Studies show that doing nothing is still allowing the ads to influence your children that is why I replied to your post (I hark to the saying "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."), it is a sort of implicit acceptance rather than the explicit acceptance of your example of running to the phone. It would be better for all of us to react with disapproval to the offending ad/s rather than to sit and do nothing.
When our grandchildren are visiting our house we either switch to another channel when they, the offending ads, come on or we turn the TV off (they can have similar ads on many channels at the same time) and we ring the TV station/s to voice our disapproval. We ring the stations even when no children are in our house as we believe that all children and certainly some adults need protection from what we believe is unethical behaviour by broadcasters (and we still change channels as we just plain old don't like them). My wife and I also talk to our grandchildren about bad ads (not just gambling) so they are aware why we don't like them and the responses they try to generate (the ads not the children ).
Why didn't I mention your second part about running to the phone and placing a bet (or using a device to use the internet to place a bet), that was because I do agree with your view that this is destructive and influencing behaviour. I perhaps should have acknowledged that in my first reply and I do apologise for that neglect.