Next scheduled rescrape ... never
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 19/06/2025, 22:23:50 UTC



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?
It depends on the individual obviously. Not everyone have necessary tools to moderate their behavior, and since we are talking about gambling addicts, it's kind of self-medicating.

They just need their fix and don't have working mechanism that would allow to use will power efficiently. So they need to learn that, and that happens with hard work. It's not like a lightbulb where they decide not to gamble, but they need to rebuild themselves if they ever want healthy relationship with gambling. Because only other way is quitting completely, so that's the easiest option and most popular.

If they are depressed, their brains are in kind of self rewarding self destructive loop. And trying to maintain control and moderation could be just excuse just to gamble. Not because they want to heal, but because they want to believe they can heal, so that they can gamble.

There are studies written on brain chemistry of addicts and psychology of gambling addiction. I would recommend finding some of them. And if those are hard, i am certain that there are some self help psychology books about that subject too.
Original archived Re: The Paradox of the Addicted Gambler
Scraped on 19/06/2025, 22:18:55 UTC



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?
It depends on the individual obviously. Not everyone have necessary tools to moderate their behavior, and since we are talking about gambling addicts, it's kind of self-medicating.

They just need their fix and don't have working mechanism that would allow to use will power efficiently. So they need to learn that, and that happens with hard work. It's not like a lightbulb where they decide not to gamble, but they need to rebuild themselves if they ever want healthy relationship with gambling. Because only other way is quitting completely, so that's the easiest option and most popular.

If they are depressed, their brains are in kind of self rewarding self destructive loop. And trying to maintain control and moderation could be just excuse just to gamble. Not because they want to heal, but because they want to believe they can heal, so that they can gamble.

There are studies written on brain chemistry of addicts and psychology of gambling addiction. I would recommend finding some of them. And if those are hard, i am certain that there are some self help psychology books about that subject too.