Seguir apostando vs dejarlo (entre apostadores con problemas y apostadores en riesgo)
Si actúas
Seguir apostando
56%
Si no actúas
Dejarlo / abstinencia sostenida
5,0%
Porcentaje de quienes luego se arrepienten de cada elección. Las barras y el registro completo aparecen abajo.
Financiero
Última revisión 2026-05-28
Calidad de la evidencia 4.13/5
Puntuación de revisión en ocho dimensiones según la
rúbrica de calidad
. Cada dimensión puntuada de 1 a 5.
D1 Verificación de fuentes
4/5
D2 Autoridad e independencia de las fuentes
5/5
D3 Precisión de la tasa de arrepentimiento
3/5
D4 Comparabilidad de las fuentes
3/5
D5 Patrón de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Calidad de la prosa
4/5
D7 Completitud de las advertencias
4/5
D8 Calidad de la muestra
5/5
Media4.13/5
Datos sustitutos — no existe ninguna encuesta directa sobre el arrepentimiento para esta decisión. Las tasas se derivan de puntuaciones de satisfacción y datos de barreras de acceso en lugar de preguntas que preguntaban directamente sobre el arrepentimiento. Ver advertencias más abajo.
Arrepentimiento por acción
Seguir apostando
56%
~56% de los apostadores en riesgo y con problemas (PGSI 1+) reportan daño hacia sí mismos por seguir apostando (proxy de arrepentimiento — no existe encuesta directa enmarcada en arrepentimiento)
Apostadores en riesgo y con problemas (PGSI 1+), extraídos de muestras nacionales de prevalencia y de búsqueda de tratamiento
últimos 12 meses
Arrepentimiento por inacción
Dejarlo / abstinencia sostenida
5,0%
No existe ninguna medida directa; el arrepentimiento por dejarlo no está documentado en la literatura de recuperación. El ~5% mostrado es un valor nominal cercano al mínimo, no una tasa medida ni derivada.
Apostadores con problemas recuperados — cohorte de tratamiento hospitalario más cohorte estadounidense de recuperación natural
seguimiento de 12 meses post-tratamiento
% que se arrepienten de esta elección
Seguir apostandoDejarlo / abstinencia sostenida
56%5,0%
action dominates — Domina la acción — la mayoría se arrepiente de actuar.
Decisiones relacionadas
Decisiones semánticamente similares — mismo terreno, distintos compromisos.
Among the roughly 20 million US adults flagged for problem gambling
by the National Council on Problem Gambling’s 2024 NGAGE 3.0 survey,
direct regret-about-continuing data simply does not exist. The closest
peer-reviewed proxy is harm prevalence: Tulloch and colleagues’
2024 national Australian study found that 14.7% of all
gamblers reported at least one harm-to-self on the Gambling Harms
Scale-10, concentrated in the at-risk and problem-gambler subgroups.
The same study publishes the any-harm proportion for each PGSI band:
38.04% of low-risk, 75.78% of moderate-risk, and 96.40% of
problem gamblers. Weighted across the at-risk-and-problem (PGSI 1+)
population this entry targets, those bands combine to about 56% —
not the near-universal rate that holds only within the smallest,
problem-gambling group. We treat ~56% as the implied action-regret
rate for problem and at-risk gamblers, acknowledging that harm is not
synonymous with regret.
On the other side, the literature on quitting is striking for what is
missing. The Schuler et al. 2016 scoping review of Gamblers Anonymous
outcomes — covering 22 studies and 4 RCTs spanning six decades —
identifies no study in which regret-about-quitting emerges as a
meaningful outcome theme among sustained abstainers. Müller et al.’s
2017 German multicentre follow-up (N = 270) reports that the 41.6% who
maintained 12-month abstinence showed the lowest psychopathology and
significant personality improvements: decreased neuroticism, increased
extraversion and conscientiousness. Neither Müller et al. nor the
Schuler review reports any quality-of-life, dissatisfaction, or regret
figure for abstainers, so there is no measured or derivable quit-regret
rate — the ~5% shown for quitting is a nominal near-floor placeholder
standing in for “undocumented and apparently rare,” not a proxy
calculation. The direction is consistent across every recovery study
identified.
The 58.4% in Müller’s cohort who either kept meeting gambling-disorder
criteria or returned to sub-clinical gambling are NOT counted as quit-
regret here. Relapse is a clinical event in a chronic-remitting
condition; it reflects craving, situational triggers, and treatment
adherence, not an expressed preference for the pre-quit state.
Conflating relapse with regret would inflate the inaction-side figure
by an order of magnitude on definitionally shaky grounds. The Slutske
2006 NESARC analysis adds a complementary signal: ~36–39% of lifetime
pathological gamblers were in natural recovery (no past-year
symptoms) without ever attending GA or formal treatment — recovery
that sticks without external support is hard to reconcile with
significant retrospective regret about having stopped.
The Gilovich pattern here is unambiguously action-dominated, and that
matches the broader temporal-regret literature: short-horizon
behavioural decisions where the action carries ongoing harm tend to
generate action-regret that outpaces inaction-regret by wide margins.
Where this entry diverges from the cleaner cases (alcohol, smoking) is
the proxy depth on both sides — the action rate is a harm proxy, the
inaction value is a placeholder, and the absence of a quit-regret
literature is itself the strongest argument that the phenomenon is rare
rather than well-characterised. A reader at PGSI 1+ should read the gap
between the two sides as “every available signal points the same way,”
not as a precise calibration of personal odds.
Fuentes: acción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
1/3 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]International Gambling Studies / Tulloch, Hing, Browne, Russell, Rockloff & Rawat — Harm-to-self from gambling: A national study of Australian adults
Revisado por pares
14.7% of Australian gamblers reported any harm-to-self on the Gambling Harms Scale-10 overall. By PGSI category, the proportion reporting any (1+) harm was 5.12% (Non-Problem), 38.04% (Low-Risk), 75.78% (Moderate-Risk), and 96.40% (Problem gambling).
Extracto
“"14.7% of gamblers reported harm on the GHS-10" overall, with low harm 9.31%, moderate 3.50%, and high-level harm 1.91% of gamblers. The proportion reporting 1+ harms by PGSI group was 5.12% (Non-Problem), 38.04% (Low-Risk), 75.78% (Moderate-Risk), and 96.40% (Problem gambling).
”
Datos de la fuente de
2024-07-01
Accedido
2026-05-28
Cálculo
Random-digit-dialling mobile survey; past-year gamblers analysed N = 5,254, weighted to ABS population figures. The 14.7% figure is for ALL gamblers. This entry's population is at-risk and problem gamblers (PGSI 1+), so the action-side rate is derived from the study's stated per-PGSI any-harm proportions weighted by the study's own PGSI-group sample sizes (Table 1): Low-Risk 38.04% of n=592, Moderate-Risk 75.78% of n=301, Problem 96.40% of n=113. Harmed = 225 + 228 + 109 = 562 of 1,006 PGSI-1+ gamblers = 55.9%, rounded to ~56%. (The earlier 85% figure was invalid: it applied the Problem-gambling-only rate of 96.4% to the whole PGSI-1+ group, ignoring the far-larger Low-Risk group at 38%. The prior "14.7% / ~17% prevalence" shortcut is not a valid derivation.) Harm is a proxy for regret, not a direct regret measure — see proxy_only flag and caveats.
[2]American Journal of Psychiatry / Slutske — Natural Recovery and Treatment-Seeking in Pathological Gambling: Results of Two U.S. National Surveys
Revisado por pares
Among NESARC respondents with lifetime pathological gambling (n=185), only 7-12% had ever sought formal treatment or attended Gamblers Anonymous, yet 36-39% had no past-year gambling problems — implying the bulk of harm is borne silently by those still gambling.
Extracto
“"About one-third of the individuals with pathological gambling disorder in these two nationally representative U.S. samples were characterized by natural recovery... 36%–39% did not experience any gambling-related problems in the past year, even though only 7%–12% had ever sought either formal treatment or attended meetings of Gamblers Anonymous."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2006-02-01
Accedido
2026-05-28
Cálculo
NESARC sample, N = 43,093 adults; 185 with lifetime DSM-IV pathological gambling. The implication for action-side regret: roughly 60% of lifetime pathological gamblers still met criteria in the past year, and the vast majority (~88-93%) never sought help. Treatment-seeking is itself a strong proxy for regret about continuing — yet most problem gamblers continue without seeking help, suggesting either denial, shame, or sub-clinical ambivalence rather than absence of regret. We do not use the treatment-seeking rate (7-12%) as the regret rate because it underestimates regret-without-action; we use the harm-prevalence- among-PGSI-1+ figure (~56%, weighted across PGSI categories from Tulloch et al.) instead. This source corroborates the direction — most problem gamblers continue and bear harm silently — but does not itself set the action-side magnitude.
[3]National Council on Problem Gambling / Ipsos — National Council on Problem Gambling Survey Shows Drop in Problem Gambling Risk, Highlights Ongoing Challenges (NGAGE 3.0)
Verificado
Fuente de referencia
Nearly 20 million US adults (~7.6% of the adult population) report at least one problematic gambling behavior 'many times' in the past year (NGAGE 3.0, 2024).
Extracto
“"Nearly 20 million American adults report experiencing at least one problematic gambling behavior 'many times' in the past year."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2024-09-12
Accedido
2026-05-28
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
Ipsos/NCPG NGAGE 3.0 survey, N > 3,000 US adults, fielded January- March 2024, methodology consistent with 2018 and 2021 waves. This is the denominator anchor: the ~20 million figure defines the population for whom action-side regret applies. NGAGE does not publish a direct regret-framed item, hence proxy_only:true.
Fuentes: inacción
Registro de evidencia
Cada número a continuación es lo que reportó cada fuente, con la cita textual en la que nos basamos y cómo llegamos a nuestra cifra. Haz clic en cualquier enlace para verificarlo directamente.
2/2 fuentes verificadas de forma independiente palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada
[1]European Psychiatry / Müller, Wölfling, Dickenhorst, Beutel, Medenwaldt & Koch — Recovery, relapse, or else? Treatment outcomes in gambling disorder from a multicenter follow-up study
Verificado
Revisado por pares
At 12-month follow-up, 41.6% maintained full abstinence; abstinent subjects showed the lowest psychopathology and significant personality improvements (decreased neuroticism, increased extraversion and conscientiousness).
Extracto
“"Abstinent subjects showed the lowest psychopathology, and significant decreases in neuroticism with increases in extraversion and conscientiousness were found among abstinent subjects but not in patients still meeting criteria for gambling disorder."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2017-04-01
Accedido
2026-05-28
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
Multicenter German inpatient cohort, N = 270, 12-month follow-up. Of those who maintained abstinence (41.6%), the paper reports improved psychopathology and personality (lowest psychopathology, decreased neuroticism, increased extraversion and conscientiousness) — it does NOT report any quality-of-life, satisfaction, or regret figure for abstainers, and contains no "poor quality-of-life subgroup" statistic. There is therefore no source-stated number for regret-about-quitting; the displayed ~5% is a nominal near-floor placeholder reflecting the documented ABSENCE of a regret signal, not a derived rate. Relapse (58.4% who either kept meeting criteria or kept gambling sub-clinically) is NOT counted as quit-regret here — relapse is a clinical event, not an expressed preference for the pre-quitting state. No published survey directly measures regret about quitting among recovered gamblers.
[2]Journal of Gambling Studies / Schuler, Ferentzy, Turner, Skinner, McIsaac, Ziegler & Matheson — Gamblers Anonymous as a Recovery Pathway: A Scoping Review
Verificado
Revisado por pares
Across the GA literature, post-quit life satisfaction is consistently positive; regret about quitting is not a documented theme in any peer-reviewed GA outcome study identified by this scoping review.
Extracto
“"An emphasis on patience, using the Serenity Prayer as a way to gain acceptance of financial matters and reality, and absolute assertion of identity as a 'compulsive gambler' were identified as important aspects of GA's recovery culture."
”
Datos de la fuente de
2016-11-09
Accedido
2026-05-28
Verificación
Extracto recuperado de forma independiente y confirmado palabra por palabra frente a la fuente citada durante nuestra auditoría de fundamentación.
Cálculo
Scoping review of 22 GA-relevant studies (1957-2015), including 4 RCTs. The reviewers did not identify any study reporting regret-about-quitting as a meaningful outcome among sustained abstainers. The dominant theme is identity reconstruction around the 'compulsive gambler' label — an identity that, once adopted, makes regret-about-quitting structurally unlikely. Combined with Müller et al.'s 41.6% sustained-abstinence cohort showing improved psychopathology, this supports treating quit-regret as rare: the absence of regret evidence is itself a signal of low prevalence, though not a measurement. It supplies no numeric rate, so the displayed inaction figure remains a nominal near-floor placeholder rather than a derived estimate.
Advertencias
Ambos lados dependen de proxies, y no están igualmente fundamentados. Ninguna encuesta publicada pregunta directamente a los apostadores con problemas "¿te arrepientes de seguir apostando?" ni pregunta a los apostadores recuperados "¿te arrepientes de haberlo dejado?". La cifra del ~56% del lado de la acción se calcula a partir de las proporciones de cualquier daño por categoría PGSI que reporta Tulloch et al. (bajo riesgo 38,04%, riesgo moderado 75,78%, problema 96,40%) ponderadas por los tamaños de muestra de cada grupo PGSI en ese estudio, dentro de la población PGSI 1+ a la que apunta esta entrada — el daño-mientras-se-continúa se usa como el análogo conductual más cercano al arrepentimiento. (Una versión anterior mostraba 85%, que aplicaba erróneamente la tasa del 96% propia solo de los apostadores con problemas a todo el grupo en riesgo y con problemas, y no está respaldada por la fuente.) El lado de la inacción NO tiene una tasa medida ni derivable: ni Müller et al. ni la revisión de alcance de Schuler reportan cifra alguna de calidad de vida, insatisfacción o arrepentimiento entre los abstinentes, y el arrepentimiento por dejarlo no es un tema documentado en la literatura de recuperación. El ~5% mostrado para dejarlo es un valor nominal cercano al mínimo que representa "no documentado / aparentemente raro", no una medición. La discrepancia entre constructos es la incertidumbre dominante: el daño no es arrepentimiento (algunos apostadores experimentan daño pero racionalizan continuar como que vale la pena), y la mejora clínica no es la ausencia de arrepentimiento (algunos abstinentes pueden arrepentirse de haberlo dejado en silencio). La dirección — el arrepentimiento por la acción supera con creces al de la inacción — es robusta: todos los estudios de resultados de tratamiento y daños apuntan en la misma dirección. Las magnitudes precisas no lo son: el lado de la acción es un proxy y el valor del lado de la inacción es un marcador de posición, así que la brecha entre ambos debe leerse como "todas las señales disponibles apuntan en la misma dirección", no como una división calibrada.
