If someone has already accepted their gambling addiction and managed to stop gambling, it is synonymous with willpower.
But the paradox is that if you have the strength and conviction to stop gambling, anyone could come to the conclusion: "Why not just control it and that's it, without needing to quit gambling completely?".
Which brings us to this questions:
Is it harder to control gambling or limit it without falling into excess than to stop gambling forever?
Why is the effective strategy not moderation but absolute abstinence?
We do know that not all people who do play gambling are considered to be gambling addicts on which there are still who are that playing gambling but not an addicted person. There are those who do play gambling for the sake of fun and there are those who do play just because they've been that hoping that they can make money with gambling. One of the most common issues on here is on the the time or moment that people do gamble is that they do wish for that they do need up to make it profitable on which this is that very wrong. Usually people do only stop at the time that they are already experiencing some issues like having some spending up with those life savings or emergency money on which this is the only time that they do consider out on stopping.
Its true that stopping just because you had seen yourself put up into that condition but actually you can be able to lessen it up once you do see that you have go past with your limits. If you do like to gambling then always have that control and moderation on doing it.