A More Honest Gamble

By Marc Cooper, LA Weekly. Posted August 6, 2002.

As the stock market was swooning last week, there I was, wide-awake at 3 a.m., pondering my next move. I don't play high tech or small caps. I ignore semiconductors, telecoms and certainly dot-coms. I'm oblivious to margin calls, and I abhor options. I don't go short or long. And while I skip over blue chips, I do favor green-green and red $25 casino chips. Keep Merrill Lynch. I prefer blackjack at Mandalay Bay.

With four of those green "quarter" chips I have just purchased two cards now staring coldly up at me. A 7 of hearts and an ace of spades -- an 8 or 18, depending whether I count the ace as an 11 or a 1. Holding it as a "soft" 18 would be acceptable -- it's what just about every how-to-play book recommends. But Ziggy, my favorite dealer at the Mandalay -- who is sitting across from me with his knowing smile -- looks down at his one showing card, a 10 of clubs. Ziggy smiles because he knows that I know that he argues against "the book" -- insisting that a player should hit the soft 18 when the dealer's showing a 9, 10 or ace.

Not that Ziggy is guaranteeing anything.

I give it a try. I scratch the table for another card, and Ziggy slaps me with a red 6. Now I have a miserable 14. I have to hit again and am in danger of busting. But out comes a 7 of diamonds that brings me to a cool and triumphant 21. Ziggy flips over his hole card. A queen of spades gives him a losing 20. "This is what I've been telling you," he says as he pushes over my $100 in winnings.

About an hour later, when I am up about $1,800, I have my epiphany. Let's solve the stock-market crisis by turning Wall Street over to the casinos.

Why not? Playing blackjack or roulette or buying corporate stock are all forms of gambling. It's just that casinos are more honest. The game never changes and the odds never budge: The casino has a 5.26 percent edge on the roulette wheel. And only about 2 percent at blackjack. Slot machines run at about 3 percent to 4 percent.

You say you don't like those odds? Are you sure? Well, if you've invested any amount in even the most sure-fire, no-fail stock over the last couple of years, you've been more wildly reckless than a guy who plays, say, his wife's bra size or his idiot cousin's IQ on the roulette wheel. As the June 10 edition of Fortune magazine reported, of the 40,000 stock recommendations made by 213 brokerages during the year 2000, the most recommended stock declined 31 percent in value. And -- yes -- the least recommended stock went up a whopping 49 percent.

In other words, all the stock touts, including gargoyles like Kudlow, Cramer, Cavuto, Insana, and Citigroup's horrible Mr. Jack Grubman, simply did not, do not and will never have a clue. And why should they? That's why it's called gambling -- not winning. And therein resides the real crime of these stock-market shills -- to have participated in a grand conspiracy to convince the American people that playing the market was anything but rolling the dice. (And, as it turns out, shaved dice.)

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »