Some people say "there's investing and then there's gambling".
I say investing is just one's own perception of a gamble in which one can usually "win" at.
In other words: It is ALL gambling; It is ALL investing.
Everytime you spend/use money (in any way), you are "investing" it.

You can "invest" in a single lottery ticket...
You can "gamble" away your dollar on a single lottery ticket.
You decide what you are doing.
But you base those decisions on the knowledge you know [that which has been passed down to you].
But the "average" person doesn't really know much about "investing".
So, anything outside of what they "know" is considered "risky" and labeled "gambling".
[because there are only two "label" choices - its' either "investing" or it's "gambling"]

Which "label" you would associate with any event comes down to the odds of the investment/gamble AND your risk aversion - which requires some knowledge about the event [which most people lack].
If the odds are stacked against you, then you will percieve that as "gambling".
If the odds are very favorable, then you are surely "investing".
Of course, the greater the odds are against you the greater the potential "reward".
And the more the reward is guaranteed, the less of a reward will be given.

So there is a concept of ROI [return on investment] with all such endeavors.
When ROI exceeds $1M/event [like lotteries], then the amount we are willing to "invest" is very very little [like maybe only one ticket].
When ROI $100K/event [like a charity raffle (giving away "a new luxury car")], then we are probably willing to "invest" as much somewhere between $10-$100 (if at all).
When ROI 2-5X/year [like crypto/crypto ETFs], then we should be able to "mentally justify" putting in 1%-5% of our net worth OR our "investable" worth (but few do).
When ROI 10-40%/year [like most mutual funds], then we are likely to put in most of our "investable" worth / retirement savings (many do this - those that don't, can't - and wish they could).
When ROI 2-6%/year [like a CD/T-Bill/Homes], then we are likely to put in a large part of our lifes' savings.

The above would chart to somewhat of a straight-line [balance], like this:
 odds:1   investment
=======   ==========
1000000 = 1
 100000 = 10
  10000 = 100
   1000 = 1000
    100 = 10000
     10 = 100000
      1 = 1000000
That means if you had $1,111,111, you could "invest" it that way and "should" feel perfectly sane about such choices.
[they are in fact equally "risky" - based on their risk/rewards/weights]
So that $1000000/$1111111 [90%] would be in "safe" and "secure" "investments".
And only 10% would be spreadout (proportionally) throughout all other risk categories.

But the average person would not "feel comfortable" [nor even sane] with doing anything of the sort.
[Does that mean that I'm not "average", or not sane, or neither of those? - hmm... LOL]
If they honestly answered such "investment" questions, their chart would probably be more like:
 odds:1   investment
=======   ==========
1000000 = 1
 100000 = 5
  10000 = 10
   1000 = 25
    100 = 50
     10 = 100
      1 = 1000000
So that $1000000/$1000191 [99.98%] would be in "safe" and "secure" "investments".
And very very little [0.02%] is in any of the other "riskier" "investments".

While the two charts may start, and end, about the same... They look very different in the middle.
Why is that?
Likely because no one has taken the time to explain to the average person the "math" behind those "odds".
And they only trust things that they "know".
WallStreet doesn't like telling anyone anything about anything.
Regular schools won't cover anything anywhere close to this.
[they won't even teach one how to balance a checkbook - a "checkbook"... What's that? LOL]
So, naturally, most people "know" close to nothing about anyting in that middle risk area.
They know how to "invest" in a CD from their Bank [bottom of the chart].
They know how to "invest" in a lottery ticket (at the local grocery store/gas station) [top of the chart].
They don't know how to "invest" in anything else [zero of the middle of the chart area].

So, I don't blame anyone for not "investing" in anything "in that (completely unknown) middle area".
I blame everyone that's in "that middle area" [the "middleman"], the one's that do business there everyday, for not getting "the word out" about their "products" / "offerings" and their risk/reward information.
The Internet is filled with information...
Mostly about cats, memes, short videos, pictures... and celebrities.
Very little of the Internet covers any of this lack of education about that middle area "problem".
Even the GameStonk event didn't really teach that many about "investing" and that "middle" area.

And yet... it manages to make headway.
It manages to grow even without sunlight.
It manages to thrive even when no one utters a single breath about it.
I long for the day when knowledge becomes truly universal.
You ask (AI) a question and you get a "truthful" answer - the actual "truth" that everyone that really knows about it knows.
I wonder what the average worlds' citizens "investment" portfolios would look like then.
When anyone anywhere can invest in anything/anywhere, would they?
If they didn't have the time, no.
But AI solves the lack of time/lack of knowledge problem.
So, I eagerly await that day.