OT: Gambling Ads...

[buggs]

Okay, one more thing unlike alcohol and cigarettes, the problems with gambling largely (if not entirely) disappear if one simply scales their wagers properly to their discretionary income. Tobacco and booze are unsafe at any levels; liquor doesn't cease to destroy your liver once you can afford to down a fifth every other day, you know?

I get you're being largely facetious here but the corollary is somewhat true: if you scale your alcohol consumption to what is appropriate health wise rather than economically there are many reports that it actually has positive effects - notably red wine. Now the converse reports exist as well - alcohol in any amount is bad for you. Once you tease out the biases from sources, consumption in moderation it isn't that bad. So long as you can manage it and not lose control. Just like gambling - so long as you can manage it and not lose control, it can be a fun past time.

Regardless, gambling, like alcohol consumption, can be moderated and many people enjoy long happy lives without significant long term effects by participating in either. But that's not the focus here - it's the excessive badgering of the entire population that includes a subset that have addictive and destructive personalities. They used to do that with alcohol and tobacco advertising. Now they are regulated. Gambling ads are not.

I tend not to watch the ads anyway, gambling or otherwise. Mute button being the single greatest invention in history. That said, are there any disclaimers or warning on the ads? I don't believe there are and that in and of itself is irresponsible, if we're applying the same expectations as there are on alcohol and tobacco.

 

[Eyeseeing]

One thing I should add to this is that the websites you see advertised are very heavily regulated. You can't even fathom what a typical round of compliance demands looks like for a new market. Not just with the government, but with "know your customer" requirements for people to even set up real money accounts, further document requirements to exceed nominal weekly deposit limits, and so forth.

There ARE plenty of sketchy operators still out there, sure; a good chunk of internet gambling is very much a Wild West, but the ones you'll see advertising on games are anything but.

Okay, one more thing unlike alcohol and cigarettes, the problems with gambling largely (if not entirely) disappear if one simply scales their wagers properly to their discretionary income. Tobacco and booze are unsafe at any levels; liquor doesn't cease to destroy your liver once you can afford to down a fifth every other day, you know?

The point isn’t who is sketchy or what is regulated, it’s the over the top saturation of having this all out war for your gambling loyalty shoved in your face every single commercial break.
These aren’t charitable companies.
The goal is profit which I’m 100% in favour of in a capitalist system.
The issue is the full out campaigns to get people into gambling knowing full well that a percentage of people will spend vast amounts of money to bet $ they don’t have.
The responsible gamblers aren’t the ones who are making the big money for them , it’s the impulsive and irresponsible ones.
Credit card companies don’t make money off the responsible people who pay balances off in full every month, it’s the people who are impulsive and irresponsible and over spend and can’t pay their debts off on time.
If the ads were not so frequent and bombastic I think most people wouldn’t care.
I hope this trend abates soon, watching sports
now almost is secondary to the damned ads.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Regardless, gambling, like alcohol consumption, can be moderated and many people enjoy long happy lives without significant long term effects by participating in either.

Yeah I don't quite think I got my point across. There exists a certain level of money where one can gamble constantly and have zero negative impact on your life. There exists no level of money where one can drink or smoke constantly and have zero negative impacts on your life. Whereas with drinking and tobacco, things like the financial burden are side effects of the real damage, with gambling, it's the only damage. If that makes sense?

 

[ryerockarola]

Yeah I don't quite think I got my point across. There exists a certain level of money where one can gamble constantly and have zero negative impact on your life. There exists no level of money where one can drink or smoke constantly and have zero negative impacts on your life. Whereas with drinking and tobacco, things like the financial burden are side effects of the real damage, with gambling, it's the only damage. If that makes sense?

Enjoy your posts but I believe they show your general lack of understanding of the dark depths of addictions. Gambling in particular if you think financial burden is the only damage and if one had a certain amount of money one could just gamble 24/7 with absolutely no negative impact on one's life. As mentioned by others gambling affects mental health, causes stress and anxiety, affects relationships and in extreme cases causes death by suicide. From your posts you have your gambling in control while other problem gamblers do not.

 

[ps241]

Yeah I don't quite think I got my point across. There exists a certain level of money where one can gamble constantly and have zero negative impact on your life. There exists no level of money where one can drink or smoke constantly and have zero negative impacts on your life. Whereas with drinking and tobacco, things like the financial burden are side effects of the real damage, with gambling, it's the only damage. If that makes sense?

Any idea how this all out advertising “offensive campaign” (as in military) is impacting the revenues of our government controlled industrial gambling complex?

 

[cbcwpg]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/banning-sports-gambling-ads-1.6836159

If you watched the Toronto Maple Leafs play the Florida Panthers in Game 1 of their playoff series last Tuesday, you probably took in almost eight and a half minutes of sports gambling advertising.

***

8.5 minutes? It sure seems like a lot more.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Enjoy your posts but I believe they show your general lack of understanding of the dark depths of addictions. Gambling in particular if you think financial burden is the only damage and if one had a certain amount of money one could just gamble 24/7 with absolutely no negative impact on one's life. As mentioned by others gambling affects mental health, causes stress and anxiety, affects relationships and in extreme cases causes death by suicide. From your posts you have your gambling in control while other problem gamblers do not.

This is a fair criticism, certainly in that my language in my last post was too absolute and too extreme. To reiterate, I'm certainly not oblivious to what gambling addiction can do. To this day, I vividly remember getting my first big score in a poker tournament in Regina and running off to the phone booth (yes, that's how long ago..) to brag to my parents, and on the bench by the phone was an old man, weeping in the arms of (presumably) his daughter, lamenting about how he 'lost it all'. And I mean he was *weeping*. Only time I saw a man that age crying was when my grandfather was burying his son, so I'm sure it wasn't a trivial sum.

But in all the addicts I've seen in my days, including the known weak players one actively seeks out when one plays live poker, the toll it took on their lives was measured in dollars. Just as I'm sure it was for that man.

So, a more moderate example then:

Suppose I basically live in a bar, I'm drinking 5 hours a day, 6 days a week, spending $20 an hour. Then, one day, someone offers to not only pick up my tab, but pay me $100 a day. I think it's fair to say that the primary damage that the drinking is doing is still happening, right?

Replace that with gambling, and then suddenly, it's gone from an addiction to a good side hustle. The damage that gambling would have been doing to me has basically been erased.

And the reason I think this is important is because -- again, this is just what I've seen over the years -- when you take away the chase and the thrill and the potential for a huge score and replace it with a slow but guaranteed income, and turn gambling into a job, it becomes completely unpalatable to the addicted gambler mindset.

Think of that famous Twilight Zone episode where the gambler dies, then finds himself in a casino in the afterlife where he always wins. He thinks he's gone to heaven, but soon realizes he's actually in hell when his life's passion has been taken away from him. One of my past clients was an Australian government commission to tread gambling addiction that wanted free-to-play slot machines that worked on this premise (slow and steady drip and a long-term profit) as sort of an adjunct therapy. Privacy concerns meant that of course I couldn't ask how well it worked, but I'd like to think it helped at least some people.

 

[AlphaLackey]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/banning-sports-gambling-ads-1.6836159

If you watched the Toronto Maple Leafs play the Florida Panthers in Game 1 of their playoff series last Tuesday, you probably took in almost eight and a half minutes of sports gambling advertising.

***

8.5 minutes? It sure seems like a lot more.

That'd be ten 30-second ads and fourteen 15-second ads, so 8 ads an hour, or one ad every 7.5 minutes? Seems about right. But yes, for something that most people are sick to death of, each one definitely feels as long as a Chevy press conference

 

[Eyeseeing]

Manitoba Lotteries had an on line gambling mailer today in case we weren’t aware.
Then proceeds into general revenues never to be fully accounted for ever again
Remember play responsibly

 

[Stumbledore]

That'd be ten 30-second ads and fourteen 15-second ads, so 8 ads an hour, or one ad every 7.5 minutes? Seems about right. But yes, for something that most people are sick to death of, each one definitely feels as long as a Chevy press conference

Cute coda.

 

[ryerockarola]

This is a fair criticism, certainly in that my language in my last post was too absolute and too extreme. To reiterate, I'm certainly not oblivious to what gambling addiction can do. To this day, I vividly remember getting my first big score in a poker tournament in Regina and running off to the phone booth (yes, that's how long ago..) to brag to my parents, and on the bench by the phone was an old man, weeping in the arms of (presumably) his daughter, lamenting about how he 'lost it all'. And I mean he was *weeping*. Only time I saw a man that age crying was when my grandfather was burying his son, so I'm sure it wasn't a trivial sum.

But in all the addicts I've seen in my days, including the known weak players one actively seeks out when one plays live poker, the toll it took on their lives was measured in dollars. Just as I'm sure it was for that man.

So, a more moderate example then:

Suppose I basically live in a bar, I'm drinking 5 hours a day, 6 days a week, spending $20 an hour. Then, one day, someone offers to not only pick up my tab, but pay me $100 a day. I think it's fair to say that the primary damage that the drinking is doing is still happening, right?

Replace that with gambling, and then suddenly, it's gone from an addiction to a good side hustle. The damage that gambling would have been doing to me has basically been erased.

And the reason I think this is important is because -- again, this is just what I've seen over the years -- when you take away the chase and the thrill and the potential for a huge score and replace it with a slow but guaranteed income, and turn gambling into a job, it becomes completely unpalatable to the addicted gambler mindset.

Think of that famous Twilight Zone episode where the gambler dies, then finds himself in a casino in the afterlife where he always wins. He thinks he's gone to heaven, but soon realizes he's actually in hell when his life's passion has been taken away from him. One of my past clients was an Australian government commission to tread gambling addiction that wanted free-to-play slot machines that worked on this premise (slow and steady drip and a long-term profit) as sort of an adjunct therapy. Privacy concerns meant that of course I couldn't ask how well it worked, but I'd like to think it helped at least some people.

Now do the extreme example where the gambler kills himself. You'll type less

 

[AlphaLackey]

Now do the extreme example where the gambler kills himself. You'll type less

The extreme case where the gambler kills himself surely is already covered under the "monetary loss ruins a life" category, right? All the things you cited -- "affects mental health, causes stress and anxiety, affects relationships and in extreme cases causes death by suicide" -- go away when the 'monetary loss' aspect of gambling all but vanishes, in a way that the brain and body and mental health damage of 'professional drinking' never does.

I'm getting a vibe that this may have impacted your life or your circles personally. If so, you can tell me more. DM me if you want, even. But if I'm speaking about something that has personally impacted you and I'm in error about my observation, you can tell me. I'll listen, I promise.

Cute coda.

Understanding my sense of humor, it's a process.

 

[cbcwpg]

CBC says it doesn't control gambling ads during hockey games following complaints

The CBC says it bears no responsibility for the sports gambling commercials on its airwaves during NHL hockey games.

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

The CBC said that it “bears no responsibility for the sports gambling commercials on its airwaves during NHL hockey games,” and that viewers with objections “should take up the matter with the Sportsnet network, which controls the broadcasts and collects all the advertising revenue from them,” according to Simon Houpt of the GLOBE & MAIL.

 

[kanadalainen]

I get you're being largely facetious here but the corollary is somewhat true: if you scale your alcohol consumption to what is appropriate health wise rather than economically there are many reports that it actually has positive effects - notably red wine. Now the converse reports exist as well - alcohol in any amount is bad for you. Once you tease out the biases from sources, consumption in moderation it isn't that bad.

The data behind the (now-dated hypothesis) that red wine is not harmful is not widely smiled upon (currently) - the beneficial antioxidant in red wine is resveratrol and one would need to consume around 50 - 100 litres of red wine per day to obtain a beneficial dose of resveratrol. OTOH there are correlations to health benefits the so-called "Mediterranean diet" which are undeniable. That notwithstanding much of the data points to the detrimental effects of alcohol on various organs, and that is the current mainstream thinking.

 

[Jetsfan79]

The data behind the (now-dated hypothesis) that red wine is not harmful is not widely smiled upon (currently) - the beneficial antioxidant in red wine is resveratrol and one would need to consume around 50 - 100 litres of red wine per day to obtain a beneficial dose of resveratrol. OTOH there are correlations to health benefits the so-called "Mediterranean diet" which are undeniable. That notwithstanding much of the data points to the detrimental effects of alcohol on various organs, and that is the current mainstream thinking.

I think what buggs meant that is harmful when drinking too much. In moderation things are not as clear. Baseline probably has no positive or negative effects (small amounts/moderation).

However there are reports drinking any alcohol (no just wine) in moderation may have some health benefits overall

Edit: Recent study basically asserts no positive or negative effects in small amounts,

Drinking Alcohol Brings No Health Benefits, Study Finds | San Diego Hospital, Healthcare

myhealth.ucsd.edu

At best, a drink or two each day has no effect good or ill on a person’s health, while three or more drinks daily significantly increase the risk of an early death, researchers report.

So if you have 1 or less drink per day. The effects of alcohol consumption is basically like generic chewing gum. Neutral.

 

[Eyeseeing]

The data behind the (now-dated hypothesis) that red wine is not harmful is not widely smiled upon (currently) - the beneficial antioxidant in red wine is resveratrol and one would need to consume around 50 - 100 litres of red wine per day to obtain a beneficial dose of resveratrol. OTOH there are correlations to health benefits the so-called "Mediterranean diet" which are undeniable. That notwithstanding much of the data points to the detrimental effects of alcohol on various organs, and that is the current mainstream thinking.

I certainly tried to

 

[buggs]

The data behind the (now-dated hypothesis) that red wine is not harmful is not widely smiled upon (currently) - the beneficial antioxidant in red wine is resveratrol and one would need to consume around 50 - 100 litres of red wine per day to obtain a beneficial dose of resveratrol. OTOH there are correlations to health benefits the so-called "Mediterranean diet" which are undeniable. That notwithstanding much of the data points to the detrimental effects of alcohol on various organs, and that is the current mainstream thinking.

Thanks.

As @Jetsfan79 indicates I was more in line with what he posted. I'm certainly not contending alcohol is harmless; 5 years of visits to CCMB left me with no illusions that way. Nonetheless, your post clarifies the current lines of thought so consider me better informed.

I think it reasonable to state that moderate consumption is not unreasonable. There will be exceptions of course, but for most that is the case. So too with gambling, as @AlphaLackey has contended. It's those that fall outside the realm of moderate consumption that always run into trouble. The question is whether we do something to regulate their exposure to the "factor" or not?

We've addressed those that fall into the "addictive" or "unable to self regulate" portion of the alcohol consumption aspect by limiting (though certainly not eliminating) rampant alcohol advertising on television, and to be honest I don't remember it at the volume we're seeing with gambling ads though it was certainly prevalent. We have not reached that with respect to gambling advertising during hockey games. I certainly don't remember any time in my watching life where an announcer on Hockey Night in Canada said: "hey folks, remember to crack another Molsons before the start of the second period". But we now have national figures talking about opportunities and odds and "not too late to get another bet in before the start of the third period".

Not that I want to spend too much time on the subject but I think the efforts put into anti-smoking campaigns are very illustrative. I'm old enough to remember cigarette advertising in everything - TV, print ads, etc. Machines in every restaurant. When I worked in the restaurant industry initially there were no non-smoking tables. Then when introduced we had 6 non-smoking tables out of 57. LOL. The tax increases, the hideous pictures, the hiding them behind curtains, full non-smoking restaurant (public place) rules - people used to smoke in their offices as recently as 2000. The net result of all of that is that the percentage of Canadians that smoke dropped from around 25% to around 22%. On top of that with the legalization of marijuana and introduction of vaping and I bet we have a higher proportion of Canadians that consume one form or other of tobacco than we did in the 1960s when my mother's doctor recommended she take up smoking to help moderate her weight. When I've been in Europe their views on smoking are very different, at least outside the medical community. So too of Japan. For the record, I've never smoked. The weirdest thing I've ever seen though is CCMB staff smoking out back of the building. Addictions are powerful.

We're not going to fix addiction of any of alcohol, tobacco or gambling without outright banning all those substances and we've already tried prohibition which was an utter failure. The government makes far too much money from all of them.

I think virtually all of us are just asking for the ads to be regulated in some way, much as they are for alcohol.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Thanks.

...

But we now have national figures talking about opportunities and odds and "not too late to get another bet in before the start of the third period".

...

I think virtually all of us are just asking for the ads to be regulated in some way, much as they are for alcohol.

I for one would not want to see in-game discussion of odds and probabilities go away, because it actually contributes to the analysis of the game. Commentators should definitely not be exhorting players to gamble mid-game, because their job is to comment on the game, not be pitchmen. But at least to my mind, commentators pointing out that team X is now a -120 favorite is worth more than all the narrative-based sportscaster cliches combined. We should not be so scared of gambling that we're scared of having people provide intelligent data about the most basic question, "who do you think is going to win". If they want to sanitize it by turning the line into implied probabilities, fine I can do the math the other way.

Hearing of people in the CCMB still smoking reminds me of an incredibly common gambler behaviour I saw when dealing -- players would assert up and down that you cheated and you were crooked and conspiracy this and conspiracy that.. and then pull out another $500. "Yeah, I know it's crooked, but it's the only game in town", as the old joke goes.

Speaking of jokes: have you heard The Gambler's Prayer?

"Lord, please let me break even today; I really need the money."