Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Gambling with Intent - Part 1 of 2


Gambling with Intent                     


My sociological intrusion into the world of casino gambling was, of itself, a calculated risk.  The bet I was making was that I was stronger than gambling itself and could pass into that arena on an exploratory basis to study the way I felt as I gambled, as well as to observe the people around me and draw some understanding from that experience.  I wanted to see and draw some of my own conclusions.  It is only in retrospect that I can identify how much gambling is embedded in the cultural framework of my upbringing.

I grew up surrounded by the casual interference of low-risk gambling within the weave of life events.  For sake of interest and comparison I mention that my religion even has a reference to gambling which was never addressed as a negative, only as a matter of fact statement:  While Jesus hung dying on the cross, the New Testament gospel writer says that the soldiers “cast lots for his garment” since they didn’t want to tear it.  It really has less to do with gambling than it has to do with the concept of not wrecking a nice tunic. 

My friend’s religion, another expression of Christianity, sees that story as an example of the evils of gambling.  I kind of shrug my shoulders and walk away with the sense of: it was about two guys trying to decide in an unbiased way of who gets the “goods.”

During my high school years, I remember many churches in my denomination used to utilize the game of BINGO! for purposes of paying salaries for their school teachers.  A decade later, I found it ironic that in one city parish, BINGO! was on one night and Gamblers Anonymous met another night.  Same facility; different agenda.  When I took a pastor to task on this – I know, just imagine me doing that – his response was that Life Insurance is, essentially, gambling:  You are betting them you WILL die an untimely death; the Insurance Company is betting that you WON’T.   This is one of those cases were you raise one eyebrow and end up responding, “Yes.  But that doesn’t make it right. 


A decade later, a new family tradition began in my world:  lottery tickets at major holidays.  One member of my family routinely wished everyone a happy holiday (whichever it was) and added, “And this year, may someone in the family hit MegaBucks!”  Another relative would say, “You’d have a better chance of getting hit by lightning.”  And in the end I’d find my own mouth forming the words:  “Well, somebody’s got to win.  My shred of cosmic optimism is one of the most dangerous mindsets in the arena of gambling because it is what keeps you at the slot machine for another ten dollars’ worth of loss, but I digress.  To the point: the spin off to all of us otherwise hard-working, sane-minded people (in varying degrees I suppose) was that we would get about 30 lottery tickets and evenly distribute the same to people around the table who would soon begin scratching like a country dog in the summer heat.  The loser tickets were handed over to the children for double-checking.  I remarked to my sister-in-law that perhaps Child Protective Services would take a different view of the way the Polish families teach their kids math.

During my young adult years I kept company with a dear friend that enjoyed the horse races.  So, like an annual ritual, once or twice a year – during the summer – a few of us would drive out to the nearby track to have dinner and enjoy the racing phenomenon.  Because at least two of us were, well, as poor as church mice, we looked at our wagers as entertainment in lieu of seeing a movie or some other venue.  The ongoing argument we had was how, by what philosophy of gambling, would the bets be selected.  I will call my friend John Patrick.  John Patrick believed that you bet on one horse per race, to win.  Our friend Michaelango would bet on a horse usually based on the tips provided by the guy who wrote the newspaper column identifying the favorites.  His wife would bet on a horse because she liked its name.  

And then there was me, the geek.  I used the tips from the newspaper column, did not bet on every race, but I bet on not one, but TWO horses … to come in Second Place.  This drove John Patrick crazy.  He said I was “betting the horses against each other.”  Yes.  And, no.  I was betting that even though these horses were top picks to win, they may have a fault and at least one of them should come in second place.  With each bet costing $2, it seemed reasonable that if one of the two won, I’d at least re-coup my $4 spent.  All of these theories being topped by my friend’s mother’s propensity to bet only on the last race:  She would look at the jockeys of the horses who won each race, identify the jockey who had not won at all that night and for the tenth race bet on him.  In fact, she was betting with the idea that the whole thing was rigged.  I miss those days.  That kind of gambling, for us, was very communal, engaging, and quite funny.



No comments:

Post a Comment