For the last couple days I’ve been receiving promotional e-mails from online betting Web sites.
No, I don’t know the odds that the Saints will beat the Eagles this weekend. Nor did they offer tips to improve my poker game (not that I had one to begin with).
Instead, I learned that most BetUS.com users think Shanna Moakler would win in a cat fight with Paris Hilton. Moakler, a former contestant on “Dancing With the Stars,” is favored by 67 percent of voters over hotel heiress Hilton’s 33 percent.
The question arose after Moakler and Hilton both filed police reports claiming the other had physically assaulted them during a recent jaunt at Los Angeles nightclub Hyde Lounge.
According to the Associated Press, Moakler’s publicist said she was attacked by Hilton’s ex-boyfriend Stavros Niarchos, who bent her wrists, poured a drink on her and shoved her down some stairs.
Sounds like a fun time.
Hilton had been romantically linked to Moakler’s ex-husband, Blink 182 drummer Travis Barker.
“Celebrity feuds are always interesting to poll, especially when they are involving two models/actresses,” stated BetUS.com spokesman Christopher Bennett. “I’m surprised that Paris had so many votes. Shanna is a mother of three; obviously she knows how to dish out punishment.”
Obviously, a bet placed on either flaky publicity junkie would never pay off. I’m pretty sure there won’t be a real-life Celebrity Death Match between these two anytime soon.
But people are betting on other entertainment-related news matters, such as who will win this season of “Dancing With the Stars” (Mario Lopez’s odds are currently 1 to 9) and which case will win the “Lucky Case Game” on Thursday’s “Deal or No Deal” (statistically those odds are the same for each of the six cases).
Intertops.com is even featuring betting on whether “American Idol” number six will be male or female. The show doesn’t even begin airing until January 2007.
My father’s big hobby is horse racing, so I know a little bit about betting myself. But you don’t have to know much to figure out that betting on the result of a show that hasn’t even started yet is pretty dumb.
Of course, you can always bet on sports. There’s everything from hockey to cricket, in fact. But you can also bet on the careers of sports stars themselves.
The hot topic back in April was the future of NFL football star and admitted marijuana user Ricky Williams’ career. Some options offered by BetUS.com were: Enters a Rehabilitation Center: 2 to 1; Joins World Football League playing for Amsterdam: 3 to 1; He and T.O. start an independent Pro Football League: 20 to 1; Becomes an odds consultant for BetUS.com: 4 to 1; Becomes the abbot of a monastery: 100 to 1.
Two of BetUS.com’s open wagers focus on Angelina and Brad: Will they get married by the end of the year? And, which country will they adopt from next?
Of course, all bets placed after the answer is public knowledge are null and void, but there’s apparently no tabloid rumor disclaimer.
Is “public knowledge” when it comes from the mouth of a star’s publicist, the author of magazine article or from the star himself?
Online gambling has erupted into a large but controversial industry during the past few years, with many of the Web sites operating out of foreign countries to try to avoid the differing gambling laws in each of the 50 states. But their publicity machines never stop turning.
The recent addition of video bingo in Tangipahoa Parish seems tame compared to this form of gambling, where life decisions are wagered on.
Maybe I should start an online gambling Web site, too. You, the readers, will be able to bet on how many times a year I’ll mention Britney Spears in my columns, or maybe what color shirt I decide to wear on Wednesdays.
Excuse me while I open a Swiss bank account...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
What catches my attention is your comparison of on-line wagering on publicist-fed episodes in the life of celebrities with the recent arrival of video poker starting up here in Hammond (you tossed the line and I bit). You say the latter is “tame” in comparison with the former. What could be more tame – that is more unreal and disconnected from a person's day-to-day life - than his/her interest in celebrities? I can't think of anything “tamer” than someone wagering on what country Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie will move to next.
Conversely, the issue here in Hammond concerning the arrival of video poker is not as tame as you infer. The issue here is who's supporting its arrival and why.
But there is a common thread: on-line wagering and video poker (and what will come after it) are both just means for one group to separate the money of gullible people from their wallets. And just like a publicist mis-representing the truth and spinning tales for his client, video poker would be illegal if it wasn't called entertainment.
Well, the line was about video BINGO, but... I was not really blogging about the supporters/organizers of either form of gambling, even though that is a big issue with online betting sites.
I think local gambling, such as video bingo and maybe even video poker, is a lot "tamer," if you will, than the betting you can do on the Internet on just about any subject. Both forms can be addicting, but at least local gaming is a real game with warm bodies there to supervise, instead of the gamblers just sitting at home in their PJs in front of a computer screens.
I personally have no problem with gambling as long as it is regulated. That's the problem with Internet gambling... there's no regulation whatsoever, for the most part.
At least things like poker and bingo are games with set rules and real odds. Even horse racing and sports odds are based on factual statistics... but betting on the personal life decision of a celebrity? That's pretty insane, if not "untame."
It does make for some laughs, though.
OK..... I can see clearly that we're already talking right past each other and that's generally what bloggers end up doing. I thought you were trying to make a broader point about something that actually matters to the citizens of Hammond. If your interest was actually only regarding the existence of on-line wagering on episodes of the lives of celebrities, I can't (perhaps I should say I don't want to..) believe that there are more that half a dozen people in Hammond who care.
I was (and still am) hung up on your use of the word tame in your original post. In my opinion it was the wrong word for you to have used and your using it has led your (or my) thinking astray. I clearly didn't understand what you meant by it (and apparently I still don't). Its probably just an issue of definitions. I clearly disagree with yours.
I was not talking about the morality of gambling. It's as moral as any other aspect of modern LA life (its as least as moral as our fixation with celebrities...)
I just don't think its the basis for a sound Hammond economy and I know there are people who disagree with me.
I appreciate your blog and will continue to look at it occasionally... But I'm beginning to form the impression that I'm not your target audience. :)
Well I certainly don't think gambling can be the basis of Hammond's economy either... that has worked in some cities, but obviously we aren't Vegas.
So yeah, I wrote a blog about online gambling because I thought it was funny and people would get a laugh out of it... I guess I missed the mark with my humor, and my attempt to tie it to local events, for that matter.
I mean tame as in "not crazy." And online celebrity-gambling is pretty crazy, I think, beginning with its very premise. That's all I was trying to say.
That's easy to disagree with, but it's just my opinion.
Post a Comment