[Zelandakh]

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-08, 08:57, said:

Heh. Duplicate bridge may not be "gambling"

Is it not? When I first wanted to play bridge I asked around the local clubs but all of them were only playing "penny a hundred" games. I certainly considered that gambling and declined on principle - I still think it ought to be against the law for a minor to play in such games. My university partner also liked such side bets during a game but those were always done strictly between him and the opps - he essentially paid or received double.

With duplicate there is a difference of course, in as much as there is a fixed table fee and you usually cannot win or lose more based on the results. But a tournament with cash prizes is surely just as much gambling as poker, a mix of luck and skill in which you sometimes win money and other times lose.

[billw55]

Working at a pool hall in college, I often reflected on the gambling laws. If two people got together to play pool, each put up some money, and the winner got it, that was gambling and illegal. But if a bunch of people got together to play pool, everyone put up some money, and the guy who won the most got it, now it's called a tournament and was perfectly ok. The same was true for chess; it had nothing to do with chance or skill, or any other reason we could fathom.

[blackshoe]

The law is an ass.

[wank]

i wonder if those people who whine about gambling also buy insurance

[1eyedjack]

I wonder how much it would cost the WBF for Thailand to host the BB

[billw55]

wank, on 2016-February-09, 01:24, said:

i wonder if those people who whine about gambling also buy insurance

Perhaps they would say that not buying insurance is gambling.

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-09, 02:35, said:

I wonder how much it would cost the WBF for Thailand to host the BB

I imagine the necessary bribes would be substantial.

[oryctolagi]

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-07, 13:17, said:

So what is the excise duty to stamp a pack of cards in Thailand?

Apparently, in the UK, duty was levied on playing cards right up until 1960. That is the reason why the A♠ is still larger and more elaborately decorated than the other Aces, on British cards: it used to carry the duty stamp.

And I remember reading somewhere, that back in the 19th century a man was hanged for forging the A♠ on packs of cards, in order to evade duty....

So it could have been worse....

[blackshoe]

oryctolagi, on 2016-February-11, 06:07, said:

And I remember reading somewhere, that back in the 19th century a man was hanged for forging the A♠ on packs of cards, in order to evade duty....

Never steal from the King.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2016-February-08, 12:42, said:

Is it not? When I first wanted to play bridge I asked around the local clubs but all of them were only playing "penny a hundred" games. I certainly considered that gambling and declined on principle - I still think it ought to be against the law for a minor to play in such games. My university partner also liked such side bets during a game but those were always done strictly between him and the opps - he essentially paid or received double.

I think that "penny a hundred" games are almost identical to games played with no money at all. But it was unusual that you took the stand that as you were a minor, you should not gamble. Most minors are more concerned with trying to get away with stuff they aren't allowed to do.

Quote

But a tournament with cash prizes is surely just as much gambling as poker, a mix of luck and skill in which you sometimes win money and other times lose.

I don't see how tournaments or duplicate sessions with prizes differ from those without.

Some clubs will give out free entries instead of cash prizes. Is that the same as poker?

A small number of UK tournaments still (Ithink) have prize tables where you get things like glasses or bottles of wine instead of money. Is that the same as poker?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-12, 23:08, said:

Some clubs will give out free entries instead of cash prizes. Is that the same as poker?

Very much so! It is quite common for a small poker tournament to offer entry to a larger tournament as a prize.

Vampyr, on 2016-February-12, 23:08, said:

A small number of UK tournaments still (Ithink) have prize tables where you get things like glasses or bottles of wine instead of money. Is that the same as poker?

Sounds like gambling to me, assuming entry is not free. Is a raffle where you pay for tickets and the prizes come in the form of items rather than cash not gambling?

[oryctolagi]

I once got inveigled into a 'penny-a-hundred' Rubber bridge session: this was back when I was a teenager and the pennies involved were old British pennies (240 to the pound but worth a lot more back then in real terms, than the present day British 1p or US cent).

I was asked to make up a four along with three elderly ladies, friends of my parents, whom I'd never played with before. The session went along fine, but I didn't know it was going to be for money until right at the end, when we settled up and I found myself about 1/5d to the good . I felt a bit embarrassed because I've held a lifelong aversion to gambling of any sort (OK: I'll buy the odd raffle ticket for charity, but that's as far as I'll go). But it would have been poor form to refuse to accept.

Oh and I've paid up for a few BBO 'dollars'. I felt a twinge of conscience one day, felt I owed the site something after I've been using it for free for many weeks. But I don't intend to profit out of this (as I understand it, I can't cash in BBO$ anyway...) So that's not 'gambling' to me.

Which is why I'd be as perplexed as anyone, if I'd been one of those unfortunate players in Thailand.

[Vampyr]

I think that paying an entry fee to a bridge, backgammon, tennis etc tournament is different to gambling in one chief respect: you can win a prize, but you can't lose any money. One could say that this is the case for a lottery ticket or a sports bet, but here you are laying out money only in the hope or expectation of gaining money. Your own performance in any activity at all has no bearing on the outcome of the bet.

But I guess I can't really understand the matter from the viewpoint of those who have an aversion to gambling. Especially as many of those people own stocks and shares and manage somehow to separate that from gambling. Real estate investment is gambling in its purest form, but again I'll bet many anti-gambling types do this, successfully creating a disconnect in their brains.

Of course if you are really anti-gambling, you will presumably avoid many daily activities that other people take for granted. Driving a car is a pretty big gamble; the reward is getting somewhere faster, the risk is to your life. Eating steak -- the reward is a nice meal, the risk is an increased incidence of colo-rectal cancer. Walking out the front door is a gamble. The list goes on and on...

EDIT: didn't address a raffle, where as above you are only giving money to get something rather than being recognised for a good performance.

Suppose you are playing in a bridge contest where there are no cash prizes, but masterpoints are awarded. You can gain these but not lose them. All arguments regarding tournaments that give out cash prizes hold true in this case.

[PhilG007]

helene_t, on 2016-February-04, 08:14, said:

A 50-officer strong police team raids a bridge club after having been given a hint that there are people there who exceed the maximum number of playing cards (100) which you are allowed to possess in Thailand. Watch out, udcadenny and other Thai bridge players.

http://www.thaivisa....m_campaign=news

Have the Thai police got nothing better to do than this(?) I thought the Keystone Cops were in the USA...it seems they've emigrated(!)

[oryctolagi]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-13, 18:58, said:

But I guess I can't really understand the matter from the viewpoint of those who have an aversion to gambling.

You are right, sometimes it's not easy to justify one's point of view with perfect consistency. After all - yes - I do drive a car - I also cycle - and I look upon that as weighing up the risk, which is not the same as gambling as I see it.

Some people do get enjoyment out of studying racehorses' form, scanning the football teams' performance, watching the cards at the casino (is that illegal btw - cf. Rain Man?) etc. etc. I don't have any interest in that sort of thing myself, but I can see they have a point.

Years ago, in the days when the Football Pools were paramount, I helped out a syndicate of colleagues. I should explain that I was the geek amongst them, and I offered to write a bit of software simply to generate random numbers which they could then mark down on their coupon. I had a bit of fun writing the program, although it was little more than a pseudo-random-variate algorithm, using system time as the seed. I also had fun explaining to my sceptical colleagues, that a list with three consecutive numbers was still a random selection. They took a lot of persuading!

But I made it perfectly clear, that I was happy to supply the numbers but in no way would I join the syndicate.

As far as I recall, they only won trifling amounts.

Here in the UK we now have our national Lotto and the Euromillions, etc. etc., all of which I shun like the plague. But the real controversy of the moment, here, concerns so-called fixed-odds betting machines: fruit-machines located in betting shops and the like which accept very high stakes. Many people want these banned because of the damage they cause. You can guess where I stand!

[Vampyr]

oryctolagi, on 2016-February-17, 08:27, said:

watching the cards at the casino (is that illegal btw - cf. Rain Man?) etc. etc.

It is not illegal, but casinos have the right to ban anyone they want.

Quote

Here in the UK we now have our national Lotto and the Euromillions, etc. etc., all of which I shun like the plague. But the real controversy of the moment, here, concerns so-called fixed-odds betting machines: fruit-machines located in betting shops and the like which accept very high stakes. Many people want these banned because of the damage they cause. You can guess where I stand!

I usually buy a lottery ticket when there is a positive expectancy. So, not often!

As to fruit machines, it's a problem, I agree. Near me there is a shop that is just fruit machines. In fact there used to be two right near my house. If you go into these places you are not whiling away a couple of minutes until your race is shown; nor are you working your way through a roll of quarters while receiving free cocktails. I am not sure about banning them though; I guess people have the right to spend their hard-earned benefits as they choose. Perhaps allowing them only in casinos would be a solution. Casinos usually have a limited number of machines and a dress code, so the problem would be basically eliminated. But LOL I would make a large bet that this is never going to happen!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-17, 09:17, said:

Casinos usually have a limited number of machines and a dress code, so the problem would be basically eliminated.

Are these "fruit machines" something different from what we call slot machines on this side of the pond? In our casinos there are hundreds of them, and dress codes are a relic of history.

And we also have mini-casinos called "slot parlors" that just have slot machines.

[billw55]

Not sure exactly what "fruit machine" means. Is this what is called "slot machine" in USA ?

edit: barmar beat me to it

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-February-17, 10:17, said:

Are these "fruit machines" something different from what we call slot machines on this side of the pond? In our casinos there are hundreds of them, and dress codes are a relic of history.

And we also have mini-casinos called "slot parlors" that just have slot machines.

Yes, the same as slot machines. Here there are dress codes, at the very least de facto. And there is often a doorman, who would probably be able to make the small crowds of smokers move away from the front door.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-17, 10:24, said:

Yes, the same as slot machines. Here there are dress codes, at the very least de facto. And there is often a doorman, who would probably be able to make the small crowds of smokers move away from the front door.

Is it still the case that casinos in England are member-only? I recall learning that when I visited London about 30 years ago. But there was also some way for tourists to get temporary memberships.

Once upon a time casinos were high-class establishments. But that was also the days when people dressed up to play bridge. America has become very casual across the board, and casinos are no different.

[wank]

no the machines oryc was referring to are not like fruit machines/US slot machines. these are machines for playing roulette and other such table games and allow stakes of upto $150 per spin. it's all computerised so it's much faster than similar games in a casino.

in england they're only legal in licensed betting shops (traditionally designed for horse race and sports betting), but we have a much more laissez-faire attitude to gambling here so you're never more than a few hundred metres from a betting shop (or 5) even in very small towns.

there is however a limit of 4 machines per shop.