I was dozing in bed one morning, wondering how to introduce this controversial topic, when my alarm radio intruded. The first words I consciously discerned, in a context I had missed, were: "the great slot machine of life". This simple phrase encapsulates the attitude of so many people who become involved with gambling in some form or other.

There can hardly be a person in the UK who has never bought a raffle ticket, nor a person in the whole world who has never participated in a game of chance for a stake, if only for matchsticks or seashells. To humankind, the fascination of gambling is so great that I would suggest it is the oldest vice, although not perhaps the oldest profession. Yes, I would say it is a vice, but it is not even mentioned as one of the seven deadly sins. Gambling is not merely another form of greed. Its roots lie deeper. It is such a deep-seated vice that most religions find it too controversial to pronounce upon. They would lose a goodly proportion of their flock if they were opposed to gambling. Let me explain.

Reverting to a previous theme, recall there are only four life views for individuals to adopt:
A. I’m not OK, but they’re OK;
B. I’m OK, but they’re not OK;
C. I’m OK, and they’re OK;
D. I’m not OK, and neither are they.

Gambling strongly reinforces the most prevalent of these: A & B. When you lose, (commonly), you feel "A-ish". If you win, (rarely), you feel "B-ish". Both of these reactions give the adherents a comfortable feeling, for that moment, either of customary inferiority, or of temporary superiority. Win or lose, there is a psychological pay-off from life’s slot machine. This pay-off often seems more rewarding, consoling, or comfortable, if the event on which the gamble is staked has been devised by mankind itself.

I suggest that an excellent test of what progress is being made towards the aptious ideal of mutual respect in society, as exemplified by life-view C above, is the status of gambling in that society. I would go further. I suggest that unless specific steps are taken, by legislation for example, to reduce the amount of gambling, general progress towards attitude C will be very slow. Voting rights for women are now generally accepted, yet not so long ago there had to be specific legislation. If someone had waved a magic wand and attitude C prevailed universally, then universal adult franchise would have automatically been the norm. Similarly, if someone were now to wave a magic wand to invoke attitude C universally, then gambling would just whither away. It would become a pointless activity.

I would welcome laws against all forms of wagering, or prize giving, for:
a. Chance events, such as the weather, slot machines, or lotteries.
b. Other people’s skills, such as horse racing or football pools.
c. Unpredictable but deterministic outcomes, such as the next Pope, or election results.
d. Sales and promotions, such as "reply within seven days and be eligible for entry in a prize draw".

The only exception I would consider would be the wagering on each’s own successful performance amongst, and confined to, participants in the same mutually challenging event. Even this relaxation runs the risk of unduly reinforcing the attitudes we need to eliminate. In a mutually respecting society, however, one cannot protect people from themselves. Nevertheless, one can protect people from exploitation by others. Bookmakers, for example, I regard as exploiters of the human condition, not providers of innocent entertainment.

The thorny problem of raffles and lotteries is worth examining closer. It becomes a question of where to draw the line. If the purpose of a raffle is to raise money for a particular good cause, then the purchase of a ticket can be regarded primarily as a donation to that cause, provided that the raffle prizes are small enough, and the average proportion of the cost of the ticket going to the cause is large enough. The raffle itself then merely becomes a publicity or fund-raising mechanism rather than any encouragement to court lady luck.

At the other end of this scale there are the lotteries with multimillions as prizes. To me, whatever the underlying good cause, it is abhorrent that winning will inevitably affect the winners’ way of life, for better or worse. The UK National lottery, instituted in 1994 has the worst features of such schemes:
a. The percentage of "donations" going to the causes is too low;
b. The "jackpot" prize is too great;
c. The choice of numbers is largely personal.

This latter option reinforces the life views I consider so damaging. If you choose correctly: you are OK, the losers are not. When you lose, it reinforces any "comfortable" feeling of inferiority you may have. If people really need lotteries, then the numbers should be allocated at random, but with no duplication. By allowing personal choice, hence personal "failure", the organisers are passing the burden of guilt onto the participants. Anything which encourages the view that some people are lucky, and some are not, distorts the truth. It is not people that are lucky, or unlucky. Luck visits itself at random. Randomness is not evenness. In any random distribution there must be variance. Random events will always have extremes.

It is true that the Universe is governed by all pervading natural laws. Their application to individuals, however, is statistical. Whatever Einstein may have said, or thought, the Universe does effectively play dice with individuals. I would wish a mutually respecting society to attempt to minimise such effects, not to continually devise ways of increasing them. Mutual respect will flourish best where rewards are either earned, or acquired by human serendipity, not by organised gambling, aggression, or other forms of exploitation.

Closely related phenomena of modern "entertainment" are the Quiz Games. These range from MasterMind to the notorious $64,000 questions. Their popularity stems from the same destructive life attitudes A & B. They are essentially vicarious gambling. If you know the answer, but the participant does not, you get your "high": "You’re OK, they’re not OK". If the participant does well, beyond your capability, then your "not OKness" is reinforced and you feel comfortably inferior. Even MasterMind, that seemingly most innocuous of games, is deliberately split into two parts to pander to both these life views. There is a specialist round, when "they’re OK". The "not OK" audience at home is in awe. This is followed by general knowledge, when inevitably there will be several questions to which the participants do not know the correct answer. The audience at home can then gain occasional feelings of superiority.

The problem with most of such is that they are competitions, for competition’s sake. Skill plays little part. Even serious quizzes are usually dependent on instant recall. Fortunately there are some media games which are designed to entertain or educate; in the UK: "Round Britain Quiz", "Does the Team Think", "My Music", "The News Quiz", "Hoax", "What’s My Line", and "Call my Bluff", etc. Their common characteristic is that the result is irrelevant, even where scores are kept.

"Not that you won or lost, but how you played the game." {Grantland Rice}

This old-fashioned attitude is worthy of reviving and retaining. Competition purely to determine a winner is a counterproductive strategy, out of place in a mutually caring society. Competition which develops skills, entertains, or educates, is a useful means to an end. There is no need to make it an end in itself.

return to Contents

go to Sports and Games

View my guestbook