Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team

Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team

Last updated: 19/09/2025

This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy.

The sunk cost fallacy is a common cognitive bias where individuals continue investing in a decision based on the cumulative prior investment (time, money, effort) rather than the current and future costs and benefits. In gambling, this fallacy can be particularly damaging, as it often leads to escalating bets and significant financial losses. This article explores how the sunk cost fallacy is exploited in gambling, the psychological mechanisms behind it, and strategies for gamblers to recognise and avoid this trap.

Keywords: sunk cost fallacy, gambling addiction, cognitive bias, decision-making, gambling psychology, Australian gambling, behavioural economics

The sunk cost fallacy occurs when people make decisions based on past investments rather than considering the present value and future outcomes. In essence, they throw “good money after bad,” hoping to justify previous losses by continuing to invest, even when the rational choice would be to cut their losses and stop (Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

The sunk cost fallacy is driven by several psychological factors:

• Loss Aversion: People have a strong tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. This aversion can lead to irrational behaviour, such as continuing to gamble to avoid feeling the pain of a previous loss (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).
• Commitment and Consistency: Once an individual has committed to a course of action, they are more likely to continue it to maintain consistency in their behaviour and justify their past decisions (Cialdini, 2009).
• Cognitive Dissonance: The discomfort of recognising that a past decision was wrong can lead individuals to double down on that decision, as they try to avoid the psychological conflict (dissonance) that arises from admitting a mistake (Festinger, 1957).

Gambling establishments and products are designed to exploit cognitive biases like the sunk cost fallacy. Understanding these mechanisms can help in recognising the traps and making more informed decisions.

One of the most direct ways the sunk cost fallacy is exploited in gambling is through the behaviour known as “chasing losses.” This occurs when a gambler continues to place bets in an attempt to recover money lost in previous rounds.

• Example: After losing a significant amount of money in a poker game, a player might continue to gamble, believing that their next win will help them recover all their losses. This belief often leads to even greater losses as the player continues to invest in a losing streak (O’Malley et al., 2021).

Progressive betting systems, such as the Martingale system, are another way the sunk cost fallacy is exploited. These systems encourage gamblers to double their bet after each loss, with the idea that eventually, they will win back their losses plus a profit.

• Flaw in the System: The flaw in this approach is that it assumes an infinite bankroll and no betting limits, which are unrealistic. As losses accumulate, the required bet sizes can quickly become unmanageable, leading to substantial financial harm (Thorp, 1966).

Slot machines and other gambling games often include “near miss” scenarios, where the outcome is almost a win. These scenarios are designed to exploit the sunk cost fallacy by making the player believe that a win is just around the corner, encouraging them to keep playing.

• Psychological Impact: Research shows that near misses activate the same brain regions as actual wins, leading to an increased desire to continue gambling despite the actual loss (Clark et al., 2009).

Gambling establishments use loyalty programs and bonuses to create a sense of investment and commitment. By offering rewards based on cumulative play, these programs encourage players to continue gambling to avoid “wasting” the rewards they have earned so far.

• Psychological Hook: The more players invest in these programs, the harder it becomes for them to walk away, even when they are losing, because they do not want to “waste” their accumulated points or bonuses (Hing, Russell, & Browne, 2017).

The sunk cost fallacy is not just a harmless cognitive bias; it can contribute to the development and maintenance of gambling addiction. The continuous investment in a losing game can lead to significant financial, emotional, and psychological distress.

Gambling addiction is often characterised by an escalation of commitment, where individuals continue to gamble despite mounting losses. The sunk cost fallacy plays a central role in this process, as gamblers become increasingly trapped by their previous investments (Ladouceur et al., 2001).

The financial consequences of the sunk cost fallacy in gambling can be severe, leading to debt, bankruptcy, and the loss of savings. The psychological consequences are equally damaging, contributing to anxiety, depression, and strained relationships (Grant & Kim, 2005).

Recognising and avoiding the sunk cost fallacy can help individuals make more rational decisions and reduce the risk of gambling addiction.

Before engaging in any form of gambling, it is essential to set clear financial and time limits. Decide in advance how much money and time you are willing to spend, and stick to these limits regardless of whether you are winning or losing.

• Practical Tip: Use tools such as budgeting apps or set limits on gambling platforms to enforce these restrictions.

Avoid focusing on past losses or wins when making decisions. Instead, consider the current situation and whether continuing to gamble is in your best interest.

• Mindfulness Practices: Techniques such as mindfulness can help gamblers stay focused on the present moment and make more rational decisions (de Lisle et al., 2011).

If you find yourself struggling with the urge to chase losses or continue gambling despite negative outcomes, it may be helpful to seek support from a counsellor or support group.

• Gambling Helplines: Organisations such as Gambling Help Online in Australia offer confidential support and resources to help individuals manage gambling behaviour (Gambling Help Online, 2021).

The sunk cost fallacy is a powerful cognitive bias that can lead to irrational decision-making in gambling. By understanding how this fallacy is exploited through chasing losses, progressive betting systems, near miss scenarios, and loyalty programs, individuals can take steps to avoid falling into these traps. Setting clear limits, focusing on the present, and seeking support are effective strategies to mitigate the impact of the sunk cost fallacy and make more informed gambling decisions. Awareness and education are key to promoting responsible gambling and preventing the escalation of gambling-related harms.

• Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(1), 124-140.
• Clark, L., Lawrence, A. J., Astley-Jones, F., & Gray, N. (2009). Gambling near-misses enhance motivation to gamble and recruit win-related brain circuitry. Neuron, 61(3), 481-490.
• Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• de Lisle, S. M., Dowling, N. A., & Allen, J. S. (2011). Mindfulness and problem gambling: A review of the literature. Journal of Gambling Studies, 27(4), 709-723.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Gambling Help Online. (2021). Help and support for gambling problems. Retrieved from https://www.gamblinghelponline.org.au
• Grant, J. E., & Kim, S. W. (2005). Gambling disorder. In: American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry (4th ed.).
• Hing, N., Russell, A. M. T., & Browne, M. (2017). Risk factors for gambling problems on online electronic gaming machines, race betting and sports betting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 779.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Ladouceur, R., Sylvain, C., Boutin, C., Lachance, S., Doucet, C., Leblond, J., & Jacques, C. (2001). Cognitive treatment of pathological gambling. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(11), 774-780.
• O’Malley, M., Lowe, C. F., & Raisbeck, L. (2021). Chasing losses in gambling: A behavioural review. Psychological Bulletin, 147(5), 349-371.
• Thorp, E. O. (1966). Beat the dealer: A winning strategy for the game of twenty-one. Random House.

How to get in touch

If you need immediate mental healthcare assistance with gambling, feel free to get in contact with us on 1800 NEAR ME – admin@therapynearme.com.au.