About a year ago I had a call with a journalist at a major publication, who had obtained a public figure’s betting records. The man had wagered ten times his (publicly available) salary in the past year, and the journalist was planning an expose. They called me to learn about money laundering, how one could use stolen funds to gamble, and what tools gambling companies had to ensure people didn’t lose more than they could afford. About three minutes in, I asked them how much the man had deposited and lost. The journalist was confused; “I just told you, he’s gambled more than $4 million.” “Yes,” I responded, “but how much did he LOSE? If I bet $100 on red twice and win once, I will have gambled $200 but netted $0. Amount gambled is a worthless statistic on its own.” We went back and forth for a few minutes, and the call was ended after I told them I couldn’t comment until I had more details. I never heard from the journalist again, and the story never ran. I’m not sure exactly what happened, although after asking around about the guy my best guess is that he was churning through some sort of online promotion, meaning the “$4 million wagered” had almost no correlation to the amount he won or lost gambling. Of course, the vast majority of people who gamble, in any form, will lose. At roulette and blackjack they’ll probably lose between 2-5% of what they wager, usually the same for sports betting or prediction markets unless they’re betting parlays in which case it’s likely between 10-20%. More people gambling necessarily means more people losing, and gambling losses all too frequently substitute for saving, investment, and other important expenses, meaning the spread of gambling is associated with widespread financial harm. But please, journalists, if you are going to cover gambling well you need to understand and articulate the difference between gambling LOSSES and gambling HANDLE. The guy in the video below is obviously gambling in a way likely to endanger his finances; one should never put their whole paycheck on the line. But *even if he does* gamble his entire salary in a year, that’s very different than spending his entire salary on drugs or alcohol, because he’s likely to get at least 80-90% back of what he puts in.