Many good points here so far.
I think that it mostly depends on how you define "gambler".
Would we define "gambler" as "horseplayer", or are we saying that the gambler is someone who wagers to excess? This makes a difference because the game's structure is centered around the wagering on the outcome. The game needs players -- they do not have to be excessive gamblers.
Compare the excessive gambler to an alcoholic: the alcoholic needs a fix, in a pinch the alcoholic doesn't care if it's beer, wine, scotch, or tequila -- he needs the alcohol, the active ingredient. Similarly someone with a gambling problem likes to wager, if possible on their favorite game, but otherwise on any speculative enterprise offering the possibility of winning and adrenaline in the playing of the game. This sort of gambler is not likely to be a fan of any particular game but more of the right to wager and the availability of legalized gambling.
I tend to disagree with the idea of not caring about races I don't wager on. I watch the Triple Crown every year, even if I don't get the chance to wager on it. Why? Because those races, along with some other Grade 1's and the Breeders Cup offer some of the best contests among the classiest horses of the breed. Young children like my nieces and nephews will appreciate a race when it's on TV and they have no desire or ability to gamble yet as they are too young. But the appeal is there. Where else can many of us in the urban east coast or west coast states actually see a horse run, except on TV? I think it's pretty cool. Anachronistic, yes, but that's part of the appeal. I think it would be stranger for many of us to mention the horsepower of a particular automobile without ever having actually seen a horse run.
|