Risking 1% in Gambling

[EarnOnVictor]

I think this depends on each person's income. If a gambler earns 100k dollars per month they set aside 1%, which is $1000 and that is a lot of money for other gamblers and I think that is enough for them to have fun, but if they earn $500 per month they only use it. $5 and yes, that not enough for someone to have fun if they spend a lot of time gambling, especially if they think about making a profit, of course this won't provide big profits because that small amount of money can quickly run out.

I think this is not about us not having enough fun using that 1% money, but about us being disciplined and limiting our gambling so that we don't experiences too much loss because 1% is not too risky for gamblers rather than having to spend more but not being willing to lose that money. Using more than 1% of your money is okay and that's fine, but that's how you have commitment and limits so you don't overdo it when gambling.

This 1% guideline does not need to be taken as an absolute rule, this is simply giving a specific value to the common advice that we see on the forum about setting a budget for your gambling activities and stopping once that limit is reached.

After all each person faces different circumstances, so a person could bet way more than that but if they are willing to diminish their expenses in other areas, like video games or streaming apps, they can easily make the difference without affecting their finances.

Of course, the 1% can't be a gauge to measure for all gamblers and gambling activities, some would play more and some might even play less, it all depends on many factors which include, the stability of earnings of the gambler, the purpose of gambling itself, the gambler's plans/budget towards gambling, their affinity to gamble and take risks, the net worth of the gambler among many others. Gmabling is not what anyone can generally attribute a certain way of doing it, there are many ways of gambling and this should fit the purpose and individuality of the gambler in terms of reasons and preferences.

Take me for instance, I can never gamble with 1% of my money, it looks like a waste of time, and even when I invest more money, I still can't cope with that low wagering percentage. But I wouldn't know for the rich people because as little as 1% could mean over $50,000 in some cases. This is why it is not good to generalise this or make it a yardstick that gamblers will now be using as a reference. It has to do with individual situation and purpose.

[1714669803]

1714669803

[klidex]

~snip~

This 1% guideline does not need to be taken as an absolute rule, this is simply giving a specific value to the common advice that we see on the forum about setting a budget for your gambling activities and stopping once that limit is reached.

After all each person faces different circumstances, so a person could bet way more than that but if they are willing to diminish their expenses in other areas, like video games or streaming apps, they can easily make the difference without affecting their finances.

Yes, I know 1% is not a nominal amount which must be absolute. The most important thing is that they are able to set a nominal limit that is as small as possible from their entire salary and that will not be a problem even though they may enjoy more than 1%. At least they have considered the risk of losing it and that the most important thing is that it doesn't disrupt their financial condition in the future. But they can also be disciplined and set a budget that suits the existing problems and stop when the specified limits are exhausted.

Each person faces different situations, some use more than 1%, some use only 1%, this is not a prohibition as long as they are able to experience gambling losses with 1%, it may not be too risky, but if it is more than that it will pose a risk to the user. Therefore, use your expenses wisely, don't let your finances become unstable and experience problems just because of gambling.

[Jody.Drummer]

~snip~

This 1% guideline does not need to be taken as an absolute rule, this is simply giving a specific value to the common advice that we see on the forum about setting a budget for your gambling activities and stopping once that limit is reached.

After all each person faces different circumstances, so a person could bet way more than that but if they are willing to diminish their expenses in other areas, like video games or streaming apps, they can easily make the difference without affecting their finances.

Yes, I know 1% is not a nominal amount which must be absolute. The most important thing is that they are able to set a nominal limit that is as small as possible from their entire salary and that will not be a problem even though they may enjoy more than 1%. At least they have considered the risk of losing it and that the most important thing is that it doesn't disrupt their financial condition in the future. But they can also be disciplined and set a budget that suits the existing problems and stop when the specified limits are exhausted.

Each person faces different situations, some use more than 1%, some use only 1%, this is not a prohibition as long as they are able to experience gambling losses with 1%, it may not be too risky, but if it is more than that it will pose a risk to the user. Therefore, use your expenses wisely, don't let your finances become unstable and experience problems just because of gambling.

Yes that's right and the bottom line is like you said that the most important and the most advisable thing is to put a small amount that you can afford to lose or you can afford to lose at the end of the session, and I think it's fine if you want to increase the bet amount to more than 1% but try not to exceed 8% - 10% because that's very dangerous over time, and what is needed in this situation is discipline as you mentioned, what I mean is that it is highly recommended for anyone to apply discipline to the amount of budget they put, for example you only put 5% and try to maintain that amount in the long run, do not increase or better yet reduce the percentage to smaller if possible.

In addition, you also need to maintain a conscious understanding of gambling in the sense that you must remain aware that gambling is nothing more than a leisure activity that has no certainty in terms of making money, and this will be very useful to keep you safe in the long run. Yes that's right, there is a difference in every gambler in terms of putting the budget amount, as you said some only put 1% and some more, that's good but as I said above that don't let the increase exceed 10%, that's the most important thing. After all gambling is an activity that should not be taken seriously and therefore it is fine and advisable for anyone to only put small amounts.

[noormcs5]

Take me for instance, I can never gamble with 1% of my money, it looks like a waste of time, and even when I invest more money, I still can't cope with that low wagering percentage. But I wouldn't know for the rich people because as little as 1% could mean over $50,000 in some cases. This is why it is not good to generalise this or make it a yardstick that gamblers will now be using as a reference. It has to do with individual situation and purpose.

Do you wager with more than 1% of the portfolio ? If you do so, then you are taking an undue risk. Let's suppose you are wagering with 5% of the portfolio and if you lose that game or bet, it means that now you are left with only 95% of your portfolio. Also where the more money is invested, the winning percentage increases but the risk of loss also increases with it.

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

[EarnOnVictor]

Take me for instance, I can never gamble with 1% of my money, it looks like a waste of time, and even when I invest more money, I still can't cope with that low wagering percentage. But I wouldn't know for the rich people because as little as 1% could mean over $50,000 in some cases. This is why it is not good to generalise this or make it a yardstick that gamblers will now be using as a reference. It has to do with individual situation and purpose.

Do you wager with more than 1% of the portfolio ? If you do so, then you are taking an undue risk. Let's suppose you are wagering with 5% of the portfolio and if you lose that game or bet, it means that now you are left with only 95% of your portfolio. Also where the more money is invested, the winning percentage increases but the risk of loss also increases with it.

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

Are you asking me again? I made it clear in my post that my gambling risks have to be proportionate depending on the amount we take about, the kind of game I want to play and my affinity to risk-taking at that time of gambling. In all, one must consider good budget and planning before gambling, so a situation like this can't be argued in favour of the low or high risks taking alone as you make it look, it must be in relation to some conditions. This is majorly based on the size of the money we are talking about. You can't expect me to have $100,000 in my gambling account and gamble more than 1% of the money. That risk is too high for me. I would rather risk lower than that in such a situation, so it is not a rigid decision in any case.

The same consideration goes for the low amount of money. I can't be wasting my time risking so little with a small amount of money in my gambling account. With this amount, in some cases, I can risk 5% of my money, and that might still be so little for me because I need to make money (if that is my reason for gambling at that time). If you read my initial post very well, all have been rightly explained there, except you did not understand it. Basically, I gamble based on the size of money I have for it, the risk/fairness in the games I want to play, and according to my plans on the budgets for that specific period of time.

[AmoreJaz]

I think this depends on each person's income. If a gambler earns 100k dollars per month they set aside 1%, which is $1000 and that is a lot of money for other gamblers and I think that is enough for them to have fun, but if they earn $500 per month they only use it. $5 and yes, that not enough for someone to have fun if they spend a lot of time gambling, especially if they think about making a profit, of course this won't provide big profits because that small amount of money can quickly run out.

I think this is not about us not having enough fun using that 1% money, but about us being disciplined and limiting our gambling so that we don't experiences too much loss because 1% is not too risky for gamblers rather than having to spend more but not being willing to lose that money. Using more than 1% of your money is okay and that's fine, but that's how you have commitment and limits so you don't overdo it when gambling.

This 1% guideline does not need to be taken as an absolute rule, this is simply giving a specific value to the common advice that we see on the forum about setting a budget for your gambling activities and stopping once that limit is reached.

After all each person faces different circumstances, so a person could bet way more than that but if they are willing to diminish their expenses in other areas, like video games or streaming apps, they can easily make the difference without affecting their finances.

You are absolutely right, I can tell for sure that most serious gamblers spend more than one percent of their monthly income on gambling, this is not something to debate about, and this is talking about gamblers who not addicted.
For addicted gamblers, it's even worse, 1 percent of ones monthly is not that much, and I can tell that some people waste more than this percentage of income on this that are useless or will be useless to them in a month after or so.

But all the same, this is still a very good advice from op, but I still feel that it's one that will be very difficult for some gambler to read and adhere to, except for the occasion/seasonal gamblers like myself.

let us admit the reality that 1% is indeed very small if you really go into gambling spree. unless, you are very strict to yourself that you only allocate such amount for your gambling. but if you are a regular gambler, i doubt you can stick to this percentage because like it or not, once you are already sitting on your games, the tendency to deposit more is always there. unless, you have a very good discipline when it comes to your gambling habit.

[Westinhome]

Do you wager with more than 1% of the portfolio ? If you do so, then you are taking an undue risk. Let's suppose you are wagering with 5% of the portfolio and if you lose that game or bet, it means that now you are left with only 95% of your portfolio. Also where the more money is invested, the winning percentage increases but the risk of loss also increases with it.

The gambler who want to wager their money in the gambling should try to make use of more money in the gambling site.Because if the more money available for gambling means,the probability of making money from that gambling is easy one.My suggestion to the new gambler will be use of atleast 5-10 percentage of their income into the gambling site.

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

The gambler with less portfolio in the gambling site will likely to loss their money in the gambling site.Because the changing algorithm in the gambling site will leads to the loss of initial capital.So the money should be hold by the gambler to backup for the recovery of immediate loss in the gambling site.

[Accardo]

Yes, I know 1% is not a nominal amount which must be absolute. The most important thing is that they are able to set a nominal limit that is as small as possible from their entire salary and that will not be a problem even though they may enjoy more than 1%. At least they have considered the risk of losing it and that the most important thing is that it doesn't disrupt their financial condition in the future. But they can also be disciplined and set a budget that suits the existing problems and stop when the specified limits are exhausted.

Each person faces different situations, some use more than 1%, some use only 1%, this is not a prohibition as long as they are able to experience gambling losses with 1%, it may not be too risky, but if it is more than that it will pose a risk to the user. Therefore, use your expenses wisely, don't let your finances become unstable and experience problems just because of gambling.

It depends on the income of the gambler, and what consumes his funds the most. Every gambler has other utilities that takes up their funds, although gambling seems to take the most for many income earning gamblers. The need to set the limit is to stay on a positive side of income management. Salaries are meant for running the company as an employee, purchasing of gas, food, clothes etc., helps in building the confidence of the worker while in field. Hence, if a gambler exhausts his funds on gambling alone, he wouldn't perform like other employees in the company, thereby affecting his productivity.

I've experienced a lot of gamblers complaining about wagering almost all their income in one gambling session. Such attitude doesn't sound good even to the gambler. Setting aside, few amount of money for gambling once the income arrives, lets the gambler to do the right expenses, while taking care of his family, which should be his main priority. Gambling is for fun and shouldn't be seen as a business or a side. That means that it's not meant to be seen as the first priority in terms of utilities, for a salary earner.

[erep]

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

Each gambler has a different percentage benchmark depending on the financial level they have, relatively gamblers allocate as low as 10% if they have a low budget or below average monthly income, I just remind you never gamble to increase your income because it is likely that you will increase your budget Another is for gambling so that you gamble beyond the previous budget limit.

You have to set the mindset of gambling just for fun so that you can enjoy gambling because the potential increase in income from minimal betting amounts is just a bonus if you are lucky at betting.

[Lannakosa]

Do you wager with more than 1% of the portfolio ? If you do so, then you are taking an undue risk. Let's suppose you are wagering with 5% of the portfolio and if you lose that game or bet, it means that now you are left with only 95% of your portfolio. Also where the more money is invested, the winning percentage increases but the risk of loss also increases with it.

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

If a player with a small deposit knows that even with a risk of 1% he cannot make a profit, then what is the point for him to increase the deposit if this ultimately only leads to large losses.

If a player's deposit is $100 and he bets $1, then his risks are low, but if out of every 10 bets he loses more than half (and so on), then he will end up losing his entire deposit. And here it’s not about the size of the deposit, because with a larger deposit the player will simply lose more. A small deposit can help a player understand whether he is capable of winning, or whether all his gaming activity comes down to loses.

If he manages to win more often and the player is able to increase his deposit, then of course it is worth increasing it and trying to win more.

[summonerrk]

For people who have less portfolio, the best they can do is to do offline work and gather money so their portfolio increases to a reasonable level and that 1% of the gambling portfolio does not seem to be the waste of time for them. If they do not increase their gambling capital, then they will be forced to take more risks and in doing so they can quickly end up their small portfolio. The game here is get the maximum potential earnings from the gambling while risking the minimal amount possible.

Each gambler has a different percentage benchmark depending on the financial level they have, relatively gamblers allocate as low as 10% if they have a low budget or below average monthly income, I just remind you never gamble to increase your income because it is likely that you will increase your budget Another is for gambling so that you gamble beyond the previous budget limit.

You have to set the mindset of gambling just for fun so that you can enjoy gambling because the potential increase in income from minimal betting amounts is just a bonus if you are lucky at betting.

Getting pleasure from the game is the most correct approach to gambling. This is also an excellent prevention of gambling addiction. You just need to have a strict idea in your head that you cannot spend more than a certain amount on a casino, and also understand that the casino is not able to solve problems. It is this mood in which you tell yourself “I’m just here for fun” that will lead to good emotions from the game.

And winning the game is nothing more than a pleasant bonus, but not the primary thing!

[redsun114]

Take me for instance, I can never gamble with 1% of my money, it looks like a waste of time, and even when I invest more money, I still can't cope with that low wagering percentage. But I wouldn't know for the rich people because as little as 1% could mean over $50,000 in some cases. This is why it is not good to generalise this or make it a yardstick that gamblers will now be using as a reference. It has to do with individual situation and purpose.

People for whom 1% of their salary could be over $50,000 will often start gambling with as low as $1,000 being their base bet whereas regular gamblers like us would have that as our budget for months. So, when people have higher incomes and if a small percentage equals a large quantity based on their income, it also means that they place higher bets compared to those who earn low incomes and have a low gambling budget because of that.

So, when we talk about a percentage, it will mean the same for everyone because it will be based on their income and risk tolerance because someone who earns $1,000 a month can tolerate a loss of $50, while someone earning $100,000 can tolerate losing $5,000 in a single session.

[junder]

fun and money that they are looking for in the casino, but maybe the obvious is bigger and the number of people who go to the casino is to make money, because as you said the most important thing is to make money, because who doesn't like money? of course everyone likes money, because it is something that is needed by everyone. but in my opinion even though many strategies can be done and applied to gambling that will be done or that is done, it will not be able to guarantee that it can definitely produce victory. therefore as much as possible we should gamble by allocating the money we have with a small amount such as betting 1% for gambling from the income earned.

Yes, we have to pay attention to this, we have to be able to manage our finances as well as possible so that undesirable things happen, such as expenses that are not very important as you said. because in my opinion it's the same as if we have income or a lot of money but can't manage our finances well, the money we have can be spent on things that aren't really important.  Defending the money at stake in gambling is something that all gamblers definitely do, but defeat and losing money cannot be avoided. because it is something that is certain to happen.

In view of these things, if it is clear that we always want to win, I have not found the first person who tells me that they go to a Casino just to spend money , no , Maybe there are Because they have a lot of money and they don't know what they can do. spend it, I'm not like that, I always look to win, but the alternatives of a casino will always be a Factor of the casinos, they will never be in favor of us as clients, it is well known that the casinos have a house advantage, and the house edge is the only thing that makes them win money, there is no Other , we must know that before playing , in fact in the movies and everywhere they always focus on the house edge or say that the house He always wins and in fact it is like that, it is his way of seeing things, if we as players understand things with the reality that it Represents , I think we will not have any type of problem and there are no reasons to fall into addiction.

Addiction is mainly what we have to be able to debate to help people avoid falling down that path, it is something to always consider, of course I am a person who in my life has done crazy things with money, I am very modest with that , that's why I always try to look for strategies so that I can give up and have fun, of course it's always with the idea of looking for more money, but that's something because we're not completely right in things, we have to be very emphatic if We want to allocate our money well, 1% is good for the game, but that 1% is for 1 month, if the person allocates it like that, well, for me it is not at all important, because things in games of chance, casinos always They are risky and you can make a lot of money , and that is what people should see, but I would agree to make a summary of the costs after that if there is time , then if you Spend as much as you can or are willing to lose.

I think that even though there are people who have a lot of money and are confused about what to spend it on, it does not mean that they should spend it on gambling because obviously gambling will not produce. Because it's true that you said the casino has a home advantage and the fact is that the home will always win so if they spend their money on gambling it will most likely not produce something that is clearly different from them if they spend it on buying property that the results will be seen and may be useful.

I think it will be difficult to be able to allocate 1% for gambling that must last for a period of 1 month but because there is a chance to win maybe the 1% budget can be increased,  and if it has increased of course it is a very lucky thing, after that it depends on us allocating it properly or not But don't forget that there is also a big chance of losing because as you said this is a game of chance so everything can happen suddenly Things that can happen are not in accordance with expectations that can happen. It's true what you said, the point is that we must be prepared to lose if we do gambling.

[wxa7115]

let us admit the reality that 1% is indeed very small if you really go into gambling spree. unless, you are very strict to yourself that you only allocate such amount for your gambling. but if you are a regular gambler, i doubt you can stick to this percentage because like it or not, once you are already sitting on your games, the tendency to deposit more is always there. unless, you have a very good discipline when it comes to your gambling habit.

I recommend that when you are gambling that you keep your main wallet in another location, this way whenever you feel like you want to gamble a little more and make another deposit, you will remember that in fact your wallet is not there and you need to travel in order to get it.

So when you begin to think about all the effort needed to make that deposit, very soon your urge to gamble will diminish and you can keep yourself within the budget limits you set for yourself with relative ease.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

I think 1% per bet is a reasonable amount for risk management, but there will be people who choose a higher or even lower risk ratio depending on their total amount of money. In my opinion, the percentage is not as important as whether you have the discipline to always maintain this ratio, or will it break any time you lose or win big. For me personally, the risk rate I choose is 5% risk on a total amount of 1000 USD, and as my total amount increases, the risk rate will gradually decrease, and the lowest will be 1%. I always stick to a certain risk ratio, only changing it when my total capital is changed.

[LUCKMCFLY]

<Snip>

I think that we can play with a chance not of 1%, but go beyond, perhaps some will consider $10 so that it can be distributed in the month, and that is something that we can see how to play it although in my very opinion Personally, I would not say 10%, I would say a maximum of 8% to risk, because it is something like when I trade I am also able to risk 10%, it is always less than 10% because for me that figure can be significant .

In games of chance things can look very different because for any game there is always a risk, whether it is 1% or 10% whatever, the important thing here is that things can happen very differently for a particular situation, that is That is to say, not everyone has the same economic and financial situation, not everyone is under the same conditions and expenses, according to that, we see that gambling can be seen as a luxury, a luxury that many cannot afford, so it is difficult to establish something very general.

What I can advise is that a person who can afford to play has to be very careful so that their decision will not affect them in the future, because the people who risk their basic balance and leave behind many things that they cannot cover that they should Addressing this now enters the realm of irresponsibility, and that already attracts other problems and that is what leads to desperation, stress and pressure that many cannot endure and collapse.

[Blowon]

It's quite reasonable that we will feel comfortable with losing 1% of our portfolio, this will apply if we have enough money, but if we have a little, it's not wrong to add no more than 5%. In my personal opinion, this is still relatively safe.

[Quidat]

It's quite reasonable that we will feel comfortable with losing 1% of our portfolio, this will apply if we have enough money, but if we have a little, it's not wrong to add no more than 5%. In my personal opinion, this is still relatively safe.

1% is too small i should say and for sure that most gamblers will really be definitely be adding up the percentage on the time that they would be easily bust up with their initial capital.
Budget could be small that it would really be just that ending up on a few seconds if you do deal with casinos or some few bets on sports betting. It would be actually depending on what you are dealing with but if you are really that dealing with those fast pace games then you do know on whats next?. You would be having those emotions that it wasnt just enough, you would be on good position
that on the time that you have lost those amounts then you do immediately stop and doesnt tend to make more deposits on which this is something the approach that should be done.

[Dewi Aries]

I think 1% per bet is a reasonable amount for risk management, but there will be people who choose a higher or even lower risk ratio depending on their total amount of money. In my opinion, the percentage is not as important as whether you have the discipline to always maintain this ratio, or will it break any time you lose or win big. For me personally, the risk rate I choose is 5% risk on a total amount of 1000 USD, and as my total amount increases, the risk rate will gradually decrease, and the lowest will be 1%. I always stick to a certain risk ratio, only changing it when my total capital is changed.

If we go to risk management or safety in gambling involvement then yes obviously I would agree that 1% is the recommended budget amount because that amount will not be too much of a drain on your pocket, I understand that everyone has freedom in terms of putting a budget amount on their gambling and maybe for some people who have a pretty good income in their life they will definitely be more courageous to put a slightly large amount but still anyway what is more recommended is to put a low amount and not exceed 10% - 15%. On the other hand you can't say that the percentage is not important because obviously allocating a large amount of money is too risky even if you have good discipline, but for another thing I quite agree with you that we must be able to really be consistent in maintaining the small amount that we allocate and the conclusion is that the recommended approach is to put a small amount along with maintaining it and never you dare to increase the amount because what is worried is when you are unable to accept defeat.

[junder]

<Snip>

I think that we can play with a chance not of 1%, but go beyond, perhaps some will consider $10 so that it can be distributed in the month, and that is something that we can see how to play it although in my very opinion Personally, I would not say 10%, I would say a maximum of 8% to risk, because it is something like when I trade I am also able to risk 10%, it is always less than 10% because for me that figure can be significant .

In games of chance things can look very different because for any game there is always a risk, whether it is 1% or 10% whatever, the important thing here is that things can happen very differently for a particular situation, that is That is to say, not everyone has the same economic and financial situation, not everyone is under the same conditions and expenses, according to that, we see that gambling can be seen as a luxury, a luxury that many cannot afford, so it is difficult to establish something very general.

What I can advise is that a person who can afford to play has to be very careful so that their decision will not affect them in the future, because the people who risk their basic balance and leave behind many things that they cannot cover that they should Addressing this now enters the realm of irresponsibility, and that already attracts other problems and that is what leads to desperation, stress and pressure that many cannot endure and collapse.

Yes that's right, indeed in a game based on luck of course everything can look different as you said all games have risks, and if the game requires capital then the risk of losing money is clearly there. But in my opinion in the game of luck the percentage of losing will be greater than the percentage of winning, and betting with 1% is enough to manage risk, although indeed everyone does not have the same economic situation as you said, but betting using 1% of income may be enough, the point is that we ourselves must be able to balance it ourselves. But maybe there are some people who may still feel less risking only 1% of their income so they can't balance it.

That's right, your advice is very effective. Because it can reduce the risk of periodic losses. And everything must be done carefully, lest we do things carelessly, let alone tie tightly to money. In addition, being able to balance funding for gambling is also in my opinion a responsible action. Because many people cannot balance the funding for gambling with their income so that it actually harms them.