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? 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. The gambling system especially sports betting works in a way that as a game plays the value of the stake keeps increasing and what may appear to be what the gambler can afford to lose may rise and become what he can no longer afford to lose and this becomes a source of concern for the gambler if he losses the bet. In fact, if a gambler accumulates the total of what he thinks he can afford to lose he would know that he is losing what he cannot afford to lose. I think that any penny spent on gambling is a money the gambler have decided to sacrifice with the hope of getting a bigger amount and not because he can afford to lose it.
What's your position on this thought?
The cumulative effect of the amounts of money lost over a long period of time does not mean a contradiction. You just have to keep in mind that the real meaning of this phrase is: "you should play for money that you can lose
today." Of course, if you add up all these amounts, you will get an amount, the one-time loss of which would be unacceptably large for you. But the time factor, which you consider as an accumulation of losses, can also be considered the other way around - as an "installment plan" of losses. Therefore, gamblers allocate a certain percentage of their income for a bankroll for a certain time period (month or week).