The Pankian Metaphor 3062

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:11:11 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler

This is a subject that govs dislike, most gamblers (I wouldl exclude the knowledgable ones that understand the system, and work it) will lose more over the years than they win, while ones losses over one year may be small ( one is usually limited to `expenses' for one year).. the amount spent by a luser gambler over a lifetime can be astounding. To understand a luser gambler, one must understand that the thrill (rush?) is in the knowledge that one will lose frequently.. There is a wealth of literature about the maths of gambling, including one of my favourite books `Education of a poker player'.. I abhor the stupidity of most gambling, but the lotteries could be justified if they stopped the flow of funds to the likes of the Mafia.. As has been pointed out in other messages, the Mafia are actually less greedy than the givernment.

It has been pointed out here that the spending of lottery funds tends to shift after every election (in which control changes) to areas that voted for the winners.

Any big problems? (knowing that you have identified the casino fairly narrowly, (are there that many Indian owned casinos in Conn?)), I would understand that mbuttive f***ups would not be mentioned.

-- greymaus Just Another Grumpy Old Man