I was thinking about sloth as I typed it. But most of the references I sae when I looked it up real quick were to greed. Though I do see a strong case for sloth. However I still view that as locked into hierarchical thinking. There are LOTS of professions that people claim are parasitic and have no utility. Hell conservatives make fun of kids who pursue education for these things all the time. "What are you going to do with that stupid philosophy degree?" However there is a glaring hole in ournsicial discourse where the philosophers were.
I view gambling as performance Art when people are good at it. Especially in non-rigged games. I used to be pretty friendly with Patrick Antonius (he shopped at my store and liked to chat me up), that dude has ab UNCANNY ability to read people and remain absolutely stone-faced:
Its mind-boggling.
I show stuff like that to my fighters to demonstrate focus, calculation, and mental fortitude under pressure.
I agree modern big gambling mostly enforces economic heirarchy. But remember one of the biggest points of contention that Vegas Casinos messed up. They rigged the games harder and thought no one would notice. Now no one wants to play. There HAS to be some modicum of payout. The hope has to be there. But philosophically I wasnt talking about modern gambling, but just the notion of it. Theoretically bookees make a percentage of what people bet, not the lion's share of it. That's supposed to go to the winner(s). But I hear ya in terms of what it's become.
Yeah, the texas hold 'em boom is one of the better example of gambling as compared to the other end of the spectrum... such as going to a William Tell and watching zombies hit the buttons on the slots or off track betting -- it is pretty gut wrenching and soul destroying. Often destitute addicts losing money they can hardly afford to lose. And it's definitely a far cry from students engaging in philosophical debates.
I really have no idea what the games of chance back in biblical era would have been, likely basic shit like coin flipping and shell games. Probably more so games of pure chance or elements of fraud than things having a hybrid of skill and luck like hold 'em poker.
Anyhow, post-modernism and expanding the economy has shifted focus not on what someone produces as their identity and character, but instead what someone consumes. So greed and sloth are increasingly viewed as acceptable, and in an economic sense in service oriented economies, does make sense - but I'm pretty convinced comes at a society cost when ethics largely be damned. But if the cure to the disease is buying meds from big pharmaceutical companies then the social engineering won't change. I'm not really sure people care about making money in a sleazy way very much any more.
With respect to the bookies cut, it all depends on the game and number of iterations. Taking for example roulette or slots, sure after one or two iterations there's going to be a wide range of outcomes of some people getting big return on investment and multipying their money, and some getting some positive return, some folks negative, and some folks zero. But you run the iterations up to some point where law of averages kick in sufficiently, and there is as surely as the sun rises, the outcome is entirely predictable that the house obtains all the players money of all the players.
But to your point, there has to be something.... that carrot dangling whether it's a huge jackpot, and a payout ratio. There's a science of dopamine hits the uncertain outcome of an individual iteration that leads to maintaining the most interaction with the gambler to maximize the taking from the wallet. And it's part of the beauty of the industry --- that person that gets lucky and might walk out of there with some money after a few iterations serves as free advertising for the casino. They love it when people tell their friends about how they went to vegas and won some money on x, y or z. It's no different than a worker at the carnival shouting out about how someone earlier in the day won the biggest prize. They know in the long run with near infinite confidence that the house always wins, and it wins the most by psychologically letting folks think because they win some battles they can win the war.
