So why are people contacting themselves. They will say the house would win because of house edge. Now they are also saying the rich would win than the poor. Is it not the others way around that the more the rich spend on gambling, the more the money the rich will eventually lose.
Well, you have a point. Gamblers who deposit more and spend long time playing are likely the ones who will lose more. However, the reason why many opinions are siding to the rich as to win than poor are because of their time spent in gambling. Wherein there's a chance you'll hit a jackpot compared to poor who will stop already after their funds are getting busted. It is indeed the rich has a high chance to win but lose more due to the amount of money spent and the duration of their gambling activity. In the end, the casino itself is the one who benefited to the gamblers regardless of their status.
I think it's obvious, if they spend a long time most likely they spend a lot of money in one game session, if it's a question of time or duration of play is it possible that poor people can't get the winnings? I think they can get the winnings too if they are lucky even with a short time. but with rich people obviously they have a lot of money and when they run out of money in gambling then they still have money to gamble so indeed they can continue the game that's right the chances of winning are greater for rich people but also with the chances of greater losses can't be lost.
The other side is that in poor people who gamble they gamble with a limited budget of money and maybe not big but that does not rule out the possibility that they can win, because even if they gamble with a small capital if they have luck in gambling maybe they can get a big win, and for those who lose more in my opinion it depends on how close they are to gambling, whether they are rich or poor people if they are both close to gambling then both of them can experience big losses.