You are not wrong about them chasing their losses being their major objective for gambling, but I would rather try to advise and call a gambling addict to order than leave them completely and not advise them at all because I believe they will not take any advice.

We can never be too sure that little convincing we try to impact on them might actually change their mindset on how they chase their losses. The chance of winning a gambling addict out from addiction is low, but it's still better than doing nothing.

That's exactly what the casino wants, or is it not obvious? Not all casinos, though, but most of the land-based ones which we have been reading such stories from don't like players who win too much, and one thing about centralised systems is this: they can just make a law at any time _{(because their policy allows them to)} which will justify the reason why they actually ban a player from participating further in future gambling in the casino. A home gambler who wins too much is automatically a threat to casino owners; their desire to always milk the people won't allow them to be fair in such cases.

I never also said it's okay to be reckless in spending, but rather I was also making the point clear that a reckless spender might also not be a gambling addict. It's very much possible, but there is also a possibility of the person being an addict.

In fact, no type of bad financial behaviour should even be considered to be better than the other one. Anything that's bad is bad, and I get that. Being reckless in spending, the person should seek help and get a solution to his problem before things get out of hand.

You are correct; I was just also noting that most people are aware of those features which you mentioned, but they overlooked them and are mainly only concerned about the profit which they can make from Bitcoin. If you try to question a few people about what use they have for their Bitcoin aside from holding it as an asset, you will be amazed by the shortsighted response you will get from many.

Everyone has their own definition of who could be called a gambler. The generally accepted and well-known definition is anyone who plays a game of chance is a gambler. How we link that now to our gambling activities is left to us. Even those who gamble seasonally have the right to call themselves gamblers even if it's for just that day, and those who are into it fully are also gamblers, and I accept every definition as long as the person stakes their money on something with hope to win.

For those who choose to bet on live matches, they have some advantage to themselves, but it doesn't always favour them, and the more they are betting on live games, they could also be losing more than they should when they place their bet on regular matches even before they get started. Since the live bet result comes out fastest, they will be moved to place another bet on other games even before the first one comes to an end.

That's to say that as a player you don't need to break any rules of the casino before they can place a ban on you; as long as your winning appears to be posing a financial threat to them, they will look for an excuse, which they will turn into a crime committed by the player, and they will use that against the player.

Yeah, there is a difference between being reckless in spending and being an addict. A reckless spender can still be spending that money on other things even if they are not gambling with it. Gambling addicts are on another level when it comes to spending; they don't even know that they are doing something bad to some extent unless when they are being told.

Generalizing it could have been okay if we had a higher percentage of gamblers who are just gambling because of stimulation and care less about money, but in this case we have more gamblers whose main aim is to profit other than to have fun; they could be gambling for both reasons, but one of their major reasons for gambling is because there is a chance of winning, which, if it weren't there, gambling wouldn't be as popular as it is today.

What your guy did was place a bet on an option which he did not really understand, and it also appears that most of the people in that betting shop also have no clue what 'clean sheets' means; if not, the entire hall could not have been as confused as you explained here.