Wreck-reational Gambling

[redietz]

This is my new term for what I previously referred to as "recreational gambling." The previous term was always in quotes because I have never really bought into the vibe of it, just like I never bought into 9/6 Jacks or Better as "full pay." The previous term left out the addictive spin. This new term does not.

If any APs want to adopt my new term, please feel free.

there are people that throw the word "addicted" around as if they know what they are fucking talking about.
addicted to junk food
addicted to collecting beanie babies
addicted to spending 20k on cruises every year

I am sure there are plenty of people like me who gamble every week, and there have been times over the last 40 years that I tool a 3 month break...and you know what???...i didnt get any withdrawal reaction. no mental angst, no physical signs like the sweats or the shakes.

But some dickhead from a distance can say oh yeah LarryS is addicted....or people like LarryS are addicted, or people that gamble on negEV games are addicted.

Often no more addicted than the poor investors of beanie babies or junk food eaters or perpetual cruise travelers or opera goers.

Yet people love to elevate themselves by pointing out those "other guys" are "addicts" and I am not so I am better off than them.

blanketing a group of people as "addicts" is just ignorant.

redeitz is the "smart one"///the "healthy one"...he is not an addict. But everyoone else playing -EV games weekly are for certain....they have to be. They couldnt just be people getting their kicks. doing something they like.

Playing games for money isnt an addiction by itself. People are out there that constantly play golf for money. Its a game they like to play and money adds excitement. Are they "addicts"? Of course not. But if someone throws dice for money then THEY are addicts. I fail to see the logic or the medical basis for that theorem

LarryS, evidently you didn't read my last post, or the paper in the Retro thread. The paper I mention took a completely non-judgemental position regarding "gambling addiction." I put it in quotes because (1) I don't think the word "gambling" is useful as a definer of behavior, (2) I don't think a gambling addiction, if such a broad-based thing exists, is somehow worse in an objective sense than an addiction to TV-watching or posting in a forum, and (3) I'm actually not a fan of those who try to build industries by defining behaviors as diseases.

And I don't think I'm any mentally "healthier" than anyone else. Far from it. I like to think I'm channeling Hunter Thompson on occasion; nothing intrinsically healthy about that.

Seriously, LarryS, reread what I wrote or check out the paper. I think you blew through my posts and misinterpreted them. Your beanie babies line is something like I would argue. Also, if you think behavior-as-disease has become overblown, check out Thomas Szasz. He's considered quite unfashionable these days, and he did go a bit off the rails pushing his themes too strongly as time went on, but some of his early writings are really interesting. They slap you in the face and make you rethink how mental health gets defined.