zlacker

The figures you state are misleading. Money bet is not money lost. For example, roulette payout is 97.3% and sports betting payout can be as high as 99% or even 100% (done to attract players so that they open an account).

>>erfgh+(OP)
Pop quiz: What's better for your wallet? a game with a 66% expected payout that you will play twice before you lose interest, or a game with a 97.3% payout that you'll play 31 times on average?

The comparison needs to be in terms of typical use, otherwise engineering for addictiveness gets a free pass because it often hinges on frequent small rewards and can have a near unity return on a single shot basis yet be a big money maker for the house.

Of course there are probably 'safer' forms of gambling that some addicts are presumably able to use to maintain their addiction at a level which isn't disruptive to their life. ... but single shot EV isn't the right metric. Some weekly state lottery usually has pretty poor EV, yet is seldom ruining anyone.

>>erfgh+(OP)
I'm not sure I'd call them misleading because they didn't say the money was gone, just that it was spent (not implying it didn't come back). The fact that that much money was bet at all for an aid program is astonishing and unfortunate. Sure, not all of that money was lost, but I'd call any of those returned "winnings" an investment by the sports betting companies to secure clients for life.

>>jjice+nN
I'm curious which statistic they actually used (spent vs lost). If you're playing a quick game with 99% payout, you could earn $1k of income in a month and "spend" $10k on gambling. It seems like money lost would be an easier figure to compare.