So occasional +EV situations in Poker and Blackjack for a tiny fraction of the most disciplined players (and only at the direct expense of others) are why non-r

So occasional +EV situations in Poker and Blackjack for a tiny fraction of the most disciplined players (and only at the direct expense of others) are why non-rich people are allowed to wager their entire life savings at roulette, lottery, and slot machines? And then even more than their net-worth, via lines-of-credit? But then those same people – no matter how disciplined – must face large (practically insurmountable) paternalistic legal barriers against putting even a few dollars into private investments? Even in domains where they have personal expertise? And where the results can be positive-sum for all involved, rather than strictly zero- or negative sum? The nonsense is still strong in the dichotomous regulation of gambling and investments. It's almost as if the paternalists want to protect poor people from becoming wealthy!