Imagine that there is such a rehabilitation clinic for people who are addicted to gambling. Now imagine what they treat there without the use of pharmacology.
The main doctors there are gambling specialists, whose task is to convince you that you do not need to gamble. Your task, for example, is to prove that the patient most likely has a disordered game. In order to have long-term income, you need to have a gaming system. And not just a system, but a fairly innovative system of forecasting and risk management. Most likely the patient does not have it and never had it; otherwise he would have been successful and would not have ended up in rehab.
It is also necessary to find something for the patient to do instead of playing, so that he can occupy himself.
Now imagine that this gambling expert is you. What arguments will you give? What will you tell the patient about?
Please note that the patient will resist to the last. He will give counterarguments. For example, that he will get rich in the future, he’s just not lucky yet.
What other arguments do you think the patient will give? How do you respond to these arguments of his?
Here's what I would do, think of this as a simulation that you should be able to imagine:
First, I will choose one of them with the criteria of an acute out-of-control gambling addict (A). Second, I have a representative of someone who is a controlled gambler, has a level of risk management, is professional and even has a strategy in determining betting probabilities (B).
These two people will be used as experimental examples by being given their own gambling games, the same capital and the same time to gamble in front of many people who are undergoing rehabilitation. With the scheme that I have prepared from the start, gambler (A) ultimately fails miserably while gambler (B) ultimately emerges as the winner.
That way, it will be easy for me to take the lead whenever they argue through stimulation. And that will be capital to be able to filter and ultimately give them the freedom to choose which gambling they will choose. Become an aggressive gambler who has lost everything or wants to change his gambling patterns like gambler (B) with strategy, self-control and risk management.
Ok, I think their arguments wouldn't be able to spread if we had techniques for delivering presentations.
You know that in an experimental method there is something called a pretest and posttest. If there are 1 or 2 people who choose to follow in the gambler's footsteps (B), it means that our technique can be said to be successful.