Quote from: o48o on August 04, 2024, 11:01:33 PM

Quote from: Etranger on August 04, 2024, 06:56:28 PM

Quote from: hahay on August 04, 2024, 03:13:34 PM

Experienced gamblers certainly have good control and control to stop when winning and also when losing, but if you think stopping gambling is difficult then you do not have discipline in gambling. At least, betting also cannot be done blindly without control and a target, because if you only bet blindly then you will still lose every time you bet.

Therefore, to have good self-control in gambling does not necessarily require you to be an experienced gambler first. Because after all, there are also many gamblers who have been in the gambling circle for a long time but they also do not have good control. Thus, it is not surprising when we more often listen to their disappointment in losing in gambling.

I don't agree with that. Experience is not a guarantee that a person is capable of something. After all, a player can have a huge experience of big losses. Can he be called experienced gambler? Absolutely. But this is not even close to his capability of self-control, understanding of the game, discipline and the ability to stop in time.

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Control over stopping and amount of experience doesn't correlate.
It's like saying that experienced alcoholics have good control over their drinking habits, Or that i have quit smoking so many times during this year that i am really good at stopping it. Op is literally trying to make a choice and quitting is definitely one way to have control over the the habit. Physical and mental addictions aren't really that different as they both physically affect our brains, so that's why i made a comparison to smoking and drinking.

I did not equate experience and self control. I was responding specifically to the comment that a player who is "experienced" has a big advantage. But experience does not mean control, as you noted. Therefore, this comparison is inappropriate in my opinion. So I took it to the point of absurdity to show the inconsistency of "experience"only by itself.