If we are talking about gambling, expenses must exceed income most of the time, and things will still be very normal, but then, there is actually a level that a gamblers loses can get to, it becomes a red flag, which is why it's important for gambler to always recognize the size of their pocket as well as their bankroll, and always set a stop loss for themself, just incase of bad days when luck seem to be saying no to them.
One thing about gambling is that, winning can never be forced, and so is losing, so, for the person who is experiencing a rather long and abnormal losing streak, it's better to stop than continue playing and end up feeling to bad due to the outcome of the game, winning in gambling was never meant to be a do or die affair.
I do agree with the rest of your text but i bolded a part i don't get at all, because it seems to contradict rest of the message.
If our gambling expenses would exceed our income, we would be playing more then we make money, and i can't agree that being normal in any way. Unless you have a fortune already, you are wagering more than you can afford.
I can't think of any other situation where i could spend more than my salary, than playing with loan money.
Right, and I think it's an unreasonable decision to continue to play or play more when you know that your gambling expenditure exceeds your income from monthly salary, meaning that it must be a scenario where they are gambling with other funds, or most likely funds that they have borrowed, and it is also clear that this is a very wrong mindset and approach to gambling, there is no limit at all in terms of the budget allocated and instead it expands the waste by borrowing money from other parties just to use gambling.
This can only be done if you are someone who has more money to gamble than you can afford to lose, but if the scenario is that the budget expenditure on gambling exceeds the monthly income then obviously when someone continues gambling then they are using other funds which are predicted to be borrowed funds.