Previous   Next

Do you think there should be a loss limit at casinos in Kansas?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on May 27, 2008

Browse the archives

Photo of Wade Mashburn

“I believe so. But I think it should be higher than $500, because I know serious gamblers are willing to go beyond that.”

Photo of Erica Voetsch

“Yeah. It should probably be the same as it is in Missouri, but I don’t really know because I don’t go to casinos. Life is already a gamble.”

Photo of Kris Holloway

“I really do think folks should be limited on what they can lose. I think it should be a reasonably large limit, but I think a loss limit is a good way to curb gambling addiction.”

Photo of Camilla Olsson

“Yeah. I think that is a good idea. Some people can afford to lose more than others, but for the average person I think it’s a good idea.”


looza 7 years ago

I dont care about loss limits Just don't mess with the casino buffets. When I lose a couple of grand I like to take it out on the salisbury steak and mashed potatoes.

ms_canada 7 years ago

Never been a gambler, unless you count the odd bingo game. Gambling is an addiction, to be sure and any help that can be given to the poor sucker should be extended. Haven't we all heard of some poor fellow or gal who has lost all their life savings plus house and home. Such a shame that our governments have to count on money received from this sickness. I was on Catalina Island last week with my sister and there is a most beautiful building there that is a Casino, BUT, there is no gambling going on there. It is a wonderful large ballroom on the top floor and a theatre on the ground floor where movies are shown on Friday night and often there are organ concerts. Look at the Catalina website to see a picture of it. It is quite impressive. The word Casino is italian and means a gathering place for pleasurable events. Is gambling pleasureable if you lose your shirt????

mr_economy 7 years ago

If the only person harmed by excessive gambling was the moron doing it, I would be all for letting him/her run him/herself into the ground. But because there is often a family involved whose lives are also ruined, this is one area where I would support regulation. Children should not have to suffer because of the wicked combination of stupidity and libertarian (inaccurate) ideals.

Left_handed 7 years ago

Gambling is a tax on those whose levels of stupidity and greed are high enough to get them to think they can make money without real effort. Natural selection suggests that, from a Darwinian perspective, they should be allowed to lose as much as they are dumb enough to.

Evan Ridenour 7 years ago

"50YearResident (Anonymous) says:Loss Limits are good for the Casinos. Most people lose the limit before they figure out how to play the game. The Casino takes your money before you wise up enough to possibly win it back. They simile and cut you off saying, it's for your own good! Really! The odds are you will loose the limit before you will win big. Loss Limits are for the Casino::"Actually no, loss limits are horrendous for casinos. You lack any kind of basic knowledge how casinos operate and of statistics. Other then cheating (which is almost impossible to do) you can never know a game well enough to swing the odds out of the casinos favor. They want people to keep on gambling, they want people to rationalize that since they have lost so many times in a row that any time now the odds are they have to win which will get them out of that hole (in statistics this is known as the gamblers fallacy).

sunflower_sue 7 years ago

yes, because ultimately, we will end up paying to get the loser's family out of debt when they've pi$$ed away everything they've owned. Who cares if another family is in a shelter and sucking up tax payer dollars in welfare checks??? I do!

May Soo 7 years ago

Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says:Try the vietnamese food at a local Chinese place.If that is what the Vietnamese eat, I want to rescue the whole population!---------------------------That's not the Vietnamese eat. at least not the dishes they served in the restaurant.

purplesage 7 years ago

You betcha - (pun intended). It ought to be $0 - because the greed based, life ruining industry has no place in a virtuous society. Close the casinos and life will be better in Kansas. And get rid of the governor who is all for adding more casinos. The latest plan is new low, getting our state govenment into the gambling business.

sunflower_sue 7 years ago

Thanks md. I'm among the living. I can now change the channel on the TV remote without breaking out in a cold sweat. :)

deskboy04 7 years ago

No...let them spend as much money as they want to. I don't care. I don't believe in gambling, but if other people want to throw their money away...that's fine with me.

ModerateOne 7 years ago

Loss limits prohibit rich people from gambling according to their means (see, e.g., Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley) but allow poor people to lose all their money if they want to. What a regressive system.If the system is designed to help with the tax burden it should be eager to get that help from those who can afford it -- don't limit the right of rich people to give money to the state at the casino!

Ceallach 7 years ago

Limits will just challenge folks to find ways around them. My limit is my tightness:) I'm way too stingy to gamble with money, so I have no fear of losing more that I can afford. I don't care if it's only 20 bucks. If I'm putting out cash I expect to have something to show for it, a t-shirt, mug, . . something.

50YearResident 7 years ago

Loss Limits are good for the Casinos. Most people lose the limit before they figure out how to play the game. The Casino takes your money before you wise up enough to possibly win it back. They simile and cut you off saying, it's for your own good! Really! The odds are you will loose the limit before you will win big. Loss Limits are for the Casino......

madam_hillarys_pantsuits 7 years ago

"Life is already a gamble."Very pithy, Erica! Very pithy!lol

sgtwolverine 7 years ago

Casinos are obnoxious; I think there should be a casino limit of zero. Let Vegas and Atlantic City keep them.

jonas 7 years ago

Too bad we have neither the inclination or the obligation to live in a "virtuous society." Especially not in the narrow way you probably define it. The question? If we don't expect a win limit, we can't expect a loss limit. And we don't expect a win limit, nor would people agree with it.

jonas 7 years ago

O-Bob: If you feel like taking some gambling risks, I've got a couple street vendors here that you should try!Kya! I just wrote a 16 page single spaced recommendation paper in 7 hours straight. I B teh tiredz!

Tony Kisner 7 years ago

No to limits, State sponsored gambling is an efficient tool to redirect federal monies back into State coffers. I would propose that rather than having social security checks mailed to retirees, they should be sent directly to the casinos and held on account for the retired person. This would eliminate the banks, grocery stores, and utility company's first claim on the funds and quickly move the money into the State Budget.I also think in the next Federal agriculture bill language should be included which would allow State chartered casinos to accept food stamps as currency. Again this is an untapped flow of cash just waiting to be exploited.

Kyle Neuer 7 years ago

No.If you can't afford to lose, stay out of the casino. Otherwise, let the buyer beware.

acg 7 years ago

No, not at all. I'm tired of the gov't holding everyone's hand for them. If you can't handle your gambling, then grow the hell up and stay out of the casinos. If you lose all of your money because you can't handle your gambling, well, then you're an idiot, aren't you and we all know that I have no patience or sympathy with idiots. Which is why I have to stay away from the gay marriage board or I'll lose my freakin' mind. I wonder how some of these people even bathe themselves without drowning.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.