Okay, for those who know me, have heard me talk about this topic on many a different occasion. Since the time I can remember, I have felt a need for competition. When I was a little child, I loved playing board games and would challenge anyone that would play with me. Many times I would find a willing participant but there were other times, I was forced to play against myself. I would dutifully put out 3 or 4 pieces, roll the dice, and play the game. But this wasn't enough for me, I would actually pick one of the pieces that I wanted to win and then play the game with the hope that the piece I picked would win. If it didn't, I would get upset and play again.
Certainly I don't believe I was in the minority as far playing games against oneself is concerned; however, where I believe I was different is that I refused to cheat to help my piece win. Not because I am more honest than others but because I thirsted after competition. I wanted someone's best effort when playing against them even if I was playing against an imaginary opponent. Does that make sense? There was no "thrill of victory" if I cheated or if my opponent (imaginary or otherwise) didn't give me their best effort.
As I grew older, this "competitive thrill" never went away and I continued to "thirst" after competition. I was a sports fanatic and enjoyed watching people compete on TV. I watched sports whenever I could and when I couldn't watch them on TV, I read about them in the paper. I would get up around 6 am everyday just so I could run out to the driveway to pick up the LA Times and read the Sports Page.
It was at this time that my brother (Greg) and I decided to create a Fantasy Baseball League. We didn't know anything about "fantasy sports" at the time so we "invented" our own game. We decided to form a league (about 5 people initially), have a mock draft, and follow our players through the Times Sports Page. Why did I do this? Competition. I wanted to see if I could out-draft, out-think, and out-stat my fellow competitors.
There was only one flaw though. Some of my competition wouldn't research their players, came unprepared, and weren't giving their "best effort." I would win sometimes but found no pleasure when I won. I felt like I was beating an "imaginary opponent." So I decided to up the ante. In order to play in the league, it would cost you $5.00 every two weeks. I noticed a great increase in people's research and a renewed desire to win especially considering most of us were only 13 at the time. Now when I would win, my pleasure increased considerably. I knew I had won when everyone was trying their hardest.
It was this lesson (I learned at any early age) that has carried over throughout the last 23 years. Whenever some sort of competition is on the line, I have forced my competitors to put something on the table. We must play for something, whether it be $1.00 skins in golf, $5.00 every two weeks in Fantasy Baseball, having to drive to Taco Bell, or even give my wife a backrub. There has to be something or I feel like I haven't beat someone at their best.
Maybe I'm a gambling addict and this is my way of justifying it to myself and you are reading this laughing at its absurdity or maybe I never outgrew my desire to play board games even against imaginary opponents.
My name is Dro and I'm a Competitiveholic. Anybody out there feel the same way I do? If so, let's get together and break out the Monopoly..... Loser buys Taco Bell.
Certainly I don't believe I was in the minority as far playing games against oneself is concerned; however, where I believe I was different is that I refused to cheat to help my piece win. Not because I am more honest than others but because I thirsted after competition. I wanted someone's best effort when playing against them even if I was playing against an imaginary opponent. Does that make sense? There was no "thrill of victory" if I cheated or if my opponent (imaginary or otherwise) didn't give me their best effort.
As I grew older, this "competitive thrill" never went away and I continued to "thirst" after competition. I was a sports fanatic and enjoyed watching people compete on TV. I watched sports whenever I could and when I couldn't watch them on TV, I read about them in the paper. I would get up around 6 am everyday just so I could run out to the driveway to pick up the LA Times and read the Sports Page.
It was at this time that my brother (Greg) and I decided to create a Fantasy Baseball League. We didn't know anything about "fantasy sports" at the time so we "invented" our own game. We decided to form a league (about 5 people initially), have a mock draft, and follow our players through the Times Sports Page. Why did I do this? Competition. I wanted to see if I could out-draft, out-think, and out-stat my fellow competitors.
There was only one flaw though. Some of my competition wouldn't research their players, came unprepared, and weren't giving their "best effort." I would win sometimes but found no pleasure when I won. I felt like I was beating an "imaginary opponent." So I decided to up the ante. In order to play in the league, it would cost you $5.00 every two weeks. I noticed a great increase in people's research and a renewed desire to win especially considering most of us were only 13 at the time. Now when I would win, my pleasure increased considerably. I knew I had won when everyone was trying their hardest.
It was this lesson (I learned at any early age) that has carried over throughout the last 23 years. Whenever some sort of competition is on the line, I have forced my competitors to put something on the table. We must play for something, whether it be $1.00 skins in golf, $5.00 every two weeks in Fantasy Baseball, having to drive to Taco Bell, or even give my wife a backrub. There has to be something or I feel like I haven't beat someone at their best.
Maybe I'm a gambling addict and this is my way of justifying it to myself and you are reading this laughing at its absurdity or maybe I never outgrew my desire to play board games even against imaginary opponents.
My name is Dro and I'm a Competitiveholic. Anybody out there feel the same way I do? If so, let's get together and break out the Monopoly..... Loser buys Taco Bell.
4 comments:
The first step in solving a problem is admitting you have a problem. Admitting that you enjoy the problem is an entirely different matter - that appears to be what you have done in your most recent post.
I once heard a speaker talk about gambling who said that he did not wager for fear he would lose, but rather for fear that he would win without having done the requisite work to obtain the winnings. This is a high standard, but does it apply to a situation where you are playing a game such as golf? Afterall, you are in control of your own game and you are not dependent upon the roll of the dice or only upon the actions of others. In my own mind I am comfortable wagering on games I play so long as the wager is reasonable - this too is a justification and leaves several questions unanswered. Who gets to determine what unreasonable means, my wife, me, my bishop or a chronic gambler. At what point is the money the objective and not winning the game? At what point does the money drive the competition and acutally impairs one's ability to do his best?
At the end of the day, one should just be honest with oneself and say "yes" when somebody asks them if they believe in gambling. Once the "yes" is out or the way you can then explain, justifify or pretend you don't have that bad of a problem.
Of course its gambling, I would say that anything where money is put out in order to gain more money with the chance of losing your money is gambling. For me, that includes the stock markets, golf tournys, casino games, the lottery and other similiar events.
Even investments like baseball cards or art, you are paying for these things for your enjoyment but also in hopes that it will go up in value and you can make some money. But it is a gamble by defintion.
Here is dictionary.com's definition of Gamble:
1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.
–verb (used with object)
3. to lose or squander by betting (usually fol. by away): He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.
4. to wager or risk (money or something else of value): to gamble one's freedom.
5. to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.
–noun
6. any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes, esp. for high stakes.
These definitions say enough.
My name is Noodles and I am a gambloholic.
Noodles, I totally agree.
Justification can be made by anyone who looks down on one form of gambling but participates in another. Such as the Stock Market: Thank you for bringing it up.
Many people will tell me to repent for gambling because I am wagering $1.00 per hole in golf while those same people are losing thousands of dollars every day in the stock market.
Ironic. Don't you think?
ps Save your "I diversify and thus take away the risk emails." I've heard it all before. I diversify too. Fantasy baseball, fantasy football, golf pools, and $1.00 skins.
If the definition of gambling is so broad that it includes equity investments, then the definition is meaningless. Such a broad definition would inlclude just about every aspect of life. Buyin a home is a gamble, having a child is a gamble, driving on the freeway to work each day is a gamble, etc.
Post a Comment