Talk:Gambling

message: I think the info here on horse racing could use some expansion. I'm trying to learn about it but I have several questions:
* What is the "morning line"?
* How do you find out odds of place and show bets?
* Let's say I place a bet the day before the race. Are the payouts according to the odds I'm given then or the odds just before the race?
* Roughly, how are exacta and other bet payouts calculated?
* From what I've seen I think the standard way to report results is to base it on a $2 bet. Is this true? E.g. the published payout from today's Preakness for an exacta is $85.80, but it doesn't say how much you would have had to bet to win that.
* What is "boxing" of a bet?
It seems like maybe horse racing should have its own article. --Duozmo 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Horse Racing Content

message: The article could use a discussion of differing views on the morality of gambling. -- Temtem 22:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
*Gambling is an evil. Fullstop. The only thing that I ever put on a horse, is myself once a week at a riding center. Anthony Appleyard 05:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a quotation or a personal observation? -- 64.60.140.146 00:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morality 

message: Should we separate multi-player games? Poker is beatable, but it isn't really a casino game in that you are not playing the house. It's a multiplayer game, like bingo or backgammon -- FeldBum 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a casino game in the sense that it is offered in a casino. I don't think the Wikipedia has a definition of "casino games" as "games played against the house". That's not to say we couldn't define them that way, but it would require a lot of subtle changes on lots of articles. POker is clearly a beatable game played in casinos so I'd say leaving it how it is makes sense to me. 2005 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Types of Games

message: Oh I think I see, it's because the intro is so long. OK I will rephrase, "Why is the intro so long?". That I don't see. It seems to me (an innocent bystander) that the intro should stop in the 4th line at "... Material goods" and the rest should be in a new first section.I hope you dont object to this comment but, trust me, this article looks a mess when you stumble across it as I haveAbtract 22:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't mess up the page again. Its not funny. Leave the user friendly layout alone plaese. 2005 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from adding useless whitespace and mucking up a user-friendly and much more attractive design.  C'mon. And just a suggestion, its nice for you to start contributing to the encyclopedia, but making random changes to the high profile, especially when they aren't user friendly, is not a good idea from a cooperation standpoint.  Make use of talk pages, and then state YOUR case for changing what a dozen editors have contributed to.  The burden is on you to justify changes, not the other way around. 2005 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that Abtract's proposed change adds a lot of useless whitespace to the article, and it's much better with its current format. Lots of websites and web-pages use a right-justified menu of text links, so I don't think it looks peculiar or is user-unfriendly in any way. Rray 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Leave it alone please.  Saying it looks a mess to you was not helpful. It looks much better the way it is, and you haven't made an argument why adding unfreindly whitespace makes any sense, so perhaps we can move on. 2005 01:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are two problems here: One is that moving the table of contents to the right is highly irregular. Almost all articles on Wikipedia place the TOC to the left. Second, the table of contents is too long. This indicates that some sections might be merged, or that excess information might be moved to daughter articles. I don't particularly like either Abstract's version or the current one. Is there not some template to make the TOC left justify and have the introductory text flow directly to the right of it? — Amcaja 02:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just change the word inside the tage from TOCright to TOCleft, and see what you think. 2005 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay. Yeah, that worked. It doesn't look much better. It would be better if there were a way to move the TOC down a paragraph or two but keep it left. But I still think the real problem is that the TOC is too long; in other words, sections should be joined or moved to daughter articles. But I guess it's not a huge problem in the grand scheme of things. Should someone decide to make a featured article candidacy with this article eventually, it will likely have to be changed, but until then . . . . — Amcaja 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there a way to get rid of all the extra white space that's been inserted between the heading of "Unbeatable Casino Games" and the list of games? I'm not really super-familiar with formatting issues at the Wikipedia yet, but it's one of the first things I noticed on my screen.Rray 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some changes to remove whitespace.  You can move photos that are set to the right immediately after a left entry.  In other words, you don't have to start photos at the top of a section. 2005 22:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the table of contents on the right?

message: i seriously doubt that the social consequences of gambling are 'percieved'. You would be hard pressed to find any argument in favour of the social BENEFITS of arbitrary redistribution of wealth which are outweighed by the consequences regardless of how minor you may believe them to be.
: I am inclined to agree that the wording as is indicates that the social costs are merely perceived and therefore not real; there will be a better form of words if we think on it. Abtract 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a go at improving it. Abtract 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing language is fine.  A weasel word like "can" adds nothing but a shot of pov, and also what is "uncontrolled gambling" supposed to mean? 2005 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is very clear that gambling is addictive to some people and that it can bring social harm (to families, friends, business partners etc). This is particularly so when it is not controlled (or uncontrolled)by the individual or by the state. This is not a POV it is fact as surely you accept.Using the word perceived on the other hand implies that these social costs are imagined by some people rather than being real - this is s POV that flies in the face of the facts. My edit (sparked off by the tag someone else put on that you removed peremptorily) attempts to address the facts and to correct a slight imbalance in the way it was previously worded. Please consider this carefully and build on my edit (which is no doubt not perfect) rather than simply reverting it. Abtract 06:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very clear that gambling is not addictive to some people, so that comment says nothing.  The addictiveness of it is covered by another article and referenced here in a section.  Your use of "controlled" is confusing at best, and plain wrong if meant some ways.  Gambling that is not controled by the state does not necessarily have to have negative effects. Gambling that is uncontrolled by a human is different, but you seem to be talking about the government.  Government regulations about home poker games for example likely have absolutely no effect on how good or bad they are.  It is certainly not a "fact" that government control lessens (or increases) social hardships.  Your POV assertion is way off base.  "Perceived" does not imply imaged in any way.  That seems to be the problem, that you aren't understanding what perceived means... look it up on dictionary.com.  In fact, it makes a stronger point that what you are suggesting.  The social costs of problem gambling are far more perceptible than statistical.  But that is a bit neither here nor there.  I'll add your edit without the "uncontrolled" part.  (To simplify it, government control seldom impacts the social costs.) That loses the point of perception, but it isn't all that important anyway. 2005 07:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'perceived' 

message: I think it would be good, somewhere, to have a discussion of the commentary on the social costs of gambling and the history of legalized gambling in the United States. I am sure that there would be disagreements and some difficulty in finding text that everyone agrees on, but if we stick to the principle that no one is expressing opinion, but we are merely reporting on the opinions expressed by others, then I think it can all be worked through. Here is a suggested (very rough) outline. Please feel free to correct me:
Gambling: The Social and Political Questions
1. Theories of why gambling is harmful
    A) Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems
        1) embezzlement cases where embezzler was raising money to pay gambling debts or just to gamble                           some more;
         2) other crimes of desperation, committed by gamblers facing large losses;
         3) dependents of gamblers (the unfortunate children);
2. Defenses
     A) Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun
     B) Libertarian defense-none of government's business
3. History of illegal gambling and attempts at enforcement
     A) Numbers rackets
     B) Rooster fights
      C) Organized crime involvement;
      D) Sports bookies;
3. Legalized gambling in the United States:
    A) Nevada;
     B) Horse racing;
     C) Dog Racing;
     D) State Lotteries;
     E) Supreme court decision opening the door to Indian Casinos
     F) Indian Casinos
     G) Congressional Action
      H) Further states permitting Casinos
         (i) Atlantic City
          (ii) Detroit
          (iii) others
:The POV theories on why something is or isn't harmful don't have a place here, and are best dealt with by a sentence or two as they are in the article.  Most of the other things have other articles. It seems like you may be wanting to dump the kitchen sink in here. For example, bookmaking has its own article. This article should not do more than mention it and then refer to the other article. In general we should be trying to move content from this article to more specific articles. 2005 00:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  POV theories are for books that present philosophies.  This is an encyclopedia. 2005 05:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: All I did was respond to your outline which proposes that POV be added to the article.  It should not. I didn't say you had one point of view or another so I don't know where that came from. 2005 21:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: you make some very good points Tesint which would be easier to read if you signed your comments with tildes. in support of your arguement i quote here directly from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
This suggests to me that not only may published pov be included here but that they should be included to give the reader the full and unbiased information about gambling provided of course it is presented in a balanced way. Abtract 08:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the above quote should make clear, but apparently doesn't, creating blatantly POV topic sections like "Victimization of the weak and attendent ripple out problems" and "Small number of problem gamblers should not ruin everyone's fun" is inappropriate.  Such structures are clearly to be avoided.  Please see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Biased topics lead to the other side of the issue facing "do you still beat your wife" statements.  The article can address topics where there is different POV in society, but that isn't the issue.  Weasel word "Some people say..." structures must be avoided.  Finally, while this article is already long, it would be tens of thousands of words longer if it attempted to seriously address the wide variety of opinion on "gambling".  That scope is for books, not articles.  We are better served by sentences like the first under legal aspects.  Even in the choosing of what societal POV is presented would be wildly arbitrary.  This article can handle sentences, not multiple essays. Of course if someone who thinks the article needs something were to write several sentences or a paragraph, then others could respond to that. 2005 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Costs/Politics 

message: A common phrase applied to those who gamble with a negative expectation... but not necessarily true.  One is still merely likely to lose in the long run.  It is not definite.  If you gamble with a negative expectation:
* You are likely to lose if you play once
* You are likely to lose if you play a few times
* You are likely to lose if you play a million times
Which is my first point.  Gambling with a negative expectation in the long run does not mean you are going to lose; it only means you are likely to.  There is the (small) probability that you could play the game a million times and still come out on top.
It is true that this likelihood increases as time goes on (one's expected value increases proportionately... but it is important to note, not exponentially), but it never becomes infinite.  The terms long-run and short-run are actually irrelevant.  It is a pity that many seem to differentiate between gambling once and many times as though it's ok to do it once or twice but not many.  While gambling many times with a negative expectation is worse than doing it just once (all things being equal), they are both mathematically the wrong choice.  This blanket "Gamble once, ok, gamble ten times, bad" is a bad misrepresentation and gross simplification of probability theory.  For example, consider two simple games; for both, one either loses x or gains x. (let's say x = 10).  If for one game the probability of winning is 0.3 and for the other the probability is 0.49, note that if you play game one just the once you are expected to lose 4.  If you play the second game a whopping thirty-nine times, you are only expected to lose 3.8.  Hence, playing the second game "in the long run" is better than playing the first "in the short run". (of course if you played the first game thirty-nine times, you are likely to lose 76).  What I am trying to get at as my second point here is that the statement if you play a game with a negative expectation "you are likely to lose in the long run" is true, but pointless.  If you play a game with a negaitve expectation in the short run you are still likely to lose.  There is no use for the "in the long run" statement at all.--Zoso Jade 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Will lose in the long run"

message: Given the increasing number of reverts from vandals, should we semi protect this article and limit changes to established editors?  Vegaswikian 22:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could but there was only that one day that was a real problem.  Maybe if there are any more incidents in the next 48 hours you could do it, but not leave the protect up more than a few days. 2005 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect 

message: How come no section on criticism of both the concept and the practice of gambling?--Mostargue 14:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for the same reason there is no section on praise of both the concept and practice of gambling. Not every topic warrants a "criticism" section. Rray 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: For example? Rray 17:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This is an encyclopedia, not a POV platform.  The article does point out there are those who oppose gambling, and links to a substantial problem gambling article, so it more than covers in a non-POV way the topic. 2005 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we want to warn people who gamble about it!, so please make a section about gambling criticism please! 2600:4040:BFEF:9F00:25AB:DCCC:25E1:3191 (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of gambling 

message: As the author of the pages Mathematics of bookmaking and Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers I am trying to do some (in my opinion) badly-needed housekeeping of some relevant Gambling pages which are either stubs, not exactly well written, not fully accurate or ones that are now basically redundant as the info contained in them has been integrated within my own pages to be in a more relevant environment. Pages I am referring to include Heinz (bet), Trixie (bet), Treble (bet) and Double (bet); there are probably others as well.
If a few of you involved in the Wiki:Gambling Project or any others with a possible vested interest in improving the presentation of information in this area could add a few words below supporting (or not) the re-direct of the pages I would be grateful (I have already got on the wrong side of an admin for criticising his very quick removal of Speedy Deletion tags without him taking the time to suggest alternatives to me (a novice), although now he has responded to my request). I would like to do this the correct way without upsetting anyone further! So... looking for support. Cheers. AirdishStraus 10:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One issue is that as a glossary, the definitions are not really a complete article.  So if the new articles are short and really cover the material then this may not be an issue.  I'm not up on Mathematics, so I can't really comment on the specifics. I will note that if you use headings for terms, then a redirect can point directly to the section rather then the top of the article.  Vegaswikian 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concensus for re-directing pages 

message: If hole-carding puts 3 card poker into the "beatable" category, then Carribean Stud, 4 card poker, Let it Ride, and Texas Hold'em Bonus all belong there too. They can all be hole-carded. Although hole-carding is actually slightly controversial. I've heard a few sources claim that it almost never occurs (although I disagree with them).
And while we're at it, why is roulette considered beatable and craps isn't? You can beat craps with short throws (although you'll get stopped pretty quickly), and dice control is probably just as controversial as wheel bias in roulette. Especially in America with the double zeroes. Maybe you can find a biased enough wheel in Europe with 1 zero and en prison. 
Maybe a separate section for possibly beatable games? Or move the discussion of what games can be beaten to "advantage gambling"?GusChiggins21 10:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A section on games that can beatable if you have an edge like hole carding is a good idea.  Then we can get rid of the normally non-beatable games that some editors have insisted are beatable theoretically.  It could be a good idea before adding such a section to put it first on this talk page. 2005 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hole-carding

message: I'm sorry, I haven't looked at this page in a long time, and have little energy/enthusiasm for heavy editing at the moment.  But it seems to me that this page reads like the product of a series of POV clashes.  It immediately starts hedging, and struggling for ways to assert *something* about gambling while appearing not to assert anything.  It seems a feigned attempt at "neutral."  I don't think it approaches the subject in the right academic style to appeal to a reader seeking answers to basic questions.  Rather, it launches quickly into topics of legality, moralizing, moral justification, and discussion of what games are/may be "beatable."  Shouldn't it start out directly with a discussion of the history of gambling, the origin of popular gambling variants, their social/cultural associations, and a basic description of the different classes of gambling games?  I don't know, maybe I could muster up some energy to tackle this, or maybe my critique might prompt someone to try to point this article in the right direction.
There should be a mention of Senet, knucklebones, the evolution of modern probability theory, an indication of the huge volume of money involved in sports betting worldwide, and several such topics which can be explained and cited without any strong assertions or evidence of POV.  Meanwhile, separating modern casino games into beatable and unbeatable categories is ill-conceived at best.zadignose 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind seeing that section deleted either, but I'm interested in other opinions. Rray 13:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ill-conceived is a good word. Nearly any game is 'beatable' under the right circumstances. Defining the word beatable for the purposes of the article is a debate in itself. But worse, the table of beatable games, assuming commonly beatable, was way off. I made some corrections but it's still incorrect since table bias is not related to the modern methods used to beat Roulette. Better for it not to exist at all. Objective3000 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd buy anybody a cookie if they took a stab at rewriting the page, especially deleting or reimaging that beatable sextion.  The article is very much a mishmash that has resulted from "one agenda" editors stuffing something in without considering how it effects everything else, or how obscurely you you have to read something for it to be true.  This article should be simplified, with some history, some definition (the explanation that gaming refers to the business of offering gambling games for instance is very important) and some short paragraphs that lead to main topic articles.  It seems we do have a sense here that such a generalized/simplified/less contentiously worded article that refers to other articles where we deal with something in more depth is called for.  I'd rather someone else would take a stab at it, but otherwise I could take a stab at this idea on the next week or so -- UNLESS someone now wants to say "we gotta have that beatable games section", because a rewrite will be probably just a waste of time if more than one person wants to fanatically keep that section as it is. 2005 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we need to add some print citations. Does anyone have Steve Forte or Bill Zender's books? Those guys are from the casino side, so they're a little more reliable than the system sellers.  GusChiggins21 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Steve was arrested this year. That does not imply guilt but also doesn't suggest him as a more reliable source. Bill (the ZMan) is a long-time client of mine and I like him. But, as you say they are both casino employees. How would that make them good sources:-) At least you're trying.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A brief and non-constructive criticism 

message: Reorganized it into table, electronic and other games. GusChiggins21 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-did Casino games section

message: Is it just me, or is the discussion on the history of gambling a little thin (especially given its rapid growth in the last 40 years)?  Would this be significant enough to merit a separate article?  Fahrenheit452 (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might well merit a separate article, but usually what's done is that we wait until the section is too long to be a subsection of the article before breaking it off into its own article. I know a couple of references about the history of gambling exist, but I don't actually have copies of the book to properly expand and source that section myself. Rray (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need an expansion of our coverage.  Here's a start: "In 1190, Kings Richard I and Philip of France jointly issued an edict regulating gambling with games of chance by members of the Christian crusading armies.  No person under the rank of knight was permitted to play any game for money; knights and clergymen could play for stakes lower than 20 shillings per day and night; the monarchs could, naturally, play for whatever stakes they chose, but their attendants were restricted to stakes of 20 shillings.  If any exceeded this sum, they were to be whipped, naked, through the ranks of the troops for three whole days."  See Ben Schott, Schott’s Mischellany Calendar 2009 (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), November 18.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Gambling

message: It's a nit; but Poker is not a casino game. Albeit Poker rooms are often co-located with casinos. 3-card poker, 4-card poker and Caribbean Stud Poker are carnivalized variations and are casino table games. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Poker

message: Gambling is not a crime.  Illegal gambling is a crime.  So if someone wants to add an article with that as the focus feel free to do so and then it can be placed in the crimes category which is not for legal activities.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambling as a crime 

message: The article makes no attempt to capture a sense of the opposition to legalized gambling, by churches and other groups.  131.109.225.75 (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Churches are one of the largest venues with bingo, raffles, charity casino nights. Objective3000 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Gambling 

message: Is Chess gambling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.74.81 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 September 2008
:Rarely is chess played for money these days. Although around 100 years ago it was not uncommon. SunCreator (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess 

message: I have a problem with the article where it tries to differentiate between 'gambling' and other activities. If you go by the definitions supplied with any dictionary, it's not the market itself (financial markets, insurance industry, casino games etc) that decide whether the activity is defined as gambling, but the mathematical expectation of the participant and of the action. Technically, a card counter betting with a positive count is making an investment, while an average Joe buying some stock may often be a gamble. The card counter knows he has a mathematical edge and expects to make money over the longrun. The average Joe buying stock often only assumes he has an edge and in reality is only hoping that the stock rises in value. The financial markets are full of people who invest or trade with negative expectation, and by definition they are gamblers. The gambling industry has thousands and thousands of positive expectation gamblers and by definition they are investors. Remember, it's the individual and action, not the market.
Jj448 (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intent of the section is to clarify the colloquial use of the word "gambling" to describe activities which have some similarities but which are widely considered as separate endeavors. Card counting is a special case that applies mainly to a single game (blackjack). It is really an application of skill to improve the expectation, but that improvement comes at the cost of increased volatility. Also, I'm not aware of any financial market players who trade with negative expectations (other than perhaps limited short-term plays). I don't think that assertion is justified by any rational or game-theoretic explanations. The definition of "(to) invest" is: "to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value." With a few narrow exceptions (e.g., card counting, poker, sports betting), gambling, by design, does not offer profitable returns. Simishag (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambling versus Investment 

message: Whilst interesting, this is not an article about gambling in the united states. The vast amount of information about the US in this section should be moved to a 'Gambling Laws in the US' section, and the content replaced with information about the legality of gambling worldwide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.75.155 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "vast amount of information about the US" that you mention is contained in 1 paragraph. According to one estimate, US-based gaming operations represents about half of the global industry. I think this is sufficient justification for the 1 paragraph, which also already includes a link to a separate article about gambling in the US. Simishag (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is no problem with the US legality stuff now.  If it or the section was dramatically bigger it might need breaking out, but at this point it's so small there isn't any need. 2005 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legallity Section 

message: The first line in the "Legal Aspects" section is innacurate, misleading, and not pertinent to the discussion of the legal aspects of gambling.  It should be removed.
I do not have much knowledge of Jewish traditions, but the assertion that "the Catholic Church has set aside days for gambling" is not correct, and is a misleading statement.
The source given for this statement (a Boston Globe article which references a scholar who makes a statement about the history of gambling and local Church scholars without any explicitly referenced primary sources) is dubious at best.  Even the reference made - that in Mideaval times, some Catholic scholars proposed that people gamble on holy days - is by no means an assertion that the Catholic Church ever set aside days for gambling.  This has never been part of church teaching, and is not recorded in any official church documents (papal encyclicals, bulls, Cathecisms, etc).  If it was a tradition centuries ago (which I can find no primary sources that confirm), the statement should not be put in the present tense.  "... The Catholic tradition traditionally sets aside days for gambling" is a false statement, even given the source referenced.
A discussion of the stances of various religions on gambling is not technically a "legal aspect" of gambling, and if it is to be included at all in this section, it should probably not be the opening of it.  At any rate, there should not be innacurate statements made about any religion's traditions.  The Catholic Church has no widely accepted tradition for setting aside any day for gambling, and I can find no reliable sources implying that it has ever done so.
Since the page is protected and I am too lazy to create a wikipedia login, I thought I would mention this here in the hope that somebody who knows what they are doing can correct it.
71.231.102.232 (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Aspects: Dubious statement about a Catholic "day of gambling" 

message: I have no idea what this is called, if it has a name, or if people think it's relevant but I thought it was worth a shot to be bold: If you support a sports team you'd have a good night if they won and a bad night if they lost. If you bet against your team winning you could at least possibly have financial compensation covering the cost of your stadium seat cost if they do lose. Betting enables this. Chrisjwowen (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Guarantee against non-desirable outcome

message: I think it's inaccurate to define gambling as betting on something with an 'uncertain' outcome.  I propose a better definition as betting on something with an 'improbable' outcome.  No outcome in the Universe is absolutely certain; future events are a matter of likelihood (even if the chances of the event happening are extremely high or low).  Therefore to use the 'uncertain' definition would render betting on ANY prediction as gambling, which is ridiculous (for example, to characterize betting that the Earth will exist an hour from now as 'gambling').  I assert that only when an event has an =< 50% chance of happening can betting on such be properly characterized as gambling.
:Sorry, but your assertion is incorrect. For example, with lay bets in Craps, the probability of winning the bet is >50%.Objective3000 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Craps is gambling. The probability of winning such bets is greater than 50%, but the payoff is less than 1:1. Even if that weren't true, it is still gambling. The definition is at the start of the article.Objective3000 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the definition at dictionary.com.  It doesn't seem to say that the word 'gambling' only refers to betting on improbable outcomes.  Rather, it seems simply to mean (1)to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes, or (2) to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance.  The word 'gambling,' according to the source I found, indicates an element of chance and the possibility of winning or losing money or goods.  Do you have a better source that defines it differently? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Even if what you are saying is true (and it isn't), the word "improbable" is still incorrect as I pointed out in the Craps example. Do you believe Lay bets in Craps are not gambling? Futher, answers.com is not an authoratative source on the subject. Even if it were, their article used "most" in their definition, not "all." You are claiming "all."Objective3000 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

text: First, that is not the definition of improbable. Second, even if it were, it is irrelevant. For the third time, a Craps Lay bet has more than a 50% chance of winning, but is gambling. There is NOTHING is the definition of gambling that has anything to do with the quantity "50%." Last, "pobability" and the word "improbable" are not the same. Of course gambling is related to probability. But, that doesn't mean that a gambling bet must have an improbable chance of winning. Words have definitions and dictionaries are the referees. You don't get to make up your own definitions.Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Wiki rules tell us to assume good faith, and that is what I will do. The definitions of words and the arbiters of definitions (i.e. dictionaries) are important. One cannot have a discussion without agreeing, beforehand, on the definition of words. In fact, that is why great debaters like Noah Webster and Samuel Johnson compiled dictionaries. (And possibly why the Chinese developed a dictionary 1,500 years prior.) Words are powerful. Definitions can be added, but are rarely significantly changed. You appear to have attempted to redefine words that have existed for centuries. To do that invalidates centuries of wisdom. If there is something that you wish to add, I suggest that you find a way that does not involve redefining accepted definitions.Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Improbable means "unlikely".  You can make up your own definitions of words, but we won't be adding those to the Wikipedia. Time to move on. 2005 (talk) 06:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Please explain why you are removing links I add regarding I Nelson Rose, "The Worlds Leading Expert on Gambling LAW" founder of countless Gambling Law University and Law School Programs as well as Gamblers Anonymous Groups. I Nelson Rose is the global expert on the subject do you need MORE proof?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavikaescobido (talk • contribs) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Off hand I'd say spamming a web site and adding external links that don't appear to follow the policies established.  I'm surprised that you have not received spam or vandal warnings. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Nelson Rose is a valid reference for many things, but most of your editing has been to spam/promote him, so people will be removing otherwise valid links because your actions qualify as spamming in their eyes. 2005 (talk) 10:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Nelson Rose 

message: add marbles to the bit in the opening about gambling not on money :) Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  marbles 

message: This article mainly draws on gambling from a US point of view, I wonder if some of the content can be moved to the Gambling_in_the_United_States page? Markb (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one paragraph is US-centric, and that is properly headed.  The rest of the article doesn't have a US point of view. 2005 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric 

message: Fixed-odds betting
Main article: Fixed-odds betting
Fixed-odds betting and Parimutuel betting frequently occur at many types of sporting events, and political elections. In addition many bookmakers offer fixed odds on a number of non-sports related outcomes, for example the direction and extent of movement of various financial indices, the winner of television competitions such as Big Brother, Eurovision Song Contest and election results.[12] Interactive prediction markets also offer trading on these outcomes, with "shares" of results trading on an open market.
Stefaniereeve (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I'm not seeing any difference in the text here other than the removal of an Oxford comma, which isn't specifically disallowed per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 18 April 2012 

message: ===Gambling Definitions===
The definition of gambling includes the following:
* to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success  Dictionary.com.
* an act of gambling; an enterprise undertaken or attempted with a risk of loss and a chance of profit or successApple's dictionary on the Mac.
Therefore, an activity can be defined as gambling if it involves the following three elements, regardless of economic utility, expected return or underlying value:
# Stake
# Chance
# Prize, Profit or Loss
===Gambling Activities===
Based on the above definitions, the following are gambling activities as well even though they involve skill, because they include the above three elements.
* Sales
* Marketing
* Investing
* Insurance
* Starting a Business
* Drilling for Oil
* Mining
* Christopher Columbus and Spain sending three ships in search of riches in the East
Whether an activity involves skill or not does not determine if it is classified as gambling by society or the government.  A New York judge recently ruled that Poker is a game of skill, not luck  NPR.
Boston University Law Review Christine Hurt, ", Boston University, 2006 provided an in-depth analysis and comparison of gambling activities and concluded:
:"At a basic level, gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering on an outcome in an environment of uncertainty. In addition, both risk-taking activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history. At some point over 100 years ago, public attitudes of the two types of speculation diverged, with investing being labeled as socially desirable and therefore supported by law, and gambling being labeled as socially undesirable and therefore prohibited by law. This divergence was based not on any logical differences in the activities, but instead on the classes of people that participated in these activities and who profited from them. Stock brokers, stock exchanges, and their wealthy clients benefited from this legal distinction; working class gamblers and bookmakers did not.
:
:The decision to prohibit an activity should be based on a sound analysis of its costs and benefits, including whether any important freedoms are associated with that activity. Similar activities should be regulated similarly, without regard to traditional labels, pretextual and inconsistent morality arguments, or discriminatory categorizations based on class.
:
:Although both the state and federal governments have allowed many types of gambling in the past thirty years, the recent backlash against Internet gambling demonstrates that this liberalization did not reflect a new commitment to regulating gambling similarly to other economically identical activities. Instead, gambling liberalization reflects a commitment to legalize gambling that is financially lucrative to state and federal governments. Internet gambling is not profitable to these regulators, and so it has not been legalized. Moreover, to argue that online gambling should not be permitted, regulators have renewed moralistic arguments without acknowledging that these arguments apply equally against the traditional gambling activities that they have voted to legalize. 
:
:Notably, although online investing has the same potential for negative externalities as online gambling, online investing has been accepted and even embraced as the newest manner for investing, whether rationally or irrationally, in the capital markets. Predicated upon the notion that online activities should not be regulated differently than physical activities merely because they are performed on the Internet, the SEC has chosen not to restrict online investing. Analogously, the federal government should allow states to regulate online gambling in the same way that those states choose to regulate similar physical gambling activities."
In summary, the U.S. government banned certain types of gambling activities due to:
* protectionism
* insufficient tax revenue
* class discrimination (upper class is allowed to gamble but not the lower class)
Based on the above, most people gamble or work for gambling employers, as most people invest or work for companies which need to perform sales, marketing or investment activities.  
The definition of "gambling" can become very limited in society, to include mainly those activities that we associate with casinos. In fact, there are numerous activities that are also gambling activities, but society has selectively declassified them from "gambling". Instead of having a title of "gambler", some people prefer the title of "risk taker", "entreprenuer", "venture capitalist", "business" or "investor". Analogies include:
* "secretaries" preferring the title of "administrative assistants"
* "waiters" preferring the title of "servers"
* "stewards" and "stewardesses" preferring the title of "flight attendants"
The titles are different, but the underlying functionality has not changed.
Some argue that they do not gamble because they are not addicted to losing money. In 2006, 45 percent of home sales activity in the four states with the most pronounced housing cycles were conducted by investors  Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Since 2006, millions of Americans have lost much more money to houses than they have to Las Vegas.  The average holding period of stocks is 3.2 months and the average holding period for the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY), the ETF which tracks the benchmark for U.S. stocks, is less than five days.  According to Mitch Goldberg, ClientFirst Strategy in Woodbury, NY, "…stock market is a casino for the large and well-connected investors"  CNBC.  Millions of Americans have lost much more money to stocks than they have to Las Vegas.
Even with the limited or traditional definition of gambling, most people gamble as most people buy lottery tickets or work for employers that promote gambling.  The government is the world's largest promoter of gambling, with lottery jackpots up to $640 million  Mega Millions.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not mainly the lower class that buys lottery tickets. According to the documentary "Lucky"  Lucky, (1 hour 22 minutes into the video):
:"More than half of all American adults play the lottery, making it, by far, the most popular form of paid entertainment in the country"
:"Every year Americans spend $7 billion on movie tickets, $16 billion on sporting events, $24 billion on books, $62 billion on lottery tickets"
The rich buys lottery tickets as well  Business Insider.
Despite the ban, Americans gamble $16 billion a year on online poker "The New York times", October 8, 2011 and $34 billion a year on casinos  Casino Journal.
Maxkissime (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I not going to make this edit for several reasons.  It does not really fit into the existing encyclopedic article.  Since this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, we have to be careful about how and if we include dictionary definitions.  Large block quotes really need to be considered if they are essential to the article and not to making a specific point.  The focus of the article is on the gambling that involves wagering or betting.  Most of you added comment might be best covered by adding a bullet list 'Activities that may be gambles' section to the links for other articles that some might consider gambling.  Not even sure what the best name for that might be.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. -- TOW  talk   18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Most People Gamble

message: Based on the above definitions, the following are gambling activities as well even though they involve skill, because they include the above three elements.
* Sales
* Marketing
* Investing
* Insurance
* Starting a Business
* Drilling for Oil
* Mining
* Christopher Columbus and Spain sending three ships in search of riches in the East
Whether an activity involves skill or not does not determine if it is classified as gambling by society or the government.  A New York judge recently ruled that Poker is a game of skill, not luck  NPR.
Boston University Law Review Christine Hurt, ", Boston University, 2006 provided an in-depth analysis and comparison of gambling activities and concluded:
:"At a basic level, gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering on an outcome in an environment of uncertainty. In addition, both risk-taking activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history. At some point over 100 years ago, public attitudes of the two types of speculation diverged, with investing being labeled as socially desirable and therefore supported by law, and gambling being labeled as socially undesirable and therefore prohibited by law. This divergence was based not on any logical differences in the activities, but instead on the classes of people that participated in these activities and who profited from them. Stock brokers, stock exchanges, and their wealthy clients benefited from this legal distinction; working class gamblers and bookmakers did not.
:
:The decision to prohibit an activity should be based on a sound analysis of its costs and benefits, including whether any important freedoms are associated with that activity. Similar activities should be regulated similarly, without regard to traditional labels, pretextual and inconsistent morality arguments, or discriminatory categorizations based on class.
:
:Although both the state and federal governments have allowed many types of gambling in the past thirty years, the recent backlash against Internet gambling demonstrates that this liberalization did not reflect a new commitment to regulating gambling similarly to other economically identical activities. Instead, gambling liberalization reflects a commitment to legalize gambling that is financially lucrative to state and federal governments. Internet gambling is not profitable to these regulators, and so it has not been legalized. Moreover, to argue that online gambling should not be permitted, regulators have renewed moralistic arguments without acknowledging that these arguments apply equally against the traditional gambling activities that they have voted to legalize. 
:
:Notably, although online investing has the same potential for negative externalities as online gambling, online investing has been accepted and even embraced as the newest manner for investing, whether rationally or irrationally, in the capital markets. Predicated upon the notion that online activities should not be regulated differently than physical activities merely because they are performed on the Internet, the SEC has chosen not to restrict online investing. Analogously, the federal government should allow states to regulate online gambling in the same way that those states choose to regulate similar physical gambling activities."
In summary, the U.S. government banned certain types of gambling activities due to:
* protectionism
* insufficient tax revenue
* class discrimination (upper class is allowed to gamble but not the lower class)
Based on the above, most people gamble or work for gambling employers, as most people invest or work for companies which need to perform sales, marketing or investment activities.  
The definition of "gambling" can become very limited in society, to include mainly those activities that we associate with casinos. In fact, there are numerous activities that are also gambling activities, but society has selectively declassified them from "gambling". Instead of having a title of "gambler", some people prefer the title of "risk taker", "entreprenuer", "venture capitalist", "business" or "investor". Analogies include:
* "secretaries" preferring the title of "administrative assistants"
* "waiters" preferring the title of "servers"
* "stewards" and "stewardesses" preferring the title of "flight attendants"
The titles are different, but the underlying functionality has not changed.
Some argue that they do not gamble because they are not addicted to losing money. In 2006, 45 percent of home sales activity in the four states with the most pronounced housing cycles were conducted by investors  Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Since 2006, millions of Americans have lost much more money to houses than they have to Las Vegas.  The average holding period of stocks is 3.2 months and the average holding period for the S&P 500 SPDR (SPY), the ETF which tracks the benchmark for U.S. stocks, is less than five days.  According to Mitch Goldberg, ClientFirst Strategy in Woodbury, NY, "…stock market is a casino for the large and well-connected investors"  CNBC.  Millions of Americans have lost much more money to stocks than they have to Las Vegas.
Even with the limited or traditional definition of gambling, most people gamble as most people buy lottery tickets or work for employers that promote gambling.  The government is the world's largest promoter of gambling, with lottery jackpots up to $640 million  Mega Millions.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not mainly the lower class that buys lottery tickets. According to the documentary "Lucky"  Lucky, (1 hour 22 minutes into the video):
:"More than half of all American adults play the lottery, making it, by far, the most popular form of paid entertainment in the country"
:"Every year Americans spend $7 billion on movie tickets, $16 billion on sporting events, $24 billion on books, $62 billion on lottery tickets"
The rich buys lottery tickets as well  Business Insider.
Despite the ban, Americans gamble $16 billion a year on online poker "The New York times", October 8, 2011 and $34 billion a year on casinos  Casino Journal.
Maxkissime (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I not going to make this edit for several reasons.  It does not really fit into the existing encyclopedic article.  Since this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, we have to be careful about how and if we include dictionary definitions.  Large block quotes really need to be considered if they are essential to the article and not to making a specific point.  The focus of the article is on the gambling that involves wagering or betting.  Most of you added comment might be best covered by adding a bullet list 'Activities that may be gambles' section to the links for other articles that some might consider gambling.  Not even sure what the best name for that might be.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. -- TOW  talk   18:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Gambling Activities

message: According to the Boston University Law Review, "...gambling and investing are identical activities of wagering 
on an outcome in an environment of uncertainty. In addition, both risk-taking 
activities have been present in the American culture for all of its history."  Christine Hurt, ", Boston University, 2006
technical analysis is Gambling because technical analysis use Probability theory
History of probability is analyze games of chance by Gerolamo Cardano  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annopnod (talk • contribs) 01:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Investing

message: Michael Kearns and Cormac Kehoe from Gimont co founded Betfair who are now the biggest sports gambling site in Europe.
87.41.17.97 (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? Gambling goes back to pre-history. Why insert two unknowns and one of tens of thousands of organizations involved with gambling over millennia?Objective3000 (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014 Gamblingtoday  

message: Would a spin-off article, or maybe just a section here, specifically on political betting be relevant? We already have an article on PoliticalBetting.com and there are sources specifically on political betting issues, including Mike Smithson's The Political Punter or news stories like this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political betting 

message: This might be useful as a reference, from American Scientist magazine.  • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. Stop losses do not work in the normal use of the word gambling. Politics and world events are something quite diferent. Objective3000 (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics to determine optimum time to stop for some types of betting

message: The game World of Tanks should be added to dice games. Since that is what it has come to.
85.179.158.221 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2014 

message: Please remove Yahoo template from EL as the Yahoo Directory closed down, now redirecting to main page of Yahoo Small Business Directory
71.23.178.214 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —  (e • t • c) 22:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2014 

message: The terms "i.e." and "e.g." should not be italicised. Could that be corrected? Thanks, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - as per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC - Arjayay (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gambling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616112335/http://torah.org/features/secondlook/gambling.html to http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/gambling.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think Professional gambling should redirect to Advantage gambling, since professional gamblers exist, and its a different topic from that covered at "advantage gambling". Shouldn't it instead be redirected here, or become a redlink? -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Professional gambling"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gambling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive hydra2021.shop
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added ‘I was told to throw ethics out the window’ – inside the online bookies to external links.  The author explains how a gaming company paid him to manipulate gamblers into spending far more than was good for them.  I feel the article is informative and only anonymous authors are likely to give such information.  The Guardian is reliable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, The Guardian is reliable. If the paper wrote an investigative report based upon multiple unnamed sources, that would be entirely acceptable. But, this is simply the unedited words of a single anonymous source. There is no Guardian reporter bylined. It's more like an anonymous op-ed. Further, it makes accusations. I don't see how that passes WP:IRS. Objective3000 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

text: This topic doesn't have a bunch of external links because it could have 1000 valuable external links.  This article is not close to even being in the top 1000. 2005 (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous author 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gambling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://hydra2021.shop
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is "consideration"? It seems to be a key concept: "Gambling thus requires three elements be present: consideration, chance and prize." However, it is nowhere defined, or indeed mentioned again anywhere in the text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.135.32 (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I made it a Wikilink. O3000 (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration? 

message: Virtually unsourced article that could be more useful in Gambling article. lovkal (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: a search on Scopus for the exact term "social gambling" fails to convince me that the topic itself is notable.  Tayste (edits) 10:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Social gambling]] 

message: I did not see a section for Microtransactions Drop Box Gambling in modern video games.  There have been countless articles, political debates, and peer reviewed studies on this newest from of gambling, which primarily targets children.  It is a worldwide debated issue and like it or not, it is an intrinsic part of online gambling.  Gaming platforms are struggling to rebrand the practise as "not being associated with gambling" by offering content grinding as an alternative to paying for a random ingame rewards, but literal the practice falls under the definition of this page.  I feel that if the practice is included in this page it may serve to discourage the applications of this method of gambling from becoming abused by the gaming industry, while validate it as a form of addiction for those who participate at unhealthy levels.
My two cents anyway.
Mr G.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.35.243 (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtransactions and Drop Box Gambling. 

message: "Gambling (also known as betting or gaming) "
This is incorrect in GB - the gambling act 2005 says gambling is either betting or gaming, bracket should be changed to (encompassing betting and gaming).  All three words mean something different and are not interchangeable (in GB).
The rest of the explanation is incorrect in a legal sense as well - random event is gaming, betting is placing a bet on the outcome of a 'real event' where strategy CAN influence the likelihood of winning i.e. using knowledge about participants competing in the real event to maximise chance of winning.
"Gambling thus requires three elements to be present: consideration (an amount wagered), "
This is incorrect in GB legislation - free to enter CAN be gaming and therefore gambling, free to enter CANNOT be classed as betting and therefore gambling (2005 Gambling Act s.6)4)b)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/19/pdfs/ukpga_20050019_en.pdf?timeline=false
I have no idea about the American definitions but is very likely they differ by state and these explanations should be heavily qualified by jurisdiction so as not to mislead someone into providing gambling (particularly gaming) illegally. Kaptain123 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Realize that the lead of this article is aimed at a worldwide audience and isn't meant to reflect the British legal definition of gambling. The appropriate place to address legal definitions of gambling is later in the article. The lead should reflect a general definition of gambling rather than getting specific about legal definitions. Thinking that the opening paragraphs of an article on Wikipedia is going to mislead someone into providing illegal gambling is a stretch, at best, and it's not really a consideration for an encyclopedic treatment of the topic. Just some thoughts. Rray (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

text: @Kaptain123@Rray I agree with Rray. Wikipedia does not provide legal advice to its users, it is an encyclopedia. Someone who takes the first sentences of a Wikipedia article as specific legal advice is doing so at their own risk and out of their own lack of awareness. This clarification could be added to the Gambling in the United States article. I will close this edit request now. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2022 

message: Should random, as it is currently used in the lead section, be changed to uncertain or another similar term? It links to Event (probability theory), which describes an event as a set of outcomes with some probability (not necessarily random), and indeed, there exists types of gambling that are uncertain, not random. 76.77.117.2 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section: “Random” 

message: The last sentence of the introduction says that "Magic: The Gathering can be played with the collectible game pieces (respectively, small discs and trading cards) as stakes, resulting in a meta-game regarding the value of a player's collection of pieces."
This is referring to the now-defunct "ante" mechanic of bidding your pieces to gain an advantage inside of the game. This has not been officially supported for 28 years (last printed in the "Homelands" set in 1995), and is not a way that people play the game on a competitive or casual level. All "ante" cards are banned in every format. There is no metagame regarding the value of the cards you use. I am a Magic player of 10 years, and not a wikipedia editor, so I don't know the standards for publication or removal, but the written statement is not accurate and doesn't reflect how the game is played. 2001:18E8:3:28B9:F000:0:0:278B (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magic: The Gathering and gambling with the pieces 

message: I suggest adding the following as a stand-alone second paragraph (keeping everything else as is): In psychological terms, gambling is a variable schedule of positive reinforcement. A variable schedule of positive reinforcement is the most powerful form of positive reinforcement known. Source: "Don't Shoot the Dog: The New Art of Teaching and Training," by animal trainer Karen Pryor. 2601:1C2:1B7F:AF8E:2570:A4D9:7EB5:C336 (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: There are a couple of problems with this proposal: 1) normally the lead should summarise the article body, rather than introduce standalone ideas: WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. 2) More importantly, the source doesn’t look like the kind of high-quality source we should be using for a borderline medical claim. There could be a debate about whether psychology is subject to the WP:MEDRS sourcing guideline, but since gambling is sometimes pathological, I think we need to do better than a book on dog training. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2024