Respect form stats: if it’s looking like a horse is no good on soft then he’s probably no good on soft and vice versa, unless he or she is good on all surfaces. There are exceptions to this of course.
3) Never have a decent sized bet in a race worth less than five or six grand to the winner: there will be too many non-triers, rubbish horses, ill horses and horses being trained in public. You will lose more often than you win and it will affect your confidence come the big race days. That’s not to say don’t have an interest in lower grade fare, particularly jumps; but recognise it for what it is and bet accordingly: small doubles, forecasts, speculation-style fun. It was revealing recently when the big bookies said ‘punters don’t care about quality racing, they just want quantity.’
Nothing would please the big boys more if all the racing was Class 6 farces on the all weather, so that should tell you something. Whatever Ladbrokes want more of is usually a bad thing.
Every year my best wins under either code come in Class 3s and above. That is where you find yards that have come to have a serious go for serious money. Owners that want glory not a guaranteed lay on betfair etc4)It’s not about finding winners it’s about finding value. If you back horses at 5/2 that should be 7/2 the bookie will skin you eventually; if you do it the other way round you stay ahead of the game. Of course, you want to be finding 16/1 shots that should be evens favourites, but you take my point. Look for form angles that give you an edge. Sometimes I see races that that to my mind have been priced up completely crazily. A horse that hasn’t had its ground or trip for a while and whose mark has slipped to something reasonable is chalked up at 20/1. Everyone’s lumping on a favourite that is up 8lb and on the wrong ground. The bookie must know I suppose, but they realise that the majority of punters won’t see that angle. That’s when it’s time to step in. It goes 16/1. . . It’s not called the Turf for nothing. . . In other words never let a price put you off and investigate the rags of the race. It is these that will help you to show a profit.
5) Never have a serious bet in an all weather handicap or any other type of all-weather race. It will just eat your profit and confidence. I like an evening on betfair with Wolverhampton/Kempton racing but it’s small stakes equine roulette.
6)When you’ve backed a loser,go straight to the form and figure out your error and examine the winner’s form closely. Betting shop mugs never do this, they just sulk. Mistake.
7)If going racing do your study EARLY and get it straight before the drinking starts.
Remember it is one of the greatest and most ancient games in the world. The Sport of the Kings is a very beautiful thing in itself, and gambling is the spice, or the gravy if you will: when you win, savour; when you lose know that you will win again. Don’t chase losses, there is always another day.9) This is purely personal: don’t bet at southwell: it’s painful to watch.
10) Jockeys can be geniuses but not magicians: if the handicapper’s got the horse’s he’s got the horse’s measure and that, as superpunter Robert DeNiro says at the end of Casino, is that.
Remember it is one of the greatest and most ancient games in the world. The Sport of the Kings is a very beautiful thing in itself, and gambling is the spice, or the gravy if you will: when you win, savour; when you lose know that you will win again. Don’t chase losses, there is always another day.