We are used to say that a gambler should gamble with an amount he can afford to lose but in the actual sense do we think there is any amount a gambler can afford to lose?
surely there is an amount a gambler can afford to lose. this amount is usually am amount that when spent, it doesn't feel like anything has left you. for example if you bet $1 game on an accumulative game of 500odd and lose, it will not be effective as a game you stake $1000 for 2 odd and lose. i think when they talk about an amount a gamble can afford to lose is this type of compearism. although i know that no amount is a waste or too small, but in this case of $1000 and $1 it is surely nothing.
When a gambler places a stake what he sees is not the stake but the potential win. This is why when he does not win he panics regardless of how little the stake is and he will always mention the potential win rather than the stake as the amount lost.
i understand the point, but the fact is that if a gamblers lost, he may think about the potential return instead of the bet amount itself. but when he come into realization that he lost a small stake instead of big stake, he will use that to console himself. and secondly those gambler who does that are the type that put so much hope on a game yet to play. if not on a norms a gambler is not suppose to put his mind on an outstanding game that is yet to play, as if he is sure its going to play