If the situation is really as stated, there's not much harm in gambling, aside from the chagrin of losing, which might not be as great for the OP as it would be for me. One reason the chagrin would get me would be this. If I gambled and lost, and worked an extra year, after that extra year of working I'd be down $50,000 compared with not gambling and continuing to work. I would have paid $50,000 to have that gambling experience and loss. We all know what $50,000 could get us years down the line. After 10 years at a modest 5% interest rate, it's $81,444.73. After 20 years at the same 5% interest rate, $132,664.89. (The interest calculator tells me that after inflation adjustment that's $73,453.33 — but Your Money or Your Life argues that inflation doesn't necessarily apply to people like us.)
Boy, I'd rather have that $132,664.89 in 20 years, instead of having dropped $50,000 on a scheme to retire a tiny bit earlier.
But the thing that really concerns me is the risk of some catastrophe in the next year of working. The risks are small but not negligible. You don't have to be fired to be unable to work. A bike accident, any kind of fall, a crazy driver who hits your car, a bout of bad illness, pregnancy complications... Eventually a good many of these will happen to all of us. Or other complications: a house fire, emergencies in our extended family. None of these may happen in the next year, but there are no guarantees. My question is: would I rather weather any of those, with their associated expenses and loss of income, with an extra $50,000 in the bank, or without? My answer is: with. I know most people think, "Well, those things won't happen to me." Quite possibly not, yet. But we buy insurance anyway, and wisely so. That $50,000 is a form of insurance, and I'd feel safer, and be safer, with that $50,000 in the bank.