• dogdeanafternoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    No, spend is right. The number being compared against is the amount spent on gambling. Obviously some of those bets won, so the amount lost would be far less.

    • Almacca@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      All fair points. I just object to people breathlessly putting out stories like this as if it’s a good thing and anything other than gambling at best, and insider trading at worst. The only people winning on those sites are the people with inside information.

      (edit: fixed typos)

    • immutable@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Most gambling winnings go right back into gambling and are subsequently lost.

      I would be surprised if it was “far less” although mathematically it must be strictly less.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        In other words, the average American adult placed roughly $1,000 in legal bets on sports last year. Handle is gross throughput, not consumer expenditure: over 90% of what is wagered gets returned to bettors in the form of winnings. That $1,000 in bets translates to roughly $100 in average losses per adult.

        But it does point out the vast majority of the losses are absorbed by 5% of gamblers.

      • dogdeanafternoon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Say I started with $100 and made a bet but only won 90 back. Then the next day I do it again with my 90, but only win 80 this time. Repeat this until I have $10 left, I bet that and lose it.

        By your logic, I’ve lost $550, since thats the amount of money I’ve bet over the week and a half. In reality, any sane person would say I’ve lost $100.