Nolan posted a pretty interesting piece about Jim Rome. I didn't hear the show, but apparently on the show he had the author of The Odds, which is a book that follows the life of a sportsbook manager at Stardust, a successful wiseguy and a wannabe pro gambler who just dropped out of college.
Clearly these two have a very negative opinion of sports wagering. It is also clear that they said some gross misrepesentations of sports gamblers by making their statements all inclusive.
Saying stuff like, "you *can't* win" and, "it's only a matter of time" is relatively foolish. Even they know that there are a decent number of professional gamblers in this world who do nothing but wager on sports for a living. It sounds irresponsible on the surface for them to make such blanket statements.
But Rome and the author were not addressing hard working gamblers like many of the guys who post on this board. They were addressing sports fans. That is Rome's audience.
Many, if not most, sports fans like to gamble on sports to some degree. And I believe I am not out of order in saying at least 99% of sports fans who gamble on sports lose money over the course of their lifetime.
It is for this reason that I don't find too much fault in Rome's comments on winning and losing money. The fact is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Rome's listeners will lose money if they gamble on sports long term. Be it through not putting in the required effort or succumbing to the temptation of chasing losses, most of the sports fans who like Jim Rome's style of show will be more on emotion than anything else and end up losing money.
I know it is hard to defend comments which are untrue like "you can't make money". I know he should have qualified that by saying there is an infinitessimal chance of making money. But when you look at the overall greater good, qualifying that statement would likely only encourage shortsighted sports fans to try to buck the odds. The reality is that Rome turning off his fans to sports gambling would be a good thing for most of them financially.
Rome and the author then proceeded to comapre gambling to heroin and talk about the degenerative nature that gambling can have on relationships with friends and family.
Again, I find it unfortunate that Rome mad blanket statements like, "*every* gambler moves away from his family". I do believe, however, that a good majority of addicted gamblers do have strained relationships with friends and families due to their habit. I know among my friends who gamble and perhaps even for myself, I often find that the time I spend researching plays and watching games often cuts into time that could be spent with people that I care about. I justify it with the money I make and the fact that it is a hobby which I enjoy, but the facts remain the same.
As far as the comaprison to heroin, I believe that is slightly exaggerated but not far off the point. One of my good friends is a college dropout who has never made more than $20,000 in a year. During the 1999 NFL season, he lost $30,000. Now, I know that he has tried nearly every drug in the book recreationally (except heroin) and he will swear up and down that gambling is a more gripping vice than any of them. I know not much can be taken from a single example, but my point is that for many gamblers, that rush is so strong that the comparison to heroin for them is not far off.
I do agree that saying that a successful wiseguy who has been gambling for 20 years gambles for the rush is ludicrous, but the point they were making to Rome's listeners was somewhat accurate. Gambling's rush is as strong as any drug to those who are strongly addicted.
I know that Rome and the author also had some fun deriding the lifestyles of many gamblers and I don't think any of us could argue with that. Part of the freedom that gambling affords is that you can dress however you want and your appearance does not matter because you have no co-workers. I think anyone who has seen the becapped, unshaven, jean shorts-wearing masses in the average strip sportsbook would agree that sports gamblers don't display the level of traditional "class" that those who are stuck in the rat race of the corporate world become accustomed to in pursuit of corporate money.
I should point out that I think Rome went a tad overboard but the overall message to the type of sports fans who are mentally weak enough to enjoy the type of inane banter he often sells is a sound one. For most, gambling will take money from you, strain your relationships with loved ones and encourage you to exhibit "classless" social mannerisms.
I hate to be the one to say this because statements like these often cuase misguided polititians to try to take matters into their own hands, but I do believe it. It sometimes makes me uncomfortable that any money I make is drawn directly from the weakness of others, but in this world, that is a caveat of business when dealing with any form of "entertainment", which sports gambling surely is.
Clearly these two have a very negative opinion of sports wagering. It is also clear that they said some gross misrepesentations of sports gamblers by making their statements all inclusive.
Saying stuff like, "you *can't* win" and, "it's only a matter of time" is relatively foolish. Even they know that there are a decent number of professional gamblers in this world who do nothing but wager on sports for a living. It sounds irresponsible on the surface for them to make such blanket statements.
But Rome and the author were not addressing hard working gamblers like many of the guys who post on this board. They were addressing sports fans. That is Rome's audience.
Many, if not most, sports fans like to gamble on sports to some degree. And I believe I am not out of order in saying at least 99% of sports fans who gamble on sports lose money over the course of their lifetime.
It is for this reason that I don't find too much fault in Rome's comments on winning and losing money. The fact is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Rome's listeners will lose money if they gamble on sports long term. Be it through not putting in the required effort or succumbing to the temptation of chasing losses, most of the sports fans who like Jim Rome's style of show will be more on emotion than anything else and end up losing money.
I know it is hard to defend comments which are untrue like "you can't make money". I know he should have qualified that by saying there is an infinitessimal chance of making money. But when you look at the overall greater good, qualifying that statement would likely only encourage shortsighted sports fans to try to buck the odds. The reality is that Rome turning off his fans to sports gambling would be a good thing for most of them financially.
Rome and the author then proceeded to comapre gambling to heroin and talk about the degenerative nature that gambling can have on relationships with friends and family.
Again, I find it unfortunate that Rome mad blanket statements like, "*every* gambler moves away from his family". I do believe, however, that a good majority of addicted gamblers do have strained relationships with friends and families due to their habit. I know among my friends who gamble and perhaps even for myself, I often find that the time I spend researching plays and watching games often cuts into time that could be spent with people that I care about. I justify it with the money I make and the fact that it is a hobby which I enjoy, but the facts remain the same.
As far as the comaprison to heroin, I believe that is slightly exaggerated but not far off the point. One of my good friends is a college dropout who has never made more than $20,000 in a year. During the 1999 NFL season, he lost $30,000. Now, I know that he has tried nearly every drug in the book recreationally (except heroin) and he will swear up and down that gambling is a more gripping vice than any of them. I know not much can be taken from a single example, but my point is that for many gamblers, that rush is so strong that the comparison to heroin for them is not far off.
I do agree that saying that a successful wiseguy who has been gambling for 20 years gambles for the rush is ludicrous, but the point they were making to Rome's listeners was somewhat accurate. Gambling's rush is as strong as any drug to those who are strongly addicted.
I know that Rome and the author also had some fun deriding the lifestyles of many gamblers and I don't think any of us could argue with that. Part of the freedom that gambling affords is that you can dress however you want and your appearance does not matter because you have no co-workers. I think anyone who has seen the becapped, unshaven, jean shorts-wearing masses in the average strip sportsbook would agree that sports gamblers don't display the level of traditional "class" that those who are stuck in the rat race of the corporate world become accustomed to in pursuit of corporate money.
I should point out that I think Rome went a tad overboard but the overall message to the type of sports fans who are mentally weak enough to enjoy the type of inane banter he often sells is a sound one. For most, gambling will take money from you, strain your relationships with loved ones and encourage you to exhibit "classless" social mannerisms.
I hate to be the one to say this because statements like these often cuase misguided polititians to try to take matters into their own hands, but I do believe it. It sometimes makes me uncomfortable that any money I make is drawn directly from the weakness of others, but in this world, that is a caveat of business when dealing with any form of "entertainment", which sports gambling surely is.
