“There are two types of gamblers - losers and liars” — My Uncle Eddie

I was sitting in a local tavern while counseling one of my parishioners over several beers.

He soon pulled out 40, one dollar “Fantasy Five” lottery tickets to have the bartender check for him.

I’ll call this guy “Ron” for the sake of this story.

I’ve known Ron for many years; he’s a disabled Veteran who lives in subsidized housing and sustains off of $945 a month from disability benefits.

I asked him, “How much do you win if you hit all five numbers?”

“It depends on how many people play, but the last time somebody won, it paid about $50,000,” he said.

I picked up a play slip, turned it over and examined the odds.

I continued, “You know Ron, your odds of hitting all five are one in 575,757 - and you only get paid $50,000?”

“Who cares what the odds are?

“As long as I win and get paid, that’s all that matters to me,” he responded, slightly irritated.

Trying to knock some common sense into Ron, I said, “If you bought every single combination, you would spend $575,757 to get back $50,000.

“They’re taking your one dollar and giving you back 9 cents!”

He took another gulp of beer and increasingly pissed off he said, “You’re a moron!

“You would have to be stupid to buy that many tickets!

“That’s why I buy only 40.

“Forty tickets gives me a lot better chance than buying just one.”

Trying to calm him down I said, “You’re right Ron; it’s better to have a 40 in 575,757 chance than a 1 in 575,757 chance.”

By this time, the bartender returned with the results of his forty tickets - three “replays” but no money.

He looked over at me and said, “You can’t win every time, but that $50,000, or whatever it will pay, is certainly going to come in handy when I do win it.”

I had a bright idea to see just how ignorant this guy is.

I asked him, “How would you like to win some of your money back right now?”

He looked at me with suspicion and said, “What do I have to do?”

“Simple,” I explained, “all you have to do is guess the number that you’re about to roll on a single die.”

“That’s it?”

“Yeah, that’s it!

“For every dollar you put up you get three plus your original dollar back when you’re right,” I said.

Ron laughed, “Can I bet more than one number?”

“Of course, you can bet all six if you want.”

I asked for a piece of paper, a pen and a couple of dice from the bartender.

I divided the paper into six sections and marked each section from one to six.

“OK Ron, put a dollar on the numbers you want to bet, pick one of the two dice and roll,” I said.

Ron gave a greedy laugh while he put a dollar each on number one, three and six.

He picked up the die and rolled a four.

I took his three dollars; again he put a dollar up on each of the same numbers - one, three and six.

Ron picked up the same die and rolled a three.

He laughed, “See, I told you! You need to make multiple bets.”

I handed Ron his three dollar prize plus his original dollar that he bet on number three and congratulated him.

Ron played the same numbers again and rolled a six.

He was happy; I paid him.

We played eight more times.

Every time Ron lost, I kept his three dollars; every time he won, I gave him back what was on the “board” and handed him a buck out of my pocket.

Out of 11 “games,” Ron had a winning number on five of them.

I collected a total of $33 dollars in wagers and gave him back $15 in prizes.

Ron was happy when he won; but since the game isn’t very exciting, we stopped playing after 11 rolls.

Ron attributed the fact that he had less money now than when we started on his “luck.”

“A lottery is nothing more than a tax on the mathematically challenged” –Benjamin Franklin

Not to take advantage of a disabled veteran - for all I knew he suffered a brain injury - I bought him several beers with the money I just “earned.”

What astonishes me, is that his view towards gambling is pretty typical of the chronic “serious” lottery player.

Let’s face it, the only entities to make money from gambling in the long run are the bookies, casinos and government.

Most gamblers realize that the odds are stacked against them.

Statistically over several hundred turns, if you play a decent game of blackjack or craps, you put up one dollar and get back 95-97% of your money.

Due to the fluctuations of probability, it will appear as though you’re either winning or losing larger amounts.

Roulette, slots, sports games and horse races are geared to take 5-25% of every dollar wagered - and to most knowledgeable gamblers, 25% is too much.

Even the mafia, when they ran numbers, would take no more than 33 cents on the dollar.

State lotteries are just an out right plain as day rip off taking over half the money you put in.

What about the Super Jackpot Lotteries?

The “Power Ball” or 6/49 games - whatever they’re called in different parts of the country - are all run the same.

You buy a ticket for a dollar; less than 40 cents goes back into the prize pool.

Even though the jackpot may be $12 million, the odds of winning might be one in 60 million.

Then, if you’re lucky enough to win, they take that $12 million, put it in an annuity and pay you off over the next twenty years, using the interest the prize money has generated!

Of course, you could have taken the “one lump sum” option - where you take only half the jack pot!

You can make big bucks in a lottery!

The problem is, you have to run your own.

More than likely, for political reasons, it is illegal where you are.

But, if it were legal, a lottery could be something as simple as picking the last three numbers of the Friday closing of the Dow.

The odds are one in 1,000.

So, if you guarantee a payoff of $500 to the winner, you would be able to keep half the money you collect long term - just have the prize money in reserve first, just in case!

When I feel like playing the lottery, either out of shear drunkenness or fantasizing about a very large jackpot, I will always buy two tickets.

Why two?

Taking advice from Ron, two tickets gives me more of a chance to win as opposed to just one!

Digg.com | Propeller.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services

Previous to the Reagan Administration, our public airwaves were regulated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) who enforced stipulations that were meant for the public good:

- The Fairness Doctrine required media outlets to provide equal time for opposing view points.

- Broadcast frequencies were assigned to companies - not to the highest bidder, but by what the FCC determined as the “best public use.”

- A corporation was only allowed to own a certain amount of radio, TV and newspapers in any geographical location; this was to keep any one company from monopolizing what was seen, heard or read in the area.

In 1982, 50 companies controlled half or more of the media business.

When the Reagan Administration took power in the early 1980’s, many of the doctrines of the FCC were considered outdated.

The FCC was revamped to promote a more “free market” approach to broadcast and print media.

In 1987 the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine.

In 1994, broadcast spectrums were auctioned to the highest bidder, regardless of “best public use;” this made only the largest and most powerful of corporations able to afford them.

Large media giants swallowed the smaller companies that could not afford to compete.

In 2003, the FCC Media Bureau produced a draft report analyzing the impact of deregulation in the radio industry.

The report stated that from March 1996 through March 2003, the number of commercial radio stations on the air rose 5.9 percent while the number of station owners fell 35 percent.

Today, most of what we see, hear and read is controlled by nine large media conglomerates; the largest five are Time Warner, Disney, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation (i.e. FOX News).

Now, take into consideration the fact that 1% of the population controls more than 50% of the wealth of this nation.

That 1% know each other very well!

Call them what you want, the illuminati or whatever, but these are the few families that chose the candidates that we are allowed to pick from.

These candidates, no matter who wins, are no more than puppets of the billionaire families that control the nation’s industry and money.

The way the electoral college is structured, the process only works if you have two serious candidates, and the powers that be make sure they own them both.

So, when Congressman Ron Paul (aka Dr. Paul) from Texas entered the Presidential race last year, he was pretty much written off by the mainstream media as an “extremist” due to his “unconventional” views.

Dr. Paul, did make sense to a lot who listened; his respect for the Constitution, his ideas of small government, a sane fiscal policy and civil liberties are popular ideas in today’s mass-deficit, intrusive totalitarian police state.

But, his ideas and platform challenge the power of the few who control the money, government and media; Congressman Paul’s ideas threaten the status quo.

Ten years ago, the media would have just ignored Dr. Paul until he faded away into obscurity.

However, he gained massive support through the unregulated internet.

So when Dr. Paul won most of the Republican Straw Polls, most of the post debate call-in and internet polls and raised more money in a single day than any other Presidential candidate, the main stream media could no longer ignore Dr. Paul.

How The Media Destroys Candidates

The media down played Dr. Paul’s popularity by blaming it on a few “spammers” that did not represent the majority of voters.

Sean Hannity dissed Ron Paul winning a FOX text poll by saying, “(the poll) is just a lot of fun.”

When FOX News (”Fair and balanced,” “We Report, You Decide”) excluded Dr. Paul from the New Hampshire debates due to “lack of room” it became increasingly clear to more Americans who is choosing our candidates.

At the time when the New Hampshire debates aired, Congressman Paul had already kicked Giuliani’s ass in the Iowa Caucus and had raised more money than any other Republican in that quarter.

FOX had room for Giuliani, but not for Congressman Paul!

The media started to increase the use of adjectives when reporting on Congressman Paul to give the impression to the average voter that his chances of winning were very slim…

“Dark horse candidate Ron Paul…”

“Long shot candidate Ron Paul…”

The media can’t control what Dr. Paul says in the debates but, since they control the cameras, they can pan across to his opponents as they act shocked and mystified when Dr. Paul schools them on the Constitution and fiscal responsibility…

After all, if the other candidates seem shocked at what is being said, shouldn’t most Americans?

Sad to say, most American voters view their ballot as a betting card, not an instrument of Democracy.

I’ve talked to many people who are not concerned about voting for the most qualified candidate, but for the winner.

After all, if you vote for a loser, didn’t you just waste your vote?

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” - Winston Churchill

It’s hard for the media to ignore Ron Paul, especially his vocal supporters…

Of course, the news reports all Ron Paul supporters as anarchists, conspiracy theorists, racists and wackos.

What “average” American voter wants to be stereotyped as such?

But, the media has a great way to ruin Dr. Paul’s campaign (or any other candidate for that matter) - by simply doing their best to ignore him!

Ron Paul has raised most of his money through individuals on the internet, the most of any other candidate; so when the Orlando Sentinel displayed a widget that would allow you to “find out who in your neighborhood donated to which presidential candidate,” they simply left Dr. Paul out as if he wasn’t running.

Ron Paul came in second place in the Nevada Caucus…

The New York Times didn’t even list Dr. Paul and had McCain coming in second, when he actually finished third in Nevada!

Even the BBC News, which has a reputation for being fair and balanced, doesn’t even list Ron Paul on any of their polls!

So, close to the South Carolina primary, Yahoo News doesn’t have room for Ron Paul’s picture?

However, they have room for Giuliani who has been losing to Dr. Paul!

But, when they have too much space, a question mark is good filler!

I watched the debate last night on CNN at the Reagan Library and it was apparent to me that Ron Paul won the debate hands down.

Yes, I know that is only my opinion.

However, when I picked up a local paper today, one of the headlines read, “GOP Nomination Now Between McCain And Romney.”

Of Course, they have to announce this before the Super Tuesday primaries to alert all the sheep to either stay home or vote for either candidate.

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” - George Carlin

I will be voting for Dr. Paul.

He still does have a chance, but I am leaving room on my bumper for a “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For Ron Paul” sticker!

Sources:

Hannity disses Ron Paul victory in Fox post-debate poll

The FCC

FCC History Notes

More FCC History Notes

Digg.com | Propeller.com | Reddit.com | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon.com | Google.com | Socialogs.com | Others social services