The EVF Model: A Novel Framework for Understanding Gambling and, by Extension, Poker
AbstractThere are several senses in which the term gambling is used. All have liabilities, problems that have muddied the waters in scientific research, generated conflicting legal decisions, compromised debates over ethical and moral issues, and have led to uneven legislation. Here, a novel framework for the term is offered, based on two continuous variables: a) the Expected Value (EV) of any arbitrary game and, b) e inherent Flexibility (F) of that game. This EVF model produces a classification system for all the enterprises that can or have been called gambling. It is one that allows for more measured decisions to be made and provides a more coherent platform on which to deliberate the many significant issues that have been raised over the years. It also permits a sensible answer to the question of the nature of games like the stock market, opening a small business, and especially, poker.IntroductionWhat activities constitute "gambling?" If gambling is a legitimate category, what are its boundaries? What features do the objects in the category express? What characteristics do they have in common, if any? Surprisingly, there aren't any satisfying answers to these questions which is disturbing because there are significant legal, legislative, economic and ethical issues lurking behind them. This paper presents the EVF model, a novel conceptual framework for viewing these issues. It allows for a different gloss on the core term gambling and provides a format wimin which some of mese concerns might be approached. The model represents gambling activities along on two continuous dimensions: the Expected Value (EV) of a game and the inherent Flexibility (F) that it affords participants. The model is a general one but, largely because of the intense scrutiny accorded it in recent years, the game of poker will take a central place in the discussions.Definitional IssuesThe term gambling has had an unhappy lexicographic experience. In popular parlance, it is used with considerable latitude and, for the most part, without causing any particular problems. Gambling is taking risks, putting something of value (usually, but not always, money) in jeopardy with at least a reasonable hope of ultimate gain. The looseness of the meaning has led to its application to a wide range of human conduct. We have all seen the stock market called a gamble; real estate ventures and other forms of investment are routinely called gambles; and politicians who stake out controversial positions are often described as gambling. The connotations here are usually benign.The gambler in these instances is merely taking a chance on a program, project or an enterprise that has some balance between risk and reward.There is, however, a second cluster of connotations that accompany the term, ones that derive from viewing gambling as an activity linked with games of chance, enterprises mat take place in casinos, racetracks, lottery kiosks, card rooms, billiard halls and other venues whose social status is generally pegged below those of Wall Street, Congress or a Justice of the Peace's office. Those who gamble in this sense are commonly viewed with a moral opprobrium rarely found applied to those who gamble in the former sense. The connotative clash here has caused problems, most compellingly when efforts to curtail or even outlaw one kind of gambling are made while leaving the other largely to the kinds of limited regulatory oversight consistent with free market policy. To see this distinction, consider the following tale.The Saga of N.L.This story is presented as, in Dennett's (1995) famous phrase, an intuition pump. It concerns N.L. a young British businessman who made a number of decisions in a highly volatile area, wagering on anticipated future outcomes. Things did not go well, and N.L. found himself in a financially difficult situation. He struggled to recoup me initial losses by increasing the stakes.