Irish Sports
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
26 Jan 13
11:56
Joined:
Date Joined:
05 Jan 10
Online betting fuelling rise in gambling addicts
Saturday, January 26, 2013
The number of gambling addicts is on the rise due to the explosion of online betting in Ireland.
By Lynne Kelleher http://www.irishexaminer.com
Clinical director of the Rutland Rehabilitation Centre, Fiona Weldon, said having betting literally at your fingertips has sparked a rise in the number of gambling addicts.
“We’re seeing at the Rutland Centre an increase in people gambling online,” said Ms Weldon. “You can do it on the phone and on the internet. It’s very accessible to everybody.
“We are seeing a lot of younger males, particularly between the ages of 20 and 35, who are presenting for the first time for a gambling addiction.
“I am very struck by the level of debt these people are in. Very often, they are starting earlier in their life and it doesn’t seem to become a problem until later.
“You are walking around with a bookies in your pocket, and for somebody who is entering into treatment and working on recovery, it is something that very clearly needs to be addressed for them.”
The Gambling Gene, an RTÉ documentary that examines the peculiarly Irish obsession with betting, reveals that the market here is worth a staggering €2bn.
Ms Weldon said new research suggests that addicts demonstrate impaired judgement in the betting arena. “What’s noticed in gamblers is the frontal part of the brain, which is the part of the brain involved in judgement, isn’t so active when there is something pleasurable going on like sex or food or gambling,” she said.
“The pleasure centre of the brain, the dopamine system, is very active at that point, and it makes it less likely that the person’s judgement in the frontal part of the brain is going to kick in.”
Meanwhile, the original rogue trader, Nick Leeson, believes Irish people have a more relaxed approach to risk-taking, and tells how he has been clapped on the back by strangers in Galway for his infamous dealings.
He also says in the documentary, which is presented by Joe O’Shea, that he believes the previous government gambled the country into recession just like his actions broke Barings Bank.
The former star trader said he does not believe the more strait-laced German regulators would ever have allowed Irish banks to run amok during the boom.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
The number of gambling addicts is on the rise due to the explosion of online betting in Ireland.
By Lynne Kelleher http://www.irishexaminer.com
Clinical director of the Rutland Rehabilitation Centre, Fiona Weldon, said having betting literally at your fingertips has sparked a rise in the number of gambling addicts.
“We’re seeing at the Rutland Centre an increase in people gambling online,” said Ms Weldon. “You can do it on the phone and on the internet. It’s very accessible to everybody.
“We are seeing a lot of younger males, particularly between the ages of 20 and 35, who are presenting for the first time for a gambling addiction.
“I am very struck by the level of debt these people are in. Very often, they are starting earlier in their life and it doesn’t seem to become a problem until later.
“You are walking around with a bookies in your pocket, and for somebody who is entering into treatment and working on recovery, it is something that very clearly needs to be addressed for them.”
The Gambling Gene, an RTÉ documentary that examines the peculiarly Irish obsession with betting, reveals that the market here is worth a staggering €2bn.
Ms Weldon said new research suggests that addicts demonstrate impaired judgement in the betting arena. “What’s noticed in gamblers is the frontal part of the brain, which is the part of the brain involved in judgement, isn’t so active when there is something pleasurable going on like sex or food or gambling,” she said.
“The pleasure centre of the brain, the dopamine system, is very active at that point, and it makes it less likely that the person’s judgement in the frontal part of the brain is going to kick in.”
Meanwhile, the original rogue trader, Nick Leeson, believes Irish people have a more relaxed approach to risk-taking, and tells how he has been clapped on the back by strangers in Galway for his infamous dealings.
He also says in the documentary, which is presented by Joe O’Shea, that he believes the previous government gambled the country into recession just like his actions broke Barings Bank.
The former star trader said he does not believe the more strait-laced German regulators would ever have allowed Irish banks to run amok during the boom.
Show More
What’s noticed in gamblers is the frontal part of the brain, which is the part of the brain involved in judgement, isn’t so active when there is something pleasurable going on like sex or food or gambling
jaysus, that explains a lot
jaysus, that explains a lot
hes going into the paddy power nerve centre...isnt that ironic?i wonder will the post man be mentioned?
1.01 a sob story will feature one of thickster, Wonky or Wildmanfromborneo
It's not a snipe Kavvie it's more an educated guess.
surely rte's resident rugger resenter would have been more appropriate for this venture!
amazingly the wexford post man wasnt mentioned yet...im sure itl be on the next part?!!?
I have found that a very interesting program tbh.
However why would anyone want to talk to that scumbag Nick Leeson, man should be in jail now parading around Irish Tv circuit like some sort of Warren Buffett type.
How much would a math/statician make in Powers, they easily get 250k Sterling in the City.
However why would anyone want to talk to that scumbag Nick Leeson, man should be in jail now parading around Irish Tv circuit like some sort of Warren Buffett type.
How much would a math/statician make in Powers, they easily get 250k Sterling in the City.
all them people working there are actuarys...creme de la creme of brains..
free bet from Paddies, about 30 mins before the prog started
Marketing city, Arizona.
Marketing city, Arizona.
notice how he didnt interview professional horseracing gamblers. They would have told him Powers won't take a decent bet online if they reckon you have a chance of winning...
Sure the could have been worse the may have showed spoil sports
Powers must be paying these guys well over 250k...I can't see how men with near PHD qualifications would take any less. They mop it up in the city after a few years hard grind.
Program pretty much nailed the Irish I thought, disappointing there wasn't more on the love of the horse tho!
Program pretty much nailed the Irish I thought, disappointing there wasn't more on the love of the horse tho!
Boyles are worst than Powers. I agree. They are the lowest of the low.
The Wexford postman could have told a story about gambling addiction.. Might have been bad PR for PPower though..
Fair play to Paddie Power. He wants online customers to put in 100 euro into their account but does'nt want them to lose the lot because he reckons they wont be back. He wants them to have 90 left in their account and the entertainment will only cost them a tenner. Ah bless.
did he give the post man 90% back?..as ray burke said he did like fcuk!!
Next time drop a ton i must mail them for my 90 back :)
I will just tell them Paddy says so
I will just tell them Paddy says so
To be fair to Nick Leeson, he got six years in a Singapore jail for his crimes.
How much time behind bars have cr00ked Irish bankers ever served?
How much time behind bars have cr00ked Irish bankers ever served?
A programme on gambling addiction turns into a massive piece of PR for a betting firm
No input from Betfair traders who assess risk and allocate capital on global sporting markets as a recession busting part time hobby.
Ihave to agree with you bleek..RTE sent the wrong man to ask the right questions.
The programme probably never set out to be an expose of any bookmakers as they will gladly relieve you of 10% of your bank if you are so inclined. As a result it was a missed opportunity and an informed producer would have gone for the jugular. In fairness, who can justify the obscene levels of gambling foisted on the nation today, from the Lottery to Paddy Power?
Powers are past masters at gimmicks and free publicity and they saw O'Shea coming before the home straight. The most belittling part of the show and what I found disgusting was the young woman wheeled out to demean herself when a model's crotch and boobs proved that visual "hits" set out to prove some point or other. Typical tabloid stuff from Powers, the Sky news of bookmaking. Did you hear Paddy chortling in the backgound from his penthouse office? ho, ho, ho!
Powers are past masters at gimmicks and free publicity and they saw O'Shea coming before the home straight. The most belittling part of the show and what I found disgusting was the young woman wheeled out to demean herself when a model's crotch and boobs proved that visual "hits" set out to prove some point or other. Typical tabloid stuff from Powers, the Sky news of bookmaking. Did you hear Paddy chortling in the backgound from his penthouse office? ho, ho, ho!
Banned Paddy Power Advert -- Chav Tranquilizer. you tube .. Very funny paid by our 10% we give to p,p.
Enjoyed it even if it was a little light hearted.
They got a nice day in Clonmel (Morris Oil Chase day. I was looking for myself in the ring!!
The Hunting programme over on RTE 1 was good. I watched that on RTE 1 +1
They got a nice day in Clonmel (Morris Oil Chase day. I was looking for myself in the ring!!
The Hunting programme over on RTE 1 was good. I watched that on RTE 1 +1
Last week I had an interesting exchange of views with the Paddy Power organisation. As the holder of an online betting account (which shows a modest profit at the time of writing) you could say that I've had a long-running conversation with Paddy, in our endless pursuit of fun.
But then there's more to life than fun. And last week's exchange had a more sober aspect than usual, for reasons which will become clear. It consisted of emails sent by me to their media guy, Feilim Mac An Iomaire, and his response on behalf of Paddy Power. My opening email went something like this:
You may be aware that recently in the Sunday Independent I wrote about the case of Tony O'Reilly, the An Post manager in Gorey currently serving four years (one year suspended) in the Midlands prison for stealing approximately €1.75m from his employer in order to fund his gambling with your organisation. I suggested that perhaps Paddy Power might feel some moral obligation to return that stolen money. I am not aware of any further action on the issue so I am putting a number of questions:
1. Since it has been established that the money lost by Tony O'Reilly was stolen from his employer An Post, leaving aside the legalities about money laundering etc, does Paddy Power feel a moral responsibility to return this money?
2. It has also been established that Tony O'Reilly was a guest of Paddy Power at sporting events, including the Europa League final. While Mr O'Reilly now accepts full responsibility for his actions and for his own addiction, again does Paddy Power feel a moral responsibility for encouraging that addiction?
3. As part of the company's responsible gambling policy, agents are supposedly trained to recognise signs of addiction – yet this man with an "ordinary" job had an account with a vast turnover stretching into millions. At what point did Paddy Power agents recognise that Mr O'Reilly might have a problem? And is Paddy Power continuing to entertain clients in this way?
4. I am informed by a reader that he made a profit on his Paddy Power online account of between €5,000 and €8,000 two years running. And that as a result he had a limit put on his potential winnings. Thus when he tried to have €50 on a horse at 6/1, he was only allowed to have 13.40 on it. Can Paddy Power confirm that it applies such limits in certain cases?
5. Though such limits seem to apply to punters who win, the case of Mr O'Reilly suggests that there are no such limits for punters who lose. How does this square with Paddy Power's responsible gambling policy?"
The reply from the Power Tower came at noon the next day, and it went like this:
"Paddy Power's policy is not to comment on any individual cases or on any investigation with which we have been involved."
Ah lads, I thought to myself. If you don't comment on "individual" cases, what sort of cases do you comment on? So I put two more questions, of a general nature:
1. What is Paddy Power's policy in relation to punters' money which is later shown to be the proceeds of crime?
2. Does Paddy Power impose limits on potential winnings or losses?
About 48 hours later, they got back to me:
1. Paddy Power takes its responsibilities regarding potential and actual criminal activity very seriously. We liaise closely and comprehensively with the authorities on all such issues and from time to time assist in investigations. It is a long standing policy not to comment on specifics or in general on any issues whatsoever relating to criminal activity.
2. We apply appropriate risk controls across our channels. Our risk management systems are proprietary, commercially sensitive and we are therefore not in a position to discuss them.
Ah lads. . . Ah lads. . . given all the fun we've had together over the years, I guess I was hoping for something a bit more like this from the Tower of Power:
"Thanks Buddy, for that bit of tough love. Of course you're right and what the hell were we thinking of, not giving back all that money? How could we not have seen this perfect opportunity both to do good and to look good?
"We gave the punters a refund when Thierry Henry did us down, proving that we regard justice as a higher thing than mere rules and technicalities. Cheers mate, for opening our eyes on this one."
Instead they give me the corporate line. But I'm not giving up on Paddy Power. One more time, I say: give back that 1.75 million, Paddy. And maybe throw in another 1.75 million. For luck.
- Declan Lynch
But then there's more to life than fun. And last week's exchange had a more sober aspect than usual, for reasons which will become clear. It consisted of emails sent by me to their media guy, Feilim Mac An Iomaire, and his response on behalf of Paddy Power. My opening email went something like this:
You may be aware that recently in the Sunday Independent I wrote about the case of Tony O'Reilly, the An Post manager in Gorey currently serving four years (one year suspended) in the Midlands prison for stealing approximately €1.75m from his employer in order to fund his gambling with your organisation. I suggested that perhaps Paddy Power might feel some moral obligation to return that stolen money. I am not aware of any further action on the issue so I am putting a number of questions:
1. Since it has been established that the money lost by Tony O'Reilly was stolen from his employer An Post, leaving aside the legalities about money laundering etc, does Paddy Power feel a moral responsibility to return this money?
2. It has also been established that Tony O'Reilly was a guest of Paddy Power at sporting events, including the Europa League final. While Mr O'Reilly now accepts full responsibility for his actions and for his own addiction, again does Paddy Power feel a moral responsibility for encouraging that addiction?
3. As part of the company's responsible gambling policy, agents are supposedly trained to recognise signs of addiction – yet this man with an "ordinary" job had an account with a vast turnover stretching into millions. At what point did Paddy Power agents recognise that Mr O'Reilly might have a problem? And is Paddy Power continuing to entertain clients in this way?
4. I am informed by a reader that he made a profit on his Paddy Power online account of between €5,000 and €8,000 two years running. And that as a result he had a limit put on his potential winnings. Thus when he tried to have €50 on a horse at 6/1, he was only allowed to have 13.40 on it. Can Paddy Power confirm that it applies such limits in certain cases?
5. Though such limits seem to apply to punters who win, the case of Mr O'Reilly suggests that there are no such limits for punters who lose. How does this square with Paddy Power's responsible gambling policy?"
The reply from the Power Tower came at noon the next day, and it went like this:
"Paddy Power's policy is not to comment on any individual cases or on any investigation with which we have been involved."
Ah lads, I thought to myself. If you don't comment on "individual" cases, what sort of cases do you comment on? So I put two more questions, of a general nature:
1. What is Paddy Power's policy in relation to punters' money which is later shown to be the proceeds of crime?
2. Does Paddy Power impose limits on potential winnings or losses?
About 48 hours later, they got back to me:
1. Paddy Power takes its responsibilities regarding potential and actual criminal activity very seriously. We liaise closely and comprehensively with the authorities on all such issues and from time to time assist in investigations. It is a long standing policy not to comment on specifics or in general on any issues whatsoever relating to criminal activity.
2. We apply appropriate risk controls across our channels. Our risk management systems are proprietary, commercially sensitive and we are therefore not in a position to discuss them.
Ah lads. . . Ah lads. . . given all the fun we've had together over the years, I guess I was hoping for something a bit more like this from the Tower of Power:
"Thanks Buddy, for that bit of tough love. Of course you're right and what the hell were we thinking of, not giving back all that money? How could we not have seen this perfect opportunity both to do good and to look good?
"We gave the punters a refund when Thierry Henry did us down, proving that we regard justice as a higher thing than mere rules and technicalities. Cheers mate, for opening our eyes on this one."
Instead they give me the corporate line. But I'm not giving up on Paddy Power. One more time, I say: give back that 1.75 million, Paddy. And maybe throw in another 1.75 million. For luck.
- Declan Lynch
As with our bankers, online betting sites hold all the aces
By Carol Hunt
Sunday Independent February 03 2013
LAST week, purely for research purposes, I bought a lottery ticket. Yes, I know the ad asks why would I do x, y and z ridiculous things to become a millionaire when all I have to do is play Lotto. But, as I always yell at the TV in answer, that's because I know that my chance of winning those millions is as likely as me becoming the next pope. Being an incurable pessimist – or realist, as I prefer to call it – I don't gamble.
Although, of course, that's not strictly true. Being Irish I've more than once had a flutter on the gee-gees – which, unlike the Lotto, at least provides an entertaining run for your money.
And I still remember the rush of adrenalin I would get as a kid when the one-armed bandit in Funderland would eventually cough out a 20th of what I'd put in. If my stack of hard-saved 10-pence pieces hadn't eventually run out, I'd probably still be there.
Then there's the fun poker games with friends – I'd never call them "gambling" but I'd refuse to play if hard cash wasn't involved. What would be the point?
Okay, I admit it, not too deep inside me is probably a gambler of Nick Leeson proportions just waiting for the right opportunity to make a killing.
So it was with interest I watched Joe O'Shea's programme last week, Reality Bites: The Gambling Gene, on RTE One. Is gambling a peculiarly Irish obsession? It would seem so, as the programme revealed that the Irish gambling market is worth about €2bn.
Meanwhile, last week the UK Independent revealed that "a huge increase in gambling addicts will make Britain's obsession with gambling a ÂŁ2bn business".
If these figures are accurate, even accounting for the sterling/euro difference, it's obvious that the Irish appetite for gambling far exceeds that of the British. And as the programme made clear, the internet and smartphones have completely changed the way we gamble. It's like having your local bookie literally taking up residence in your pocket, as firms like Paddy Power do everything to ensure that you're never more than two seconds away from making a bet.
So, whereas in the past someone like me would have had to push my way, kids trailing behind, through smoke and aul fellas and greasy ne'er-do-wells into the bookies to make a bet on the 4.30 at Fairyhouse/Eurovision/sex of Kate's baby, now all I need is a laptop or a smartphone and who's to know what I'm at while I'm stuck at home making the dinner?
No wonder there's been a huge upsurge in online bingo as bored housewives entertain themselves, credit card in hand. And betting companies are now deliberately targeting women who wouldn't have dreamed of putting a delicate nose into a scruffy betting shop. But sure it's all just a bit of fun, isn't it? And as the nice man from Paddy Power says, they see themselves more of an "entertainment" than a gambling company. Well yes, except, as my mother would say, don't go to them when all that laughing inevitably turns to crying.
Declan Lynch of this parish (who has written extensively on our fascination with gambling) made the point on the programme: "All we're hearing is the upside. That it's fun and family entertainment. [But] the casualties are piling up every day . . . it's not something that you have to point out. It will become so obvious that people will wonder why it wasn't pointed out before.
"Gambling is unique in that theoretically you can dig yourself out of a hole using the same shovel you dug yourself in with."
"Theoretically" is the salient word there. As in "theoretically" I could win the Lotto every week if I just bought the winning ticket. Or "theoretically" Jedward could win the Eurovision. It just ain't gonna happen.
I've had a quick look through the main betting sites on my laptop and all of them offer "free money" to start you off on your gambling spree. I find this a bit odd. Down my neighbourhood it would be akin to the local dealer offering you a free bag of heroin to see if he can turn you into a steady customer. Or, in the world of legal addictions, a drinks company giving out free shots at a college piss-up.
Aren't we supposed to disapprove of such blatant manipulation? Will gambling companies set aside a sum of cash to help deal with the inevitable casualties that will result from their "pushing" of what can result in a very serious addiction, with all the misery, hardship and pain that will entail? Will they donate to charities that support people with gambling addictions? Will they whaa?
Or are we just all delighted that Enda was able to announce 800 new jobs at Paddy Power HQ recently – and f**k the begrudgers?
Currently that seems to be our attitude as Nick Leeson, gambler extraordinaire, made plain on the programme. "Sure, feck 'em if they can't take a joke," is what he was told when he entered his exile in Galway after breaking Barings, the oldest merchant bank in the world.
Both Lynch and Leeson made the point that what goes on in places like Paddy Power HQ – with their mathematical experts, their traders and their number crunchers – is similar to what went on in our banks.
"It's the same thing," said Lynch. "I'm amazed that the connection isn't made more often . . . these fellas you see sitting in front of their screens, masters of the universe, are punters [except that] they're betting large amounts of other people's money. However, they've clothed themselves in a veneer of seriousness and profundity which some poor divil scratching out a treble in their local betting office doesn't have. They're doing just what he's doing on a vastly greater scale and causing infinitely more damage."
And, I would have to add, instead of having to face the inevitable consequences of a gambling addiction: shame, loss, disgrace . . . our traders, bankers, investors etc are on a win-win trajectory. They no more have to deal with reality than the kid given the money to make a bet on the gee-gees and then compensated by a kind grandparent when he loses (a tale told to me recently). When they take a risk they do it with someone else's money and they get rewarded no matter what happens.
Now, that's the sort of "bet" I'd be up for, except of course that it's not gambling, or risk-taking, it's "stacking the deck". And in all honest gambling venues, it's illegal.
National Gambling Helpline: 1800 753 753
- Carol Hunt
By Carol Hunt
Sunday Independent February 03 2013
LAST week, purely for research purposes, I bought a lottery ticket. Yes, I know the ad asks why would I do x, y and z ridiculous things to become a millionaire when all I have to do is play Lotto. But, as I always yell at the TV in answer, that's because I know that my chance of winning those millions is as likely as me becoming the next pope. Being an incurable pessimist – or realist, as I prefer to call it – I don't gamble.
Although, of course, that's not strictly true. Being Irish I've more than once had a flutter on the gee-gees – which, unlike the Lotto, at least provides an entertaining run for your money.
And I still remember the rush of adrenalin I would get as a kid when the one-armed bandit in Funderland would eventually cough out a 20th of what I'd put in. If my stack of hard-saved 10-pence pieces hadn't eventually run out, I'd probably still be there.
Then there's the fun poker games with friends – I'd never call them "gambling" but I'd refuse to play if hard cash wasn't involved. What would be the point?
Okay, I admit it, not too deep inside me is probably a gambler of Nick Leeson proportions just waiting for the right opportunity to make a killing.
So it was with interest I watched Joe O'Shea's programme last week, Reality Bites: The Gambling Gene, on RTE One. Is gambling a peculiarly Irish obsession? It would seem so, as the programme revealed that the Irish gambling market is worth about €2bn.
Meanwhile, last week the UK Independent revealed that "a huge increase in gambling addicts will make Britain's obsession with gambling a ÂŁ2bn business".
If these figures are accurate, even accounting for the sterling/euro difference, it's obvious that the Irish appetite for gambling far exceeds that of the British. And as the programme made clear, the internet and smartphones have completely changed the way we gamble. It's like having your local bookie literally taking up residence in your pocket, as firms like Paddy Power do everything to ensure that you're never more than two seconds away from making a bet.
So, whereas in the past someone like me would have had to push my way, kids trailing behind, through smoke and aul fellas and greasy ne'er-do-wells into the bookies to make a bet on the 4.30 at Fairyhouse/Eurovision/sex of Kate's baby, now all I need is a laptop or a smartphone and who's to know what I'm at while I'm stuck at home making the dinner?
No wonder there's been a huge upsurge in online bingo as bored housewives entertain themselves, credit card in hand. And betting companies are now deliberately targeting women who wouldn't have dreamed of putting a delicate nose into a scruffy betting shop. But sure it's all just a bit of fun, isn't it? And as the nice man from Paddy Power says, they see themselves more of an "entertainment" than a gambling company. Well yes, except, as my mother would say, don't go to them when all that laughing inevitably turns to crying.
Declan Lynch of this parish (who has written extensively on our fascination with gambling) made the point on the programme: "All we're hearing is the upside. That it's fun and family entertainment. [But] the casualties are piling up every day . . . it's not something that you have to point out. It will become so obvious that people will wonder why it wasn't pointed out before.
"Gambling is unique in that theoretically you can dig yourself out of a hole using the same shovel you dug yourself in with."
"Theoretically" is the salient word there. As in "theoretically" I could win the Lotto every week if I just bought the winning ticket. Or "theoretically" Jedward could win the Eurovision. It just ain't gonna happen.
I've had a quick look through the main betting sites on my laptop and all of them offer "free money" to start you off on your gambling spree. I find this a bit odd. Down my neighbourhood it would be akin to the local dealer offering you a free bag of heroin to see if he can turn you into a steady customer. Or, in the world of legal addictions, a drinks company giving out free shots at a college piss-up.
Aren't we supposed to disapprove of such blatant manipulation? Will gambling companies set aside a sum of cash to help deal with the inevitable casualties that will result from their "pushing" of what can result in a very serious addiction, with all the misery, hardship and pain that will entail? Will they donate to charities that support people with gambling addictions? Will they whaa?
Or are we just all delighted that Enda was able to announce 800 new jobs at Paddy Power HQ recently – and f**k the begrudgers?
Currently that seems to be our attitude as Nick Leeson, gambler extraordinaire, made plain on the programme. "Sure, feck 'em if they can't take a joke," is what he was told when he entered his exile in Galway after breaking Barings, the oldest merchant bank in the world.
Both Lynch and Leeson made the point that what goes on in places like Paddy Power HQ – with their mathematical experts, their traders and their number crunchers – is similar to what went on in our banks.
"It's the same thing," said Lynch. "I'm amazed that the connection isn't made more often . . . these fellas you see sitting in front of their screens, masters of the universe, are punters [except that] they're betting large amounts of other people's money. However, they've clothed themselves in a veneer of seriousness and profundity which some poor divil scratching out a treble in their local betting office doesn't have. They're doing just what he's doing on a vastly greater scale and causing infinitely more damage."
And, I would have to add, instead of having to face the inevitable consequences of a gambling addiction: shame, loss, disgrace . . . our traders, bankers, investors etc are on a win-win trajectory. They no more have to deal with reality than the kid given the money to make a bet on the gee-gees and then compensated by a kind grandparent when he loses (a tale told to me recently). When they take a risk they do it with someone else's money and they get rewarded no matter what happens.
Now, that's the sort of "bet" I'd be up for, except of course that it's not gambling, or risk-taking, it's "stacking the deck". And in all honest gambling venues, it's illegal.
National Gambling Helpline: 1800 753 753
- Carol Hunt
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539