That’s a pretty dry title for this post, about as aptly dry as Colin Jones’s “The 21st-Century Card Counter.” But the movie title’s better than the book’s. “Holy Rollers”—not just a play on words, but also an oxymoron that Hollywood loves. Remember that moment when the Preacher gunslinger swaps his clerical collar for a pistol in Pale Rider? And now Netflix has brought us Warrior Nun. It’s very entertaining watching the ostensible pacifist using violence to attain a righteous end.
Christians, who are presumed to have an aversion to gambling, take on the House, trying to stick it to the Man (meaning the casino, not the big G). The result is high drama, and subsequently a blackjack factory at blackjackapprenticeship.com [to which I have no affiliation].
But is there really anything anti-Christian about gambling? In his autobiographical book, CJ mentions the pushback he got from his “Christian” friends. I would point out that a person entering the AP world as a career will get pushback from non-Christian family and friends, too. If you need my credentials for empathy with CJ, I will mention that my dad was an ordained minister, both my parents had PhDs in theology, and I was once caught playing mah-jongg with friends in the basement of the local Methodist Church on Christmas Eve. The minister barked at us and scowled, like a sweaty pit boss, but compounded with some fire-and-brimstone apocalyptic warning about this being neither the time nor the place to be doing what we were doing.
There isn’t really any anti-gambling agenda in the Bible, but church-goers seem to have a kneejerk assumption that if society at large attaches some stigma to an activity, then the official Church policy would have to be politically to the right of that. Since society pretends to view gambling as a vice, then the Church would have to condemn gambling at least as strongly, right? Ignore the haters, CJ!
But what is gambling? What is its defining characteristic? Randomness? The bible mentions casting lots as a decision-making method for a group, and the statistician’s “fair coin” is fair because it makes an egalitarian choice known to be free of any nefarious motive. Quantum theorists wrestle with the idea that there might be randomness embedded in the structure of the universe, even deeper than simply our inability to measure things. Einstein’s misinterpreted quote about God playing dice was not meant to cast any moral judgment on randomness itself. And perhaps the nature of divine knowledge is not dice control or foresight of the outcome of dice, but knowledge of the odds of the universe’s dice.
APs are not the only ones with random incomes. A food server gets variable tips each night. An investment banker gets a variable bonus at the end of the year. A law firm can’t predict what clients will come through the door, or what the jury awards and billable hours will turn out to be. An Uber driver can’t exactly predict the fares that will pop up on that little screen. Last I checked, the amount of cash thrown into the collection plate at Sunday church is unpredictable! (And don’t some churches have casino-night fundraisers and run bingo games???) The Bible doesn’t condemn random financial rewards; rather, it condemns the love of money.
Early in my own career I thought about the definition of “gamble” in another context. With my American BP, I would say the word “gamble” to signal that I didn’t have any hole-card information. Two Chinese brothers who sometimes joined our table would say “gamble” when making a play such as doubling A8 against a dealer’s known hard 16. At first, I thought that their use of the word “gamble” was very different from mine, until I realized that both of our teams were using the word “gamble” to mean “to do something risky or dangerous.” To them, doubling A8 is risky. To me, playing a hand of blackjack without knowing the hole card is risky!
In society at large and the English language, there is a negative connotation to the word “risk.” But for all the pessimists who see a rack half full, I see a rack half empty. Evolution actually rewards a species whose members are willing to take personal risks. Risk-taking involves a positive externality, meaning that the group benefits from a risk taken by an individual. The astronauts who went to the moon might have died, but their success benefits us all. A person who tries a new food or experimental medical treatment advances science, but takes a personal risk.
I don’t see anything morally reprehensible about randomness or risk. Then what is so bad about “gambling”? CJ nails it on page 24 when he asks “Is card counting even gambling?” What we are doing in the casino is completely different from what the degens are doing. It’s a different activity, which is why Stanford Wong used to call it “short-term investing”!
Looking at degenerate gambling, do we see greed? Check. Sloth? Check. Envy? Check. In fact, let’s double-check that one, since some of the games have an “Envy Bonus”!
Three sins out of seven ain’t bad. During my last casino visit, I saw security guards eject a gambler who was cursing out the dealer. We got Wrath in the house! And looking at the CWs and party-pit dealers and go-go dancers (have you been to the new Circa?) makes me think that Lust is a no-brainer. And did you see the line for the seafood buffet? Definite Gluttony.
And you don’t have to go far into the pit or online to find a guy who boasts about betting 2x$15000, or making $50k today sitting in his underwear, or using Wong Halves or RevereAPC. Pride’s an easy check, FTW!
Though the Seven Deadly Sins aren’t mentioned in the Bible, most church-goers buy into the doctrine, and Vegas marketing itself as “Sin City” doesn’t help CJ’s cause. But within the seven, Greed and Pride are considered the big two. To win some obscene amount of money that was unearned goes against the Western/Christian/capitalist ethic that people should get what they deserve. A lazy person who buys a lottery ticket does not “deserve” to get rich. (Last I checked, people get lucky all the time in other businesses, but we’ll worry about our own house.) Every degen who sets foot in a casino is hoping to get rich, and some of them even expect to win, despite playing a mathematically negative game.
Successful APs are willing to put in the time working on their game, and Greed is not a pre-requisite. The AP does not ask to win without effort, or win more than EV. Sure, the AP tries to make money from his activity, but are the people stocking shelves at Walmart volunteers? All those “Christians” giving CJ grief are in the real-estate business building glass houses.
The smug Pride of the rookie counter who thinks he knows everything about the game usually goes out the window when the first 100-hour losing streak comes, at least for the ones who go on to become successful APs. God loves everyone, but more-so hard workers who constantly try to improve! God hates squandered gifts. Pope Francis would back me up on that interpretation of Church doctrine. (We called him “F Money” when he used to BP for us, and he was so smooth, except I thought his hat didn’t really blend in.) So I think CJ can rest easy on his career path in general, except …
What does God have to say about splitting Tens? Omg, that’s just plain Greedy!
Never miss another post
Excellent post. “Gambling” Ahh, we are in the semantics game again. Yes, we can say that a waiter is gambling that he will manage to obtain good tips each day. The difference is that it is not addictive. Too much tip collection generally won’t destroy your life and those around you – assuming you don’t stretch the rules. Moderation is at the heart of many so-labeled sins. First thing an AP must learn is to not let gambling instincts take hold.
I had a cardiac stress test a couple decades back. They are run by a cardiac surgeon. I asked him about the then recent study that said red wine could benefit the heart. He said it wasn’t the resveratrol. It was the alcohol that had benefits. Even some insects seek out rotten (fermented) fruit as a curative. BUT, moderation is the key. Too much is damaging. Addiction is all around us. Wall Street can be a positive as it, at least theoretically, brings about investment in companies, employment and savings growth. It is also additive for those with addictive tendencies. Robinhood, currently in the midst of their highly speculative IPO, is based upon addiction. It tells young folk with little savings that they can make a fortune sitting at home in their underwear gambling, sorry investing, on margin. A dangerous proposition that has already led to a suicide. (Robinhood itself was a gamble that likely would have failed had it not been for the “good luck” of a pandemic.)
Bringing up evolution is interesting. Donuts are wondrous. They are also addictive too many folk. Why? The body craves sugar because it needs sugar. Thousands of years ago, the body needed to eat large amounts of plant material that supplied sugar, but in small amounts while providing many additional needed nutrients. Now, “progress” has provided us with cheap, refined sugar. But, humans evolve very slowly compared to most species. Our physical/mental evolution has yet to catch up with our technological feats and we now eat ourselves to death. Too much of a good thing.
Religion is also an interesting part of the formula. Jewish and Islamic dietary restrictions were based on avoiding diseases of the times. This was a good. Technology has largely rid us of those problems – but the rules still exist depriving many of heavenly bacon (albeit also addictive). But then, most rules are self-serving for the rule makers. Look at the first four of the Ten Commandments. You have to get to #6 before it says don’t kill people (or “murder” in the original). Of course, religion itself is highly addictive. When the Holy Rollers first came on the scene, I was concerned with the possible introduction of “faith”, a religious staple. Faith is a double edged sword. Faith in the science behind AP is necessary. Blind faith (required by Abrahamic religions) can be fatal. (Not counting Blind Faith the band.) Not all should have blind faith that they are up to the task.
Had a friend way back who went to Alcoholics Anonymous to stop drinking. She went to another to stop smoking, another to stop drugs, another…. At some point, she told me she was addicted to self-improvement groups. It was a joke – but like many jokes, had a ring of truth. I used to have a link to AA on every page of my site. I replaced it with links to the National Council on Problem Gambling when I got around to reading what AA was. The 12 steps are all about god. Not to say these groups do not serve a purpose. But, replacing one addiction with another has its dangers and the recidivism rate of these organizations has been heavily criticized.
Lexically, the OED lists the intransitive word “gamble” thusly: “To play games of chance for money, esp. for unduly high stakes; to stake money (esp. to an extravagant amount) on some fortuitous event.” It also lists the word in a transferred sense: “Any transaction of pursuit involving risk and uncertainty.” That is, the latter is a metaphor for the former and gambling has as its real meaning the bad connotation. But, it provides several 19th century examples of growing crops, mining and such.
Sorry for rambling. (Although, I kept myself to 40% fewer words than your post.:)) Taoism teaches that dichotomous moral judgments are only perceptual and are each a necessary part of the whole. So, we must live with the existence of “good” and “bad” in “gambling”. Moderation is the key to ensuring a positive experience for ourselves as nature slowly evolves about us. That, and a sense of humor.
What role, if any, does expectancy play in defining what is gambling?
Whether a game has a positive or negative expected value, the outcome will still be random to some degree. But if the game has a negative expected value, then I can only hope to profit through sheer luck (i.e. random chance), so that feels like gambling to me. In a positive EV game, on the other hand, my profits are mathematically assured so long as I play correctly (i.e. skill) and long enough (i.e. large sample size) and am properly bankrolled to avoid running out of money before I can overcome variance. In that sense, this feels more like investing than gambling.
I have in the past used this argument with my spouse and others to explain why my advantage play does not constitute gambling. However, this reasoning has sometimes been met with skepticism by those who believe I am simply attempting to rationalize my play. I’m curious to hear what others think about this.
I too was a PK (preacher’s kid) but I did it the wrong way. I remained a “good girl” until I was in my mid-thirties so the shock of my becoming a “sinful gambler” was a big shock that reverberated all over the country and, thanks to the Internet, is still generating gasps of judgment.
God might strike you down with a bolt a lightning if you did not split those 10’s if the count was high enough.
“The Lord helps those who help themselves.”
Gloria a Dios,
JD
I was a PK, too. Redneck fundamentalist. God had to inflict bone cancer and paralysis on me–then cure me–to change my relationship to Him. Now I’m a successful AP, dance, and do a lot of other stuff. Still a tee-totaler, though!
The hedge fund known as Robinhood are crooks and should be in prison as they exercised greed, gluttony, pride, sloth, and wrath by not allowing their clients to sell GME’s stock when the small investors won. Robinhood cheated! They are cheats! They change up the rules when things don’t happen to go the way they expected. Call it rigging the market or rigging the game. They use the system to screw people over and nobody goes to jail. Seems like a double standard, rules for thee but not for me. That’s BS!
Does your spouse ever complain about the time that you’re investing at the casino while your away? Does she see it as the casino is stealing time that you could both be together? Time is limited and everyone is on the clock.
God would say don’t split those 10’s, you’re probably going to win the hand. A degen would opt to split those 10’s.
What is Gambling? It’s difficult to define gambling. It seems that most people define gambling as people who play games and wager cash, to win cash. Then we have people who gamble with their life instead of cash. Such as a drug addict or a person about to jump out of a plane at 10,000 ft with no back up parachute. Gambling doesn’t require cash in all instances, all it takes is a life and someone who is willing to do what others don’t want to do or will not do.
As a matter of fact, yes, she does complain about that sometimes, and that limits how much time I devote to this hobby. But I think that’s a separate question from whether it constitutes gambling.