A recent national survey commissioned by the American Gaming Association has turned up some clear patterns in how gamblers and non-gamblers approach money management, with the results drawn from more than 3,100 adults who answered questions online during July 2026.

Researchers measured financial literacy on a standard five-point index and recorded an average score of 3.93 among people who gamble, compared with 3.72 for those who do not participate in any form of gambling, while 41 percent of gamblers reached the threshold for high financial literacy against 27 percent of non-gamblers.

The data collection covered a broad cross-section of U.S. adults and asked participants to respond to established financial literacy items that test understanding of interest rates, inflation, and basic investment concepts, and the same questionnaire also captured self-reported engagement with various gambling activities including sports betting and prediction markets.

Because the sample size exceeded 3,100 respondents, analysts could break out subgroups such as prediction-market users without losing statistical reliability, which allowed the team to compare literacy scores across different betting formats while holding demographic variables constant where possible.

People who reported any gambling activity in the past year posted the higher average score on the index, and a larger share of that group cleared the benchmark for strong financial knowledge, yet the study also flagged a separate pattern among prediction-market participants who tended to rate their own math abilities higher than their actual test performance indicated.

That overestimation did not appear at the same rate in other gambling categories, which suggests the effect may tie more closely to the structure of prediction markets than to gambling participation in general, and the report notes this discrepancy without assigning causation.

Financial literacy scores correlated positively with results on the Positive Play Scale, a validated instrument that tracks safer gambling habits such as setting limits and recognizing when play is no longer recreational, and participants with higher literacy numbers showed stronger alignment with those positive-play indicators.

The association held after controlling for age, income, and education, which points to a measurable connection between money-management knowledge and the likelihood of adopting responsible-gambling practices, although the study stops short of claiming that improved literacy causes better behavior.

The American Gaming Association released the findings in a report titled “Playing the Numbers: Financial Literacy and Numeracy in Gamblers and Non-Gamblers,” and observers note that the July 2026 timing places the results after several years of expanded legal sports betting across states, yet the survey itself does not attempt to link state-level policy changes to the literacy differences it recorded.

Instead the report focuses on descriptive comparisons, and it supplies the raw index scores along with the percentage breakdowns so that other researchers can examine the data further or test additional hypotheses about financial decision-making inside and outside gambling populations.

Because the study documented higher literacy among gamblers on average, some stakeholders have begun discussing whether existing financial-education programs could incorporate examples drawn from betting environments to increase relevance for that audience, while others point to the prediction-market overconfidence finding as a potential target for targeted numeracy interventions.

The Positive Play Scale correlation supplies one concrete data point that organizations tracking responsible gambling might reference when designing outreach, and the national scope of the sample gives the figures a baseline quality that smaller regional studies have lacked.

The July 2026 survey offers a snapshot of financial literacy differences between gamblers and non-gamblers at a moment when participation in legal betting continues to grow, and the numbers themselves—3.93 versus 3.72 on the index, 41 percent versus 27 percent reaching high-literacy status—stand as the primary factual takeaway from the American Gaming Association project.

Further analysis of the same dataset may reveal additional layers, yet the initial release already supplies researchers and industry groups with a clearer statistical picture of how money-management knowledge distributes across these two adult populations.

The full report and the companion coverage from Legal Sports Report contain the detailed tables and methodology notes for anyone who wants to review the underlying figures directly.