If you add casino like minigames or slots to get bonus gear or even a hidden weapon with limited or expensive coins, guess what, im gonna save before every roll, keep multiple saves and reload/reroll on every garbage result to save my resources.
In Dragon Quest/Warrior 4, there was a save spot near the casino, so you could still do this by taking a few steps. However, the main way to earn casino currency wasn't to save after every hand, but to try your luck with double or nothing after winning a hand. During the double-or-nothing draws, you couldn't "save on every roll" so there was still a sense of "will this get me a ton of coins, or will I lose everything with this next choice?" I mean, you could still reload the save if you failed to preserve coins, but you couldn't quicksave in between double-or-nothing rolls to guarantee the best possible payout unless you were using an emulator.
If you add visual novel like branching paths where decisions can make you lose something important or even a character/get you a bad ending, Im going to keep a save on every choice and reload if the choice i did was actually a slip up, so much for "decisions matter" when you can rewind freely.
This has been a thing since the days of the "choose your own adventure" and "lone wolf" books.

It could almost be seen as a quality of life thing that allows players to explore multiple branch paths in your story without having to sit through dialog they've already read.
If you add complicated puzzles where there are dummy switches that reset everything, trigger traps or even lock a secondary path to a treasure, im gonna save and keep multiple saves on every step to ensure i get the good way, the treasure and skip your well thought resets and traps.
There's no rule that says a game with save-anywhere enabled can't temporarily disable it, or handle its switch positions in a way that isn't saved until the puzzle is complete. What if you threw a few switches, saved to make sure there wasn't a trap/reset, and upon reloading, found your puzzle progress was reset?
If you add a difficult boss with a certain weakness i find out 3/4 into the fight, im gonna reload a save before the boss and exploit it from the get go to save my items/ expendable resources as much as i can.
This is why I'm a huge advocate for having libra/scan type abilities available to players. Let them scan the boss, see its strengths/weaknesses, and plan accordingly. That said, "failing on the boss, then restarting the fight armed with greater knowledge on how to best tackle it" is pretty much a working-as-intended mechanic that's been a part of gaming since the earliest days. I see no problem here.
I've seen people quicksave on every turn on pokemon (emulator of course) so they can reroll their attack if they didnt pick the right choice.
That's emulator, which breaks all the rules. No game developer from that time planned around quicksaving because it didn't exist at the time the games were made.
If you think save points are a disrespect to the players time, as a player, many are going to disrespect as much of the developers time as they can to skip unnecesary drawbacks if save scumming allows them to.
Save scumming has existed long before the days of save-anywhere RPGs. I did it in the original legend of zelda to have zero-death game clears. I did it in Wizardry (5 I believe?) to avoid characters being killed since it didn't save until after battle if memory serves. I did it in final fantasy tactics to avoid the permadeath from "[so-and-so]'s spirit turned into a crystal." Point is, people are going save scum to avoid punishing mechanics whether they're allowed to save anywhere or if their saving is limited to certain checkpoints only. The main appeal to saving anywhere isn't that it makes save scumming easier, but that it lets the player stop when they want rather than being stuck in a dungeon, wishing the next save point would hurry up and appear because they want/need to stop playing to take care of something else.
In short, I believe we, as developers should weigh both the good and the bad surrounding a given system and not try to punish players by taking away something good unless the bad is overwhelmingly game-breaking. In the case of saving anywhere and save scumming, we have to ask ourselves if the "bad" is really all that bad to begin with. If someone gets enjoyment from my game by saving in between casino hands or before attempting a puzzle with potentially-dire consequences for failure, I say let them. As the designer, I'll try my best to make sure there's still some sense of meaningful choice to be made--uninterruptible double-or-nothing rounds after winning casino hand wins, puzzles reset upon reload, etc.
I should also mention that I started off in favor of having save points over save anywhere, but after weighing the pros and cons of each, have changed my stance to save anywhere for all the reasons given in my post.