Topic: "The Lower-Risk Gambling Guidelines" Is this a joke? - page 6. (Read 1173 times)

I gamble $20 every Saturday, and try to play it slow and bet modest amounts at a time. It lasts me about 3-4 hours per session, and afterwards I just go about my day and do something else. I earn $2000 a month from my job, and can live comfortably with over a thousand dollars of savings. Never have I felt that 5% of my monthly income is too low for my gambling habits, but if I reduced that to 1%, I might as well just forget gambling because that will surely not give me some fun hours that I'm seeking when I gamble.

The guidelines IMO is extremely conservative to the point that it no longer makes sense. If people with modest incomes can spend 10-20% of their salaries into some kind of hobby, what makes other people earning the same income spend the same amount in gambling, which can be considered as a form of entertainment to these people?

For the number of days per month that they recommend, I actually have no problems with that. If you are living alone and have a lot of time to yourself, you can spend a lot of time watching or gambling, so long as you do not use money that you don't have. For those who have families and actual responsibilities, this makes sense and seems just about right. Most people spend 4-5 days a week working, and 1 day to do laundry and clean the house. 1 day for your self-indulgence isn't selfish, but if you have your own family, you must spend time with them, no ifs, no buts.

Lastly, avoiding different games is making no sense at all. Why would I force myself to play the same game if it no longer entertains me? And if my goal is to get entertained, why will I do the same stuff that no longer brings excitement? 

It is a guideline to gamble as low as possible   and I think it is a guideline for those who want to gamble for the 1st time.
For those who are experienced enough, I'm sure they have their own limit to spend in weekly/monthly basis.
Of course I have to agree that 1% is too low for regular gambler, I will even say that do not even gamble at all if the budget is limited to 1%.
Imagine those who have average income less than $1,000 per month, should they gamble with less than $10?
It is not a joke anymore, but it is a BIG JOKE.  

The goal is not to dictate for earners how to go about their gambling activities. From what i get here its a guide to low risk gambling. If one can gamble more than four times a month and still keep their risk minimal then it's just the same as gambling four times a month

Every one has their strong suit when it comes to gambling prediction. Some are good at just a single game while others can make predictions on multiple games. This is an advice to an average gambler who needs the advice. Every one knows their strength and weaknesses so if one game is all a gambler knows then its best to stick to that one.

It seems to me that if a person does not have enough money for basic necessities such as rent, utilities, food and clothes, he should not think about how much of his family budget to spend on gambling, but about how he can earn more money to ensure a decent life for his family.

Of course I understand that there are a lot of people who can not earn good money, but this is also not a reason to lay down, as now it is possible to get an education and find a good job online.

For a lesser pressure and fear in gambling , a reasonable gambling should be the guide 1. I think having an average of 1% of family monthly income to try the luck in gamling is not out range. Some addict see gambling as a source of income but to have higher rate of family income to betting is a whole lot of risk. 1% betting stake should be spread across the month for a moderate betting but of course many husbands bet far above that and making their family necessities like rent, feeding and clothing to lack.

I don't know on what basis they proposed this guidelines! Only for people who is making in billions should gamble?

Okay for safer side lets allocate 1% for our gambling entertainment and about 50% is going to government as direct and indirect taxes right for salaried middle class people so where is the fair scale here.

Every single individual has to pay 100x more to the government's wellness while compromising their own satisfaction, I feel even dictatorship is better than these kind of rules.

Truly a laughable joke. Why don't all be guided by not gambling at all so you don't have the slightest risk. Lol
Gambling games are like a double-edged sword, win and lose.
Making a loss limit can still be done by gamblers, for example, limiting capital when visiting Offline or Online Casinos, with a limit on the balance you have can reduce the risk of a greater loss. Gambling is an adrenaline-pumping game, so I think the advice above is completely useless.

To sum things up, we could spend higher than 1% depending on our monthly income but we should still be responsible on spending. We should always know when to stop and when to continue and be mindful of the risks of gambling. I don't think having a lower capital could lower the risk of gambling but it is our personal control over things and the way we handle our funds.

You are right, we must also take into account how much each person is capable of risking during 1 month, or if the person risks a part of money each week, as long as a person has control of their salary and can allocate the percentage they consider It is a personal decision, of course, one always tries to advise that the risk is not a lot of money and although sometimes it is very easy to win, it is also very feasible to lose, in fact, losing is most likely when we enter a casino either online or in a physical casino, for me it represents the same risk, if you have a good dose of tranquility and risk management, you can enjoy substantial profits with little money, I apply it to slots.

the thing is that the line that separates habits from addiction is thinner for some people
each one will have to figure out what is their safe dose
knowing that if they go to far from the line (and become addicted) it may be hard to get back to a healthy state

I think they were trying to perhaps do a good things by setting some “safer” guidelines when it comes to gambling, but the truth is everyone’s situation is completely different and there’s A LOT of people who shouldn’t even be betting 1%.  10% certainly sounds way to high too me, but again everyone’s situation is different.

Since the article talking about lower risk gambling, they're correct to suggest only use 1% of their income and since they're have limited money to gamble, that's why they give guide to only play 4 times in a month and stick with 2 games. I think everyone don't mind if they loss 1% of their money, not all people are afford to risk their 10% of their income because each people have different risk management and how much the income they got.

IMO there's no limit to gamble, as long as you're not become an addict and already think every risk you've taken, you're fine.

It's not like we play 24 hours straight tho. Twice a week (like Saturday and Sunday) with 3 hours playing session should be okay.

True, and $58 can only buy 1 or 2 game titles, sometimes it won't be enough to get an AAA game as well. As for arcades, we can spend way more than that.

They think 1% is a guaranteed loss, however sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll lose, therefore the actual total losses won't be at 1%. It can be much lower than that. Hence, raising the percentage of income for gambling is acceptable as long as your total losses end-of-year are closer to 1%.

Gambling is a game of chance, even if you use low amount of money to gamble, there are still chance that you may win or lose, but the reason this type of guildline is good is because even if you lose the money you use to gamble, you will not be thinking about it, it will not lead to depression, it will not affect your health, it will not financially affect you, it will not lead to addiction.

no offense but i think these people who're following some kind of guidelines r a ltl bit crazy lol
i mean what's the point? chance plays a big role here

Because you are single does not mean you should not discipline yourself, I am not talking about you, but about gamblers that are single and betting excessively and becoming addicted to it.

Another thing is that because you have needs for low expenses does not mean you should put the remaining money on gambling to gamble with. Remember there are days that may not favour, the days saving money would be a life saver. It is good to save money for days like that and for future.

Another is that gambling responsibly will only comes with betting with little amount of money.

Guidelines 1&2 is fine for me. That's limiting yourself from spending too much in gambling that would potentially hurt in the long run. While guideline 3 doesn't make sense to me. I mean why would you limit yourself in having fun with gambling. Clearly, the goal here is to have leisure after the long week of work considering how low the capital intended for gambling. So, you're already limiting your budget and limiting the number of game you should play as well? That doesn't make enough sense to me.

This is situational and does not probably work especially for those who have a higher target goal in gambling. It also depends on the income of an individual because if a person is a minimum wager I don't think 1% would be enough as gambling capital. I guess at least 5% will work if a person wants to pursue gambling and has a good target goal to reach. Following a 1% gambling allocation is more likely to advise a person to quit gambling.

It's probably because the lower the gambling budget the less risk, for sports betting that budget could probably last enough if you only focus on one or two sports but if it's only for casino games I have to agree that amount won't last for an entire month since most of the casino games are fast-paced.

For the second guideline if it's one whole day per week it's probably not bad since weekends are the only free days and the idea of two days a week is also good if you can split the allocated hours.

I also don't like the last guideline, as you play the same game for quite some time you'll slowly lose that enjoyment so there's nothing wrong in playing a different game.

This is closer to telling them not to gamble at all lmao. I myself set a specific amount to gamble on every session, but 1% is way too low, not enough to actually satisfy that craving of gambling. Even if I say that gambling is more for fun, experiencing that fun of winning/losing money is also part. If I was only in it for the game, I might as well just go for playing the same games but without money involved.

As for the number of sessions, I think that's closer to what you prefer, setting up a number for it might just limit you way too much, bringing out more of anticipation than normal which can influence you to go past it in the long term imo.

The 3rd advice is just a joke. It's like asking your average gamer to only buy/play one game in their entire life, that's just a joke. I myself repeat a lot of games that are long and story intensive, whatmore for simple games like the ones in casino.