Disney Land
@UmerQureshi “I think it would be unfair to equate labour of farmer with that of a person who spins wheel just for entertainment.” So is it the amount of labor that sets apart business from gambling, or is it the fact that one is done for entertainment, while the other for business? If it’s the former, where should the line be drawn? “In gambling, according to my understanding, one party is bound to lose money on mere chance and the level of uncertainty is so high that it can’t be countered with labour, skill, risk analysis and any other mean for that matter.” There are several people who have used their “skill” to successfully tilt the odds in their own favor. If one can do that, then is it not gambling? Edward Thorp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Thorp MIT Blackjack Team https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team
Thank you for bringing this to my attention @faisalharoon sahab. Since you gave that farmer’s example in comparison to spinning of the wheel, that’s why I mentioned that both of these labours do not equate logically. I didn’t mention it as a rule of thumb. You mentioned people who’ve skillfully tilted odds in their favour, that’s true! no one’s denying that. But in discussion of principles in general, we never bring exceptions defying those principles. My primary point when defining gambling remains the same, ‘One party is bound to lose money and other party is bound to win at the expense of that first party; all of this is done under umbrella of high uncertainty with no immediate mitigating tools at hand, like skills, labour (in that skill), risk analyses techniques and others’. The labour put into gambling business has no bearing in making such decisions. Exceptions will always be there, but exceptions don’t make general principles. Now if we are to bring our discussion to full circle. Principally, these activities do have a gambling factor in them, but I think it is not the same kind of loss where one party is winning exclusively at the expense of other, since this has already been factored into their business model (just like free awards or free miles given to customers). And as secondary factors, the financial magnitude of such transactions in theme parks (as far as I know because of lack of my personal experience) is very trivial without any fear of promoting any evil in the society in terms of financial inequity or by usurping other’s wealth through unfair means. Also, It is not the primary activity of a theme park to engage in such activities, they form a small part of a whole big entertainment operation which, principally has no reason to be objected to. So in conclusion, we both agree, that there is nothing wrong a person participating in such activities in a theme park. (Just my opinion, not a scholarly one.)
Sorry for the confusion, my poor writing skills are to blame. What I wanted to say was something along these lines: ‘There is uncertainty and then there are tools equally available to all the parties to lower that uncertainty to a point where it no longer remains a matter of pure chance only’.