So here's the scene: I am at a bar Saturday night in DC, talking to a pretty girl, which means full-on use of negs, DHV's and other tidbits I've learned from The Pick-up Artist. From the corner of my eye, I can see on the bar TV that BC is beating down FSU and realize I need to check the Oklahoma State score. I pull out my phone, check the score, and look up just in time to see said chick rolling her eyes at my frustration that they aren't covering. Now I realize its a little lame to be at a bar, talking to a girl, and wondering if Oklahoma State is going to beat Colorado by 16.5, but I get that "oh-you're-betting-on-sports" eye roll all the time, and I'm starting to get a little sick of it.
There is a huge double standard in this country between wagering on sports and wagering on the economy, or as you may have heard the newspeople call it, playing the stock market. But in the end stocks and Wall Street, are all just fancy-speak for gambling. Now I'm not a business school graduate but I understand the basics of the biz. The cornerstone idea being that when you buy stock in a company, you are gambling that your share or stake in them will do well. You are risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others.
Now please tell me what is so different between that and gambling on a team to win a game? In the former situation, you are risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others (taken from above) and in the betting on sports you are also risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others. So why is gambling so looked down upon, especially these days when the stock market has pregnant woman's mood kind of volatility?
There is a huge double standard in this country between wagering on sports and wagering on the economy, or as you may have heard the newspeople call it, playing the stock market. But in the end stocks and Wall Street, are all just fancy-speak for gambling. Now I'm not a business school graduate but I understand the basics of the biz. The cornerstone idea being that when you buy stock in a company, you are gambling that your share or stake in them will do well. You are risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others.
Now please tell me what is so different between that and gambling on a team to win a game? In the former situation, you are risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others (taken from above) and in the betting on sports you are also risking your money that a specific entity will perform better than others. So why is gambling so looked down upon, especially these days when the stock market has pregnant woman's mood kind of volatility?
Like gambling on companies, gambling on teams requires research (at least if you like money). Besides luck, success is dependent on knowledge of the subject and understanding management concepts. There are however, many more outlets for helping one select stocks efficiently, than a pro or college team. CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox Business are all channels devoted to reporting earnings and offer stock suggestions while ESPN and others deliver results on what has happened but lacks offering insight for prognosticating future results.
There are too many parallels between the two wagering opportunities for there to be the kind of looking-down-one's-nose that exists with sports gambling (and its not just that girl, its also my co-workers' comments when they see me wagering online, and my dad's reaction when I root for the Colts to score one more TD to cover against the Texans, and the general demeanor of iPhone carriers when I ask them to check the score of the Notre Dame/Navy game).
How come bookies are seedy while stock brokers are professional. Gambler's anonymous exists but I cant find anything about stock market dependencies.
Both have their share of cheaters too. The Chicago Black Sox are the historic example of the current day Enrons, Martha Stewarts, and Mark Cubans. Entire sections of newspapers are devoted to the results of both sports and businesses but apparently putting your money on one is much more civilized than putting it on the other. Diversifying one's assets is fodder suitable for a wine-tasting and talking about a three-team parlay is banter served with a PBR.
One problem is that sports gambling doesn't have the fancy euphemisms that investing does. First example is the word investing... it sounds nice and reputable, unlike gambling. Sports gambling needs a term like "portfolio" for explaining the cache of teams one has wagers on. Sports gambling also needs words like "firms" or "commodity" instead of terms like
"propositions" and "lines" (those are drug dealer terms!).
I also think an answer lies in the government's involvement in each. Gambling on sports is illegal in the US, outside of Las Vegas, while you will find no across the board restrictions on investing. The problem is that the government reaps ridonculous yields from the country's investments (sans that whole bailout thing nowadays). The government is fueled by a good economy and heavy demand for stocks because it means that its companies are performing well. The value of companies and the value of the work they do, drives up the dollar value and our government's worth. Then, if you should "win" money from your investments, don't think you get the entire sum without seeing part of it chopped off for taxes. Feelings of Captain Hadley in Shawshank Redemption (any excuse to quote Shawshank) when he said "Uncle Sam. Reaching into your shirt and squeezing your tit til it's purple." I'm not saying that the government should get in bed with gambling and then tax winnings but if it led to legalizing sports gambling, it might be worth a try. It's not like its any less noble of a business than the lottery.
I just want to get sports gambling on a more even playing field. I feel like I have to hide my joy at big payday weekends or consider lying to others about why I am excited to hear that Syracuse lost again. There is not the same outlet to celebrate a five-team parlay as there is when someone discovers a blue-chip commodity and there is definitely not the same sympathy for losing a big bet as there is for those who struck out on Wall Street (do you see any sympathy here?). I want to shout "I love sports gambling" from the top of a mountain. Maybe President-elect Obama can take this on after he fixes the BCS.
There are too many parallels between the two wagering opportunities for there to be the kind of looking-down-one's-nose that exists with sports gambling (and its not just that girl, its also my co-workers' comments when they see me wagering online, and my dad's reaction when I root for the Colts to score one more TD to cover against the Texans, and the general demeanor of iPhone carriers when I ask them to check the score of the Notre Dame/Navy game).
How come bookies are seedy while stock brokers are professional. Gambler's anonymous exists but I cant find anything about stock market dependencies.Both have their share of cheaters too. The Chicago Black Sox are the historic example of the current day Enrons, Martha Stewarts, and Mark Cubans. Entire sections of newspapers are devoted to the results of both sports and businesses but apparently putting your money on one is much more civilized than putting it on the other. Diversifying one's assets is fodder suitable for a wine-tasting and talking about a three-team parlay is banter served with a PBR.
One problem is that sports gambling doesn't have the fancy euphemisms that investing does. First example is the word investing... it sounds nice and reputable, unlike gambling. Sports gambling needs a term like "portfolio" for explaining the cache of teams one has wagers on. Sports gambling also needs words like "firms" or "commodity" instead of terms like
"propositions" and "lines" (those are drug dealer terms!).I also think an answer lies in the government's involvement in each. Gambling on sports is illegal in the US, outside of Las Vegas, while you will find no across the board restrictions on investing. The problem is that the government reaps ridonculous yields from the country's investments (sans that whole bailout thing nowadays). The government is fueled by a good economy and heavy demand for stocks because it means that its companies are performing well. The value of companies and the value of the work they do, drives up the dollar value and our government's worth. Then, if you should "win" money from your investments, don't think you get the entire sum without seeing part of it chopped off for taxes. Feelings of Captain Hadley in Shawshank Redemption (any excuse to quote Shawshank) when he said "Uncle Sam. Reaching into your shirt and squeezing your tit til it's purple." I'm not saying that the government should get in bed with gambling and then tax winnings but if it led to legalizing sports gambling, it might be worth a try. It's not like its any less noble of a business than the lottery.
I just want to get sports gambling on a more even playing field. I feel like I have to hide my joy at big payday weekends or consider lying to others about why I am excited to hear that Syracuse lost again. There is not the same outlet to celebrate a five-team parlay as there is when someone discovers a blue-chip commodity and there is definitely not the same sympathy for losing a big bet as there is for those who struck out on Wall Street (do you see any sympathy here?). I want to shout "I love sports gambling" from the top of a mountain. Maybe President-elect Obama can take this on after he fixes the BCS.
No comments:
Post a Comment