An open letter to GSN CEO David Goldhill

To: David Goldhill, new CEO of Game Show Network

Dear Mr. Goldhill,

My name is Christopher Cosenza and I represent a very powerful group: the Ante Up! Nation. I'm writing this letter to help you understand the importance of High Stakes Poker on Game Show Network. True, poker isn't a game show, and so under that argument you win, but it is a game ... of skill. Of course I'd argue Love Connection isn't exactly a game show either, but I digress.

Word is you may dislike having HSP on your network because it's "gambling." Well, I'm here to tell you poker is less like gambling than nearly every show on your schedule. Let's take Press Your Luck for instance. Aside from some mindless trivia to earn a spin, those contestants are merely playing an oversized antiquated slot machine. There's no skill involved. Sure, they may have a strategy when deciding to pass or press, but let's be fair: There's no skill in Press Your Luck. In fact, I would venture to say 95 percent of all of your shows are based on chance and luck (hell, it's right there in the title!). And don't get me started on BINGO AMERICA!

Poker, on the other hand, is a test of skill, cunning and psychology. Sure, large sums of money are involved, but what game show doesn't have large sums of money these days? Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Again, it's right there in the title. And if we're being completely honest, your job is to secure ratings and revenue, is it not? Name ONE other non-poker show where contestants put up THEIR OWN MONEY? You can't. Sure, the poker players get paid a nominal fee to be on your show, but that merely adds up to one big blind for these talented indivuduals. And, your overhead must be extremely small on a show like this: The set is all but provided by the casino, the cameras are at most a handful and the salaries of the hosts are minimal. Sure, there's a crew and production, but what show doesn't have that? It's part of running a network.

On behalf of the Ante Up! Nation and all TV poker fans out there, I'm asking you to please pick up the phone and call Mori Eskandani and order another season of High Stakes Poker.

-- Chris Cosenza, Ante Up! co-host and High Stakes Poker fan

Comments

[pokerpeaker]

Amen! Because if not, we may have to resort to GSN's "Celebrity Races" and watch radio co-hosts attempt to run a mile.

I did wonder if HSP had sort of "jumped the shark" with that $500,000 buy-in last season. I thought it was great, but I wasn't sure where they would go from there - what could top that, after all? But I'd be really disappointed if we didn't get a new HSP season.

Maybe the travel channel could pick it up.

[gadzooks64]

Here! Here!

HSP is hands down the best poker on television.

[Chris Cosenza]

And I haven't even pulled out the big guns yet ... wait till I threaten to turn in my cable box!!!

[OhCaptain]

Can I sign the letter too? Without poker on that channel, I wouldn't even know it was there. Those are the only shows I watch.

[aces88ss]

Ditto...Good luck with the effort Chris.

[Brett Otte]

I hate to point it out, but there's a couple inaccuracies with your letter.

1. There IS skill with the old Press Your Luck. You can google it. One contestant couldn't lose many years ago because there was a pattern for which square lit up. It wasn't random. The person knew every time a certain square lit up if you hit the buzzer the very next square was a certain dollar amount.

2. The other "game shows" are exactly that. They're not gambling. Gambling requires that you are wagering something and putting that sum at risk and you may end up being worse off than before playing. Game shows can either have you win nothing or something. No risk of loss.

[NickG]

Web petitions FTW! I know these never get anywhere, but at least this gives a chance to chime in and back up Chris.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/HSN_OpenLetter/

[Christopher Cosenza]

One person may have figured out the Press Your Luck RNG (LOL) but that's not the point. Take Joker's Wild if it floats your boat, when it actually WAS a huge slot machine.

No risk of loss? Really? So, when they accumulate money during the show and then lose it all on a whammy because they pressed their luck, they didn't lose money? Hmmm, interesting. Just because it's a freeroll to get on these shows doesn't make it any less of a loss when you make a stupid move like going on to the next level of questions instead of taking the money. There's gambling in every game show, regardless of putting up your own money or not.

[David Goldhill]

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your interest in our television programming. I understand your power and the power of your nation. But I answer to a higher power. JESUS CHRIST. Yes that's right Mr. Goldhill rooting Jesus who would figure!! Jesus would not like high stakes poker. And is that is not enough I answer to an even high power, the share holders of GSN, a closely held company.

Jesus said "a man that lays with another man shall be stoned to death" I interpret that to mean that gambling is a sin. The games that speak of on our show do not allow the contestants to bring their own money to the table, the show provides the money and prizes so there is no risk to the player. HSP offers significant risk to players. Do you understand the difference? No risk of losing anything v. risking massive amounts of money. Certainly a man of your great power understands.

The games that you speak of are cheap, we pay next to nothing for the shows and we are able to get some decent ad revenue for them. However the producers of HSP want a small fortune for the show, and though highly rated the show is not very profitable for us. There are only so many hours in the day and our shareholders require that I get the most out of each programming hour HSP does not fit into this formula.

So for moral reasons (WWJD) and for economic reasons (not that profitable) it does not make sense to air this show. So tell your poser lackies to lay off and create their own unprofitable television network if they want to see the damn show.

-David Goldhill

[aces88ss]

I suspect we are being punked (badly)

[Brett Otte]

I understand your view on the gameshow, but gameshows are not gambling. If you had to pay money to get on the show and could have the potential to owe the show money at the end then that would be gambling since you're putting your own money at risk.

Gameshows are free. You have the "potential" to win and your potential winnings goes up and down as the game progresses.

Same way Jeopardy works. If you owed the show money at the end for being -$12,500 then that would be a gamble.

Apparently you haven't had the same problems in your state like mine has had in recent years with bar poker. All bar poker was free in order to get customers in the place to buy food and drinks. You had the potential to win cash/prizes. This was not gambling since you put nothing at risk and there was no entry fee.

Some bars let people get more chips for real cash. These bars were fined because this was illegal gambling as they are not licensed for such activity.

[Marcus]

Chris,

I don't care whether the other gameshows are gambling or not. I know that HSP is much more a game of skill than those gameshows.

And even here in Germany I love to watch HSP. Its sometimes hard to get but I am looking forward to every episode I can get a hold of.

I hope you get a positive answer!

msc1204

[Gary]

I was really thinking of getting Satellite dish TV becuase my local cable company wont get GSN. I was thinking about switching just to be able watch high stakes poker.. looks like that option is out now.

[Sharkey]

Jesus said "a man that lays with another man shall be stoned to death"

I think he was talking about homosexuality. Not High Stakes Poker.

[Sharkey]

the letter was funny though blaz

[Lambanana]

Brett,
As your "potential winnings goes up and down" on a game show, you are, in fact, gambling. When you risk your winnings (which is now YOUR money), to win something bigger, you're gambling.

[Rant2112]

I also sense a Blazman in disguise.

[Rant2112]

Chris - No one is going to get addicted to being on game shows and lose their house.

[NickG]

"I love blackjack. But I'm not addicted to gambling. I'm addicted to sitting in a semi circle."
Mitch Hedberg

There's gambling in game shows, but being on a gameshow is not a gamble. Going to the casino is not a gamble, but sitting down and playing cards is. To be successful at poker you need skills, to be successful at Wheel of Fortune you need to know how to construct words with missing letters and a short clue, while allowing yourself to be distracted by an attractive blond female walk across the stage.

[Chris Cosenza]

Again, the point of this letter is to make this guy understand playing poker at that level requires incredible skill and isn't a sin and isn't necessarily gambling. ... at least as much as say, pressing your luck when you have money you can leave with. If playing poker for money is a sin then so is playing golf or tennis or bowling for prizes. That money isn't always generated by sponsors. Golfers, bowlers and tennis players have to pay to enter tournaments, and that money funds the prize pool in a lot of instances.

And yes, that was Blazman who posed as David Goldhill.

[NickG]

Golfers, bowlers and tennis players have to pay to enter tournaments, and that money funds the prize pool in a lot of instances.

Ooooooo burned!

[Dave]

PGA Tour members pay $0 in entry fees. Those prize pools are sponsor, ticket, parking, and concessions driven. Non-members pay a nominal fee which, pooled together, probably pays the last place guy's check.

Moreover, members get money regardless of where they finish. It's unofficial money for the purposes of money lists and rankings, but it's still a check to cover expenses quite nicely.

And I'm not sure it's any different in tennis or bowling.

[Chris Cosenza]

Only exempt players get to play for free. ... and it doesn't have to be professional level sports we are talking about. Regional pros pay out of their own pockets to bowl (I did it for years) and all of that money makes up the prize pool. Same with lower tier tennis tournaments and golf invitationals. You think they get into the U.S. Open for free? These guys pay an entry fee believe me. Just because there are sponsors doesn't make it free to everyone. Enough people are paying to play in these events to compete for a prize, and they are using their skill to earn it. ... just like a poker tournament.

[Dave]

The entry fee for this year's US Open is...$150. That tournament is unlike most others in that there's a massive national qualifying effort. 8390 applicants were taken this year so that's about $1.3M of the $7M total purse.

Keep in mind that the US Open is the USGA's cash cow, and goes a long way toward funding their dozen or so other national championships.

But week in and week out on tour, the field is almost exclusively PGA Tour members, who are paying squat. And even if they were paying $150 per, in a full field event that's only $23k of the typically $4-$6M prize pool.

These guys are playing largely for sponsors money. I'd suspect top tier tennis and bowling events are similar.

In more regional level events, sure the entry fees are a much bigger chunk of the much smaller total prize pool. At the top tier of the sports - forget it.

[Chris Cosenza]

Dave, the point of this post isn't to argue with you the merits of pro sports' prize fund allotments. The mere fact that tournaments exist in all of these sports where you HAVE to pay to enter and compete means you are forking over your own hard-earned cash to play for a bigger prize, which is exactly what happens in poker. So, when they HAVE to do this, regardless of their pro or amateur stature, are they gambling? Even the pros need to win enough money to stay exempt otherwise they are out. If that's not a gamble then what is? Sp, to get back to my original post: If poker is gambling, then so is Press Your Luck, or Love Connection, etc.

[Blazman]

Chris says "Again, the point of this letter is to make this guy understand playing poker at that level requires incredible skill and isn't a sin and isn't necessarily gambling."

Are you serious? Poker is gambling. You have to put something up as a stake to gamble. I don't think that contestants on "Press Your Luck" are putting up any money. Maybe they are, I don't know cause I have never seen the show. By definition Press Your Luck is not gambling.

You are confusing gambling with luck. Because a game has a large luck component it does not make it gambling, by your assertion shoots and ladders is gambling.

These assertions that you make are just silly and I think you just post this stuff to pump up the blog posts.

-Blaz

[Chris Cosenza]

Chance, where money is involved = gambling. It doesn't matter if you put your own money down or not. In fact, once you have made money on these game shows and have the chance to walk away, and don't, then you are gambling. Right? Sure, luck vs. skill is at the root of this argument, but that's just my point. Luck has almost everything to do with these game shows, and they are all taking chances with money they have just earned. Any bible-thumper will tell you that if you have money and risk it on chance then you are sinning or gambling, etc. I'm just saying that if this guy has a problem with poker because it's "gambling" then he needs to take a good long look at these cash cows known as game shows and re-evaluate what he thinks is just wholesome entertainment, when in fact it's not THAT much different than sitting down at the felt.

I didn't post this to be silly or to get comments. I believe in my heart that poker is more skill than luck, and therefore it's more admirable than being a whore to the networks as you jump up and down like an imbecile on Deal or No Deal and beg for small numbers inside steal suitcases. Once that banker says here's my first offer and you don't accept, you are GAMBLING. It no longer is a game show and now becomes a sad commercial for G.A.

[Erwin Blonk]

Name something, anything, that is not partly gambling. I'm serious: how many would consider getting a university degree a gamble with the risk of ending up losing. If Bill Gates would have decided to finish his studies, that would have been a big loss for him and someone else would have beaten him.
Poker is very straightforward in that respect.
And the thought that finishing your dergee is always a good gamble is just one example of a mistake in reasoning of the kind that are made on a daily basis.

[st]

Yeah, I think Chris has it right on this one; my job gives me money; I can take it and put it in the bank, or I can go to Vegas and gamble with it. Deal or No Deal gives me money; I can take it and put it in the bank, or I can flip over that little plastic cover and gamble with it. Once I win at the first stage of the game, that's my money, right? I could just walk away.

In fact, it's even more direct than that, and more pernicious; on Deal or no Deal, I may have in my hand an offer for enough money to pay off my credit cards, get out of debt, maybe put a couple of grand into a college fund for the kids - 80K or so is no joke, and could dramatically improve my life. But the show, and the crowd, and every part of that enterprise is literally begging me to put that security, that real benefit to myself and my family, up for grabs in exchange for the chance at THE BIG MONEY!!!!!

If that's not gambling, nothing is.

If GSN's new boss is concerned with propagating sin, then maybe he hasn't read Matthew 7:3 recently.

[Blazman]

I see the point that you are trying to make, so what you are saying is that people are gambling their opportunity. In that sense sure you can call it gambling. But is is very different from someone bringing their entire life savings to Wheel of Fortune and betting on themselves.

You are counting the opportunity as capital, which in the context of the game it is, but not in the context of LIFE. Are you sure you are not an accountant for Enron? This is what they did, they booked potential as profit which is a really really bad idea.

-Blazman

[st]

blazman -

Nope. It would be like Enron (i.e. treating opportunity as capital) if, before I went on the show at all, I averaged the total of all the available prizes, added a solid markup, and reported that number as income before the first case was opened.

What I'm talking about is completely different. After the initial round, when the banker offers me 80K, that 80K is realized income, not an opportunity. In fact, since my investment in getting myself to the show was likely minimal, it is not only revenue, but profit. When I exchange that profit for a chance at more, I'm gambling, and that's what Goldhill claims to want not to promote.

[Brett Otte]

Well I'm glad Blazman gets it. I'm glad I posted, but had no idea it would get this kind of response.

I think where many are confused or misinterpreting gambling is like Blaz said...a game show doesn't have players put their OWN money at risk of loss.

Sure on Wheel of Fortune, Deal or No Deal, etc you might earn some but you can NEVER OWE the show money. Worst is you win nothing. That is NOT GAMBLING.

Even buying in to a sporting event with a fee is NOT GAMBLING. You control how well you bowl or golf and buy the opportunity to play against others.

Poker has the element of chance in which even if you're the best player there is still the element that even with the best hand everytime you STILL MAY LOSE. It is that element of chance that defines gambling.

If game shows were gambling all of them would have to have a gaming license just like any casino.

Hope there will be a discussion on the podcast courtesy of your friendly MansionPoker.net PokerDome contestant.

[Chris Cosenza]

I'm so glad you brought up the element of chance Brett.

Are you saying a gust of wind that sends Tiger's drive into the rough and ultimately ends up costing him a stroke and the tournament isn't unlucky? Did it happen by chance? Yep. He can't control the wind, just like we can't control the next card to peel off the deck.

Maybe Tiger hits the perfect drive and it ends up in someone else's divot ... he did everything right and still got unlucky ... just like a poker player who gets his money in good and he still loses to runner-runner flush.

How about a bowler who sticks and falls past the foul line, costing him the match because, unbeknownst to him, the bowler before him had something sticky on the bottom of his shoe and it ended up on the approach? Or maybe he doesn't fall and his shot was perfect, flush in the pocket, and yet somehow the 7-10 split stood up when it should have been a strike? Bad luck indeed. There's always a chance the pins won't fall the way they should. Maybe he has the lead and his opponent cracks under pressure in the 10th frame, rolling a horrible shot that doesn't even come close to hitting the pocket. Then, all of a sudden one pin wobbles backward and starts a domino effect that ultimately knocks all of the pins over for a clinching strike. No different than having someone hit a one-outer on you. Both happened by chance, rare as it may be.

Or the tennis player who hits the ball in play but the line judge calls it out. Now instead of winning that point the game goes to a tiebreaker and he loses the tournament because the other player is a very good server and has an edge. If the line judge made the correct call he would have won, instead he got unlucky. Just like if the next card was exposed by accident and would have given you the winning hand. But now because of human error it has to get reshuffled into the deck. Now the river gives your opponent the best hand and you lose a monster pot. Human error affected both outcomes. Were you unlucky? Yep. Chance ruled those events.

Bad luck happens in all sports ... in poker, if you're better than your opponent you will win over time, but luck (bad and good) comes into play with the element of chance. There's a chance someone would hit runner-runner to beat you, and there's a chance a bird will grab Tiger's Nike ball and fly away with it. Neither player did anything wrong, both paid to play in their tournament, and yet one is gambling and one isn't? Hmm, very interesting.

By your rationale then, I contend all athletes who compete for prizes, especially if they're paying for their entry in one way or another, are gambling. They're wagering their money and fame and job security that they're better than the others and trying to make a living at it. How is that ANY different than a poker player doing the exact same thing?

It's not.

Also, how can any poker player defend Brett's (and Blazman's) stance? Every one of you at some point in your lives have said "Chips are your tools of the trade at the table and you have to have a disregard for money when you play poker." If you're choosing to play poker (for a living or for fun), putting your money up to play is no different than buying a hammer and saw if you're a carpenter. You need them to make a living. Tiger can't play golf without clubs, and we can't play poker without chips. We both have to pay for our tools; it's what we do with them that makes the difference.

The problem is people see stacks of money go into the middle and can't disassociate that from the fact that it could buy them a new car. But that's how these people make a living, and the IRS agrees. There are no professional roulette players, because THAT is gambling. You can't fold when the ball falls into black after you bet red.

[Clever Moniker]

I was going to put out a mini manifesto on this, but Blaz & Brette are both right on.

When the individual puts up nothing to participate as in a game show, there is zero risk - nothing ventured. Therefore it cannot be gambling. Even if they temporarily 'have' something & risk it in the game, they truly never actually have it in their possession. No bank transaction, no cash in their palm, nothing. It is virtual (at best). Brette hit it perfectly - if it were indeed gambling, all these shows would need to have casino-like licenses to operate.

And it is the element & degree of chance that makes poker gambling. Sure, there's random stuff happening in a sporting event, but that is true of absolutely everything that occurs in the universe. Every single thing that happens can be expressed as a statistical likelihood. Randomness is all around us. Merely saying that a bird or wind can mess up a golfer's game does not automatically make it a gamble. The element of skill is the predominant factor in determining that (golf) outcome. Every player is subject to the same environmental factors & possibilities. The best guy on that day is the one who wins. The element of chance is small (heck, possibly zero).

But in poker, the element of chance is much greater. How great is the subject of great debate, obviously. But those dopes like the GSN wonk think poker is mostly chance. Others would argue otherwise like long-haul results. But you cannot dispute that there is more randomness in poker than just about any other organized competition.

[st]

"you can NEVER OWE the show money. Worst is you win nothing. That is NOT GAMBLING"

Barring illegal activity, I can never owe my employer money either. Worst is I get fired and they don't pay me any more. Point is at some point, both in my job and in a game of Deal or No Deal, I have an amount of money that I can simply pocket and put towards the necessities of life. When I choose not to, and instead risk that money for the chance to get more money, I'm gambling. It's really not that controversial a proposition.

And I reiterate, the gameshow is worse, becasue the whole enterprise begs me to cast aside realized income for pie-in-the-sky millionaire dreams. Morover, it requires me to bet not some budgeted, manageable amount of my day's pay, but all of it, in one throw.

Inasmuch as Chris's point seems to be shading into an argument that poker isn't gambling, he and I part company. Poker may have strong elements of skill, but it has strong elements of luck as well, stronger than the random events that occur in the sports mentioned by Chris above. But, importantly, nowhere near as luck-based as looking for a briefcase with a big number in it.

Poker IS gambling. But so is Deal or No Deal, once I've been offered some money.

[Erwin Blonk]

"When the individual puts up nothing to participate as in a game show, there is zero risk - nothing ventured."

So your time is worth nothing? I'd love to hire you ;)
You might not think much of the time you put in, and that's ok, but you do put it in. Basically you decide it is worth your time for that game show and consider it +EV if only because you have a good time.
I'm not for putting a price tag and everything but that doesn't chance the fact that you're using a limited resource for entertainment and/or a chance to win something.
Everything is a choice, everything is a gamble. I gamble putting my time in writing this because I gladly trade it for an interesting and entertaining discussion. To be sure, the risk that it will not be is very small.

[st]

clever moniker -

"Even if they temporarily 'have' something & risk it in the game, they truly never actually have it in their possession. No bank transaction, no cash in their palm, nothing. It is virtual (at best)"

That sounds nice, but why is it true? If the "banker" offers me 80K, I can take it. I have a right to it, not merely an "opportunity." In other words, if I say "Deal," and the show refuses to pay me, I can sue NBC and win. Why is that any different than any other contract where I perform, and the other side must pay? Simply slinging the word "virtual" around doesn't mean anything here. I have a right to the money. I give it up for the chance to get more money. It's gambling. I have no idea why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

And as for why they don't need a casino license, well, that's because they can't take away more than they give, as you point out. But that is not the definition of gambling. Look it up - the definition of gambling is "1: to play a game for money or property 2: to bet on an uncertain outcome, 3: to stake something on a contingency, take a chance.

To stake something on a contingency. If I have a legal right to $80,000, I have something. You want to say I don't, because the money is "virtual, at best"? Fine, but you are wasting your time. It's gambling.

[engstrok]

"Gambling" does not really exist.

All decisions with variable outcomes are a combination of expected value, expected utility, and variance.

[st]

Ah, engstrok goes meta. However, the theory of expected utility itself explicitly utilizes the concept of gambling as part of it's proof that utility preferences may be assigned weights, so I'm not sure that utility can be deployed as part of a proof that gambling does not exist.

[aces88ss]

""Gambling" does not really exist."

Wow, usually it's me that goes way off topic.

Poker is a game, Arguably, the best of the TV Poker games is High Stakes Poker. The Game Show Network has a lot of games airing on the station.

GSN would be well served to host HSP on it's station.

BTW, I would guess that the loss off the competing on-line poker sites as guaranteed ad revenue has more to do with the possible non-renewal than anything else. Possibly asking for patience from the network would be a better tactic. If the UIGEAmouse should either be repealed or rendered toothless, the ad revenue spigot will once again open to a respectable trickle. And should the blessing of regulated US poker happen, the spigot will open full stream. I for one can't wait for Celebrity Poker with the Dancing Idle Stars

Chris, thanks again for your effort.

[Chris Cosenza]

Wow, never thought my letter to the GSN brass would promote such existential responses. The fact is just about all of the game shows on GSN have some element of gambling in them. Where do you draw the line? $50? $500? $500,000? You can't say it's only a little gambling so it's ok. That's like saying you're girlfriend is only a little pregnant. Poker is gambling if you use the definition from a dictionary, but then again, so is the stock market. Will David Goldhill pull GSN from the market because he can't imagine millions of souls losing their livlihood at his expense after he chose pulled HSP and then his network went down the loo?

[Blazman]

st - Enron booked profits based on financial instruments that they
owned, for example they owned futures contracts and booked the profit
based on the current value, before the futures contracts expired. This
is the EXACT scenario as the banker's offer. In your example the 80k is
not realized income until you accept it, period. Until you accept an
offer you are still negotiating.

Chris - your argument is exactly like Goldhill's "A man that lays with
another man shall be stoned" Obviously a man sleeping with another man
is a gamble, so anyone gambling should be stoned, therefore god must
hate gambling and gamblers. The bottom line is that GOD HATES TIGER WOODS.

[aces88ss]

"A man that lays with
another man shall be stoned"

I think this is a bad translation...in the original Greek (Jimmy the .....), it read, "A man that LIES with another man shall be stoned"

meaning a Man that Lies (Bluffs) me out of a pot better duck. I believe in god's poker god) holy word, and I am flingin rocks, not cards

[Clever Moniker]

st - if the banker offers you 80K & you refuse it, you still have nothing. Once you refuse it, your right to claim it is gone. End of (potential) transaction. You cannot be risking it any longer because it is no longer yours to control.

If you accept the 80K, the game is over & you can't risk it. Either way, you are not gambling.

And I find it really amusing that Blazman is talking about being stoned. Very appropriate.

[aces88ss]

one more BTW...

In college, I made kind of a closet study of "A man that lays with
another man shall be stoned"...

Did you all know that in the original Jamaican translation, it has nothing to do with homosexuality or gamblin.

[st]

Blaz - not really. Enron "booked" the profit - i.e. claimed it on their balance sheet - without obtaining the capital. They said "because I could sell this for $X right now, I am going to tell the market I have $X." They used that representation to get more credit, attract more investors, etc. Then they didn't cash it in, but let it ride, and when the market tanked, all of their promises were built on nothing because they had not cashed in.

This would only be the same situation as the bankers offer if I had $0 in my checking account, and instead of taking the offer, I wrote a check to my mortgage company based on the "present value" of the offer, and then went ahead and rejected it anyway. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the situation where you have an enforceable right to something, and instead of "realizing" it, to use your phrase, you put it at risk again in the hope of obtaining more. That's gambling.

You realize, of course, that the goal here is not to prove whether or not Deal or No Deal is comparable to Enron, but rather whether it's comparable to poker. In poker, I have something (my money). I choose to place it at risk (conditioned by skill, but also by chance), for the opportunity to make more. In DoND, I have something (an enforceable right to 80K). I choose to place that 80K at risk (the next offer could be higher, it could be lower), for the opportunity to make more. Who cares if we're "still negotiating?"

[st]

clev -
If I refuse it, I do not have nothing. I have the opportunity to open more boxes and change the terms of the deal in my favor (or not). Now, to be fair, it may be that all of my talk about "enforceable rights" is guff; there may be language in the contracts/releases you sign that state that you never have an enforceable right to anything. But taking the show on its own terms (and those terms, as broadcast, and as compared to HSP, are the point), there is no way you can say I have nothing.

[aces88ss]

Metaphysically, I am starting to agree with those that see gambling in some degree with everything in life.

For example, last night I went to dinner with the lovely Mrs. Aces88ss. I know from studying my conversation history, and having it analyzed through "starting a conversation with your wife" tracker (a little known off shoot of Poker Tracker), I could have started the conversation with, "I love those shoes, maybe you should buy a pair just like them in brown". According to SACWYW Tracker, there is almost no gamble in this sentence, As close to a sure thing as a 5 to a 6 in RAZZ. But, instead I chose to ignore my hand history with SACWYW Tracker (trademarked), and started the evening with, "And let me tell you another thing about your Fu*king Mother". god bless SACWYW. It really has helped me analyze my game and improve it in so many little ways.

[Rant2112]

Y'all can get semantic and technical if you want. The bottom line for most anti-gambling people is addiction and ruined lives. This can and does happen with poker. It is ridiculously unlikely to happen with game shows. QED

[st]

Rant2112 - now that is a different - and frankly more compelling - distinction, and certainly identifies a material difference between the two things. But don't forget, the bottom line for many anti-gambling folks is religious, not social. From someone coming from a religious perspective, i.e. that the very activity of gambling is a sin, I don't think they can honestly draw a line between the two things. If the criticism is that casino gambling costs lives and livelihoods, well, that's a clearer case. But that does not make one activity gambling and the other not.

[aces88ss]

All joking aside, and this is my last post on this subject (and the crowd goes wild), Rant, your last post is 100% correct. ST, while you are also 100% correct, if the "powers that NOW be" agree with Rant's statement, it is a dark day for HSP on the game show network (which was the original point of the post)

[Erwin Blonk]

"If the criticism is that casino gambling costs lives and livelihoods, well, that's a clearer case"

Clear, maybe, logical no. Suppose we get rid of all gambling, and I mean of the casino/lottery/poker kind, including poker. People with a tendency to spend money in ways they shouldn't, will do so regardless.
I'll bet gambling debts are dwarved by debts from people buying cars, shoes, season tickets or, say, houses, they can't afford (in the latter case gambling the economy would swing their way - guess what? they lost, big time).
Gambling debts are a symptom, not a cause.

[st]

EB -
It's a clearer AND more logical way of distinguishing between poker and gameshows because it is based upon fact (actual people go bankrupt from casino gambling, nobody goes bankrupt from appearing on gameshows too often) rather than arbitrary line-drawing by GSN between what is and is not gambling. That's what the discussion is about.

I'm not sure anyone's debating whether or not there are other manifestations of irresponsible risk decisionmaking elsewhere in our society, or proposing to "get rid of all gambling."

[Erwin Blonk]

st -
reading back my postings I see I went a bit here, there and everywhere, essentially arguing a different point.

So GSN might drop HSP because it's gambling. In my opinion poker combines skill and gambling, so if you don't want any gambling, HSP has to go.
I agree with Chris, these game shows involve gambling too (btw I'd take the $80K). Of course, for contestants all that they can lose is the time they put into it (in which they might have worked to earn money) and possibly the phone call or text message you send to make a chance of getting picked (which is gambling), and because the 80K offered comes for free, they can afford to lose it. But still, they gamble with it. The HSP players can afford to lose the money they put in, even though it is their own. To my that's pretty much the same thing, the principle of not gambling with money you can't afford to lose.
If you don't want evew the least gambling on your shows, do away with most of them. If you want to allow gambling when the contestants can afford to lose what they put in, allow HSP and the rest. Otherwise, state clearly how much gambling you will allow.

[Erwin Blonk]

btw if David Goldhill takes the risk of either winning or losing audience by dropping HSP, that his decision, he can gamble with that.