The gambling and economic spheres are not identical.
In addition, the gambler’s formulation – gambling is only another form of trade – is totally at fault.
Many brilliant gamblers stress the illogical motive in gambling: the thrill element. The thrill of that constriction was acknowledged by Dostoevsky, author of the well-known description of a gambler in literature, The Gambler.
Dostoevsky was himself a pathologic gambler. In one of his personal histories he confessed that the game itself lured him.
The gambler is neither agreeable not able to account for the thrill of gambling. One gambler said, ‘does the lover care about a psychological analysis of his sweetheart, or the satisfied eater about a chemical analysis of his food?’
He may be correct, but with his stance of trying to be logical about it, it was obvious that he could not compare the destructive circumstances of gambling with the harmless processes of loving and eating.
In the analogy mentioned above, unfortunately, he also doesn’t believe that the lover and the eater are uninterested in psychology and chemistry.
Another argument in the gambler’s awkward arsenal is his faulty reasoning – ‘Who cares how I make money, so long as I stay out of prison?’ This one is easily refuted.
Gambling by profession is too destructive and insecure to be considered the foundation of one’s whole existence.
The margin or error and defeat is just too great, even if one dissembles naivete, forgets psychiatric facts, nonchalantly disfavors the moral disapproval of the community, and accepts the gambler’s rationalizations.
The ups and downs are too destructive – merely its instability excludes the possibility of making gambling one’s means of living.
Gambling is NOT a profession. It is a dangerous neurosis. The gambler doesn’t gamble because he actively decides to do so; he is lured by unconscious forces over which he has no control.
He is an objectively sick individual who is subjectively unaware that he is sick. But this denseness does not make him any the healthier. Not only that, the further need to spend a fortune when lost, seems to trigger something inside of him that makes him all the more agitated.
Because of this absurd logic, for the most part the sudden impulse to spend for the hope of winning, makes the gambler clearly stuck with the idea that it is the only way to acquire the one thing that was completely beyond reach – and that is winning.
For the numerous people who gambled, only a few of them won, and that is because they have complete control of the situation; whereas MOST of them are still waiting, in vain, to at least get back what they had lost.