Is every single transaction gambling?

[Scroll32]

Hey MCM,

I had this conversation with a friend on this and thought I would get some thoughts on this hypothetical idea. I'll give the three examples that were being debated on if they are gambling or not.

1. 5 dollar bet that the broncos will win (both people have to pay up if they lose)
2. Betting someone 10 dollars that they won't finish a milkshake (if they don't finish the shake, there is no money or item that is owed to the person who made the bet)
3. Paying someone in exchange for a Minecraft skin

We both said that option one was gambling. My friend said that 2 was and 3 was not because of the word "bet" and that there is something that is being risked that is a "game". But I argued it must be both that are or are not gambling. My logic was that with gambling, there must be something that is lost if they lose for both sides, which 2 does not have. But I argued it could be that both were gambling, because the definition is "
take risky action in the hope of a desired result." In theory both qualify, for 2 it is taking a risky action of putting up 10 dollars, with the desired result of them finishing the shake. It also works for 3 as they put up the skin, with the desired result to gain money. Anyway I just wanted to get some outside thoughts on the logic provided, or maybe a new perspective I didn't think of.

 

[Cade]

Hey MCM,

I had this conversation with a friend on this and thought I would get some thoughts on this hypothetical idea. I'll give the three examples that were being debated on if they are gambling or not.

1. 5 dollar bet that the broncos will win (both people have to pay up if they lose)
2. Betting someone 10 dollars that they won't finish a milkshake (if they don't finish the shake, there is no money or item that is owed to the person who made the bet)
3. Paying someone in exchange for a Minecraft skin

We both said that option one was gambling. My friend said that 2 was and 3 was not because of the word "bet" and that there is something that is being risked that is a "game". But I argued it must be both that are or are not gambling. My logic was that with gambling, there must be something that is lost if they lose for both sides, which 2 does not have. But I argued it could be that both were gambling, because the definition is "
take risky action in the hope of a desired result." In theory both qualify, for 2 it is taking a risky action of putting up 10 dollars, with the desired result of them finishing the shake. It also works for 3 as they put up the skin, with the desired result to gain money. Anyway I just wanted to get some outside thoughts on the logic provided, or maybe a new perspective I didn't think of.

1&2 is gambling

 

[Scroll32]

1&2 is gambling

I agree with one, but do you mind explaining 2 outside of the context that it must be 3 as well.

 

[Cade]

I agree with one, but do you mind explaining 2 outside of the context that it must be 3 as well.

#1 - You're placing money on the Broncos to win the game. If they lose, money is lost. The game could go either way, so it is a gamble.

#2 - You're placing money on a friend not finishing their shake. If they finish the shake, money is lost. The shake can go either way, so it's a gamble.

#3 - You're paying for an item that you've seen/described. In the end, you'll receive the Minecraft skin, and you'll pay for the Minecraft skin.

In my mind, I've always considered it a gamble if the outcome can go either way.

 

[Unavailable]

in exchange for a Minecraft skin

Is the Minecraft skin random? If so then it's kinda gambling since it works like a lootbox would

 

[Cade]

Is the Minecraft skin random? If so then it's kinda gambling since it works like a lootbox would

This also comes into play with #3. If you're paying for an item that you've described or have seen the item, it's not a gamble. If you're paying for just a random Minecraft skin then it's a gamble because the outcome can go either way as I said above.(Good skin/bad skin)

 

[Scroll32]

#1 - You're placing money on the Broncos to win the game. If they lose, money is lost. The game could go either way, so it is a gamble.

#2 - You're placing money on a friend not finishing their shake. If they finish the shake, money is lost. The shake can go either way, so it's a gamble.

#3 - You're paying for an item that you've seen/described. In the end, you'll receive the Minecraft skin, and you'll pay for the Minecraft skin.

In my mind, I've always considered it a gamble if the outcome can go either way.

Honestly a really good take on it, but if I buy a skin (custom one for this example), It could be bad, or good, which means either way. So it comes back to my philosophical point that anything is a gamble.

Is the Minecraft skin random? If so then it's kinda gambling since it works like a lootbox would

Was meant to be a custom skin, came up with it on the top of my head, sorry for the lack of clarification there.

Gambling at its core is essentially Anything in which you put an object of value down as a wager It doesn't have to be for money.


The easiest logic of this is a slot machine. A horse race, wagering money on a tic-tac-toe game.

1. 5 dollar bet that the broncos will win (both people have to pay up if they lose)

^ You're placing an object of value down for a chance at the outcome of profiting.

2. Betting someone 10 dollars that they won't finish a milkshake (if they don't finish the shake, there is no money or item that is owed to the person who made the bet)

^ This is the same logic as #1 but instead of gambling on a sport's team ability, you're gambling on the ability of a sole person.

3. Paying someone in exchange for a Minecraft skin
^ Not even sure the logic here honestly. This is paying for a service. Granted this is a MCM and people scam for dumb shit. So I guess yes this is gambling (in this single instance) on the outcome of you receiving the skin and not being scammed.

There is a key difference in logic in 1 and 2, "for the chance of profiting", which means there is upside for both people, there is no upside in 2 because if they don't drink it, its a push. For 3 the logic is essentially that you are "gambling" that you won't get your product up to standards, or you might get scammed, which I think is a good example. However, the skin example is not the only instance this can happen. It could not be up to your standards when you buy, thats a gamble. It could be buying marketing, which is a service, but is still gambling (its more like 1 in that you intend to profit, but thought I would put it here anyway). You could buy website hosting and it could not be a good service thats up to standard, thats a gamble. My point is really that 2 and 3 must be the same in wether they are or are not a gamble, as I see how both of them can fit, and can't fit into both categories.

 

[ProxiesGG]

1 & 2 i believe