Posts from

Games for money, betting, and other similar activities... is it good or bad? What are your opinions and viewpoints?

Games for money, bets, and other things... good or bad? What are your opinions and viewpoints?

In the conditions of so-called capitalism, it's not worse than anything else:smile14:.

Under the conditions of so-called capitalism, it's not any worse than everything else.:smile14:

Capitalism is far from the most perfect system, and if you focus on it and adopt all the habits of so-called modern society, you distance yourself from authenticity. The issue of the problems of modern society under the conditions of capitalism is well revealed in the book "The New Spirit of Capitalism" by Luc Boltanski. I personally read these 900 pages in one go.
As for gambling, here you need to consider from what platform we are looking at this. If we fully accept the conditions of "capitalistic" existence, then any opportunity to grab easy money can only be welcomed. However, if we rely on various ethical traditions, gambling is a violation of the principle of truthfulness, which inevitably leads to negative consequences. For example, most people who win a large sum of money in the lottery - which is also a gambling game - end up very badly (with the rare exception of 1%). It often happens that after a year, they have no money left, and even their health deteriorates, relationships with relatives are ruined, and so on. This works without fail.

Capitalism is far from being the most perfect system, and if you focus on it and adopt all the habits of so-called modern society, you distance yourself from authenticity. The issue of the problems of modern society under capitalism is well explored in the book "The New Spirit of Capitalism" by Luc Boltanski. I personally read these 900 pages in one go.
As for gambling, we need to consider it from a certain perspective. If we fully accept the conditions of "capitalistic" existence, then any opportunity to get easy money can only be welcomed. However, if we rely on various ethical traditions, gambling is a violation of the principle of truthfulness, which inevitably leads to negative consequences. For example, most people who win a large sum of money in the lottery – which is also a form of gambling – end up very badly (with the rare exception of 1%). It often happens that after a year, they have no money left, and they even lose their health, their relationships with relatives deteriorate, and so on. This always happens.

This is what is called "hearing the bell, but not knowing where it is." Reading 900 pages "in one go" only confirms this. How can you put winning a large sum in the lottery, which makes people lose their minds due to the sudden windfall and unexpectedly opened opportunities, on the same level as playing something with a fixed bet?

It's definitely better to play FOR money than TO play for money. Nowadays, most players (I'm talking about computer games in general) are "addicted" to constantly having to invest real money. Starting with buying a license and ending with a paid account. And the scariest thing is that our children are among them. When you play FOR money – i.e., you bet – you understand who and why you're giving it to, and you have the same chances of winning. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that no merits, titles, or financial investments will affect the game (like a super bow that always hits the target or an invisibility cloak for $100) – and therefore, any bet has a right to exist!

If you're getting tired of the game, it's better to quit playing it altogether than to keep spending money on it and prolonging your dwindling interest.

I would add that when I started playing Heroes (back in the Chaos League), the "veterans" didn't play for fun, as they didn't want to waste time with a newbie. Therefore, I gained most of my experience by playing for money. At first (due to a lack of skill), I lost money, but then I started to win. That's why I don't think it's shameful to play Heroes for money, because essentially you're getting dividends for the time and experience you've invested in the past – in case of winning, and in case of losing, you continue to work on your mistakes.

For me, the game Heroes is a way to temporarily escape from real life. Money is one of the important parts of real life. Therefore, I am against it.

If 2 players want to play for money and they play against each other, there is nothing wrong with that. But I will never play Heroes for money online. In a club, it is quite possible that I will play.

P.S. Once, a strong player (one of the winners of the CIS tournament) persuaded me to play for 100 rubles, giving me a very large advantage. We started the game. Then he said that his wife felt ill and asked me to wait on my turn. I didn't see this message. As a result, he skipped 2 turns and started demanding to replay 2 turns. I said that we are playing for money, and I don't know anything about it. The player started talking to me about morality... :). Then, I agreed to replay 2 turns, but we didn't finish the game.

This is what they call "hearing the bell, but not knowing where it is." Reading 900 pages "in one breath" only confirms this. How can you compare winning a large sum in the lottery, which makes people go crazy with the sudden windfall and newly opened opportunities, to playing a game with a fixed bet?

The first part of the statement refers to an assessment of the mentioned social system – capitalism, which involves people in extracting profit from everything, even from personal relationships.
The lottery example broadly shows that gambling does not lead to anything good. Unless you have заранее set a goal to distribute the winnings, or you simply exchange the entry ticket in the game for experience, as Stinger showed in the example, or the game pursues charitable goals (at least 10% of the winning amount). That is, playing with the intention of winning will not bring any benefit. The angle of view is important. My point is this: in general, any game of chance is morally questionable, but under certain circumstances, it can be justified.

Article 14.1.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and Article 171.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
When two people decide to play for a small stake, it's their personal business.
But if we organize a tournament with entry fees and a totalizer on the forum, then one well-wisher complaining to the prosecutor's office is enough.
So, there's no point in this discussion.

or the game has a charitable purpose (at least 10% of the winnings go to charity).

This is like the Russian Railways lottery, where conductors try to sell tickets, saying that 10% of each ticket goes to sick children.
Well, the standard answer to this is that it would be better to donate 100% of the lottery ticket price to charity, without involving Russian Railways...

The lottery example clearly shows that gambling does not lead to anything good.

The lottery example doesn't show anything new. It only shows what is already known – that there are people who are mentally unstable.

Gambling can be a very good way to discipline and structure thinking. But there are people for whom it has the opposite effect. But with the same success, many things can be declared harmful in such a situation...

For example, most people who win a large sum of money in the lottery – which is also a form of gambling – end up in a very bad situation (with a rare 1% exception).

Please provide a link to an authoritative statistical source that includes all winnings (not just isolated newspaper cases) and the fates of the winners, statistics for a year, five years, 10 years, 20 years...

gambling violates the principle of truthfulness.

Give a definition of the principle of truthfulness. A fair game, whether it involves money or not, does not violate any principles of truthfulness.

The main gambling addict woke up)))

Money is also a kind of indicator of how serious someone is.
It's one thing to message Stinger on ICQ and suggest playing a casual game, and another to make a $50 bet.
In the first case, he might only agree if he has nothing else to do, but in the second, the priority will probably increase.
And in general, playing for money is always more serious, less risky, and more exciting.

PS
I remember when I was a kid, I used to pester my dad and uncle to play chess with me. But what's the point of playing chess with a child? You don't even have to look at their moves – just play your own game. When we played for something (not a bet, but a prize in case of victory), I didn't run around or act silly; I learned. It takes time, but raising children always requires it.
Time is money. And while time is equal for everyone, "money" means different things to different people: for some, it's a rating, for others, it's a trophy, for some, it's cash in their pocket, and for others, it's experience or education.

Money is also a kind of indicator of the seriousness of intentions.
It's one thing to message Stinger on ICQ and suggest playing a casual game, and another to make it a $50 bet...
In the first case, he might only agree if he has nothing else to do, but in the second, he'll probably prioritize it.
And in general, playing for money is always more serious, less risky, and more exciting.

PS
I remember when I was a kid, I used to pester my dad and uncle to play chess with me. But what's chess with a child like? You don't even need to look at their move – just play your own game. When we played for something (not a bet, but a prize, of course, in case of victory), I didn't run around or act silly; I learned. It's a pity about the time, but raising children always requires it.)
Time is money. And while time is equal for everyone, "money" means different things to different people: for some, it's a rating, for others, a trophy, for others, cash in their pocket, and for others, experience or education.

Exactly!
Even as a child, at the age of 7, I used to beat uncles in chess at my mom's workplace and in parks for gifts and money! )

Define the principle of truthfulness. Fair play, whether for money or not, does not violate any principles of truthfulness.

Pardon me, but the question in the first post was "Gambling, betting, and so on......good or bad?"
To answer the question, it is necessary to determine from which platform this situation will be analyzed. Based on the question, where categories of "good" and "bad" are specified, it is obvious that one must rely on some ethical traditions or values and choose a starting point—something to push off from.
The most authoritative and ancient ethical traditions that answer the posed question are religious beliefs, in which what is good and what is bad is fixed in the form of commandments or rules. It is another matter if we rely on the tenets of capitalism, a set of views of modern society that justifies all types of activities for profit, up to the exploitation of personal connections, relatives, trading one's own body, etc. From these positions, gambling has a right to justification: "In the conditions of so-called capitalism—it's no worse than everything else," as you said. The main task of capitalism is precisely to justify and involve an increasing number of new participants in the process of extracting profit, without regard for any ethical norms. Here, the question of justice, authenticity, exploitation, etc., arises, but that diverges significantly from our original question. The only thing that can be noted is that a system of views based on capitalism is not authoritative in establishing what is good and bad, because:
1) capitalism itself is relatively young and its tenets have not been fully tested by time (how long have formalized cap. relations existed? 200 years? 400 years? In its modern form, no more than 100 years.)
2) Secondly, the problems and internal imbalances in the development of capitalism clearly testify to the failure of this system, as evidenced by growing economic problems (national debt, illegitimacy of the financial system, etc.), increasing inequality between people, growth of unemployment, etc.
Thus, the platform of capitalism is not authoritative for determining whether it is good or bad to gamble for money, because capitalism will justify anything to maintain its own existence.
Therefore, it is necessary to turn to proven ethical systems, which are now mainly based on religious traditions. Which traditions are these? The most prosperous nations now are the Arabs, Jews, and Indians—all characterized by an orthodox preservation of and commitment to their internal religious principles. This position is highly debatable, so let us not consider it in detail and return to the essence of the question.
What do the main time-tested ethical doctrines say regarding gambling for money?
For example, http://skopych.kiev.ua/2012/08/16/azartnye-igry-opredeleniya-i-osobennosti-chast-1-fil-dzhonson/
Or based on Christian values: "Man is by nature impatient, and he wants to acquire many things without additional effort, instantly, which contradicts the natural flow of life, but is possible under certain circumstances in gambling." http://pokrov.dp.ua/publ/osnovy_pravoslavija/kak_stat_millionerom_za_dve_minuty_prada_ob_azartnykh_igrakh_chast_i/2-1-0-112
Or here, comrade Lazarev has taken up the Indian Vedas and examines the principle of truthfulness right here http://lazarev.org/ru/interesting/full_news/4_principa_istinnoj_religii_i_4_osnovnyh_principa_bezbozhiya/
It can be concluded that any time-tested ethical school places gambling for money outside of its values. Therefore, betting cannot be called a good thing. It is another matter that few people strictly adhere to ethical principles now due to the degradation of society as a whole. This is also a debatable issue and requires a separate topic for conversation.
It was said: The example with the lottery shows nothing new. It only shows what is already known—that there are mentally unstable people.
Quoting: "It is estimated that in the United States alone, there are about 10 million people addicted to gambling. At the same time, the average debt of a gambling addict is about 80 thousand dollars. This problem is scarier than alcoholism. Furthermore, in places where gambling establishments flourish (for example, Las Vegas or Atlantic City), suicide rates are three times higher than in the country as a whole." One can question this quote, but are there other figures testifying to the prosperity of society based on income from gambling? Of course, there is a big difference between playing for a small bet in Heroes and the entire gambling industry. However, these are phenomena of the same kind, and the size of the bet cannot be a justification.
Further productive discussion on whether it is good or bad to gamble for money is difficult, because first, we must reach a common denominator, a starting point from which we can push off. I assume that next there will be questions like: "Be so kind as to provide a link to an authoritative statistical source that takes into account all winnings (not isolated newspaper cases) and the fates of the winners, statistics for a year, five years, 10 years, 20 years..." Which will reduce all efforts to answer the original question to nothing.