I’ll bet he’s available, ladies
By Thoreau
The Economist reports this week on legalized online gambling in Britain. In doing so, they note the training regimen of one professional poker player:
The snakeskin-clad Mr Ulliott, for instance, reportedly trains by making love for five hours at a stretch—“I like to get a woman and wring her out like a flannel,” he told a newspaper—to prepare for playing late into the night.
It’s not all titillating details, however. There is one serious point that should be obvious but needs to be made:
Liberalisation has not proved as damaging to British morals as critics feared. The Gambling Prevalence Survey, released on September 19th, surprised many with its findings, though some contest the figures. Although restrictions have been easing for years, the proportion of problem gamblers in Britain has barely changed since 1999, the survey holds, and, at about 0.6% of adults, it is lower than in more puritanical America.
It should be obvious, but that only makes the repetition even more important.
Comment by Karen —
September 30, 2007 @ 11:07 am
If any of my friends ever dated anybody that could be described as “snakeskin-clad,” I would assist the friend’s family in having her committed. And given shock treatments.
Although completely irrelevant to the article and discussion here, I really, seriously love the way that journalist characterized Mr. Ulliot with just that hyphenated phrase. The description actually stregnthens the argument by implying that the legalization means zip to Ulliot, who’d be doing something shady regardless, but that legalization benefits thousands of non-Ulliots by giving them a harmless hobby.
Here endeth today’s lesson in the analysis of rhetoric. You may continue your discussion of on-line gambling.
Comment by Walt —
September 30, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
America is completely non-puritanical about gambling. I don’t know why, since it’s the most boring of all the vices. Actually, maybe I do know why…
Comment by stm177 —
September 30, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
I wonder if video games in general, and games like World of Warcraft in particular, have any effect on number of problem gamblers. Problem gamblers and problem gamers have similar addictive behaviors since they are based in the same risk/reward pleasure centers in the brain. So, do problem gamers offset problem gamblers, contribute to their numbers, or have no effect?
Comment by Pooh —
October 1, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
FWIW, Ulliot is pretty well known as a complete jackass around the poker circuit.