So now are going to assume a monetary figure on how much he actually spent versus how much he says he lost over a decade? How do you base your arguments and conclusions on assumptions? Even these stories "exposing" his gambling make assumptions. He "lost 8 million dollars over 10 years."
The story at the top of this thread notes that "Indeed, the stunner of the story — that Bennett wagered $8 million over the last decade — isn't even as stunning as Green and Alter desperately want it to be. There isn't any evidence that he lost $8 million dollars, only that he's bought $8 million in chips over a decade. If, as is more likely, his losses are half that, he'd have spent less than what numerous movie stars and CEOs spend on their country estates, private jets, and divorces."
Another assumption, but it is showing what was omitted from the original stories about Bennett: what he won over that decade. Saying someone "lost" 8 million over a decade, when they could have possibly won any number of million back, therefore making his statement about "breaking even" one-sided, and wholly beneficial to his decriers.