Continuar a apostar vs. parar (entre apostadores problemáticos e em risco)
Se você agir
Continuar a apostar
56%
Se você não agir
Parar / abstinência sustentada
5,0%
Porcentagem de quem mais tarde se arrepende de cada escolha. As barras e o registro completo aparecem abaixo.
Financeiro
Última revisão 2026-05-28
Qualidade das evidências 4.13/5
Pontuação de revisão em oito dimensões segundo a
grelha de qualidade
. Cada dimensão pontuada de 1 a 5.
D1 Verificação das fontes
4/5
D2 Autoridade e independência das fontes
5/5
D3 Precisão da taxa de arrependimento
3/5
D4 Comparabilidade das fontes
3/5
D5 Padrão de Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualidade da prosa
4/5
D7 Completude das ressalvas
4/5
D8 Qualidade da amostra
5/5
Média4.13/5
Dados proxy — não existe nenhuma pesquisa direta sobre arrependimento para esta decisão. As taxas são derivadas de pontuações de satisfação e dados de barreiras de acesso em vez de perguntas que perguntavam diretamente sobre arrependimento. Veja advertências abaixo.
Arrependimento por ação
Continuar a apostar
56%
~56% dos apostadores em risco e problemáticos (PGSI 1+) relatam dano a si mesmos por continuar (proxy para arrependimento — nenhuma pesquisa direta enquadrada em arrependimento)
Apostadores em risco e problemáticos (PGSI 1+), extraídos de amostras nacionais de prevalência e de amostras em busca de tratamento
últimos 12 meses
Arrependimento por omissão
Parar / abstinência sustentada
5,0%
Não existe medida direta; o arrependimento por parar não está documentado na literatura de recuperação. O ~5% mostrado é um valor nominal próximo do mínimo, não uma taxa medida ou derivada.
Apostadores problemáticos recuperados — coorte de tratamento internado mais coorte de recuperação natural nos EUA
acompanhamento de 12 meses pós-tratamento
% se arrependem desta escolha
Continuar a apostarParar / abstinência sustentada
56%5,0%
action dominates — A acção domina — a maioria arrepende-se de ter agido.
Decisões relacionadas
Decisões semanticamente semelhantes — mesmo terreno, compromissos diferentes.
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.
Fontes: acção
Registro de evidências
Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.
1/3 fontes verificadas de forma independente palavra por palavra em relação à fonte 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).
Trecho
“"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).
”
Dados da fonte de
2024-07-01
Acessado
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.
Trecho
“"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."
”
Dados da fonte de
2006-02-01
Acessado
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
Fonte de referência
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).
Trecho
“"Nearly 20 million American adults report experiencing at least one problematic gambling behavior 'many times' in the past year."
”
Dados da fonte de
2024-09-12
Acessado
2026-05-28
Verificação
Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
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.
Fontes: inacção
Registro de evidências
Cada número abaixo é o que cada fonte relatou, com a citação literal em que nos baseamos e como chegamos ao nosso valor. Clique em qualquer link para verificar diretamente.
2/2 fontes verificadas de forma independente palavra por palavra em relação à fonte 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).
Trecho
“"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."
”
Dados da fonte de
2017-04-01
Acessado
2026-05-28
Verificação
Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
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.
Trecho
“"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."
”
Dados da fonte de
2016-11-09
Acessado
2026-05-28
Verificação
Trecho obtido novamente de forma independente e confirmado palavra por palavra em relação à fonte citada durante nossa auditoria de fundamentação.
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.
Ressalvas
Ambos os lados dependem de proxies, e não estão igualmente fundamentados. Nenhuma pesquisa publicada pergunta diretamente a apostadores problemáticos "você se arrepende de continuar a apostar?" ou pergunta a apostadores recuperados "você se arrepende de ter parado?" A figura de ~56% do lado da ação é calculada a partir das proporções de qualquer dano por categoria PGSI relatadas por Tulloch et al. (baixo risco 38,04%, risco moderado 75,78%, problema 96,40%) ponderadas pelos tamanhos de amostra de cada grupo PGSI nesse próprio estudo, dentro da população PGSI 1+ que esta entrada visa — dano-enquanto-continua é usado como o análogo comportamental mais próximo do arrependimento. (Uma versão anterior mostrava 85%, que aplicava erroneamente a taxa de 96% própria apenas dos apostadores problemáticos a todo o grupo em risco e problemático, e não é sustentada pela fonte.) O lado da inação NÃO tem taxa medida ou derivável: nem Müller et al. nem a revisão de escopo de Schuler relatam qualquer número de qualidade de vida, insatisfação ou arrependimento entre os abstinentes, e o arrependimento por parar não é um tema documentado na literatura de recuperação. O ~5% mostrado para parar é um valor nominal próximo do mínimo que representa "não documentado / aparentemente raro", não uma medição. A incompatibilidade de construto é a incerteza dominante aqui: dano não é arrependimento (alguns apostadores experimentam dano, mas racionalizam continuar como valendo a pena), e melhora clínica não é a ausência de arrependimento (alguns abstinentes podem se arrepender de ter parado em silêncio). A direção — o arrependimento pela ação supera em muito o da inação — é robusta: cada estudo de desfecho de tratamento e de dano aponta na mesma direção. As magnitudes precisas não são: o lado da ação é um proxy e o valor do lado da inação é um marcador de posição, então a diferença entre eles deve ser lida como "todos os sinais disponíveis apontam na mesma direção", não como uma divisão calibrada.
