Vegas, regardless of 1000 other variables you might introduce, is a statistically solid system. You are likely to lose money, with the standard of deviation going down the more you gamble.
Low income, education, whatever, don’t change the strong link of gambling to losses.
And this is most definitely a causal effect. Verifiable by mathematics, any study you want to make trying testing counter vailing variables, the teleology that develops as economic systems adapt to create that causality to flourish, and the designs of gambling systems.
So of course the other variables don’t matter to your financial advisor.
—
An exception is games where skill can tip odds in your favor, however slight. Such as poker. A financial advisor isn’t going to second guess a poker player with a long standing career of positive outcomes.
I.e. if A is a reliable predictor of B, it doesn't matter whether A caused B or both A and B are caused by some other factor; A is still a reliable predictor regardless.
it is funny, really how obvious the angle is in these kinds of analysis. There's no way you could even start to draw conclusions from these kinds of data sets unless you already knew what you were going to report -- there's less than no information in the numbers being used... the only rational analysis would result in nothing but questions and absolutely no conclusions.
(RIP Bill Hicks)
Suppose I do a study that finds lower household wealth is correlated with time spent gambling in Vegas. Do gambling losses cause the lower wealth? Or is gambling more prevalent among lower income earners?
If my goal is to choose a wealth advisor, maybe it doesn’t matter.