Gambling and human rights:

By Peter Espeut -

Elements within the Jamaican church fraternity wish to make gambling - and these days, horse racing in particular - a religious issue. If it were just a religious matter, the irreligious among us could dismiss it (as they have done) as the Church seeking to impose its religious prejudices on the whole society.

It would then become, as they might put it, a human-rights issue - the right to do with one's time and money what one wishes. And if free persons wish to engage in watching or betting on racehorses on Sunday, the Lord's Day, surely that's their right, the argument goes, even if most people lose their money.

This view may be identified with the libertarian position about which I have recently written ('Victimless crime', January 13, 2012).

Neville Duncan, in a letter published in The Gleaner of December 29 last, puts it this way: "Each individual has the basic right to do anything with her/his life that s/he chooses, including damaging oneself by using alcohol and drugs, just as s/he has the right to damage herself/himself with sugar, tobacco, religion, promiscuous sex, mysticism, suicide, etc, so long as s/he does not initiate threats, force or fraud against any other individual."

And so libertarians believe that people have the right to gamble, even if it is a certainty that the vast majority will lose their money, and might jeopardise the welfare of their families.

It must be clear to the thinking person that the gambling industry is not a gamble for casinos, gaming lounges and betting parlours; they are guaranteed to make money at the expense of their patrons because of their carefully designed business model. As I learned at university from my lecturers in mathematics, gambling is about 'odds', based on probabilities and permutations, which are mathematical operations.

Odds against most

In roulette, for example, the odds of the ball falling into your slot have been calculated by the gambling house, and the payout fixed such that the house always collects more from losers than it pays to winners. In American roulette, there are 38 numbers (1-36, as well as 0 and 00), and so betting on any number, there is a 37:1 chance of losing; and if you win, you receive a 35:1 payout. Hearing that if he wins he will get 35 times what he bets will attract persons to gamble; but sensible people know that, on average, they will win only once out of 38 times; and so over time, the gambler always loses.

At every game and at every table, the house always wins. The gambling industry has calculated the odds, and has set the rules of the game so that it will always win. No gambling house anywhere in the world operates at a loss. Only the customers gamble, and the fact is that for the gambling houses to make a profit, every day and every week, the majority of customers have to lose.

Horse racing is a particular case. If there are seven horses in a race, the odds are not set at 6:1 for a win; the odds are determined by how many people bet on a particular horse. And so the favourite might pay only 2:1, while a poorly supported horse might pay 99:1.

If the favourite wins, the bets of the losers are more than enough to cover the payout to the winners, plus a handsome profit. If the favourite loses, most of the punters have lost their bets, while a few pocket a big payout, which stimulates the losers to bet harder next time.

The simple fact is that the betting shops set the odds so that they can never lose.

Now if it is true that that almost all gamblers will lose all of the time, should not a responsible Government protect gamblers from themselves, and from mathematical pickpockets who have set the rules and the odds so that, over time, the gamblers will always lose?

This is not just a religious matter; this is a matter of human rights.

The majority of Jamaicans are weak in literacy and numeracy; the Government should protect Jamaicans from rapacious businessmen, who laugh all the way to the bank as they speak of rights, but know that the public, over time, will always lose.

The libertarians, however, will disagree; people must be free to lose their money if they are foolish enough to gamble.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist, natural scientist and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.

February 3, 2012

jamaica-gleaner

Caribbean Blog International