Forums (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/index.php)
- Psychology (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=35)
-- Do You Think Trading is Gambling? (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=150986)
Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Yes or No?
It depends how you define gambling.
The public misconception is that gambling doesn't require skills. In some way, trading is comparable to gambling in that,
1. There is a big part of it out of your control and subject to luck of God.
2. Equipped with skills, you can win consistently.
If you are a gambler you are doing it wrong and going to blow up eventually. If you are the house you know your edge, its LIMITATIONS, and how to apply it.
So in a since it is gambling.
Any time you put your money at risk, you are gambling!
Many like to think that it is not gambling, for whatever reasons they have, but a fact is a fact, no matter how hard we try to ignore it.
Acceptance can help a trader discover how the markets really work, and not be prone to the illusion that the majority are exposed to, for obvious reasons.
As a matter of fact, casino gambling can be far less risky than trading, as in a casino when you place your bet, you know exactly how much you will lose!
In trading, if you do not make a concious decision to "place your bet", then you are playing with fire, and when you play with fire, you can expect to get burned.
I will have to disagree with the luck bit.
Every outcome, or event, happens for a reason, and very briefly, it can be explanined by Cause & Effect.
If you believe in luck, you are in effect wishing and hoping, and we all know what wishing and hoping can do to a trading account!
When luck is replaced with conviction, it becomes clear that the markets do what they do for a reason.
If you want to take money from other traders, then it may be wise to know what your odds are before you start, so that you can place the right size bet for the particular trade in question.
Quote from smallfishleague:
It depends how you define gambling.
The public misconception is that gambling doesn't require skills. In some way, trading is comparable to gambling in that,
1. There is a big part of it out of your control and subject to luck of God.
2. Equipped with skills, you can win consistently.
Many "investors" are in it for thrills and deny it is gambling. If you do not have an edge (and 90% of stock investors do not) you are a gambler- not an investor/trader. Most stock investors are compulsive gamblers, but would deny it if you asked them.
If your edge is realising the fact that trading is gambling, then you are not a gambler, even though you are gambling?
Quote from Loki:
Many "investors" are in it for thrills and deny it is gambling. If you do not have an edge (and 90% of stock investors do not) you are a gambler- not an investor/trader. Most stock investors are compulsive gamblers, but would deny it if you asked them.
I will give a typical example of a recent bet I placed.
My thoughts were such, after looking at a particular market for a period of time, that I could now place a bet for about $5.5K, that if my bet won, I would make in excess of $250K.
This to me, was worth the bet, and I placed it.
Now, many will wonder if the bet won or not, and I will give the answer later, as the trade is finished, but the point is, I looked, worked out the odds, and placed the bet, knowing 100%, that no matter how good I am at trading this market, the bet can go either way, and maybe even make $300K+!
virtually every thing in life is a gamble, whether its marriage, having kids, driving the car etc. all human activity has some form of risk associated with it.
Well of course Trading is gambling.
Its actually very easy for anyone to see as the results are so in your face.
Your trades may have a postive edge or negative but that doesnt change the fact its still a gamble. I think the whole question is rather silly for traders to be debating.
You get into your car and drive to work. Its a gamble, you decide the risk outweighs the reward. Usually your right but sometimes your wife gets to be able to afford a nice looking poolboy.
You eat at Wendys and not Taco Johns. Taco Johns has a food issue that you didnt get because you ate at Wendys and your wife doesn't get the new poolboy but you bring home a check for your able to continue to work.
You marry a stripper because she is more flexable than the other girl your dating. You come home early from work and find out your wife is getting the poolboy so you divorce and she gets the house, and half your paycheck because getting married is a gamble also.......
__________________
Robert Weinstein
"No other occupation that I know of makes the day go by so quickly or the weekend so slowly as trading."
Quote from nysestocks:
If your edge is realising the fact that trading is gambling, then you are not a gambler, even though you are gambling?
Quote from nysestocks:
As a matter of fact, casino gambling can be far less risky than trading, as in a casino when you place your bet, you know exactly how much you will lose!
Quote from smallfishleague:
It depends how you define gambling.
The public misconception is that gambling doesn't require skills. In some way, trading is comparable to gambling in that,
1. There is a big part of it out of your control and subject to luck of God.
2. Equipped with skills, you can win consistently.
Any time you put your money at risk you are gambling, no matter how much you try to think otherwise!
Quote from Loki:
Never said my edge is realizing that I am not a gambler. I said that if you have and can use an edge you are not gambling.
My edge is that as soon as I place a trade my probability to make money is more than 60%. The probabilities keep changing as the price changes. At times I lose money, however was I a gambler because I made a bad trade and lost money ? No, as long as the moment the trade was placed the chances of making money were more than the chances of losing money.
There are a few people that have been trading for 5 - 10 - 15 or more years. Obviously they are not gamblers so are they just lucky or do they have an edge ?
Unless you have an edge whatever it is, you are gambling, but trading is NOT gambling for the minority of people who constantly make money on Wall Street.
In 2008 my performance was up 30%. Time will tell if I am a gambler or if I have an edge.
I do know that good traders make money in up and down markets, and the vast majority of market players lack that ability.
When I play poker, I'm playing the odds. I do the same when I put on an options position. So I guess if one is considered gambling, the other should be too.
My personal view is life in general is a gamble. Why should trading be any different?
Quote from nysestocks:
Any time you put your money at risk you are gambling, no matter how much you try to think otherwise!
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/poll....lts&pollid=1767
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
I think we need to differentiate between two different types of gambling.
1) Pull the one-armed bandit and take a 50/50 chance.
2) Define your risk to reward and make a calculated, managed move when you recognize situations where the odds tip in your favor.
When most people say shit like "Trading is just gambling" it pisses me off for a minute because they are talking about 1) as described above.
It's funny because they will reveal their opinion of you and what you are doing as a trader right there. Just a gambler. 
aaawe lol
Funny thing is, nobody except one person out of all my friends has made a concerted effort to even learn how trading really works! But they sure do kill it on those slots! Yeah!
I agree with some of you who say everything is a gamble, but I think when it comes to trading it's important to consider just what we mean by gambling.
I guess you would say that a profitable trader is a professional gambler...not a crapshooter. We all know what happens to crapshooting traders and I'm sure we've all been there 
I just still hate the word gambler lol
If the odds are in your favour then arn't you the casino? There is a risk to holding cash these days as they will shortly be printing money.
are you guys retarded?
Gambling - Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money
Whether you win consistently or lose consistently has nothing to do with it.
Gambling with positive expectation is still gambling.
Quote from frozzor:
are you guys retarded?
Gambling - Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money
Whether you win consistently or lose consistently has nothing to do with it.
Gambling with positive expectation is still gambling.
I live in the Hamptons, as a young man I worked for a landscaping company that took care of large estates.
A fair percentage of said estates were owned by people involved with Wall Street and trading.
Not ONE was owned by someone who hit it big at a casino.
So I got involved with trading, and it has served me well.
I rarely go to casinos, maybe once a year for entertainment.
Do you think trading is gambling?
If you do, you should not be trading. You should stick to the casinos.
To the readers who believe that trading is gambling I write this:
There is nothing wrong with losing trades as they are to be expected. Being wrong in the markets is part of trading, but how you can destroy yourself in trading is STAYING WRONG. The major difference between amateur investors who are mostly losers in the markets and professional traders who take much of what amateurs lose, is that amateurs because of unresolved ego problems will stay wrong while professional traders CUT THEIR LOSSES QUICKLY. (mg)
Professional traders are not gamblers, especially the ones that have been making money for many years. Just like I wrote before, unless you have an edge YOU ARE THE GAMBLER, and not the party who takes the opposite side of your trade.
Pro trading is not gambling by far. And just because some of you gamble your money it does not mean that everyone else is doing the same or that everyone else just got lucky.
One can be lucky sometimes but not all the times. The moment you do not give respect and credit to someone who has been making money in Wall Street for 10 + years, ( and there are a few people like that ), it shows that your ego is just too big and you live in a distorted reality. While you gamble your money someone else is trading smart.
Quote from Loki:
To the readers who believe that trading is gambling I write this:
There is nothing wrong with losing trades as they are to be expected. Being wrong in the markets is part of trading, but how you can destroy yourself in trading is STAYING WRONG. The major difference between amateur investors who are mostly losers in the markets and professional traders who take much of what amateurs lose, is that amateurs because of unresolved ego problems will stay wrong while professional traders CUT THEIR LOSSES QUICKLY. (mg)
Professional traders are not gamblers, especially the ones that have been making money for many years. Just like I wrote before, unless you have an edge YOU ARE THE GAMBLER, and not the party who takes the opposite side of your trade.
Pro trading is not gambling by far. And just because some of you gamble your money it does not mean that everyone else is doing the same or that everyone else just got lucky.
One can be lucky sometimes but not all the times. The moment you do not give respect and credit to someone who has been making money in Wall Street for 10 + years, ( and there are a few people like that ), it shows that your ego is just too big and you live in a distorted reality. That's why you gambled your money in the first place instead of trading smart.
and again I strongly diagree, my opinion is that professional trading is not gambling in any way shape or form.
Who has been making money in online gaming and casinos for 10+ years ? I am waiting for the names. Do you know who really made money ? The casino ! On the other hand there is a list of pro traders with names and last names do you want me to get it for you ?
Quick trivia question. PIMCO's billionaire investor Bill Gross was one of the first blackjack players to do what?
Quote from Loki:
Who has been making money in online gaming and casinos for 10+ years ? I am waiting for the names. Do you know who really made money ? The casino !
Very interesting question.
I deliberately did not vote because I believe trading has elements of both.
These days, I've come to believe that trading has alot of gambling in it.
Alot of people will absolutely assail this idea and say that trading is not gambling, but they're just fooling themselves.
Of course, over the long run, a good trader can make money. But my belief is that there are very few good traders who make money consistently.
You might have some names, but there are by far many more names in the trading world. I am pretty sure you don't have any name for " online gaming" . I agree that there are some similarities between trading and gambling, but to go as far as say that it is the very same thing...no. In trading the gamblers are the people who lose money not the ones who make money.
Quote from Loki:
and again I strongly diagree, my opinion is that professional trading is not gambling in any way shape or form.
Who has been making money in online gaming and casinos for 10+ years ? I am waiting for the names. Do you know who really made money ? The casino ! On the other hand there is a list of pro traders with names and last names do you want me to get it for you ?
Quote from Loki:
... but to go as far as say that it is the very same thing...no.
Every decision in life is a gamble.
The question of the OP is Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
I explained why I feel that trading is not gambling, similarities ? Yes. You seem to agree.
Quote from guy990opl:
Not if you have been making money for 10 + years.
Good traders make money in up and down markets. Some people made a lot of money last year and the year before. Are they gamblers too ?
Quote from nysestocks:
I will give a typical example of a recent bet I placed.
My thoughts were such, after looking at a particular market for a period of time, that I could now place a bet for about $5.5K, that if my bet won, I would make in excess of $250K.
This to me, was worth the bet, and I placed it.
Now, many will wonder if the bet won or not, and I will give the answer later, as the trade is finished, but the point is, I looked, worked out the odds, and placed the bet, knowing 100%, that no matter how good I am at trading this market, the bet can go either way, and maybe even make $300K+!
I used to work with a guy who would say, " scared money can't gamble and a jealous man can't work".
Is trading stocks a gamble? Of course it is. Anything with a risk is a gamble. There has never been a trading system that is 100% profitable without risk.
The trader must try and trade with a plan where the winning odds are in his favor. Short term odds are easier to calculate than longer term even though long term trends are more profitable. I am a scapler and trade intraday so my objective is making money short term. There is only one truism in the markets as Joe Kennedy replied to a question about what he thought the markets were going to do. He said 'fluctuate'. This is the only thing that can be predicted with 100% accuracy. The major problem has always been trying to predict the movement.
The professionals lives off of stops and greed of the average trader. Most losing traders would become profitable if they discontinued stops and learn how to control greed. You can not be afraid of losing money. When you enter a trade be prepared to stay the course and set a realistic profit goal. I know this is opposite from what the typical trader has been advised to do.
But you can not have a herd mentality and expect a different outcome than the majority.
To put the odds on your side, you need a trading plan to reduce risk. One of the plans I use for intraday trading is to log the trading spread of a stock from its open over a number of days.
You should know the normal trading range of the stocks you are trading. For example, CAT has traded at least 94.59% of the time at least ten cents above and below its opening price over the previous 75 days. If you are a scapler, the odds are in your favor 94.59% of the time to make a dime on buying or selling CAT from the open on a MOO. If you are the more risky type, then let the stock go in one direction from the open and then take an opposite position with a closing order ten cents from the open. Of course, I would suggest checking the pre-open markets and give a tendency of trading with the open indication if you are trading on the open. Anything to keep the odds in your favor. Stocks are constantly changing. You must keep a daily log of more favorable stocks for scapling. If a stock is like AEG, which has only a 68.9% up and 63.5% down from the open price of making ten cents over the past 75 days, should not be traded. The odds are not favorable.
Trading is a gamble but it can be an educated guess trying to put the odds in your favor. But Lady Luck is always a welcome friend.
You either are a 50/50 crapshooter or a professional.
If the question is "Do you think trading is gambling?", I assume that the OP is asking, "Do you think trading is a 50/50 crapshoot?"
A successful trader is a professional one, a successful gambler is a professional one.
"Gambling", in my opinion defines the activity that the majority of people who shoot craps, play slots and roullette, and who suck at Blackjack engage in. The gambling fools!
I think the big misconception that most people have about trading being legal gambling is that they assume that every trade that is placed is a 50/50 coin toss and nothing more; a random and blind pull at the slots.
IMO learning to trade is learning NOT to put on a trade that seemingly could "go 50/50 either way". With experience comes the ability to recognize probability, at which point you can do a coin toss or wait for your best setup and have your loss prevention in place so that if your 80% to 90% probabilty errs on the side of rare loss, you're taken out with minimal loss.
If we're in this to be likened to professional gamblers, I guess that's okay as long as we emphasize the word PROFESSIONAL.
Really who cares what anyone says as long as you're happy, are out of the rat race and have enabled yourself the kind of freedom and flexibility that only a trader can have! 
Some of you clearly don't know the definition of gambling: having a stake on an event with an uncertain outcome. All trading is gambling unless the is no risk involved.
I trade. I used to count cards and bet on sports. At all times I was gambling, but also with an edge.
I post this a "Food for Thought"
Technically I don’t have a dog in the hunt on this issue, but dave74 made a post last night that got me thinking
And in keeping with my rule – “I am always open to learning, and everyone has something they can teach me”
I thought about his (dave74) response – and it makes the most sense to me
Here’s why (and I fully admit I had a predominantly “probability” bias to trading until last night
Let’s take two traders, one has a “Gambler” Bias, one has a “Probability” bias – they both are looking at stock xyz
Gambler Bias
Price is going up
Day is an up day
He / She goes long – knowing it’s a gamble and the trade may or may not work out… So they fervently manage their risk
Probability Bias
Stock price is going up
Market is trending up
Day is an up day
T&S printing greed
Indicator de jour (is indicating a long)
He / She goes long – knowing it’s about probabilities and the trade may or may not work out… So they fervently manage their risk
Question – In either above scenario who is either – more or less – right or wrong?
Answer – Neither because they both ended up at the same conclusion, entered long, and are managing their risk.
Some Traders have a Gamblers Bias
Some Trades have a probability Bias
Some Trades (a select few) can see and appreciate both biases
Because / and with all the above being said I pose this rhetorical question;
Where is it “most” important that we always approach it from a;
1.) Completely Non bias (neither long or short, good or bad, – probability, gambler.. or whatever) stand point
2.) Completely open and receptive to what is being offered, and able to see all the potential possibilities that exist for each moment
3.) Completely with out ego
Answer – The Market
One of the things that frustrate me about this site is there are a lot of very intelligent people here… They like to voice their opinions, which is good,… but when someone else has an equally good counter opinion they just tune them out and try to force their opinion down the other person throat.
We are all unique… We will more than likely view the same thing a little differently – but it doesn’t make it any more right, or wrong just different
In closing – I will also agree there are some who post – that just don’t have a clue, and perpetually give out bad advice
Dave74 – Thank You Sir for teaching a Redneck a thing or two
Take Care
Redneck
Quote from Mr J:
Some of you clearly don't know the definition of gambling: having a stake on an event with an uncertain outcome. All trading is gambling unless the is no risk involved.
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
do you think gambling is gambling?
Quote from ammo:
do you think gambling is gambling?
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
Quote from gnome:
In spite of trading's (1) risk of loss and (2) uncertainty of outcome, I do NOT equate trading with gambling... as you can make the odds in YOUR favor in trading by learned behavior.
Quote from gnome:
Your definition is deficient... you must also conclude, "where the odds are fixed and against you with no possibility of making the odds in your favor". (That is, the payoff is ALWAYS less than the probability of the event... the difference is the "house edge".)
In spite of trading's (1) risk of loss and (2) uncertainty of outcome, I do NOT equate trading with gambling... as you can make the odds in YOUR favor in trading by learned behavior.
Quote from Mr J:
"... You can also turn the odds in your favour in many traditional forms of gambling, such as card counting, skill in poker, video poker basic strategy, roulette computers, exploiting inefficiency in the sportsbetting market etc.
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
If you think trading is gambling you should not trade. Gambling is subject to strict probabilities (in the long run) that is why casinos are profitable.
Human behavior is not random it can be predicted(otherwise disciplines of psychology/psychiatry/sociology/economics/marketing/etc would not exist). Just because it is difficult to do so for any financial instrument does not make it gambling.
you can also pick horses,bet percentages of w/l ratio in sports,a million other things,but when you trade you are placing a bet,you can stop loss so as not to lose your entire bet ,but you are still betting that the market will react in your favor,there are no gaurantees,that 's what makes it a gamble
Trading is gambling.
How reckless it is depends on your risk control, system, and discipline... Recklessness within gambling is the problem, not gambling itself.
For anyone that answers 'no' they are usually gamblers that will likely lose control and get blindsided by their own impulsiveness.
__________________
http://scriabinop23.blogspot.com
i agree scib,or they are trying to convince there wife/in-laws its something different
In the UK according to government tax regulations trading is not considered to be gambling, I wish it was as I wouldn't have to pay income tax on gains, etc. :]
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthrea...hlight=gambling
stick around here long enough and you'll get to see the same issues recycled and re-debated over and over. Gnome, I see you're still trying to stick to your rigid view, but on your "TRADING IS NOT NECESSARILY GAMBLING post," I caught you wavering.
There have been many good replies, and some not so good, but that is normal.
To deny the fact, which I don't like repeating, for obvious reasons, is to deny the reality of life!
Whilst many traders can associate probabilities with trading, but not with gambling, many fail to see that the outcome of the probabilities are dependant on available capital, trading skills and emotional make-up.
To neglect any of these key components is to shoot oneself in the foot.
Anything that strengthens the ability of the trader to understand and improve on the required qualities that enable the components to expand and grow is a worthwhile exercise.
To deny the fact, is to deny oneself the opportunity.
To deny oneself an opportunity is, well, foolish.
It is very simple when you apply common sense!
You place a bet, your money is at risk, you gamble.
No one can change the colour of the Sun, but the Sun can change the colour of a person!
This post caught my attention.
Many traders fail to see the importance of using leverage correctly, when speaking about trading and gambling.
The reference to SPY bet below is very good, and the proper use of leverage, with control, as mentioned below also, is what professional traders do (aka professional gamblers).
Options, of course, are brilliant instruments for leverage, but many fail to see how simple an options trade really is, and like the myriad of TA indicators that are used on charts, many option traders look for the perfect balancing act, in an unbalanced environment!
With an Option you can place a bet like in the casino, in that you will not lose any more than you bet, but, as many traders here know, you can also place other bets against your original bet to adjust the risk - so you have a flexible betting game that only the real professional casino gamblers are able to master.
That said, you must deal with the fact that, on average, 75% to 80% of traded options expire worthless, so this tells you that the probabilities are on the side of the option seller, but again, as many good traders here know, selling options can be the most risky type of trading you can imagine, especially if you don't know how to read the market, and even if you do, you will still get caught now and again, no matter how good you are!
Take my bet of $5.5K as an example.
If I have won, the punter on the other side will have lost between $250K and $300K!
But, the other punter also had a 75% to 80% chance of succeeding, which only left me with a 15% to 20% chance of success!
Am I am gambler, sure I am, and I love it, as I know there is massive potential for beating the casino owner at his own game, once I acknowledge a few key concepts, that are really, after all, just plain old common sense!
Beware if you said NO!
http://www.responsiblegambling.org/...cfm?intID=10408
Quote from overspool:
To say having odds in your favor means its not gambling doesn't make sense at all.
Trading is gambling. It is a WAGER on an UNCERTAIN outcome. In relation to trading you are RISKING capital with the HOPE of profiting. You can not BE SURE of this profit because you have NO CONTROL over the market.
If it has a wager, and an uncertain outcome: it's gambling. You're not being honest with yourself if you refuse to realize this.
One difference worth noting:
A $500,000 bet on a blackjack hand that loses = -$500,000
A $500,000 bet on SPY that loses = -$500
When trading, you can still pull out when you find out you lost and you wont lose all of your initial bet (in some cases you will). You have some control over your losses.
Quote from nysestocks:
Take my bet of $5.5K as an example.
If I have won, the punter on the other side will have lost between $250K and $300K!
But, the other punter also had a 75% to 80% chance of succeeding, which only left me with a 15% to 20% chance of success!
Am I am gambler, sure I am, and I love it, as I know there is massive potential for beating the casino owner at his own game, once I acknowledge a few key concepts, that are really, after all, just plain old common sense!
To be fair, and not to look like I am trying to force my "opinion" down other peoples' throats, here is the other side, but I will admit, I have not read it all as of yet, but I will, and all I will say, is, watch out for the obvious!
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/091699_eta_testimony.pdf
Quote from Loki:
May I ask you what trade did you place specifically ? Was it futures ? I can not think of any stock options with such leverage.
"Since it’s the title of this blog, I should probably define what survivor bias is. Wikipedia has a succinct definition:
Survivorship bias (or “Survivor bias”) is a statistical artifact in applications outside of finance, where studies on the remaining population are fallaciously compared with the historic average despite the survivors having unusual properties.
A simple example helps - an old scam is to pick some large number of people from the phone book (e.g. 10,000) and send them football predictions. For 50% of the people you mail them telling them that some team will win the big game that week and for the other half you say they will lose. 50% of the “predictions” will have been correct so you discard the incorrect predicitons and repeat this operation for say 6 weeks at which point there will be (10,000 / 2^6) ~ 156 people who got accurate results. At this point, you hit these people up for some large sum of money and dissappear. The point is that by discarding evidence of all of the losers you create a track record that you can predict things when in fact, it is only occurring by random chance.
There is a lot of evidence of this occurring in the mutual fund industry (poorly performing funds are closed) and finance in general. It’s very common in human nature to attribute success to “skill” and failure to “bad luck”. In physics and statistics, it’s common to calculate the statistical significance of a result - how large of an effect would you expect to occur purely from random chance (the null hypothesis) versus from the hypothesis you are studying. In life it can be a little harder to see how big the roulette table is. "
http://survivorbias.com/page/2/
luck or skill, one of my trades last year returned several thousand percent, I was lucky to be right, but the skill was taking the trade and being a man about the potential loss. That's what binary trading aka gambling is all about. I would rather be Boone Pickens than LTCM. As far as the govt goes, here are a bunch of people that allowed the OTC market to get up to 60 trillion notional and stick us with the bill when these geniuses can't cover their bets, but they are are concerned that joe retail may lose $10,000k in the evil stock market, give me a fu*^in break!
Talk about taxation without representation, time for another tea party if you ask me!
Trading is a business. To my mind, it is the best business in the world - for a great many reasons! It has a very high profit potential against a very low overhead. Risk can be tremendously reduced by taking only high probability trades. In fact, futures trading is a relatively low-risk business when approached with the right attitude and the right planning.
There are no employee problems other than myself. No unions to contend with, no negotiations, no strikes. No employee benefit plans other than what I give to myself. No employees stealing from me. No collective bargaining, and no stockholders.
There are no merchandising costs, no damaged goods, no vandalism, no service calls, no repairs to make, and no guarantees to honor.
“I don’t have to advertise, and I have no marketing headaches. There is almost always a buyer if I want to sell, and almost always a seller if I want to buy. No purchasing and procurement problems, and no salesmen making mistakes.
“There are no manufacturing problems, no production schedules to meet, no shipping, no receiving, no product liability, and no insurance policies to carry.
“I don’t have storage problems either. No warehouse, no spoilage, no items to discontinue or mark down. No bills of lading, no freight or freight damage, no trucks to load or to unload.
“I’m free of invoicing, accounts payable, payroll, inventories, accounts receivable, billing, dunning, bad checks, and bad debts.
“Now I ask myself, “Self, where else can you find a business like this?” The answer is an overwhelming “Nowhere”! It’s the most perfect business in the world!!”
I agree 100%, but only to the extent that the individual allows it to be so.
The reflection in the mirror is enemy No.1!
Then you have the spin doctors, the so called "professionals", the "novelists", the gifted, the enlightened, the top 100, the IQ masters, and the rest!
At the bottom, you have good old Joe Bloggs, who no doubt has his own blog btw, and Joe is like a sponge out of water, just waiting to soak up all the "words of wisdom" that is abundant.
Well, I like to use Habit 1 as a reminder, every time I look at a chart!
http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/he.../106s/61159.pdf
Apologies for the long post here, but I felt that I had to post this typical rubbish from one of the "novelists"!
Read it and weep!
Part I Introduction…………………………………………..4
1.1 Understanding Trading Dynamics…………………………………….…5
1.2 Trading vs. Investing………………………………………………...…..6
1.3. Trading vs. Gambling………………………………………..……….…7
1.4. 8 Steps To Successful Trading…………………………..……………...8
Part II Stock Index Futures…………………………………11
2.1. S&P 500 Index…………………………………………………………11
2.2. Nasdaq-100 Index………………………………………………...……12
2.3. Chicago Mercantile Exchange………………………………...………..12
2.4. Order Types………………………………………………...…………..13
Part III How To Choose An Online Broker?………………..15
3.1. System Reliability…………………………………………….………...16
3.2. Fee Structure?…………………………………………………………...16
3.3. Execution Speed………………………………………………………...17
3.4. Quote Reliability………………………………………………………..17
3.5. Charting Software………………………………………………….……17
3.6. Technical Support And Phone Service Reliability……………..……….18
Part IV How To Set Up A Trading Workstation?…..……….20
4.1. What Kind Of Computer Do You Need?…………………………..……20
4.2. How Many Monitors Do You Need?……………………………..……..22
4.3. What Kind Of Operating System Should You Use?………………....….24
Part V What Kind Of Internet Connection Do You Need?…25
5.1. Cable Internet Connection…………………………………………….…25
5.2. DSL Internet Connection………………………………………………...26
Part VI Trading Capital……………………………………….28
6.1. How Much Capital Should You Start With?………………………..……28
6.2. How Do You Find Startup Capital?……………………………..……….29
Part VII Technical Analysis……………………………………31
7.1. Why Does Technical Analysis Work?………………………...………….31
7.2. Price Chart…………………………………………………..……………33
7.3. Volume……………………………………………………..…………….35
7.4. Moving Average MA…………………………………….………………36
7.5. Time & Sales Window…………………………………..……………….38
7.6. Pivot Points……………………………………………...……………….39
7.7. Support & Resistance…………………………………..………………...40
7.8. Trend Lines………………………………………………………………41
7.9. Relative Strength Index RSI……………………………………………..42
7.10. Chart Patterns…………………………………………………………..43
7.10.1. Head and Shoulders…………………………………………………..43
7.10.2. Double Tops……………………………………….………………….44
7.10.3. Double Bottoms………………………………………………………44
7.10.4. Rounding Tops and Rounding Bottoms………………………………45
7.11. Candlestick Patterns…………………………………………………….47
7.12 S&P 500 Squawkbox……………………………………………………48
Part VIII How To Choose The Trading Software……………49
8.1. Qcharts……………………………………………………………………50
8.2. Medved Quote Tracker……………………………………………………51
Part IX Trading Strategy………………………………………54
9.1. When And How Will Your Trading Day Start?………………………….55
9.2. Calculating Major S/R Areas……………………………………………..55
9.3. How To Set Up Your Screens?…………………………...………………58
9.4. When To Enter The Trade?……………………………………………….63
9.4.1. … on the long side………………………………………………………65
9.4.2 … on the short side………………………………………………………66
9.5. When To Exit The Trade?……………………...…………………………67
9.5.1. Cut Your Losses Short…………………….……………………………67
9.5.2. Where To Place Your Stops?……………..…………………………….68
9.5.3. Let Your Profits Run……………………..……………………………..69
9.5.4. Trailing Stops…………………………..……………………………….69
9.6. Example 1 S&P 500……………………..………………………………..70
9.7. Example 2 Nasdaq-100……………………………………………………73
9.8. Paper Trading……………………………………………………………..77
SPECULATION AS A FINE ART
WHAT IS SPECULATION?
Before entering on our inquiry, before considering
the rules of our art, we will examine the subject in
the abstract. Is speculation right? It may be questioned,
tried by the highest standards, whether any
trade where an exact equivalent is not given can be
right. But as society is now organized speculation
seems a necessity.
Is there any difference between speculation and
gambling? The terms are often used interchangeably,
but speculation presupposes intellectual effort; gambling,
blind chance. Accurately to define the two is
difficult; all definitions are difficult. Wit and humor,
for instance, can be defined; but notwithstanding the
most subtle distinction, wit and humor blend, run into
each other. This is true of speculation and gambling.
The former has some of the elements of chance; the
latter some of the elements of reason. We define as
best we can. Speculation is a venture based upon calculation.
Gambling is a venture without calculation. The
law makes this distinction; it sustains speculation and
condemns gambling.
All business is more or less speculation. The term
speculation, however, is commonly restricted to business
of exceptional uncertainty. The uninitiated
believe that chance is so large a part of speculation
that it is subject to no rules, is governed by no laws.
it might seem like gambling to the outsider
but to the wizard of oz
its just business
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-ZULpr8m5o
* I am learning to respect his powers *
Quote from gnome:
You are describing "skills"... The Texas Supreme Court once ruled, "poker is not gambling.. but rather a game of skill"...
You'll get nowhere making any other semantic argument with me.. regardless of your dictionary.
TRADING IS NOT NECESSARILY GAMBLING.
If you think trading is gambling you should not trade. Gambling is subject to strict probabilities (in the long run) that is why casinos are profitable.
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Heck no......I can make an exceptional living TRADING and not much of a living gambling!
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
Trading is the cousin of gambling, just accept it.
Accept it and learn how to adapt. In fact, waking up and trying to succeed in anything is a gamble, because you do not know the outcome, especially in this shitty economy.
Everything has it's risks. Speculation is when you define risk. Sheer gambling is out of hope.
"risk defined speculation" the gambling aspect is a very thin line away!
I would say going into any business can be like gambling. You use known information to make a decision, but that doesn't make it fool proof.
You wager your money and assets to hopefully create more money, by specializing in a niche or service.
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
the market is not a casino. but the market participatnts are making bets on the market.
you see. there will still be markets and companies without traders.
and the market doesn't need shorts either.
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
95% of market participants are not 'investors'.
shorts/long traders are not investors.
market doesn't need market makers or traders.
there could be zero volume and companies would still be there and still producing goods etc in the real economy.
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
Traders are gamblers, not economists!
We do not have to know the intricate workings of how companies are financed, how they operate, or in some instances, even the name!
However, we do need to know how to read a stock price chart, when is the less risky time to place a bet, and when to get out when we have a loss, or a profit, realized.
I think this covers at least 95% of day traders:
Gamble
Definition:
To engage in any activity in which money is put at risk for the purpose of making a profit, and which is characterized by some or most of the following (in approximately descending order of importance): little or no research has been conducted; the odds are unfavorable; the behavior is risk-seeking; an unsystematic approach is being taken; emotions such as greed and fear play a role; the activity is a discrete event or series of discrete events not done as part of a long-term plan; the activity is significantly motivated by entertainment or compulsion; ownership of something tangible is not involved; no net economic effect results.
And you got that from where? It seems to be a very limited and biased interpretation.
And who says we can't be "Professional Gamblers"?
I sure wouldn't mind being a Doyle Brunson or Phil Helmuth!
Trading is not gambling but it can turn into it very easily.
If you go long or short in "a" market, what have you done with your money?
Yes. No. Maybe....
This is an interesting thread. However, instead of clarifying the role of "Traders", I think this question plays into popular misconceptions about us. "Traders take risks and make(or lose) money! Those gamblers! Traders are bahahahaadddd!"
If Wal-Mart buys 10,000 junkets from China(risk), and plans to resell them to some wary US consumers next month(reward), are they gambling, investing, ....or trading?
If a monetary Jesus takes a heavy stake in a financial services company(let's say Goldman Sachs) during a time of recession obsession(with many predicting economic collapse), is he gambling, investing, ....or trading?
If Mary, who's married, is "exploring other options" with Gary, is she gambling, investing, ....or setting up a trade?
Ultimately, the OP's question is subjective and can only be answered definitively by each individual according to their ability to access risk & reward.
The real question about any endeavor(trading or otherwise) is simply this: -->> Is the risk you are taking worth the potential reward?
If your answer is "No", ...or "I don't know", ...then you are gambling.
Not I, nor You, nor Anyone, can change the fact.
All that matters is as follows.
When you place a trade in any market, you are not sure of the outcome, no matter how good your analysis is!
Therefore, you are putting your money at risk.
When you put your money at risk, you are taking a gamble with it, aka, gambling!
The degree of gambling, or how much risk you take on, is a different matter entirely.
Some traders are clever gamblers, and some are not so clever, hence, we have the good, the bad, and sometimes, the ugly!
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Any time you put your money at risk you are taking a gamble, aka, gambling!
Quote from limitdown:
Are you a trader? (that makes his living from trading)?
Yes | No ?
so, do you believe you make your living being a gambler?
or are you, like so many other lesser educated persons lump risk taking in with gambling?
would the same questions apply to anyone opening a business, buying inventory in advance of sales, advertising those products and hoping that he / she disposes of them for more than what they bought them?
or, do you equate being a middleman / middlewoman with being a gambler?
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you do in life is gambling. Any time you make a decision you gamble. Game theory is all about making decisions. Read this "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Richard A. Epstein. You will understand.
It is logical to deduce that those who do not see trading as gambling do not fully understand the purpose of risk management!
The first step to real success is acceptance of the facts.
The markets know what to do with stubborn traders!
Quote from MAESTRO:
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING you do in life is gambling. Any time you make a decision you gamble. Game theory is all about making decisions. Read this "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" by Richard A. Epstein. You will understand.
Nysestocks has good points. Once you are betting some money you are in fact gambling with your money or are you?
Like Bill Clinton in Lewinsky scandal once replied: "It depends how you define sexual intercourse."
I say it depends how you define gambling.
If you're betting your money based on nothing then you're gambling. If you are executing a backtested plan and will stop trading it if you find out that it is losing money then you are not gambling.
If you called any activity where you risk anything you own (i.e. money, pocessions, time) you can just as well say that we are gambling all the time in every activity we do.
Quote from 4444CJones4444:
Read? Like a book or something? Nonsense. The shock of learning something new might kill them.
In everything unless you can predict the outcome with certainty YOU ARE GAMBLING.
It's important to be clear on the terms we're using. Most people say "gambling" when they really mean "carelessly risking money", or they only associate "gambling" with "losing", or they pidgeonhole all "gamblers" as "low-life degenerates who have thrown their life away on gambling addiction."
Gambling, like many things in life, can be positive or negative. It happens to be one of the areas where people with addictive tendencies can get themselves into trouble. Just like alcohol, some people can handle it, and some can't. So "gambling" tends to be thought of by most people as something negative.
I'm not speaking on the "negative gambling". I'm speaking on gambling, with no moral, ethical, or emotional issues associated with it. Just gambling, from a game theory point of view.
Trading is gambling. Just like all other forms of gambling, most people lose money at it, there are a few who can make money at it, short term results resemble randomness, long term results approach some average (positive for winners, negative for losers).
If you are a trader, and you don't analyze trading as gambling, then you may be making some critical mistakes, because trading is gambling.
Sure, there are some superstars who can rely on their talent, the way a poker player may be especially talented at reading people, and those few superstars may never have to think about why they do what they do. It just works, so they do it. But for the rest of us, it's important to know that you are gambling.
Quote from Banff01:
If you're betting your money based on nothing then you're gambling. If you are executing a backtested plan and will stop trading it if you find out that it is losing money then you are not gambling.
If you called any activity where you risk anything you own (i.e. money, pocessions, time) you can just as well say that we are gambling all the time in every activity we do.
__________________
Janek Jablonski
Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from nysestocks:
Any time you put your money at risk you are taking a gamble, aka, gambling!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from limitdown:
investing is NOT gambling,
what they share in common is / are risk taking
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from Mr J:
If you go by the official definition, investing is in fact gambling. Gambling is simply where a stake is placed on an event with an uncertain outcome. Most forms of trading or investment involve chance, so by definition, are gambling.
YES. Wall Street is the BIGGEST CASINO in the World...
TWENTY QUESTIONS
Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?
Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?
Did gambling affect your reputation?
Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?
Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?
Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?
After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?
After a win did you have a strong urge to return and win more?
Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?
Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?
Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?
Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?
Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?
Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?
Have you ever gambled to escape worry, trouble, boredom or loneliness?
Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?
Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?
Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to gamble?
Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling?
Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?
Most compulsive gamblers will answer yes to at least seven of these questions.
Quote from options4me:
YES. Wall Street is the BIGGEST CASINO in the World...
TWENTY QUESTIONS
Did you ever lose time from work or school due to gambling?
No. Gambling is my job
Has gambling ever made your home life unhappy?
Yes. The wife nags me for not gambling enough
Did gambling affect your reputation?
No
Have you ever felt remorse after gambling?
No
Did you ever gamble to get money with which to pay debts or otherwise solve financial difficulties?
Yes. That's the whole point
Did gambling cause a decrease in your ambition or efficiency?
Yes. I quit my career to become gambler
After losing did you feel you must return as soon as possible and win back your losses?
No, but I'm working on that
After a win did you have a strong urge to return and win more?
No, but I'm working on that too
Did you often gamble until your last dollar was gone?
No
Did you ever borrow to finance your gambling?
No, but I would if necessary
Have you ever sold anything to finance gambling?
No
Were you reluctant to use "gambling money" for normal expenditures?
Yes. I'm not going to let the wife spend my gambling capital. That would be stupid.
Did gambling make you careless of the welfare of yourself or your family?
No
Did you ever gamble longer than you had planned?
No
Have you ever gambled to escape worry, trouble, boredom or loneliness?
No. Gambling causes all those
Have you ever committed, or considered committing, an illegal act to finance gambling?
No
Did gambling cause you to have difficulty in sleeping?
Yes
Do arguments, disappointments or frustrations create within you an urge to gamble?
No
Did you ever have an urge to celebrate any good fortune by a few hours of gambling?
No
Have you ever considered self destruction or suicide as a result of your gambling?
No
Most compulsive gamblers will answer yes to at least seven of these questions.
It seems I'm not compulsive enough
Quote from options4me:
Most compulsive ....
Wikipedia had a nice definition of Gambling:
"Gambling is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods. Typically, the outcome of the wager is evident within a short period."
That sure sounds a lot like trading to me. However, I think that some might further subdivide gambling into distinct categories. Fore example, one might define gambling as the risking of money on uncertain outcomes for the pleasure derived from the risk itself, rather than any realistic goal of making money. For example, the slots machine are stacked against you. Everyone knows that, but people continue to play for the entertainment value--not because they really think they are going to make any money.
The same might be said for the way that some people play poker. However, a professional poker player, which closely resembles the skilled trader, looks at the game as a game of probabilities and will play more aggressively when the odds are in their favor. Therefore, some might not view trading as gambling because they see the skill involved and how a true gambling edge can be obtained, which contrasts with the amateur that gambles merely for entertainment.
Therefore, I believe it to be quite obvious that in general, trading is gambling. That doesn't mean there are not good versus bad gamblers/traders, but nonetheless, its all gambling.
Quote from overspool:
To say having odds in your favor means its not gambling doesn't make sense at all.
Trading is gambling. It is a WAGER on an UNCERTAIN outcome. In relation to trading you are RISKING capital with the HOPE of profiting. You can not BE SURE of this profit because you have NO CONTROL over the market.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from BSAM:
This is such a no brainer, it's amazing this idea is debated over and over.
Yes, trading is gambling.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from Mr J:
Seems to me that people can't accept it out of pride, or because they're ignorant of the definition of gambling.
There is no 1 answer to this, it's all relative to experiences, though in gambling environments it is almost impossible to get a profitable edge, in trading it is possible. Trading of course can be gambling if one just plays the game relying on intuition/instinct. Forget what dictionaries say, try telling IRS what you found in a dictionary LOL
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Ok, I can't believe this thread keeps popping up and has gone on for 16 pages, because its such a simple answer and anyone who doesn't know the answer immediately, certainly shouldn't be engaging in any odds-based business, particularly trading.
The definition of gambling is, "to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gambling
So, in any odds based business or game, whether its poker, blackjack, craps, running a casino, running an insurance company, or trading, there are always two sides to the bet or trade; one side is gambling and one side is playing the odds. Whether you're "gambling" or "playing the odds" depends on what the actual percentages are of your success in that given situation. If you're chances of success are greater than 50%, then you're not gambling, because the odds are in your favor that you'll be successful more than half the time and you'd have to get "unlucky" in order to lose on that particular proposition. If you're on the side where your odds of success are less than 50%, then that means you're gambling because you'd have to beat the odds and "get lucky" in order to get paid on that particular odds based event.
Look at the relationship between the casino and the craps player. No matter what bet the craps player makes, he is always gambling because there isn't any bet he can make where his odds of success are greater than 50%. The casino on the other hand is simply playing the odds, not gambling, because no matter what bet they take the other side of, the odds are in their favor to win any given bet. Does that mean that the casino will always win every single bet and the craps player will never win any bet. Of course not, it just means that as the number of times they take that bet approaches a very large number (remember, the laws of averages are insignificant unless you have a large data sample), their percentage of success (or failure) will move closer and closer to the actual expected odds.
The same relationship exists in poker... If a player moves all-in with the best hand, and is called by a player with an inferior hand, then the player with the inferior hand must get lucky in order to beat the odds and win the hand. The player with the best hand however, only needs to avoid getting unlucky in order to win. Therefore, the player with the worse hand is gambling while the player with the best hand is simply acting like a casino and playing the odds.
Now in the regards to the poker player, he has no way of knowing in advance whether or not he has the best hand before he makes the call. Therefore, even though he may suspect that he's playing the odds, he won't know if he's correct until after he's made the decision to call and is able to see his opponent's hand. If he calls and finds out that his opponent has a better hand than he does, now he's the one who must beat the odds and get lucky in order to win, therefore even though he called because he suspected he was playing the odds, in retrospect he is actually gambling and his opponent is the one who is playing the odds. So if you play poker long enough, you will eventually find yourself in some situations where you are gambling, and you will find yourself in some situations in which you're playing the odds. Depending on the skill of the player, and the length of time he plays the game (hours, days, months, years) he will either find himself in more situations where he's gambling (in which case he'll lose money in the long run) or he will find himself in more situations where he is playing the odds (in which case he will make money in the long run).
So the answer as to whether or not trading is gambling is simple.... it depends. If you're consistently putting yourself in situations where the odds are in your favor, then you're not gambling, rather, you're simply acting like a casino and playing the odds. However, if you're consistently putting yourself in situations where your odds of success are not in your favor, then yes, you're gambling because in order for that trade to work out you have to overcome the laws of averages. And just like the poker player (or the insurance company for that matter), quite often you won't know whether or not you happen to be gambling or playing the odds on any given trade until after the fact, and therefore, whether or not you are consistently gambling or whether or not you're consistently playing the odds will depend upon your skill level as a trader. However, if you take enough trades, you're invariably going to find yourself in some trades where you are gambling and you're going to find yourself in trades where you're not gambling. But over a long enough period of time, good traders will take more trades where they're playing the odds and less trades where they're gambling, and losing traders will take more trades where they're gambling and less trades where they're playing the odds.
So the correct answer is sometimes trading is gambling and sometimes its playing the odds... it just depends on how good you are as a trader at finding situations where the odds are in your favor. However, if you trade long enough and take enough trades, invariably, you'll find that in some trades you ended up gambling and in some trades the person on the other side of the trade was the one gambling.
I can summarize it in a simpler way:
If you lose, it is gambling, if you win, it is skill.
Quote from Pekelo:
I can summarize it in a simpler way:
If you lose, it is gambling, if you win, it is skill.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
I'll add - consistently
__________________
Spiral Out. Keep going.
Quote from Pekelo:
I can summarize it in a simpler way:
If you lose, it is gambling, if you win, it is skill.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from limitdown:
seems to me that this supposed definition which has the negative social connotation is being stretched to respectable honest and legal professions.
no, trading is NOT gambling,
If you trade and you say that trading is not gambling, then you apparently are executing 100% winning trades. So, if you know that trading is not gambling, then doesn't a losing trade indicate some level of mental incompetence? For, when the outcome is certain, there is no gamble. But, if the outcome is not certain, then there is a gamble.
So, if you are one who wins 100% of the time and at the point of execution you know that your trade will be a winner, then, you are not gambling.
Also, I believe that it is helpful to a trader to understand and accept that putting on a trade involves the chance that it may go his way, or it may not. This is part of the deal. This is where money management comes into play.
So what if trading is gambling. Does that really have anything to do with profitability? No.
Quote from BSAM:
If you trade and you say that trading is not gambling, then you apparently are executing 100% winning trades. So, if you know that trading is not gambling, then doesn't a losing trade indicate some level of mental incompetence? For, when the outcome is certain, there is no gamble. But, if the outcome is not certain, then there is a gamble.
So, if you are one who wins 100% of the time and at the point of execution you know that your trade will be a winner, then, you are not gambling.
Also, I believe that it is helpful to a trader to understand and accept that putting on a trade involves the chance that it may go his way, or it may not. This is part of the deal. This is where money management comes into play.
So what if trading is gambling. Does that really have anything to do with profitability? No.
Yea its gambling. You put your money down and bet it will be worth more the next day. But with a lot of homework and research, the odds can be heavily in your favor. Just because you are smart and you mostly win doesn't mean its not gambling. But, then you have to ask, so what if its gambling. Its not illegal and we dont have to hide or anything, so there is really little point to the question.
You may as well next ask if a blow job is considered sex. Hmmmmm, not according to president Clinton...
Quote from Jachyra:
.....In odds based businesses, you win some and lose some, thats why they're called odds based businesses......
Quote from stts:
.....Just because you are smart and you mostly win doesn't mean its not gambling......
Was posted back on Dec 31 2006
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi...y-trading_x.htm
Rolling the dice: Day trading is gambling
Q: My brother (and business partner) has gotten into day trading in the last year or so. He claims to be "investing," not gambling, but I've heard many horror stories. Should I be worried?
A: You can always tell when the stock market is getting better, because the day traders come out of the woodwork. Unfortunately, a vast majority will wind up grinding their retirement money into sawdust.
In my opinion, day trading is gambling. Whether or not you should be worried, though, depends on how much money your brother is gambling with and what would happen to your business if he squanders his assets.
To explain why I'm so skeptical of day traders, we must first decide what the term means. In my mind, a day trader is an individual who tries to make fast money by buying and selling stocks, options or other securities after holding them a few hours, days or weeks.
Unlike investors who buy diversified baskets of stocks and hold them for a year or more despite short-term swings in the market, day traders try to profit from those swings by buying low and selling high.
But don't expect a day trader to tell you he's a day trader. The term has gotten a bad rap, primarily because so many of these people got destroyed by the last bear market. So today, they're calling themselves everything from "swing traders" to "market timers." Many claim to have found some magical loophole in the public markets that only they know about.
If you ask these day traders to explain what they're doing, their explanations are usually plausible. And since markets' daily moves are random, there is a chance day traders can make money in the short term. But when they're explaining their "secret" to you, you need to sit back and pay attention and use your reasoning. Keep in mind even some blackjack players may have a lucky night or two, but over time, the odds will catch up with them and reclaim those winnings and then some.
There are two main reasons why the vast majority of day traders will lose their shirts:
• Disadvantage to large institutions. Have you ever seen a $20 bill lying in the street? It's rare, but it does happen. The same thing can happen on Wall Street.
For various reasons, a stock or other security may temporarily (even for a few seconds) become under- or overvalued. Traders are in the business of picking up these $20 bills on Wall Street. Giant Wall Street firms and hedge funds have massive trading desks that do this. They spend millions on equipment and on experts who have the full time job of finding incorrectly priced securities. So, why would your brother, with his discount brokerage account, think he can even have a chance against the resources of these well-funded trading firms?
• Diminishing returns. The next issue is a harsh reality. If someone is lucky enough to find a way to make a short-term profit, the method is quickly copied by other short-term traders. And when enough people try to take advantage of a market inefficiency, that inefficiency disappears.
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of day trading. I just think the odds are stacked against day traders. The chances of suffering big losses are much greater than the ability to generate gains over the long term.
Study after study has confirmed that most investors are unable to beat the market long term. I have spoken with day traders who have lost large amounts of money, and regretted it.
How you deal with your brother is up to you, though. Maybe he's treating his trading like some gamblers deal with Las Vegas: They play with a set amount of money, say $200, that they are prepared to lose.
If he's just doing it for fun and realizes he'll most likely lose before long, that's one thing. But I would be concerned if he is gambling with money you need to operate the business.
Matt Krantz is a financial markets reporter at USA TODAY. He answers a different reader question every weekday in his Ask Matt column at money.usatoday.com. To submit a question, e-mail Matt at mkrantz@usatoday.com.
Quote from BSAM:
"Odds based businesses".....LMAO.
Let me guess; Currently, or at some time in the past, you were a state or federal government employee.
My brother, we are just gonna have to agree to disagree. I believe the "odds" are in my favor and I think you are in a "losing trade" on this one.
Quote from Jachyra:
Well like I said previously, its a free country and you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe... but just because you believe it doesn't make it so... just like people who believed the world was flat certainly had the right to do so, but it didn't mean it was true......
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from Mr J:
Any credible dictionary will disagree with you. Respectable, honest and legal professions? The financial markets are as dodgy as the 'gambling' markets, and about as many people have no idea.
The negative connotation is generated by the ignorant masses, so if your problem is that people look down upon what may or may not be your profession, then your problem is with them.
Quote from Jachyra:
Ok, I can't believe this thread keeps popping up and has gone on for 16 pages, because its such a simple answer and anyone who doesn't know the answer immediately, certainly shouldn't be engaging in any odds-based business, particularly trading.
The definition of gambling is, "to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gambling
In an effort to distinguish between ‘Gambling’ and ‘Non-Gambling’ activity, many have argued that, “Anytime you put your money at risk, you are gambling,” or some variation on that theme. Which begs the question, “Have you found a way to NOT put your money at risk?” A Holy Grail of sorts? An infallible way to protect your purchasing power against all enemies foreign and domestic? Me thinks not. Your money is ALWAYS at a risk of loss. Like anything else, currency carries an intrinsic risk of loss(you can’t opt out), so this argument is simply unfounded.
Please don’t kid yourself about an FDIC savings account or some similar type instrument either. Your “numbers” only matter in a relative sense. With the advent of a fiat currency, your gummit can print you into submission if need be.
If you still think gambling and trading are the same, try this simple experiment: If you say “Doyle Brunson is a great Gambler,” then everyone can agree(at least those who know of him) this is a true statement. However, if you say “Doyle Brunson is a great Trader,” the sentence becomes nonsensical. Clearly the words convey different meanings, they are not synonyms, nor are they equivalent.
If it still isn’t clear, then call your travel agent. Be specific and to the point. Tell him, “Please listen closely. Eventually I would like to get a job as a Professional Trader, so I want you to schedule me for a week of Trading Training in Vegas. I only want to spend my time in classes with Professional Traders. I don’t want to do anything else but learn how to become a Professional Trader.” My guess is you will probably end up at Bright Trading’s corporate headquarters and not in a card counting class.
In any event, it has been interesting reading some of these postings. It does seem strange that so many vehemently wish to view their livelihood as nothing more than a crapshoot, but it appears some are long that position. Someone once said that “Everyone gets what they want out of the market.” I suppose that’s true for Gamblers too. Ultimately it’s your world …you can put the trees wherever you like…
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Traders are NOT Gamblers. However, there are a great many Gamblers who donate to our cause!
To all the Traders out there, Cheers! And Happy Trading!
To all the Gamblers ….well ...good luck!
You guys keep talking about whether in principle putting on a tarde is a gamble or not a gamble, though OP is asking whether TRADING is gambling. Just because trading offers risk to capital it doesn't automatically fire it up into a gambling category. There's a bunch of other ways of putting money at play & what if it doesn't work out you would call it gambling with money? Don't be ridiculous please. And if you throw in the ever so popular 'unknown outcome', then I would say this - if Walmart decides to open another megastore & it doesn't meet match performance of their other stores & they decide to shut it down, then I suppose you would call it a gamble on their part? There are profitable & unprofitable strategies, end of.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from OzMega:
Your money is ALWAYS at a risk of loss. Like anything else, currency carries an intrinsic risk of loss(you can’t opt out), so this argument is simply unfounded.
. Arguably, every action we take is a gamble.
Trading is gambling, no matter what moronic logic you try and use to dispute that fact. If you don't think so, you're in denial. Market speculation is exactly that, speculation. There is no guarantee in trading/markets/gambling. You try to have the most/best edges you can but that doesnt change the fact that you're betting. On a trade you're betting you're on the correct side of the trade to increase your profits. At a casino you're betting you're on the right side of the bet, wether its blackjack, poker, or roulette. If you don't think you gamble when you trade, you're seriously delusional.
If it's gambling, then it means you don't know what the heck you are doing. Stop right now!
Quote from SCI new york:
Trading is gambling, no matter what moronic logic you try and use to dispute that fact. If you don't think so, you're in denial. Market speculation is exactly that, speculation. There is no guarantee in trading/markets/gambling. You try to have the most/best edges you can but that doesnt change the fact that you're betting. On a trade you're betting you're on the correct side of the trade to increase your profits. At a casino you're betting you're on the right side of the bet, wether its blackjack, poker, or roulette. If you don't think you gamble when you trade, you're seriously delusional.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
sounds like someone who thinks they know everything but will eventually blow up their account one day. you can't account for everything, that's why it is gambling. you could make the best trades in the world, but there's always a chance they will fail.
Quote from JSSPMK:
If it's gambling, then it means you don't know what the heck you are doing. Stop right now!
Being the relative new kid on the block – I’m probably shooting myself in the foot by saying this….
But I’m getting a kick out of reading this thread…
I just hope y’all don’t argue with the market – and/ or – try to convince the market to change its mind – as much as y’all are here
That would be highly – un-profitable – I believe
Anyway
Happy Weekend All
Redneck
Quote from SCI new york:
Trading is gambling, no matter what moronic logic you try and use to dispute that fact. If you don't think so, you're in denial. Market speculation is exactly that, speculation. There is no guarantee in trading/markets/gambling. You try to have the most/best edges you can but that doesnt change the fact that you're betting. On a trade you're betting you're on the correct side of the trade to increase your profits. At a casino you're betting you're on the right side of the bet, wether its blackjack, poker, or roulette. If you don't think you gamble when you trade, you're seriously delusional.
Pitt -5 is not gambling pitt -8 is....
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
never thought trading is a gambling activity.
trading is a business activity.
you need enough capital, skills of market timing/money mangement/risk management/cash flow efficiency, well-carried trading plan, experience, objective mental status, dsicipline, persistence, confidence, time.
the aim of this activity is to create profit or produce cash flow! not for fun or entainment.
if your purpose is for entainment, I would say that is gambling for sure!
Quote from Jachyra:
Well you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the meaning of the word gambling...
I find it completely baffling that there are so many people out there who not only think trading is gambling, but also continue to trade despite their convictions.
Quote from ElCubano:
Pitt -5 is not gambling pitt -8 is....
Firstly I don't know everything, but neither do you.
Secondly, I have already blown an account in the past.
So what wouldn't you call gambling? An example please.
Quote from frozzor:
sounds like someone who thinks they know everything but will eventually blow up their account one day. you can't account for everything, that's why it is gambling. you could make the best trades in the world, but there's always a chance they will fail.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Mr J:
I find it amusing that you jump on someone by suggesting that they don't know the definition, when you yourself do not know it. By definition, gambling is when one places a stake on an event with an uncertain outcome. That is it.
The ultimate aim of trading is price discovery.
Trading in any market is essential for proper valuations.
Trading can be gambling for some people called impulsive or emotional traders. They too provide liquidity and money to the whole industry to function better. Gamblers are needed.
Actually, I am looking for some gamblers to make money from.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from BSAM:
This is such a no brainer, it's amazing this idea is debated over and over.
Yes, trading is gambling.
But Jachyra, chance is a factor in all trades, apart from those that lock in a profit without risk ever existing (e.g. a true arbitrage).
As for the definition of chance, it just means that there is no certain outcome.
Quote from limitdown:
Are gamblers losers?
Yes, they have no choice but to lose some of the time!
Are losers gamblers?
Yes, once you lose money in the markets you have taken a gamble!
Are investors both gamblers, losers and morally upright?
Yes, Yes and maybe some are?
How far does one need to push this social question? Clearly we all set the standard and have not convinced anyone to change in their deep held beliefs regarding this controversial, yet simplistic question.
If one wants to succeed in trading the markets then one has no option but to change!
What one believes trading to be is just that - a personal conviction. Officially, trading is not classed as a gambling activity. If you disagree please feel free to drop a line to the SEC/CFTC or perhaps the FSA if you happen to live across the pond.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
whats wrong with gambling?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from Mr J:
Any credible dictionary will disagree with you. Respectable, honest and legal professions? The financial markets are as dodgy as the 'gambling' markets, and about as many people have no idea.
The negative connotation is generated by the ignorant masses, so if your problem is that people look down upon what may or may not be your profession, then your problem is with them.
Quote from OzMega:
In an effort to distinguish between �Gambling� and �Non-Gambling� activity, many have argued that, �Anytime you put your money at risk, you are gambling,� or some variation on that theme. Which begs the question, �Have you found a way to NOT put your money at risk?� A Holy Grail of sorts? An infallible way to protect your purchasing power against all enemies foreign and domestic? Me thinks not. Your money is ALWAYS at a risk of loss. Like anything else, currency carries an intrinsic risk of loss(you can�t opt out), so this argument is simply unfounded.
Please don�t kid yourself about an FDIC savings account or some similar type instrument either. Your �numbers� only matter in a relative sense. With the advent of a fiat currency, your gummit can print you into submission if need be.
If you still think gambling and trading are the same, try this simple experiment: If you say �Doyle Brunson is a great Gambler,� then everyone can agree(at least those who know of him) this is a true statement. However, if you say �Doyle Brunson is a great Trader,� the sentence becomes nonsensical. Clearly the words convey different meanings, they are not synonyms, nor are they equivalent.
If it still isn�t clear, then call your travel agent. Be specific and to the point. Tell him, �Please listen closely. Eventually I would like to get a job as a Professional Trader, so I want you to schedule me for a week of Trading Training in Vegas. I only want to spend my time in classes with Professional Traders. I don�t want to do anything else but learn how to become a Professional Trader.� My guess is you will probably end up at Bright Trading�s corporate headquarters and not in a card counting class.
In any event, it has been interesting reading some of these postings. It does seem strange that so many vehemently wish to view their livelihood as nothing more than a crapshoot, but it appears some are long that position. Someone once said that �Everyone gets what they want out of the market.� I suppose that�s true for Gamblers too. Ultimately it�s your world �you can put the trees wherever you like�
THE BOTTOM LINE:
Traders are NOT Gamblers. However, there are a great many Gamblers who donate to our cause!
To all the Traders out there, Cheers! And Happy Trading!
To all the Gamblers �.well ...good luck!
Quote from Mr J:
But Jachyra, chance is a factor in all trades, apart from those that lock in a profit without risk ever existing (e.g. a true arbitrage).
As for the definition of chance, it just means that there is no certain outcome.
Quote from SCI new york:
Trading is gambling, no matter what moronic logic you try and use to dispute that fact. If you don't think so, you're in denial. Market speculation is exactly that, speculation. There is no guarantee in trading/markets/gambling. You try to have the most/best edges you can but that doesnt change the fact that you're betting. On a trade you're betting you're on the correct side of the trade to increase your profits. At a casino you're betting you're on the right side of the bet, wether its blackjack, poker, or roulette. If you don't think you gamble when you trade, you're seriously delusional.
Bingo!
Quote from Jachyra:
With all due respect, that's not how I interpret the definition of "chance." If you look at the definition and read it closely, it states, "the absence of ANY cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled." Therefore, if there are at least SOME aspects of it that can be "predicted, understood, or controlled" (i.e. supply & demand economics... an influx of buyers causing the price to go up, or an influx of sellers causing the price to go down) then by definition its not chance.
Again, I am not trying to assert that its impossible to gamble on the markets... as far as I'm concerned its possible to gamble on almost anything. And personally, I do believe that the majority of traders and retail investors ARE gambling just because they don't have the ability to get any type of edge in the markets. My point is that its completely inaccurate, and somewhat rather unsophisticated, to just unilaterally & uncategorically assume that all trading is gambling and that all traders are gamblers... because its not supported by any actual definition of "gambling" that exists in the dictionary or any legally defined definition in state or federal law
Just about the only definition of gambling that does support it, are some of these loosely defined, partially fabricated, and generally misconceived definitions of the word that the average person "believes" to be the definition of gambling... many of which are being thrown around on this thread.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from trader3cnd:
The ultimate aim of trading is price discovery.
Trading in any market is essential for proper valuations.
Trading can be gambling for some people called impulsive or emotional traders. They too provide liquidity and money to the whole industry to function better. Gamblers are needed.
Actually, I am looking for some gamblers to make money from.
Quote from Jachyra:
Thats like saying that the casino is gambling just because they don't win every single bet, or that an insurance company is gambling every time they have to pay out an insurance claim. In odds based businesses, you win some and lose some, thats why they're called odds based businesses. Winning or losing money on any given odds based opportunity is not what determines whether or not its gambling... only whether or not the percentages are in your favor when the bet or position is established.
Technically, it has to do with whether or not the bet or trade has positive or negative expected value over the long run. If you have +EV then its clearly not gambling... if you have -EV then by definition it is.
Look at it this way... if you place a bet where your odds of winning are 80%, and you make $1 every time you win and lose $1 every time you lose... on average, if you take the same bet 100 times, you'll win 80 times, giving you a gain of $80, and you'll lose 20 times, giving you a loss of $20. That means that if you took the same bet every single time, and took it enough times to make the sample size significant, you'd net a gain of $60 every 100 bets. In this situation you'd have +EV and by definition you would not be gambling.
The fact that you lose 20% of the time in and of itself does not make it gambling. The only way it would be gambling is if you were on the other side of the bet in which you only had a 20% chance of winning. Then you'd win $1 20 times out of a hundred, giving you a profit of $20, and you'd lose $1 every 80 times out of 100, which would be an $80 loss... so you'd be netting a loss of $60 on average for every 100 times you placed the same bet. In this situation you'd have -EV and by definition you would be gambling, because the only way you could possibly turn a profit in the long run would be if the laws of averages took a random walk and you ended up winning more than the 20% of the time you were supposed to.
Of course this reminds me of that old saying that Henry Ford once said... "whether you think you can, or whether you think you can't... you're right." Well in this respect, "whether you think trading is gambling, or whether you think trading isn't gambling... you're right." Because if you're engaged in an odds based business and you don't even know the difference between playing the odds and gambling, or don't know anything about positive or negative EV... then most likely you are in fact one of the many market participants who are gambling... but just because you are gambling in the markets don't think for a second that everybody else is gambling. I assure you that the best traders in the world spend a lot of time trying to make sure that they consistently don't find themselves in situations where they're gambling (although even the best will find themselves in that situation every once in a while).
It is correct to say that it is possible to gamble in trading if you want to, or that sometimes, depsite your best efforts to avoid it, you find yourself in situations that in retrospect ended up being a gamble. But its not any more correct to say that trading is gambling than it is to say that trading is a unicorn.
Quote from SCI new york:
Trading is gambling, no matter what moronic logic you try and use to dispute that fact. If you don't think so, you're in denial. Market speculation is exactly that, speculation. There is no guarantee in trading/markets/gambling. You try to have the most/best edges you can but that doesnt change the fact that you're betting. On a trade you're betting you're on the correct side of the trade to increase your profits. At a casino you're betting you're on the right side of the bet, wether its blackjack, poker, or roulette. If you don't think you gamble when you trade, you're seriously delusional.
Quote from Jachyra:
With all due respect, that's not how I interpret the definition of "chance." If you look at the definition and read it closely, it states, "the absence of ANY cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled."
My point is that its completely inaccurate, and somewhat rather unsophisticated, to just unilaterally & uncategorically assume that all trading is gambling and that all traders are gamblers... because its not supported by any actual definition of "gambling" that exists in the dictionary or any legally defined definition in state or federal law
Just about the only definition of gambling that does support it, are some of these loosely defined, partially fabricated, and generally misconceived definitions of the word that the average person "believes" to be the definition of gambling... many of which are being thrown around on this thread.
Care to post a link to where you've read that trading is indeed gambling. TY! Not a blog
Quote from BSAM:
Exactly.
Now, watch this:
1. The sky is blue.
2. It's dark at nighttime.
3. Dogs bark.
4. The Lakers play basketball.
Okay, let's see how long it takes for some of our certified geniuses on ET to "prove" these statements false.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from nysestocks:
Do you "actually" trade?
Quote from Mr J:
You're just choosing the definition which suits your argument. Chance can refer to randomness, predictability, probability etc. It's a much less specific word than 'gamble'. When dealing with the various outcome of events, chance just refers to the randomness of the outcome.
I can state that all traders are gamblers, because the definitions do support that argument. Throw out the legal definitions of gambling - it's formed by lawyers or politicians with an agenda, who don't understand the key mathematical principles behind the activities.
I have not made up any definition of gambling, it's right there in the dictionary. Furthermore, my arguments are supported by those in the field of mathematics, professional 'gamblers' and quite a few successful traders. The only incorrect definition of gambling being thrown around in this thread is to suggest that skill determines whether it is gambling, or whether gambling is restricted to just casino games, poker, sportsbetting etc.
I don't really like this discussion as it is quite trivial. What should be discussed is the mathematics behind the two activities, and how they are essentially the same.
Quote from JSSPMK:
Care to post a link to where you've read that trading is indeed gambling. TY! Not a blog
Quote from BSAM:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...=6&pagenumber=1
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from nysestocks:
Any time you put your money at risk, you are gambling!
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Jachyra:
...asks the man who only just registered on this forum less than 2 months ago, and doesn't know the difference between trading and gambling.
And for the record I've been trading full time since 1998 and have posted only 2 unprofitable years. I would ask you the same question but somehow I suspect I would get less than a truthful answer.
Quote from JSSPMK:
If you know the answer, then why open a poll? And you seem to have a great answer to your question. All businesses on this planet seem to be gambling.
Quote from BSAM:
Exactly.
Now, watch this:
1. The sky is blue.
On a clear day
2. It's dark at nighttime.
Without any lights
3. Dogs bark.
Only when they are not eating
4. The Lakers play basketball.
Dont have a clue about this one, but I take your word on it
Okay, let's see how long it takes for some of our certified geniuses on ET to "prove" these statements false.
I have a feeling I am talking to some stubborn teen, you said if one risks capital then he is gambling. In which case you apply it the term gambling not just to trading, but to absolutely all business activities, as all business activities carry risk to capital.
Quote from nysestocks:
To show how many idiots think they know what trading is really all about!
It is about time the so called "elite traders" were put in their place, as it appears that some here think they are actually the site itself!
I have never seen so much rubbish spoken about trading, by so many so called "experts", and the reality being that that are but like a grain of sand in the desert!
It is no wonder the ordinary person who tries to make money at trading ends up so confused that he/she can't tell the difference between Up and Down!
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
I have a feeling I am talking to some stubborn teen, you said if one risks capital then he is gambling. In which case you apply it the term gambling not just to trading, but to absolutely all business activities, as all business activities carry risk to capital.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Yes
Yes. It is a gambling game.
Most of you play the drunk gamblers and few of us play the house.
Quote from JSSPMK:
I have a feeling I am talking to some stubborn teen, you said if one risks capital then he is gambling. In which case you apply it the term gambling not just to trading, but to absolutely all business activities, as all business activities carry risk to capital.
Quote from nysestocks:
In the end of the day, whether trading is gambling to you or not is your business. But, if you post a blanket statement like you have & then fail to justify your statement then you do look rather amateur or silly.
One more time, if an investment of capital incurs a risk of losing part of that capital is gambling, then all businesses on this planet are gambling, according to you. Basically, that's what your statement means, but you don't care.
If trading is gambling is indeed a fact, then you must be able to prove it easily.
If you go on similar feelings when trading, then I would say that you are wrong a lot more times than you are right!
Who gives a damn about other business; we are specifically talking about trading.
This is typical of the so called experts, they like to "compare" things to try and back up their points.
The fact is, that there are no experts in the trading game, and one does need to be an expert in order to succeed, but one does need to know that one is gambling, and only then can the real possibilities be understood, and an appropriate plan of action put in place to give the best possible outcome.
I am a little disappointed at some of the posts by those with a long history, but then again, as I keep saying; many actually think they are experts, when the fact is that there are no experts in the trading game.
How can people be so blind to the fact?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Jachyra:
I posted the sources of my definitions. Feel free to post a definition and cite the source that supports your argument... otherwise, I think you might be the one who is picking definitions that suit your purposes (or possibly even fabricating them).
Quote from JSSPMK:
In the end of the day, whether trading is gambling to you or not is your business. But, if you post a blanket statement like you have & then fail to justify your statement then you do look rather amateur or silly.
One more time, if an investment of capital incurs a risk of losing part of that capital is gambling, then all businesses on this planet are gambling, according to you. Basically, that's what your statement means, but you don't care.
If trading is gambling is indeed a fact, then you must be able to prove it easily.
Apples & oranges. Your question was whether TRADING is gambling, not 1 random trade. You can trade profitably with pretty low win rate anyway. Just because some trades end up as losses it doesn't make the whole line of events consisting of wins & losses a gambling activity. Not in my book
Quote from nysestocks:
I don't have to justify anything to anyone, but myself!
As for caring, you got that right. I couldn't give a hoot what businesses do with their money.
Of course it is a fact, and as for proving it; just place a trade in any market and immediately tell me what the outcome is going to be, and if you are correct, every time you do it, then yes, then I will admit that trading like that is not gambling.
If you are unable to do this, then you are just a gambler like the rest of us, whether you like it or not!
Donât take it personal, I donât!
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
these two gents would have been great traders just like mr darvis was
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EexOzjz6Gn4&feature=related
in fact I see them all the time in what I trade
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
__________________
Romik
Re: Do You Think Trading is Gambling?
Quote from nysestocks:
Yes or No?
__________________
Dackster.
I really don't feel like taking this thread too much further because talking to some of you traders is worse than talking to a brick wall. I don't care that you don't think you're gambling, you are and you're an idiot for not thinking so. Every single transaction on this planet that DOES NOT have a guaranteed outcome is in one way shape or form gambling. You can sit there and tag all kinds of names and attachments to it, call it a "business transaction" call it speculation, trading, logical guessing, or any other connotation you want, but its not going to change what is going on. If I go to the store and buy a sandwich for $5 dollars, I know that I spent $5 dollars and I got my sandwich. That is guaranteed. If my friend says to me, hey buy this baseball card because next year it will be worth more next year, that's gambling. YOU seem to think that if you are right on a consistent basis or that you're making money on it readily easy that you are not gambling. Just because it's easy doesn't mean you're not gambling. If I buy that baseball card and then next year no one cares about baseball, I can't sell it for anything and I lost money. You're thinking "well thats not going to happen so it's not gambling" Obviously the LIKELIHOOD of that happening is extremely low, but there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE to the forseeable and unforseeable future that it may or may not happen, so it is a gamble. You are just hoping that it will be that simple.
Real estate investment= GAMBLE if you dont think so, you are the biggest moron of all and I hope I can meet you to urinate on you because you're ignorance is appauling. Just because there is a large time frame on real estate and for the most part you are able to buy a property at a certain price and at a future date sell it higher with minimal risk to yourself and benefits in the interim such as tax breaks, leverage etc does not mean you're not gambling, it means you believe you are taking less risk than you would in another situation. But unless you were born yesterday REAL ESTATE GOT FUCKED. now because of real estate morons (which i would not be surprised if you are one of) the economy is in a bind.
A trader is a gambler. A SKILLED trader is a gambler who can spot an edge better than a novice trader or a regular joe. An EXPERT trader takes it a step further from a skilled trader and introduces further enhancement, such as larger buying power to be able to manipulate stocks, faster trading systems, other traders that can help with knowledge/research, capital to find information. They all try to have an edge to REDUCE the variables and lower their risk exposure, but they too, just like any and everyone else are prone to being wrong and being on the losing end of trades and losing money. So they are skilled and they trade often and overall they are profitable for the year, but it all came at a certain risk to capital and WAS NOT GUARANTEED, they gambled. They have an edge and they use it.
A person who goes to the casino and plays blackjack gambles. If they sit at a blackjack table for 9 hours and play through 45 shoes and 300 or so hands and overall go home with a profit, does that mean that they didn't gamble? If they can do that throughout the year and at the end of the year be positive are they all of a sudden not gamblers anymore? A regular blackjack player gambles. A blackjack player who has basic strategy memorized and now has an edge takes less risk. A blackjack player who knows basic strategy and counts cards takes even less risk and is able to play better and make more money. BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL GAMBLING! No if ands or buts about it.
If you want to continue with the whole "im not a gambler" routine that's ok but you will always be a moron. Just as much as Earth is known as a planet, you will be known as a moron.
PS
I in absolutely no way believe there are EXPERT traders. it was just for an example.
Take it deep.
Quote from SCI new york:
I really don't feel like taking this thread too much further because talking to some of you traders is worse than talking to a brick wall. I don't care that you don't think you're gambling, you are and you're an idiot for not thinking so. Every single transaction on this planet that DOES NOT have a guaranteed outcome is in one way shape or form gambling. You can sit there and tag all kinds of names and attachments to it, call it a "business transaction" call it speculation, trading, logical guessing, or any other connotation you want, but its not going to change what is going on. If I go to the store and buy a sandwich for $5 dollars, I know that I spent $5 dollars and I got my sandwich. That is guaranteed. If my friend says to me, hey buy this baseball card because next year it will be worth more next year, that's gambling. YOU seem to think that if you are right on a consistent basis or that you're making money on it readily easy that you are not gambling. Just because it's easy doesn't mean you're not gambling. If I buy that baseball card and then next year no one cares about baseball, I can't sell it for anything and I lost money. You're thinking "well thats not going to happen so it's not gambling" Obviously the LIKELIHOOD of that happening is extremely low, but there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE to the forseeable and unforseeable future that it may or may not happen, so it is a gamble. You are just hoping that it will be that simple.
Real estate investment= GAMBLE if you dont think so, you are the biggest moron of all and I hope I can meet you to urinate on you because you're ignorance is appauling. Just because there is a large time frame on real estate and for the most part you are able to buy a property at a certain price and at a future date sell it higher with minimal risk to yourself and benefits in the interim such as tax breaks, leverage etc does not mean you're not gambling, it means you believe you are taking less risk than you would in another situation. But unless you were born yesterday REAL ESTATE GOT FUCKED. now because of real estate morons (which i would not be surprised if you are one of) the economy is in a bind.
A trader is a gambler. A SKILLED trader is a gambler who can spot an edge better than a novice trader or a regular joe. An EXPERT trader takes it a step further from a skilled trader and introduces further enhancement, such as larger buying power to be able to manipulate stocks, faster trading systems, other traders that can help with knowledge/research, capital to find information. They all try to have an edge to REDUCE the variables and lower their risk exposure, but they too, just like any and everyone else are prone to being wrong and being on the losing end of trades and losing money. So they are skilled and they trade often and overall they are profitable for the year, but it all came at a certain risk to capital and WAS NOT GUARANTEED, they gambled. They have an edge and they use it.
A person who goes to the casino and plays blackjack gambles. If they sit at a blackjack table for 9 hours and play through 45 shoes and 300 or so hands and overall go home with a profit, does that mean that they didn't gamble? If they can do that throughout the year and at the end of the year be positive are they all of a sudden not gamblers anymore? A regular blackjack player gambles. A blackjack player who has basic strategy memorized and now has an edge takes less risk. A blackjack player who knows basic strategy and counts cards takes even less risk and is able to play better and make more money. BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL GAMBLING! No if ands or buts about it.
If you want to continue with the whole "im not a gambler" routine that's ok but you will always be a moron. Just as much as Earth is known as a planet, you will be known as a moron.
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from Dackster:
Wots with all this talk of morons and gambling? I'm not a gambler, and the reason i'm not a gambler is because i don't view trading as one trade....like you do.
Your view is moronic, in your view 'everything' is a gamble, which may be so up to a certain point, but you are reasoning at a non-logical or realistic level.
Is your wife on the pill, do you use air travel to go on holiday, do you drive a car,.....do you hide under your bed each day in fear of the biggest gamble....life?
Dackster.
Quote from SCI new york:
I really don't feel like taking this thread too much further because talking to some of you traders is worse than talking to a brick wall. I don't care that you don't think you're gambling, you are and you're an idiot for not thinking so. Every single transaction on this planet that DOES NOT have a guaranteed outcome is in one way shape or form gambling. You can sit there and tag all kinds of names and attachments to it, call it a "business transaction" call it speculation, trading, logical guessing, or any other connotation you want, but its not going to change what is going on. If I go to the store and buy a sandwich for $5 dollars, I know that I spent $5 dollars and I got my sandwich. That is guaranteed. If my friend says to me, hey buy this baseball card because next year it will be worth more next year, that's gambling. YOU seem to think that if you are right on a consistent basis or that you're making money on it readily easy that you are not gambling. Just because it's easy doesn't mean you're not gambling. If I buy that baseball card and then next year no one cares about baseball, I can't sell it for anything and I lost money. You're thinking "well thats not going to happen so it's not gambling" Obviously the LIKELIHOOD of that happening is extremely low, but there is absolutely NO GUARANTEE to the forseeable and unforseeable future that it may or may not happen, so it is a gamble. You are just hoping that it will be that simple.
Real estate investment= GAMBLE if you dont think so, you are the biggest moron of all and I hope I can meet you to urinate on you because you're ignorance is appauling. Just because there is a large time frame on real estate and for the most part you are able to buy a property at a certain price and at a future date sell it higher with minimal risk to yourself and benefits in the interim such as tax breaks, leverage etc does not mean you're not gambling, it means you believe you are taking less risk than you would in another situation. But unless you were born yesterday REAL ESTATE GOT FUCKED. now because of real estate morons (which i would not be surprised if you are one of) the economy is in a bind.
A trader is a gambler. A SKILLED trader is a gambler who can spot an edge better than a novice trader or a regular joe. An EXPERT trader takes it a step further from a skilled trader and introduces further enhancement, such as larger buying power to be able to manipulate stocks, faster trading systems, other traders that can help with knowledge/research, capital to find information. They all try to have an edge to REDUCE the variables and lower their risk exposure, but they too, just like any and everyone else are prone to being wrong and being on the losing end of trades and losing money. So they are skilled and they trade often and overall they are profitable for the year, but it all came at a certain risk to capital and WAS NOT GUARANTEED, they gambled. They have an edge and they use it.
A person who goes to the casino and plays blackjack gambles. If they sit at a blackjack table for 9 hours and play through 45 shoes and 300 or so hands and overall go home with a profit, does that mean that they didn't gamble? If they can do that throughout the year and at the end of the year be positive are they all of a sudden not gamblers anymore? A regular blackjack player gambles. A blackjack player who has basic strategy memorized and now has an edge takes less risk. A blackjack player who knows basic strategy and counts cards takes even less risk and is able to play better and make more money. BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL GAMBLING! No if ands or buts about it.
If you want to continue with the whole "im not a gambler" routine that's ok but you will always be a moron. Just as much as Earth is known as a planet, you will be known as a moron.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
you place bets on an uncertain outcome...yes it is. Are the MIT card counters that beat vegas in black jack gamblers? or professional traders?..they had an edge, and money management skills, but they still made bets based on probability
who care anyway?
__________________
Greed captures, cuts through, and clarifies the essence of the American spirit
No. But trading, as in gambling, is a game of probability.
Quote from SCI new york:
As I said earlier, you are one of the people in denial. It's ok, you can view it that way, but that doesn't make it any different. The world was flat until someone figured out it was round. You'll wake up sooner or later, probably on the ass end of a trade that you thought you had a great grasp on and were wrong.
I do not live in 'fear' in my life, its just fact. I could get on a plane and crash. I could pick my nose and get a nosebleed, I can buy aapl at 50 and sell it at 60. They can all happen. They can not happen also. That is chance. It doesn't mean that I'm going to drastically change my life, but I am not naive enough to sit around with a chip on my shoulder thinking that those things don't happen. I never mentioned trading as a single trade, I even explained it in a larger scale, but it doesn't change the fact that you are taking a chance with an unexpected result. So call it what you want to make yourself feel better about it or get your little card laminated and tell all the little girls out there at the bar that you are a Professional Trader and whatever other horseshit you want to spill but you spend time in front of a computer buying and selling letters and numbers all day in order to have more money than you had before you started. There are professional poker players out there who also consider poker not gambling, do you believe them too? There are very skilled players who almost seem like they KNOW the cards, and they may be right a large majority of the time which turns out to make them a lot of money. But there is still the chance that they are wrong on a hand or pot or tournament and they lose. They gamble, no matter how skilled or increased edge they have.
Say what you want, think what you want but I haven't seen any logic or fact that can disprove trading is gambling. Apparently some of you feel it's an 'opinion' or choice to call it gambling. Call it what you want. If you're a real trader you know how the game is and you know you're taking a risk no matter how calculated it is and you know that you're gambling.
You go skydiving-you gamble with your life. Is it fun? ABSOLUTELY! is it likely that you will die? of course not. CAN it happen? yes.
If XYZ has reported year over year growth over 20% and earnings are reporting AMC and you trade the stock because you see everyone buying it up and you cover .50 higher and made a nice profit mean you didn't just gamble? Oh I'm sorry, you made an educated trade somehow KNOWING the stock would push higher. You KNEW it would go higher. Well if you believe that, then I guess you can start guaranteeing me stock picks going higher? Tell me now, I would love to start having guarantees in the stock market.
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from Dackster:
You are very naive, SCI new york. You go ahead and cope with life in your own little way. Goodluck.
Dackster.
Please post a link where you have read that trading is gambling, TY!
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Dackster:
Wots with all this talk of morons and gambling? I'm not a gambler, and the reason i'm not a gambler is because i don't view trading as one trade....like you do.
Dackster.
I am confused. To gamble you need two sides, the gambler and the house. Both sides are involved but only one is gambling. The side without the edge is taking a chance. The house is also taking a chance but as long as there is guarantee of a "long run" the house will be OK and one will not consider that the house is gambling. The gambler having negative expectancy will loose in long run. The only chance the gambler has is to take a shot and if he wins to run for the hills and never try again.
have u even read this thread at all?
negative expectancy is NOT a prerequisite for gambling
Trading is not officially recognised as a gambling activity, there is simply no denial of this fact.
But if you are after opinions, then you can argue all you like & as some have quite rightly pointed out - it doesn't matter what you consider it to be, as what you consider it to be & what it is recognised as are 2 different things.
http://www.investorguide.com/gambling-vs-investing.cgi
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from frozzor:
have u even read this thread at all?
negative expectancy is NOT a prerequisite for gambling
Quote from ivanbaj:
Driving a car is gambling.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
LOL
Quote from ivanbaj:
Check your chance of getting in a serious car accident in your area. Let me know how you feel about the number you get. IMO it will be worst than bunch of games in Vegas clearly accepted as gambling. Driving a car is gambling in South CA for sure.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
Risk & gamble may be of synonymous nature (in some dictionaries), though are not the same. You are talking about risk
Quote from SCI new york:
Main Entry: 1risk
Pronunciation: \ˈrisk\
Function: noun
Etymology: French risque, from Italian risco
Date: circa 1661
1: possibility of loss or injury : peril
2: someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard
3 a: the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract ; also : the degree of probability of such loss b: a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer c: an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source
4: the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
You Sir, at the very least owe me a link to where it states that trading is gambling. So far all your posts are based on your opinion, in which you exclude a possibility of being mistaken
Quote from JSSPMK:
You Sir, at the very least owe me a link to where it states that trading is gambling. So far all your posts are based on your opinion, in which you exclude a possibility of being mistaken
__________________
Dackster.
SCI, you are wrong. Officially trading is not classed as gambling, that is not an opinion, but a fact.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
SCI, you are wrong. Officially trading is not classed as gambling, that is not an opinion, but a fact.
Our governments have made it a fact, you can e-mail your opinions to the IRS for instance, see what they say to you.
Quote from SCI new york:
gam⋅ble /ˈgæmbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [gam-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -bled, -bling, noun
verb (used without object) 1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.
verb (used with object) 3. to lose or squander by betting (usually fol. by away): He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.
4. to wager or risk (money or something else of value): to gamble one's freedom.
5. to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.
noun 6. any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes, esp. for high stakes.
in⋅vest /ɪnˈvɛst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-vest] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb (used with object) 1. to put (money) to use, by purchase or expenditure, in something offering potential profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value.
2. to use (money), as in accumulating something: to invest large sums in books.
3. to use, give, or devote (time, talent, etc.), as for a purpose or to achieve something: He invested a lot of time in helping retarded children.
verb (used without object) 14. to invest money; make an investment: to invest in oil stock.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
11501200; ME gamenen to play (OE gamenian), with substitution of -le for -en; see game
Prove to me where it is FACT and not an opinion. It may be thought out and accepted as not gambling, but that doesn't make it so.
Do you believe in the theory of evolution? or that humans came from a higher power? There are arguments on all sides but no complete facts with 100% certainty.
What is accepted as common knowledge and what is 100% fact are very different.
Again, believe what you want. Most will agree trading is gambling. I truly feel that if you don't think that you are naive and just kidding yourself. If that's what makes you feel better about being a trader, then by all means, fool yourself into believing you do not gamble. But you do. Investing never has a guarantee. If you can start guranateeing trades then you are not gambling. But since you can not do that, you are putting your money at risk for a reward, taking a chance. Sometimes you take very little risk, sometimes you take larger risk, but it is always there and there is always a chance that you will be wrong and lose money. Wether you want to believe it or not, that is a gamble. Just because you feel you are taking less risk trading the stock market as opposed to say playing roulette does not change anything other than your disolusinoal thought process. Yes it is widely accepted that trading is not gambling. But it is not fact. Ask real traders and they will tell you it's just as much gambling as rolling the dice, you just can have an edge. Most people who gamble do so for fun or are degenerates. Some actually do it for a living and learn how to have an edge.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
Our governments have made it a fact, you can e-mail your opinions to the IRS for instance, see what they say to you.
Quote from SCI new york:
So you're the type of guy that goes with whatever the government says? What does that mean to me. So you're saying in the government's opinion it is not considered gambling. Does that make it 100% fact? No. It is ACCEPTED to not be gambling. Just that. It's quite simple. Did you graduate grade school? I don't understand how it is so difficult for many of you to grasp the concept. No wonder why you're still in disbelief. You do know that the easter bunny doesn't exist right? Santa clause doesn't ride a sleigh with flying reigndeer, and trading no matter what you care to make yourself believe is gambling.
Quote from ivanbaj:
Just curious. Do you believe that your trading system has an edge? What is this number for you:
Win% * AverageWin / (1-win%) * AverageLoss
Let's say for your last 60 trades.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Investing - Yes. A good trader uses proper Money Management and is in total control. That is if you don't hold anything overnight in this wacked market
Good Luck.
Quote from dt.trader:
Investing - Yes. A good trader uses proper Money Management and is in total control. That is if you don't hold anything overnight in this wacked market
Good Luck.
Quote from ElCubano:
edge smedge....I garauntee that the sun will rise tomm. Can your edge garauntee you positive money at the end of 60 trades??? nope , even if it does it can not be gauranteed...again gambling falls under a huge spectrum. All you can do is put odds/edge/whatever u want to cal it ,in ur favor and then let it roll....that in essence is a gamble.
Quote from ivanbaj:
In that case you will say that the casinos in Vegas are gambling. They can't guarantee their edge for the next X days.
The same for the insurance companies.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
Quote from nyustudent:
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from nyustudent:
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
FUUNNEE
Quote from nyustudent:
Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from nyustudent:
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
Quote from SCI new york:
First of all rookie, who are YOU and how much trading do YOU do?
Sencond haven't you heard the expression those who can't do, teach?
Quote from nyustudent:
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
__________________
Dackster.
Gambling: is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.
Sounds like trading, but please people keep it up, this is a very entertaining thread!
P.S.: To classify as gambling you don't always need the house. If we keep betting between you and me on coinflips that is still gambling without the presence of the house.
In trading the house would be, of course your broker...
Quote from nyustudent:
I don't need to do any trading at all to be able to answer a question as simple as the one asked on this thread. Its like a kindergarten level question thats not even a difficult question, or one in which there is really any debate on. Its been written about many many times in many books, journals, and research papers by many respectable people most of which you can find at any respectable university library. All you're really doing is proving that you don't know what you're talking about.
I would actually respond to the rest of what you wrote and to the two knuckle-heads who posted that meaningless drivel before you if I thought that your posts were anything more than a childish hoax. Obviously you guys aren't real traders because real traders wouldn't be making arguments that are contrary to positions that almost every other educated person who is qualified to speak on this topic has taken. Also, if your trading careers were anything more than either pathetic or non-existent, I think you would probably be focusing on trading and making money in the middle of the trading day instead of spouting your ignorance on some stupid message board.
You, and the users who posted right before you, remind me of those types of people who believe puns when people say them. Its like at some point in your lives you heard someone say that life was a gamble, and ever since then you actually believed it -- literally.
Quote from Pekelo:
Gambling: is the wagering of money or something of material value on an event with an uncertain outcome with the primary intent of winning additional money and/or material goods.
Sounds like trading, but please people keep it up, this is a very entertaining thread!
P.S.: To classify as gambling you don't always need the house. If we keep betting between you and me on coinflips that is still gambling without the presence of the house.
In trading the house would be, of course your broker...
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from SCI new york:
You're a moron, take it deep. [/B]
Quote from SCI new york:
If it's such a simple question, why haven't you answered it genius?
Just because people trade doesn't mean they are chopping away all day and scalping, some traders look for opportunities and don't need to sit at their screen all day. Others don't even need to do that because they are setting position trades for a longer period and do research and study chart patterns. You clearly have no idea what it's like to be a trader and what traders do so don't try to assume anything about any of us when you probably don't even own stocks. You just registered on here today and you insult the intelligence and aptitude of the traders here when you are still a shmuck kid in college. You wouldn't know a proper chart pattern if it face fucked you. So don't come on here with your pompus attitude and think you're better than anyone. Talk all your gibberish with your hack professors about theories and pyscholgies of economies and giving yourself handjobs at night and do everyone a favor and stop posting. your time is better spent watching porn and giving yourself rugburn. You offer no insight or intelligence on here, and lack any self thought. If you want to regurgitate that horeshit your teachers give you, grab a cup and hang around penn station and preach economics in front of dunkin donuts. Your aggression on here shows your immaturity and naievity. Maybe you should sign up for one of those reality shows like TOOL academy, or maybe a new one, college hacks.
You're a moron, take it deep.
somebody better call websters then....considering there is no risk of losing capital in trading...
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
NYU
1) can you garauntee that the outcome of 500,000 consecutive trades over the course of many years will be a positive outcome?? when you are done answering that...print it and shove it up your professor's ass....good day
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
NYU
1) can you garauntee that the outcome of 500,000 consecutive trades over the course of many years will be a positive outcome?? when you are done answering that...print it and shove it up your professor's ass....good day
is being a prick really being a prick?
Quote from SCI new york:
First of all rookie, who are YOU and how much trading do YOU do?
Sencond haven't you heard the expression those who can't do, teach? You realize your PhD, masters in 47 different bullshit topic professors are not traders, right? Have they ever even been involved in trading? Have they ever been in the pits? Just because a guy buys a few shares of GE in his little scottrade account all of a sudden he thinks hes warren buffets protege. Those professors feed off all kinds of horseshit about economics and whatever other shit that they read in a book from some other hack who couldnt handle trading and be successful so he got a PhD and wrote books. Their opinion matters about as much as asking a toddler for advice on the market. Your the biggest fool for spending all that money on a college education that you could have gotten at the public library.
This forum isnt filled with idiots, although it does have some. If you can tell the difference there are great people and loads of information to learn that is useful for traders. If you can't see the difference then you're a hack and get yourself a masters and a kardigan sweater and write a book on the failed economics and banking structure of corporate america and become a teacher because you couldn't possibly last as a trader.
I may make a jab here and there at some guys, but I don't do it with malice. People have thier opinions and I have mine, its a discussion forum. You want to come in here and insult people and thier lack of knowledge/education when you have no idea what you're getting into. If you're not a trader, don't waste your time being one, you won't last. Donate that money to a charity or something, do something good with it. If you are a trader, thank you for being an ATM for the rest of us. And you're an idiot.
Quote from nyustudent:
Oh, you must be one of those baboons that the previous poster was referring to. Can you please speak up a little louder because I can't hear you while you're banging your cage so loudly.
And when you finally evolve and do things like grow thumbs and learn how to read, you can go back and read my original post and realize that I did answer the question. Its not my fault that you can't understand what you read.
And nice try trying to pass yourself off as a trader -- although I guess technically the correct term would be trade monkey in your case. I don't think you're fooling too many people, but its entertaining to see you try. Make sure to reward yourself with a banana at some point before you go take your nap.
Quote from Pekelo:
P.S.: To classify as gambling you don't always need the house. If we keep betting between you and me on coinflips that is still gambling without the presence of the house.
In trading the house would be, of course your broker... [/B]
Quote from ElCubano:
NYU
1) can you garauntee that the outcome of 500,000 consecutive trades over the course of many years will be a positive outcome?? when you are done answering that...print it and shove it up your professor's ass....good day
so your rants are a contribution?
Quote from SCI new york:
Do you even really go to NYU or is that as much horeshit as you being involved in equity markets? What makes you the expert?
You come on here insulting people and babbling on about this and that because your professor let you get a mouthful of his nuts, but you know nothing about the markets, and even less knowledge about trading. So since you are resorting to such childish insults, you show even more how little you know and how naive you are. It's ok kiddo, dont worry. I'm sure your mommy will wipe your ass for you some more. But when you grow up and you want to actually think for yourself and get involved in things like trading, try contributing something real before being a douchebag.
Quote from nyustudent:
Wow, you really don't understand statistics or the meaning of the word gamble do you. That is one of the most random and irrelevant statements a person could make in the middle of this discussion. I guess you must have run out of legitimate arguments and are just grasping at straws at this point.
I'm not going to pick on you that much though because I feel bad for you. I can tell by the way you write that you're not formally educated like the other posters who are demonstrating that they've at least been to college (I mean they probably didn't graduate and only went to attend the frat parties, but at least they went). I think there is a good chance that you're just trying to fit in with the others.
But it would be helpful for someone with your education level to at least look up the meaning of some of these words in the dictionary that you're relying on, because its obvious that you don't know what the word gamble means. I know its a little larger than the usual monosyllabic words that you're used to grunting, but if you're going to masquerade as a trader for halloween with your friends you should at least learn to make it convincing.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from nyustudent:
Wow, you really don't understand statistics or the meaning of the word gamble do you. That is one of the most random and irrelevant statements a person could make in the middle of this discussion. I guess you must have run out of legitimate arguments and are just grasping at straws at this point.
I'm not going to pick on you that much though because I feel bad for you. I can tell by the way you write that you're not formally educated like the other posters who are demonstrating that they've at least been to college (I mean they probably didn't graduate and only went to attend the frat parties, but at least they went). I think there is a good chance that you're just trying to fit in with the others.
But it would be helpful for someone with your education level to at least look up the meaning of some of these words in the dictionary that you're relying on, because its obvious that you don't know what the word gamble means. I know its a little larger than the usual monosyllabic words that you're used to grunting, but if you're going to masquerade as a trader for halloween with your friends you should at least learn to make it convincing.
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from SCI new york:
Do you even really go to NYU or is that as much horeshit as you being involved in equity markets? What makes you the expert?
You come on here insulting people and babbling on about this and that because your professor let you get a mouthful of his nuts, but you know nothing about the markets, and even less knowledge about trading. So since you are resorting to such childish insults, you show even more how little you know and how naive you are. It's ok kiddo, dont worry. I'm sure your mommy will wipe your ass for you some more. But when you grow up and you want to actually think for yourself and get involved in things like trading, try contributing something real before being a douchebag.
Quote from Dackster:
Please,
Don't think you will be leaving this thread empty handed and bemused by some of the contributions, you have actually learned something about retail trading.
Some people actually believe they are gambling when trading...
It's not really that suprising is it?
Dackster.
Another poll's results, majority rules - not gambling LOL
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/poll....lts&pollid=1767
Quote from Don Bright:
"I say" - " a lot of discussion about something that is really a personal opinion at best. Some trades are gambles, plain and simple...some are "calculated risks" (not much better), and some "trading" (vs. single trade) is a logical, rational approach to participating in the marketplace.
I count cards (not really gambling in the long run). I "gamble" on occasion when grabbing a couple thousand shares of a stock I know little about ...."just because" (gap down, gap up, "shouldn't go any lower/higher)... experience tends to lead to better "gambles" - but my primary trading is what I consider simple active participation from a position of strength (capital, education, experience, all the "good stuff").
FWIW,
Don
Quote from FuturesTrader71:
I know this has been posted before, but the word gambling is a bit of a general term:
[/i]
It all depends on your definition and perception of gambling. Based on this definition, can you think of anyone who has made money without taking some sort of a gamble?
Will buying an investment property to flip it and sell it for a profit a gamble? Aren't there adverse possibilities in the odds for or against that profit?
How about driving a truck for a living? Is that a gamble? You can quantify the probability of an accident and mortality rates? Is that a gamble?
How about starting a business? If you are not 100% guaranteed success and a positive outcome, then you must be gambling. Right?
The word gambling has the same taste in people's mouths as the word greed. They are both facts of life except when pursued recklessly and an in excess.
Just a few thoughts....[/B]
Quote from Businessman:
All businesses have an uncertainty/gambling element, trading
is no different.
If you open a shop and it doesnt turn out to be viable are you
gambler?
The reason that people equate trading with gambling is that its
easy to slip into reckless gambling mode at any moment if you
havent learnt to do it properly.
Quote from TraderRobb:
Would you consider owning a casino gambling?
The odds are in your favor but you can still lose. Does a chance of loss imply gambling? Not if the odds are in your favor.
Quote from Don Bright:
Gamble, Schamble, what the heck else are any of us qualified for?
If bank account is higher at month end, then all is good with the World.
I think that consistency can help define whether something is a gamble or not. My brother started "gambling" with card counting back in the 1970's, made big money consistently, went to the stock market, made some, lost some, then made it consistently...
Make Money= Good No Make Money = bad.
(I hate to get so technical, but you know how I am, LOL).
Don
Quote from mrmoose:
why is my buying a stock at 30.00 and hoping to sell it at 30,25 gambling but my buying a shirt at 5 dollers and hoping to sell it in a store for a profit not gambling?
Quote from Johnnie T-Bond:
Gambling is playing a game when the odds of success are less than 50:50, i.e. casino gambling. Speculating is playing a game when the odds of success are greater than 50:50, i.e. trading a proven system using correct money management parameters and strong personal discipline. When a trader is using a proven system he is essentially rolling loaded dice and will make money over time as long as he keeps his risk exposure low - in the 1 to 2 % range per trade. While every trade considered by itself will be forever uncertain in the short-term, the trader's long-term success will be assured if he has the guts and confidence to follow a proven system religiously. Unfortunately, not too many traders seem to have developed the "right stuff" to do this and end up losing money by gambling instead of making money by speculating intelligently. Trading is a very hard business and many traders seem unwilling to invest the many years it takes to evolve from gambling and losing money to speculating and earning a great living.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from nyustudent:
Oh I have learned something -- I've certainly learned why traders have such a bad reputation -- because there are posers on message boards pretending to be traders while the real traders are off earning a living. Do these guys run off and hide when the traders come home at the end of the day or do they stay to rub their feet and get their drinks?
Quote from Johnnie T-Bond:
Gambling is playing a game when the odds of success are less than 50:50, i.e. casino gambling. Speculating is playing a game when the odds of success are greater than 50:50, i.e. trading a proven system using correct money management parameters and strong personal discipline. When a trader is using a proven system he is essentially rolling loaded dice and will make money over time as long as he keeps his risk exposure low - in the 1 to 2 % range per trade. While every trade considered by itself will be forever uncertain in the short-term, the trader's long-term success will be assured if he has the guts and confidence to follow a proven system religiously. Unfortunately, not too many traders seem to have developed the "right stuff" to do this and end up losing money by gambling instead of making money by speculating intelligently. Trading is a very hard business and many traders seem unwilling to invest the many years it takes to evolve from gambling and losing money to speculating and earning a great living.
This entire post is opinion. That is fact.
that post moes away from the pure activity of buying or selling,taking a gamble,if a horse bettor can read the sheets,or a card player knows the odds ,they increase their chances,but they are still gambling,i prefer to trade because of the edges you can find,but its still a gamble
Quote from ElCubano:
NYU
1) can you garauntee that the outcome of 500,000 consecutive trades over the course of many years will be a positive outcome??
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
Take 1 event:
If you make a gambling type bet there is no way to guarantee that you won't lose your stake. On the other hand it is possible to put on a trade & guarantee that nothing will be lost
Some will be scratching their heads right about now
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
and nothing will be gained....in the end you will lose to the house, unless you are paper-trading like NYU
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
No risk=not a gamble, obviously not a lucrative proposition, though I believe I just proved that trading is not gambling, though it can be.
Hopefully, you know which type of a trade I am referring to.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
then with that logic you could say since most trades carry some risk in order to have some gain trading then must be GAMBLING....
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
You are twisting words now. It's simple, in trading it is possible to eliminate risk of a loss, in gambling games it's impossible to achieve.
I can eliminate risk by keeping it in the bank whats your point and even then, as we can clearly see by recent events , can in itself be a huge gamble
I know what you mean and what you are trying to express, but you yourself said
"no risk = no gamble" and im saying therefore "risk = gamble"..maybe you can divuldge your edge and show us some riskless trades.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from SCI new york:
Do you even know how traders work? what they do? Or do you think because you put on cnbc in the morning and have a flat panel monitor that you are george soros?
You read the alchemy of finance and you all of a sudden have a complete grasp on all capital markets are you can start trading palladium and the nikkei in your spare time and make a zillion dollars from a thousand dollar e trade account. Your teacher told you to read market wizards and now you're nick leeson.
You read the books by the "experts" but you don't understand how things work in the trading world. If nick leeson would have been correct in his trading and made 1.3 billion dollars for barings he'd be an expert too, but because he lost it, hes a gambler/fool. T boone pickens is an oil "expert" but in truth he's just a guy that got lucky and hit it big. Now everyone thinks hes an oil God when he's not, hes a regular guy and doesn't have any special skills. He's also the so called "genius" that said oil was going to $200. Yea, REAL expert. If you want to go by what those guys say go ahead, I love seeing guys like you zero their accounts. You have no idea who I am and what I do, the amount I trade, how I trade or anything about my business nor anyone else's on this forum. So other than your little fans on here, you're still an infidel. You are a rookie in every sense and know nothing. This thread is about the correlation between gambling and trading, not your pathetic excuse for help or lack of knowledge other than your overuse of your econ 101 terms that you want to abuse. You have made no valid input into this thread and you are a waste of life. You are the poster child for abortion.
Trading is gambling. You can belive it, or you can not believe it. You can not disprove it. Links can be posted showing OPINIONS, and what is accepted to be common knowledge. But NO FACTS.
I have laid out clearly the definitions of risk, gambling, and investing in this thread. It should be clear if you can comprehend english that trading is a form of gambling. If you choose to belive otherwise go ahead, but that doesn't make you right.
I've grown tired of your mindless posts and weak arguments. Grow up kiddo. Finish up your little degree so it can do nothing for you. Keep trading that thousand dollars in your etrade account and buy your 5 shares of apple and think of yourself as knowing what its like to be a trader.
Quote from nyustudent:
Oh, I believe that you've grown tired of talking about this, but its because you're probably starting to finally realize how you continue to contradict yourself over and over again. On one hand you say that no matter what is said in regards to trading being gambling its an opinion and it can neither be proven nor disproven, and then you immediately follow it up with a blanket statement like "trading is gambling, thats that, and you can either believe it or not." But how can this be true? According to you who knows so much there are no facts in regards to this subject, only opinions that can't be proven or disproven. Or is that only when its convenient for you and your pathetically constructed arguments?
I've noticed that a lot of other users have consistently asked you for information, links, definitions, and sources to help support some of these arguments. I have also noticed that even though many users on the other side of the argument have properly documented their arguments, you conveniently never post anything. Could it be because there is no credible source out there for you to reference?
And I may just be some lowly college student working on my masters who isn't as good at pretending to be a trader as you are, but at least I can spell simple 3rd grade vocabulary words like "believe" properly. I would tell you that I learned in school that "belive" is actually not a word, but I don't think you'd "believe" me about that either. Just out of curiosity where were you when they taught "I before E except after C" in grade school? Let me guess, you were busy pretending to be a trader?
Bottom line is you're either a hack or you're a fraud. You're just making up nonsense and probably had no right even posting on this thread in the first place. But you did, it was a mistake, and now you've got to try to figure out a way to save face without having to admit you were wrong. But unfortunately, in this case, you're worse than wrong -- you're a hypocrite talking out of both sides of your mouth. So good, bow out now and be gone. Me, a lowly college student working on his masters, who has never traded a day in his life, has more right posting on this thread than you do anyways. You've been in over your head for a while now -- or do you spell it "hed" ?
Quote from ivanbaj:
So what keeps you going? Do you just ride your luck as long as it will go? What will be the sign the one should stop trading?
Quote from nyustudent:
Oh, I believe that you've grown tired of talking about this, but its because you're probably starting to finally realize how you continue to contradict yourself over and over again. On one hand you say that no matter what is said in regards to trading being gambling its an opinion and it can neither be proven nor disproven, and then you immediately follow it up with a blanket statement like "trading is gambling, thats that, and you can either believe it or not." But how can this be true? According to you who knows so much there are no facts in regards to this subject, only opinions that can't be proven or disproven. Or is that only when its convenient for you and your pathetically constructed arguments?
I've noticed that a lot of other users have consistently asked you for information, links, definitions, and sources to help support some of these arguments. I have also noticed that even though many users on the other side of the argument have properly documented their arguments, you conveniently never post anything. Could it be because there is no credible source out there for you to reference?
And I may just be some lowly college student working on my masters who isn't as good at pretending to be a trader as you are, but at least I can spell simple 3rd grade vocabulary words like "believe" properly. I would tell you that I learned in school that "belive" is actually not a word, but I don't think you'd "believe" me about that either. Just out of curiosity where were you when they taught "I before E except after C" in grade school? Let me guess, you were busy pretending to be a trader?
Bottom line is you're either a hack or you're a fraud. You're just making up nonsense and probably had no right even posting on this thread in the first place. But you did, it was a mistake, and now you've got to try to figure out a way to save face without having to admit you were wrong. But unfortunately, in this case, you're worse than wrong -- you're a hypocrite talking out of both sides of your mouth. So good, bow out now and be gone. Me, a lowly college student working on his masters, who has never traded a day in his life, has more right posting on this thread than you do anyways. You've been in over your head for a while now -- or do you spell it "hed" ?
everything in life is gambling.. weighing the risk and return on any decision you make. just trading gives you option to make strategic decisions that give you better probability over than simply red or black. understand how human emotion applies to the equity markets should give you an edge over the person next to you.
Quote from SCI new york:
LOL
I love how serious you are. It makes your bullshit even funnier. And you are definitely a lowly college student. You have a chip on your shoulder on a trading forum when you know nothing about trading. If you bother to read through all of the posts on this thread I would like you to show me any FACTS regarding trading to gambling. Nothing shown has been a pure fact. Do you know what a fact is college boy?
I guess the new generation of telephone tough guy is on the computer.
or rather, telafone tuff guy.
I've traded more in assets than you've had to pay in tuition, so don't talk to me about trading when you have never been on a trading floor or worked a trading desk. You don't even know what a clearing firm does. So do everyone a favor, turn off your monitor and read a book on biology and go to a forum and argue the theory of evolution and mumble your horeshit conclusions over there.
I said trading is gambling. If you don't think it's true, I'm not putting a gun to your head. I think the argument is pathetically weak on your side tying to disprove that and no links or bullshit on this thread has proven it either. I don't know what your reading, but you have yet to cite facts as well, just moronic arguments and a few college words you just learned and felt like trying out with some adults. Have fun doing nothing with your NYU education and even more fun losing your money in stocks.
Chatting on ET is like being in a bar during spring break in New Orleans without the benefit of booze and boob flashing. Just noise and few reasonable voices that a tough to hear.
Quote from Jachyra:
That was a pretty weak comeback. I think college boy wins round 1.
And I kinda think he's onto something. You really don't sound much like a real trader to me either. Although you are very good at being rude.
Quote from ivanbaj:
Chatting on ET is like being in a bar during spring break in New Orleans without the benefit of booze and boob flashing. Just noise and few reasonable voices that a tough to hear.
Quote from SCI new york:
LOL
I love how serious you are. It makes your bullshit even funnier. And you are definitely a lowly college student. You have a chip on your shoulder on a trading forum when you know nothing about trading. If you bother to read through all of the posts on this thread I would like you to show me any FACTS regarding trading to gambling. Nothing shown has been a pure fact. Do you know what a fact is college boy?
I guess the new generation of telephone tough guy is on the computer.
or rather, telafone tuff guy.
I've traded more in assets than you've had to pay in tuition, so don't talk to me about trading when you have never been on a trading floor or worked a trading desk. You don't even know what a clearing firm does. So do everyone a favor, turn off your monitor and read a book on biology and go to a forum and argue the theory of evolution and mumble your horeshit conclusions over there.
I said trading is gambling. If you don't think it's true, I'm not putting a gun to your head. I think the argument is pathetically weak on your side tying to disprove that and no links or bullshit on this thread has proven it either. I don't know what your reading, but you have yet to cite facts as well, just moronic arguments and a few college words you just learned and felt like trying out with some adults. Have fun doing nothing with your NYU education and even more fun losing your money in stocks.
A rather rude example if I may, saying gambling is trading (just because the outcome is uncertain) is like saying making love is the same as jerking off because you get the same sensation inside your penis therefore anyone having sex is jerking off or jerking off is making love to your own penis?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
gambling is trading (just because the outcome is uncertain) is like saying making love is the same as jerking off
Quote from JSSPMK:
A rather rude example if I may, saying gambling is trading (just because the outcome is uncertain) is like saying making love is the same as jerking off because you get the same sensation inside your penis therefore anyone having sex is jerking off or jerking off is making love to your own penis?
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from JSSPMK:
Apples & oranges. Your question was whether TRADING is gambling, not 1 random trade. You can trade profitably with pretty low win rate anyway. Just because some trades end up as losses it doesn't make the whole line of events consisting of wins & losses a gambling activity. Not in my book
Quote from ivanbaj:
I am confused. To gamble you need two sides, the gambler and the house. Both sides are involved but only one is gambling. The side without the edge is taking a chance. The house is also taking a chance but as long as there is guarantee of a "long run" the house will be OK and one will not consider that the house is gambling. The gambler having negative expectancy will loose in long run. The only chance the gambler has is to take a shot and if he wins to run for the hills and never try again.
Quote from nyustudent:
What a joke -- I've been monitoring these forums for a while now since I first found this site from a google search back in November. For a while, I thought there were people on this board who knew what they were talking about, but now that I've read through this thread I know that isn't the case.
Being a student at NYU, and being in New York, a lot of students here are very interested in the markets and this a subject that comes up a lot in classes. Last year I took a statistical theory course and a decision theory course, and this semester I'm taking a general equilibrium theory course, and this question has come up on more than one occasion in all three courses during group discussions. I can tell you that no Professor I have ever had has ever taken the position that trading is gambling. All of them have said that at best, trading has several similarities to gambling -- but nothing more. There was even an entire chapter in one of my old text books that touched reasonably well on this subject, and it layed out very clearly the differences between the two.
So for all of you on this thread who have been harassed by the so-called experts who think trading is gambling, stay strong, don't be swayed by uneducated individuals who are more interested in picking fights than learning the truth, and take some comfort in the fact that there are a lot of very educated professors with PhD's who teach at NYU who would not only completely agree with you, but would scoff at their opinions and would write them off as nothing more than lay opinions from people who don't understand the nuances of higher level thinking -- not to mention mathematics and statistics
Quote from JSSPMK:
You are twisting words now. It's simple, in trading it is possible to eliminate risk of a loss, in gambling games it's impossible to achieve.
Quote from Jachyra:
BURNNNNNN!!!!!
Way to go kid that was awesome! If you can see through their lies and bull you'll do just fine in the markets.
Quote from Pekelo:
Just because trading classifies as gambling that doesn't mean one can not be skillfull or can not make a living out of it.
After all, there are pro pokerplayers too. The whole trick is to bend the probabilities in your favour (aka having an edge) and trade only when the opportunity arise.
Now there are certain kind of gambling where you can not increase the probabilities of your winning unless you play more, like lottery. On the other hand if you know a lot about horses or sport teams (just like stocks or TA) you can increase the odds in your favour...
Quote from JSSPMK:
Another poll's results, majority rules - not gambling LOL
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/poll....lts&pollid=1767
-------------------------
---------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Quote from nysestocks:
All I will say is, what did you expect
;__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
mostly it like the gambling, cause it is risky, in some way, it is not like risky, it is the equal business over the world!
__________________
nothing is impossible
Quote from nysestocks:
Being profitable or not has nothing to do with it!
I can't believe how so many so called "elite" traders are blind to the facts!
If you push a stone up a hill, and then let go, what do you think will happen!
Why would a trader not want to admit to himself/herself that trading is gambling?
1. Insecure
2. Not able to face facts
3. Not able to make a logical deduction
4. Not able to confront reality
5. Not able to understand and reach the higher levels of professional gambling, and all that goes with it!
Market is random. But in the long term if you analyze the underlying factors that affect the instruments that you want to trade, then you put the odds in your favor and more important, with a proper management you can say that you have a business wich is not based on luck. So, for me, trading is not gambling BUT market is random. And one think in particulary wich separate trading from gambling is that in trading you can have a very flexible management and you can use a trading plan, you can use scaling in/out wich for a trend trader is very important. And of course in gambling you can't do that.
Bottom line, if you treat trading as a business then you are a trader, and if you don't treat it as a business, then you are a gambler.
Sry for my writing mistakes but english is my second language. Have a nice day.
Quote from Malstrom:
Market is random. But in the long term if you analyze the underlying factors that affect the instruments that you want to trade, then you put the odds in your favor and more important, with a proper management you can say that you have a business wich is not based on luck. So, for me, trading is not gambling BUT market is random. And one think in particulary wich separate trading from gambling is that in trading you can have a very flexible management and you can use a trading plan, you can use scaling in/out wich for a trend trader is very important. And of course in gambling you can't do that.
Bottom line, if you treat trading as a business then you are a trader, and if you don't treat it as a business, then you are a gambler.
Sry for my writing mistakes but english is my second language. Have a nice day.
It's very interesting that we've had 40+ pages of debate over the precise meaning of the word "gambling", when as far as I can tell, it doesn't have a precise meaning.
We have one group of posters who seem to be very concerned that we all use the broadest definition of the word, which encompasses all risk-taking, even though this renders the question of whether trading is gambling completely pointless.
Then we have another group who seem to be personally insulted at the suggestion that trading might be considered gambling. They seem to be using the most pejorative connotation of the word in relation to the poll question.
I only saw one post with the correct answer to the question, which is "Who gives a shit!"
Quote from Malstrom:
Market is random.
Quote from euclid:
"Who gives a shit!"
Yes, and as with all things in life, some do it better than others.
If you believe that trading is gambling, you can make money.
If you believe that trading is not gambling, you can make money.
Define gambling and you can find the answer you desperately want.
If it wasn't gambling it would have a much higher success rate. Are there edges where we can eliminate risk? of course, front running or inside info or even the super mcduper holy grail....since some do it better than others like capt. obvious said these guys stand out in consistency,,,, but most gurus have just been on the right side of the right trade at the right time....peace
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
Define gambling and you can find the answer you desperately want.
Quote from Pekelo:
Then why do you post in this thread?
Obviously traders who didn't know they were gamblers do.
The answer is really simple and was presented several times already. It is basicly a semantic/grammar question.
Is X an Y? Is this newly discovered plant a fruit? (or might be a vegetable?)
We just look at the characteristic/definition of fruit/gambling and if it fits, the answer is yes.
End of story...
P.S.: Is tomato a fruit? Most people would say it is a vegetable (me too), and by definition, they would be wrong:
"Botanically, a tomato is the ovary, together with its seeds, of a flowering plant: therefore it is a fruit or, more precisely, a berry."
tomato is a fruit, perhaps we should start a poll?
Quote from euclid:
Couldn't resist posting. It's the most interesting thread on ET at the moment, but the arguments are getting a little repetitive.
Now, I voted yes in the poll because that is the obvious logical answer given the dictionary definition.
But the term "gambling" is not normally used with such a broad definition. Gambling is usually associated with some form of entertainment, where the negative expectancy is compensated for by the excitement of the gamble. The primary purpose of this type of gambling is entertainment. Trading doesn't fit this usage of the word so well since it's so mind-bogglingly boring.
As for tomatoes. There's no frigging way that a tomato is a fruit and you're a clueless moron for even daring to suggest such a thing.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from smallfishleague:
It depends how you define gambling.
The public misconception is that gambling doesn't require skills. In some way, trading is comparable to gambling in that,
1. There is a big part of it out of your control and subject to luck of God.
2. Equipped with skills, you can win consistently.
Quote from JSSPMK:
tomato is a fruit, perhaps we should start a poll?
Quote from JSSPMK:
2. Majority voted in favour of 'not gambling'
If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.
Dackster.
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from Dackster:
If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.
Dackster.
Quote from ivanbaj:
'insider trading' is illegal. (CaptainObvious is trading right now so I took the liberty to state this.)
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from Dackster:
If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.
Dackster.
Quote from 4444CJones4444:
I don't follow your logic. You can use the same analogy with gambling—buying referees, paying off players, collusion at the poker table, 'inside information' on injured horses or injured players.
__________________
Dackster.
Here's the best I can do in an attempt to provide what I believe is a rational answer:
If by 'gambling' you mean that the participants have less influence over the outcome of the game than the market maker, due to WHATEVER reasons may be (e.g. front running, etc.), then yes.
If not, no.
Quote from Dackster:
If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.
Dackster.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from Dackster:
I don't follow your logic, you can't 'pay off' the market, because the market will react to 'news', only some get the news before the rest of the market.
Dackster.
Do you people read books at all?
Quote from MAESTRO:
Do you people read books at all?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from MAESTRO:
Do you people read books at all?
Quote from MAESTRO:
Do you people read books at all?
Quote from Jachyra:
Personally, I would love to hear your official opinion on this topic... although I think I have a pretty good idea what you're going to say (if anything at all).
Quote from MAESTRO:
This is my "official" opinion:
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Gambli...d/dp/012240761X
there is no need to rediscover the wheel!
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
so you agree trading is gambling???
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from ElCubano:
so you agree trading is gambling???
Quote from JSSPMK:
He doesn't, didn't you read that book?
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
no i didnt read "The theory of GAMBLING and statistical logic"....
Quote from MAESTRO:
Do you people read books at all?
Quote from Jachyra:
You judged the contents of a book by the title on the cover? You know, its too bad there isn't some famous saying or pun advising people against doing that.
FYI, if you don't already have that book on your shelf, and haven't already read it multiple times, perhaps thats been the problem the entire time that this thread has been in existence.
Quote from Jachyra:
You judged the contents of a book by the title on the cover? You know, its too bad there isn't some famous saying or pun advising people against doing that.
FYI, if you don't already have that book on your shelf, and haven't already read it multiple times, perhaps thats been the problem the entire time that this thread has been in existence.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from MAESTRO:
In a simple language: Placing bets on a coin tossing game played on a fair coin is gambling. But if it is noticed that the coin is "unfair" (has higher probability to land on tails, for example) placing the bets on the higher probability outcome is a statistical game. This gave birth to the term "statistical arbitrage". Overall, traders who place their bets without certain degree of confidence and the knowledge of a sustainable statistical skew are gamblers.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from MAESTRO:
In a simple language: Placing bets on a coin tossing game played on a fair coin is gambling. But if it is noticed that the coin is "unfair" (has higher probability to land on tails, for example) placing the bets on the higher probability outcome is a statistical game. This gave birth to the term "statistical arbitrage". Overall, traders who place their bets without certain degree of confidence and the knowledge of a sustainable statistical skew are gamblers.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from MAESTRO:
In a simple language: Placing bets on a coin tossing game played on a fair coin is gambling. But if it is noticed that the coin is "unfair" (has higher probability to land on tails, for example) placing the bets on the higher probability outcome is a statistical game. This gave birth to the term "statistical arbitrage". Overall, traders who place their bets without certain degree of confidence and the knowledge of a sustainable statistical skew are gamblers.
Quote from Jachyra:
You judged the contents of a book by the title on the cover? You know, its too bad there isn't some famous saying or pun advising people against doing that.
FYI, if you don't already have that book on your shelf, and haven't already read it multiple times, perhaps thats been the problem the entire time that this thread has been in existence.
Quote from ivanbaj:
At the best you will be going from gambling to "statistical arbitrage" and back.
We are all gamblers. No exception.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from BSAM:
Jachyra---
Three questions:
1. Do you trade real money?
2. If you put on a trade, are you certain of a profit?
3. Do you ever have a losing trade?
(These are really simple questions. These are yes or no questions. Just answer each with, yes or no. I don't need one of your long diatribes.)
Jachyra,
now you are wasting time, they don't want to understand what you are saying, they just want to go on making love to their penis
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Jachyra:
1. Yes
2. Of course not but thats irrelevant because trading, gambling, or any business or activity that has to do with odds and statistics is judged not on any single event or opportunity but over many many events and opportunities (the long run)
3. Of course.... even if you have a huge edge like 80% you're still going to lose, on average, 20 times out of 100
And at the risk of going on one of my long diatribes, as you so politely put it, I will point out that not only are your questions irrelevant, as they have nothing to do with whether or not trading is gambling, but they also demonstrate that you're missing the subtle nuance that differentiates trading from gambling that MAESTRO (as well as several others) are trying to make.
Quote from JSSPMK:
Jachyra,
now you are wasting time, they don't want to understand what you are saying, they just want to go on making love to their penis
Over the last 15 - 18 years I have worked with over 300 traders. The best of them were also outstanding poker players! Almost without exception.
Quote from BSAM:
Even though you couldn't resist the diatribe, at least you answered the questions. Thanks.
You're gambling, my little brother.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from BSAM:
Even though you couldn't resist the diatribe, at least you answered the questions. Thanks.
You're gambling, my little brother.
Quote from Jachyra:
Its certainly clear that one of us is gambling.
BTW, you're real good at making strong arguments and backing them up with solid facts. If you ever get tired of gambling in the markets you should consider pursuing a career in being a lawyer -- maybe a prosecutor... trying to get a conviction in this country is always a gamble so you should fit right in.
As a psychologist I am puzzled with one very unpleasant observation. Every thread on ET without any exceptions ends up with mutual insults and immature name calling. It is such a turn off for me. I always wanted to convince you people to carry on a thread without disgusting bullying and imbecile remarks. Can we try it once, just for the heck of it? May be we will like it and carry on without that stupid habit?
Quote from ElCubano:
it's when they string together some wins that they think it isn't gambling, that's all.
Quote from BSAM:
And if you ever get tired of gambling in the markets, you should not become a lawyer, because your bullshit is weak.
Quote from MAESTRO:
As a psychologist I am puzzled with one very unpleasant observation. Every thread on ET without any exceptions ends up with mutual insults and immature name calling. It is such a turn off for me. I always wanted to convince you people to carry on a thread without disgusting bullying and imbecile remarks. Can we try it once, just for the heck of it? May be we will like it and carry on without that stupid habit?
Quote from Jachyra:
Wow, that was so clever.... I am so impressed.... really... You should also consider being a motivational speaker... or perhaps even write a column on proper etiquette and manners.
At this point its not even worth responding to you anymore because obviously basic courtesy and professionalism to others is not something that's important to you and neither is having any meaningful dialogue or conversation about this issue. I think I'll save my responses for those people who are legitimately interested in having a discussion and aren't just saying the same thing over and over again. Or at least for those individuals who have actually read the book that MAESTRO referenced... or any book for that matter regarding this topic.
Quote from Jachyra:
Or at least for those individuals who have actually read the book that MAESTRO referenced... or any book for that matter regarding this topic.
Quote from ElCubano:
did you read it?...please elaborate how the author expalins how the market is not a game of chance. And yes I am going to judge this book by its cover...
I never daid one couln't make money from games of chance I just agreed that trading is gambling....
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
asked 3 or 4 pages ago.
or are you to busy ramming your nose up maestro's ass to answer???
just kidding maestro, I know you wouldnt let him....
Quote from Jachyra:
There isn't any point explaining my opinion or beliefs to you further because (1) you're clearly not interested in hearing anything I have to say or having a productive discussion with anybody who holds opinions contrary to your own, (2) no matter what I say or what you believe, you're clearly committed to responding with the rudest and most inflammatory responses you can dream up just for your own personal entertainment, and (3) I've already answered your questions and have provided my opinion multiple times in my previous posts.
And yes, I have read the book many times, and strongly recommend it to any trader who finds the topic of this thread interesting and is interested in getting a better grasp on this issue. The only reason I didn't reference it sooner was because I strongly suspected guys like you would just grasp onto the word "gambling" in the title and continue to beat that drum over and over again without even bothering to buy the book and read it (which is exactly what ended up happening).
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from Pekelo:
My ass it is.
Overall, I think it was a productive discussion minus a few farts here and there . This subject interests me very much. Gambling often means "addiction" or other sorts of compulsive behavior. That is why most of the posts were related to the terminology rather than to the subject matter. It is most likely that many of you have similar points of view but simple word connotation prevents you from isolating the subject from its semantics. In the discussions like this it is important first to establish the true meaning of a word that all the participants agreed to. My understanding that "gambling" mostly relates to thoughtless activity like buying a lottery ticket. However, some of you pointed it out (and rightly so) that the broader meaning of the world gambling is associated with"taking chances". In this respect gambling could be perceived as meaningful activity hence the term "professional gambling". The difference' of course, is the same as between backyard hockey and NHL. My suggestion that for the sake of this discussion we should use word "gambling" only in the relationship to coin tossing type of games. For any other activity we should use the term "statistical logic". It should resolve a lot of conflicts here.
Semantics.
I use the exact same methodology for my options trading as I do for my live sportsbook betting.
Which is gambling and which is not?
Joe.
__________________
Joe.
Quote from u21c3f6:
Semantics.
I use the exact same methodology for my options trading as I do for my live sportsbook betting.
Which is gambling and which is not?
Joe.
Quote from MAESTRO:
Overall, I think it was a productive discussion minus a few farts here and there
Quote from MAESTRO:
Overall, I think it was a productive discussion minus a few farts here and there
Quote from Jachyra:
So my official position was that it can be both, depending on the information available to the trader and the strategy being implemented, ...
Quote from u21c3f6:
Semantics.
I use the exact same methodology for my options trading as I do for my live sportsbook betting.
Which is gambling and which is not?
Joe.
Quote from BSAM:
JSS---
Off topic, but what is your obsession with my penis?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Jachyra:
However, it is also possible to not gamble when trading if you actually have information that can be used to "predict, understand, or control" the outcome of the trade.
.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from Jachyra:
the answer to a question like this is not binary.
Quote from ElCubano:
nor control the outcome of a trade
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
Really?
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
you could neither predict nor control the outcome of a trade. I dont care what info you have.
Let's keep it focused.
"the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled"
So to prove it is not gambling we need to prove:
1. Existence of some cause -> event
2. Understanding what causes the event
3. Predicting the event
4. Or controlling the cause
Is that how you see it?
Quote from MAESTRO:
I see your point. But may I politely disagree with you. Here is why. If you had a "weighted" coin and the probabilities of heads and tails are skewed let's say 55/45 than each toss you will still not be able to "predict" nor "control" the outcome. But, if you made 1000 tosses and each time you bet on "heads" then you should experience overall positive results. It is the very difference between "average" activity and one particular outcome. "knowing" the skew of the coin converts gambling into statistical logic.
Quote from MAESTRO:
I think it is not so much the ability of a trader to discover the information, but objective properties of the game to possess structural bias that can or cannot be discovered by a particular participant makes the difference.
Unless the coin is objectively unfair the ability to discover it may not exist
Quote from ivanbaj:
Let's keep it focused.
"the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled"
So to prove it is not gambling we need to prove:
1. Existence of some cause -> event
2. Understanding what causes the event
3. Predicting the event
4. Or controlling the cause
Is that how you see it?
Quote from Malstrom:
Why are you talking like that?
Quote from Jachyra:
I believe that would be accurate.
So for instance... if you're a trader that has a very very large trading account, and you want to make the market go up, you could conceivably just continue to buy at a set price or range of prices, and assuming that the laws of supply and demand are still in effect, and assuming that you are able to offer enough demand (buying) that it is able to outpace supply (selling), then you could conceivably control the direction of the market, and in this case drive prices higher. If you did that and were successful, I doubt you would think that you just simply got lucky... rather, the market would have done exactly as you were anticipating it would do when you started buying. I believe this would be somewhat of an example of exploiting a structural bias of the system: if there are more buyers than sellers prices go up... if there are more sellers than buyers prices go down.... completely predictable.
But whether or not you are successful in your attempt or not, the result is still governed by the laws of supply and demand, NOT BY CHANCE, so the results of whether the market will go up or down is still predictable given enough accurate information.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
you could also by all the lotto tickets when the pot gets high enough and hope you are the only winner.... peace
Quote from ivanbaj:
You need to buy all the possible combinations. The cost will be higher then the price. I doubt there that many of tickets available.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
florida lotto has 6/53 23million combinations...when the pot gets to 60 million just buy all the tickets and hope and pray 10 people dont hit...
Group Invests $5 Million To Hedge Bets in Lottery
Published: February 25, 1992
There is a dream common among regular lottery players: to wait until the jackpot reaches an astronomical sum and then to buy every possible number, guaranteeing a winner.
Sure, it would cost millions of dollars. But the payoff would be much richer.
In Virginia this month, one investment group came tantalizingly close to cornering the market on all possible combinations of six numbers from 1 to 44. State lottery officials say that the group bought tickets for 5 million of a possible 7 million combinations, at $1 each, in a lottery with a $27 million jackpot. Only a lack of time prevented the group from buying tickets for the remaining 2 million combinations.
While no one has come forward with the one winning ticket in the Feb. 15 lottery, several clues point to the investment group, an Australian syndicate, as the winner. If that is so, the numbers 8, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 20 will yield a prize of $1.3 million a year for 20 years to the group.
Banking officials here say the money for the bulk purchase of Feb. 15 lottery tickets came from Australia. An Australian regulatory official also said a syndicate there had notified its investors that it had won an overseas jackpot. The winner has six months to claim the prize.
Virginia officials are worried enough about a repeat performance that they met today to debate a proposal that would block bulk sales of lottery tickets.
The governing board of the Virginia lottery held a public hearing today and received some criticism. Hans Smetona, a 22-year-old pizza deliveryman here, said, "No one wants to be in line behind anyone who's there for three or four days."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...xprod=permalink
Lottery officials speculate that the investors may have chosen Virginia for two reasons. The state had the biggest jackpot in the country that weekend. And the seven million entries required to cover all the combinations in a 44-number lottery is just half the number needed in a 49-number lottery, like Florida's. California has 51 numbers and New York has 54. Improving the Odds
Quote from Pekelo:
Group Invests $5 Million To Hedge Bets in Lottery
Published: February 25, 1992
There is a dream common among regular lottery players: to wait until the jackpot reaches an astronomical sum and then to buy every possible number, guaranteeing a winner.
Sure, it would cost millions of dollars. But the payoff would be much richer.
In Virginia this month, one investment group came tantalizingly close to cornering the market on all possible combinations of six numbers from 1 to 44. State lottery officials say that the group bought tickets for 5 million of a possible 7 million combinations, at $1 each, in a lottery with a $27 million jackpot. Only a lack of time prevented the group from buying tickets for the remaining 2 million combinations.
While no one has come forward with the one winning ticket in the Feb. 15 lottery, several clues point to the investment group, an Australian syndicate, as the winner. If that is so, the numbers 8, 11, 13, 15, 19 and 20 will yield a prize of $1.3 million a year for 20 years to the group.
Banking officials here say the money for the bulk purchase of Feb. 15 lottery tickets came from Australia. An Australian regulatory official also said a syndicate there had notified its investors that it had won an overseas jackpot. The winner has six months to claim the prize.
Virginia officials are worried enough about a repeat performance that they met today to debate a proposal that would block bulk sales of lottery tickets.
The governing board of the Virginia lottery held a public hearing today and received some criticism. Hans Smetona, a 22-year-old pizza deliveryman here, said, "No one wants to be in line behind anyone who's there for three or four days."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...xprod=permalink
Lottery officials speculate that the investors may have chosen Virginia for two reasons. The state had the biggest jackpot in the country that weekend. And the seven million entries required to cover all the combinations in a 44-number lottery is just half the number needed in a 49-number lottery, like Florida's. California has 51 numbers and New York has 54. Improving the Odds
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Sure but the payoff was 27 million so even with 3 different winners they would have made money...
Actually, since they only spent 5 million, the biggest danger was the winning numbers being on a ticket not bought because of lack of time...
Quote from Pekelo:
Sure but the payoff was 27 million so even with 3 different winners they would have made money...
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
I would take that black swan event as a risk...
The best way to do this kind of game is to become a lottery distributor with a few dozen machines, thus you make money on the commission too and also on the winning ticket (sellers get a bonus for selling the winning ticket)...
I wonder how many people they had in their group to raise that kind of capital and how many people they have to split it between.
How about this angle:
BSAM & ElCubano camp - you say trading is gambling because in both cases outcome is uncertain.
Fair enough.
But.
If I buy 1 share I own something tangible, if I make a bet on the other hand all I have is an agreement that a winner shall collect a loser's stake. Basically nothing tangible is owned.
You pointed out similarities, I pointed to a difference.
So.
I say, all variables have to line up for the 2 to become 1.
Apples & oranges are both fruit, yet are different in so many ways. Though both are fruit, they taste, feel, smell, digest in very different ways. Just like in trading and gambling, in both cases you can win & lose money, though the way you win & lose money differ, hence you have 2 different words - trading & gambling or apples & oranges
P.S. How does one hedge a hand in Blackjack? Hmm...
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
P.S. How does one hedge a hand in Blackjack? Hmm... [/B]
Quote from JSSPMK:
... you say trading is gambling
Some interesting posts here, but a lot of them are about coin tossing and statistics and not trading. I'll give an example.
Price x has held previously to a certain amount of contracts traded, the market has now sold back into price x, and there are not enough buyers comming in for price x to hold again, so the market wants to trade below price x.
I'm selling price x, right? What is gambling about this?
Dackster.
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from Dackster:
the market has now sold back into price x, and there are not enough buyers comming in for price x to hold again, so the market wants to trade below price x.
I'm selling price x, right? What is gambling about this?
Dackster.
Quote from c.chugani:
...there is no certainty. that is why its akin to gambling.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from c.chugani:
the problem is that you are assuming that there aren't enough buyers coming in for price x.
and you are also assuming that the market wants to trade below price x.
these two beliefs are conditioning you to sell at price x.
but the market is dynamic, and it could very well be that sentiment changes suddenly, thereby producing buyers at price x and even above it..
there is no certainty. that is why its akin to gambling.
__________________
Dackster.
From strong scientific point of view Game theory
Puancara,Morgenstern, Shannon,Kelly
All acitivities -1000 operation per day or one per year, with risk 0.1% of capita lor 100 % of capital related to game theory .
Author support point of view ,that reatail sector have not any advantge .
As example in Montecarlo Casino roullete
edge of casino is 51.60 to 48.40 (with event game)
In this case best strategy to meet objective
good/very good win is very limitied quantity
of operations with heavy bet ( as example
100% of capital 3 times in row on black)
If exist true advantage ,as example by market maker -each day take spread 1000 time#s
that risk can be calculated through Kelly formul
By trading on exchange propaganda stated
fundamental,technical, news ,market santiment
But exist multiple professional agio
as " buy on rumour ,sell on news" ,which
are contrarian to strategy based on mentioned
indicators .
By spot forex average retail account life expectancy 60 days , 90% would loss to end of the year ,5 % going to 0 ,4.9 would have average win ,
and only 0.1 % good win .
This statistic very correlated to lotto ,casino
Quote from ssss:
From strong scientific point of view Game theory
Puancara,Morgenstern, Shannon,Kelly
All acitivities -1000 operation per day or one per year, with risk 0.1% of capita lor 100 % of capital related to game theory .
Author support point of view ,that reatail sector have not any advantge .
As example in Montecarlo Casino roullete
edge of casino is 51.60 to 48.40 (with event game)
In this case best strategy to meet objective
good/very good win is very limitied quantity
of operations with heavy bet ( as example
100% of capital 3 times in row on black)
If exist true advantage ,as example by market maker -each day take spread 1000 time#s
that risk can be calculated through Kelly formul
By trading on exchange propaganda stated
fundamental,technical, news ,market santiment
But exist multiple professional agio
as " buy on rumour ,sell on news" ,which
are contrarian to strategy based on mentioned
indicators .
By spot forex average retail account life expectancy 60 days , 90% would loss to end of the year ,5 % going to 0 ,4.9 would have average win ,
and only 0.1 % good win .
This statistic very correlated to lotto ,casino
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
If you follow a trend on a monthly chart, providing one knows what a trend is, & you set stops above/below reaction levels, how would that effect the stats?
Game theory -In case of insider Boetsky
he knew that one company would take over another with 50% + over price .
But he#s edge in this case very high ,but not 1
######################################
Was multiple cae's ,that in last minute company avoided merger .
How great is chance in your case -" trend on a monthly chart" ,that you are right after 1000 attempts ( if exist not spread ,commission ,tax)
with high chance 480-520 winning and 520-480
lossing
After only 100 attmepts can be 70 -30 or 30 to 70
but with growth quantity of operations
relation would go to 0.5
trend on a monthly char
#####################
Multiple professional bet against that what stated from fundamental,technical ,news and market santiment indicators .
It all propaganda .Best case -to be market maker
take small profit from spread 1000+ time's
per day .1 mln time's per years
As example in spot forex ,that make quanda
It's all about a learning curve, ..
---. Another matter is of course greed,
#################################
That is all propaganda from book#s for mass ,not scientific point of view
Quote from Dackster:
Some interesting posts here, but a lot of them are about coin tossing and statistics and not trading. I'll give an example.
Price x has held previously to a certain amount of contracts traded, the market has now sold back into price x, and there are not enough buyers comming in for price x to hold again, so the market wants to trade below price x.
I'm selling price x, right? What is gambling about this?
Dackster.
Quote from JSSPMK:
If you follow a trend on a monthly chart, providing one knows what a trend is, & you set stops above/below reaction levels, how would that effect the stats?
It's all about a learning curve, l would imagine lots of retail market participants have no idea how to follow a longer term trend, though they are ready to jump in deep waters trading intraday with high leverage, no idea of risk management, etc. The list of cons is massive, I know because I've been there & done that & had enough drive to learn from mistakes & do a total 'reboot & re-install'. Now imagine if intraday market participation required regulation in form of you had to prove that you do know how to trade? I bet those stats would be way different. Of course markets would be different as well as. Another matter is of course greed, as others have already mentioned, if allowed to take advantage of a trader's discipline, then trading easily may become gambling of course, hence all these problems we are experiencing in the financial sector.
Quote from ivanbaj:
Going back to the coin tossing. How will you know that there is a trend? You will use math to find that after N tosses it seems that the coin is unfair. There is a trend.
But you can not be 100% sure. There is no way to be sure that your trend is real. You will have to gamble to that believe and monitor.
But as I said before you have another problem. Even if you are correct about the trend you also have to be correct about the money management part of the trade. The profit/stop levels and the win% rate. You can only base this on a past history and gamble forward.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
Coin tossing trends have nothing to do with stock/commodity trends, there is simply no comparison, it's pointless to continue with them sort of comparisons. According to your logic, there are no certain outcomes in anything in life, so everything is a gamble.
Support/Resistance, hello?!
Quote from ivanbaj:
Let's drop the coin tossing.
Price has hit 100 from above for a 3td time.
Price now drops to 99. 100 did not hold.
You sell at 99.
Let's just use this: 5 tick target/5tick stop with 60% win rate. (PF of 1.5)
In a random market. There is 50% chance that the price will hit 94 before it hits 104.
In your case you have found an edge. You believe that there is 60% chance it will hit 94 before it hits 104.
You believe this because the price hit 100 2 previous times and held bit this time it did not.
Tell me how this is not a gamble. What in the world can guarantee you 100% chance that your above expectations will work?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
The fallacy of positive expectations is in your risk/reward, it's simply inappropriate, 1/1 is gambling (as far as I am concerned)
Let's just use this: 5 tick target/5tick stop with 60% win rate. (PF of 1.5)
###########################
It is not realistic expectance by retail by risk/reward
1:1 to have .6 winning rate long term=1000 operations
if true have 0.6 winning rate ,possibility to divide
capital ,than by this rate from Kelly form must go with
risk 20%
Most of statements in propaganda book calculated 0.6 ,but not stated how great is row of operations
if only 100 ,that through ditribution can be
.0.3- 0.7 ,but from 1000 with high chance
would 0.48-0.52
If infinite ,than value would go to 0.5
- spread - commission -tax
With very high chance it is not advantage by retail
to win by risk/reward 1/1 60% from row
of 10-20-30-50-100 operations
but only result related to statistic distribution
Quote from ssss:
Let's just use this: 5 tick target/5tick stop with 60% win rate. (PF of 1.5)
###########################
It is not realistic expectance by retail by risk/reward
1:1 to have .6 winning rate long term=1000 operations
if true have 0.6 winning rate ,possibility to divide
capital ,than by this rate from Kelly form must go with
risk 20%
Most of statements in propaganda book calculated 0.6 ,but not stated how great is row of operations
if only 100 ,that through ditribution can be
.0.3- 0.7 ,but from 1000 with high chance
would 0.48-0.52
If infinite ,than value would go to 0.5
- spread - commission -tax
With very high chance it is not advantage by retail
to win by risk/reward 1/1 60% from row
of 10-20-30-50-100 operations
but only result related to statistic distribution
P.S. if 100 000 persons would go to roullete
and bet 1000 $ 10 time in row with profit reinvestment
on black or red or combination ,where each bet have
risk/reward 1:1 ,that approx 70 persons
would going with win 1 mln $
( Casino Montecarlo with event game 51.60 to 48.40)
All another's with 100% loss of start capital 1000$
Quote from ElCubano:
you are 100% correct ...anyone with inside info and front running are not gamblers, they are the "Unfair" coin in the market.
right, and all you have to do is find them...
###################################
Read SEC,CFTC,NFA reports,investigations
regulary ...
But it is not all
Quote from ssss:
Let's just use this: 5 tick target/5tick stop with 60% win rate. (PF of 1.5)
###########################
It is not realistic expectance by retail by risk/reward
1:1 to have .6 winning rate long term=1000 operations
if true have 0.6 winning rate ,possibility to divide
capital ,than by this rate from Kelly form must go with
risk 20%
Most of statements in propaganda book calculated 0.6 ,but not stated how great is row of operations
if only 100 ,that through ditribution can be
.0.3- 0.7 ,but from 1000 with high chance
would 0.48-0.52
If infinite ,than value would go to 0.5
- spread - commission -tax
With very high chance it is not advantage by retail
to win by risk/reward 1/1 60% from row
of 10-20-30-50-100 operations
but only result related to statistic distribution
P.S DO you think trading is gambling then?
Yes ,for retail as author strong scientific point of view
DO you recommend that one goes with the negative expatany and quit if ahead before the long run gets him?
Author can recommend only that , what make
that would fair ...
1. Author played in paper money contest's
with paper money ,untill 20 000 participants
and real money price's from 150 $ untill 100 000 $
(can not play in USA big contest's ,non Resident )
which through Germany law not taxed
In this case ,as each attempt loss limited to 0
author can not have any loss
2. If author won (was case#s) ,some money
used from Epukur point of view ( good Cognac ,evening with friends ,if more win -with beaty girl)
some used to test real money market
- try to catch some short lived sequence
with risk 100% and limited quantities of operations
Loss -not problem .Loosed money ,which won by prize money contest .
No debt ,no loss of money only very great amount
of loosed time (untill 10-12 hours each day)
How about this then:
You have $10,000 you can afford to loose.
You put all in a trade with 1 tick profit and a stop of a margin call or 0?
You do this once. I feel this is less of a gamble then most of the systems discussed here.
################################
Author can recommend only that ,what make ...
one message above is answer ...
Your respectfully
Quote from ssss:
P.S DO you think trading is gambling then?
Yes ,for retail as author strong scientific point of view
DO you recommend that one goes with the negative expatany and quit if ahead before the long run gets him?
Author can recommend only that , what make
that would fair ...
1. Author played in paper money contest's
with paper money ,untill 20 000 participants
and real money price's from 150 $ untill 100 000 $
(can not play in USA big contest's ,non Resident )
which through Germany law not taxed
In this case ,as each attempt loss limited to 0
author can not have any loss
2. If author won (was case#s) ,some money
used from Epukur point of view ( good Cognac ,evening with friends ,if more win -with beaty girl)
some used to test real money market
- try to catch some short lived sequence
with risk 100% and limited quantities of operations
Loss -not problem .Loosed money ,which won by prize money contest .
No debt ,no loss of money only very great amount
of loosed time (untill 10-12 hours each day)
Quote from ivanbaj:
"... DO you think trading is gambling then? DO you recommend that one goes with the negative expatany and quit if ahead before the long run gets him?
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
Quote from gnome:
There is no "gambling" activity where one could do that.
!
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
There is no "gambling" activity where one could do that.
Trading is a game if SKILL!
##########################
Take case of most famous operator
Martin Schwartz,Mark D.Cook ,Mark Minervini
1. They all are professional ,no retail
2. Mark D.Cook was near bankruptcy
Martin Schwartz loosed multiple years
After that Martin Schwartz performed some 30 time'S in three years on start capital in today price more as 100 000 $
But operators ,mentioned above,statisticaly one from 1-10 mln .
How many professional with equal qualification
loosed the game ?
On one Martin Schwartz ,which won with mutiple years loss in trading records ,exist multiple
hundreds professional#s ,which loose
It is fight with windmill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EXYcG9f3Uo
Readiness for risk in most of the case related
to social group of operator ,but not related to scientific point of view
If retail operator would loss long term through
multiple operations with small risk ,social
group of small citizen would say -okay
If operator would lose 100% with one operations
this social group would say -gambling ,against
norm of moral
But from scientific point of view -if objective of operator good win under contitions of no edge
scientfic point of view
###################
limited /very limited qunatities of operations
with heavy bet(risk 50-100%)
That would not accepted from moral of social group of small citizen's
Long game ,under contitions -no edge
make chance for loss more .
If operator going to casino and make small bet
(1% from capital) infinitly he would lose ,as casino have advantage 51.60 to 48.40 (in Montecarlo event game)
Quote from ElCubano:
are u sure?
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
Quote from gnome:
Of course. 100% positive.
In a gambling game, the house has an edge with the odds. A gambler is attempting to win in the short run against the odds. (And then quit before the odds catch up with him.)
In the long run, [nearly] all gamblers lose if they play long enough.
How else would they build all of those casinos?
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Markets offer transparency, a game of poker does not nor does a roulette wheel or a slot machine.
Gamblers don't need/use transparency, they just rely on odds and gaming theories.
Dackster.
__________________
Dackster.
Nope
I have played blackjack for a living and that wasn't gambling either.
You can gamble but not if you are a professional. As my mentor Jerry Simmons says "it is an exercise in odds and probabilities" or as I say it "applied statistics".
You will not win 100% of the time but you should win more than you lose. You may have a setup which is 70% profitable or win 7 out of 10 times. you will win in the long run. Which 3 are the losers you will never know before hand. You can also have 10 losses in a row, that is statistical variation, you can also have 10 winners in a row. But play 100 setups and you should come close to 70 wins and 30 losses.
Gambling is if you are trading and don't know what you are doing. You won't be gambling but losing.
Quote from gnome:
If you are truly gambling, that is probably the wisest course of action.
But some traders make money most days.. nearly all weeks and months... and year after year.
There is no "gambling" activity where one could do that.
Trading is a game if SKILL!
__________________
Joe.
I have played blackjack for a living and that wasn't gambling either.
You can gamble but not if you are a professional. As my mentor Jerry Simmons says "it is an exercise in odds and probabilities" or as I say it "applied statistics".
You will not win 100% of the time but you should win more than you lose. You may have a setup which is 70% profitable or win 7 out of 10 times. you will win in the long run. Which 3 are the losers you will never know before hand. You can also have 10 losses in a row, that is statistical variation, you can also have 10 winners in a row. But play 100 setups and you should come close to 70 wins and 30 losses.
Gambling is if you are trading and don't know what you are doing. You won't be gambling but losing.
#####################################
It is definitly lies
Who interessed ,can read good book -Mathematic
of playing blackjack
I make money most days.. nearly all weeks and months... and year after year on live sportsbook betting. I am sure there are many others and others that profit from blackjack, poker, horseracing and jai alai.
Do I have a "skill" or am I just "gambling"?
Joe.
#####################
It is definitly lies
1. Retail have no any edge
Profesisonal taked spread ,used foreign money and use information ,which
retail received (in best case) some later
2. - spread,-commission -tax
Great win by retail possible rare and sued for propaganda
Take statistic from fxcm king of the micro
http://www.forexmicrolot.com/king-m...ng-contest.html
For last 5 years some 300 000 man -attempts
Last time approx 10 000 attempts per month
Best result 2300 % on 500 $
on capital 2800 $ some 1500 %
some 5 results 800-900%
some 10 results 500 -700%
But more as 90% would lose to end of the year .
You can monitor development of contest -best 10 winner and 10 loosers each day
https://secure.ibfx.com/contest/contestresults.aspx
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? Is it gambling or statistical logic? How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
##############################
Quite simple -Objectie ,means and motiv
Which of company make TV gambling show or
some equal (answer 10 questions in row
make 100 000$)
Objective of the company - TV spectators over 5 mln
Is winning under this conditions possible -yes
Company interess TV spectators quantities ,this is selled to adv . for some 300 000 $ per 1 minut
For that company is ready to pay price for participants .
Quote from MAESTRO:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? Is it gambling or statistical logic? How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
just kidding)
A woman came to tell me the story after she watched the Black Jack film and ask why the answer is 66% rather than 50%. I told her because you open the door twice. And if they give you the chance to open the door 3 times then you will surely get the car (100% or 3/3), with one time you get 33% chance, zero time you get nothing. I also told her that the problem is not complicated, it just some morons have managed it to be complicated in order to make themselves look "smart" because they can understand it and proudly believe that others don't.
Edited: Of course, I also got the wrong answer at the first time and she then told me the right answer but mentioning that she still didn't understand why that answer. So after that explanation she was happy and left.
Quote from MAESTRO:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? Is it gambling or statistical logic? How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
Quote from MAESTRO:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? Is it gambling or statistical logic? How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
Quote from ivanbaj:
Do I want to the car or the goat?
(
You will have to choose door 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Quote from ivanbaj:
Do I want to the car or the goat?
(
You will have to choose door 2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem
Quote from eagle:
A woman came to tell me the story after she watched the Black Jack film and ask why the answer is 66% rather than 50%. I told her because you open the door twice. And if they give you the chance to open the door 3 times then you will surely get the car (100% or 3/3), with one time you get 33% chance, zero time you get nothing. I also told her that the problem is not complicated, it just some morons have managed it to be complicated in order to make themselves "smart" because they can understand it and proudly believe that others don't.
Quote from ivanbaj:
from the article:
"no other statistical puzzle comes so close to fooling all the people all the time"
interesting it sounds a lot like trading.
Quote from MAESTRO:
Of course, it's the Bayes' theorem. That is the clue how one can judge whether there is a bias in the coin or not. The host of this show is the "biased" coin. In trading the information that sometimes is 'Imprinted" in the price, volume, option chains etc. gives you the insight to use the Bayes' theorem to you advantage (statistical logic) and stay away from gambling.
Quote from MAESTRO:
Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice? Is it gambling or statistical logic? How many of you can give the answer? What probabilities theorem is applied here?
Quote from Jachyra:
So I guess you could say that if you wanted to play the odds, you'd switch to door #2... if you wanted to gamble you'd stay with door #1.
Quote from ivanbaj:
I think I get it. Assuming that the game is a betting game, and the car is worth $100,000, and you have to bet $40,000 to play the game.
The chances of picking the correct door is 1/3. You do not have an advantage. Playing will be gambling.
But assume the host (who knows where the car is) opens a door with a goat now you have an advantage and it is not gambling on a long run.
To trade you need to find this type of information in the price/volume MP what ever and create an edge.
So the big question is whether or not we satisfied all the skeptics who were under the misguided notion that trading is gambling simply because it is possible, but not required, to gamble in trading.
Quote from Jachyra:
So the big question is whether or not we satisfied all the skeptics who were under the misguided notion that trading is gambling simply because it is possible, but not required, to gamble in trading.
Playing will be gambling.
######################
It is not correct from scientific point of view
Read Shannon
Participate in game with edge and participate in game without edge
That is scientific
trading against gambling used from books ,which
wroten to broker's advantage .
Play small ,long time (pay a lot commission and spread for broker) with edge 0.6 (some author stated 0.8) by risk/reward 1/1
But most important not stated ,no industry statistic ,no
that 0.6 adbvantage is not realistic in case of professional
Professional can make 1000 and more operations per years
If advantage is 0.6 ,than from Kelly must go risk
20% by risk/reward 1/1
only after 100 operations would approx +648%
Not the case from industry statistic
MAESTRO for this to be true we need the knowledgeable insider. Are you saying that there is knowledgeable insider(s) on the market that will give us clues in the PA or maybe the masses themselve without knowing are giving us the information via the PA? The market becomes an entity with a purpose build from millions of traders that have no clue.
(PA price action)
All information for retail is post factum
Before she printed in media ,professional#s
calculated retail reaction und planned to use contrarguments .
Quote from ivanbaj:
MAESTRO for this to be true we need the knowledgeable insider. Are you saying that there is knowledgeable insider(s) on the market that will give us clues in the PA or maybe the masses themselve without knowing are giving us the information via the PA? The market becomes an entity with a purpose build from millions of traders that have no clue.
(PA price action)
Quote from ssss:
I make money most days.. nearly all weeks and months... and year after year on live sportsbook betting. I am sure there are many others and others that profit from blackjack, poker, horseracing and jai alai.
Do I have a "skill" or am I just "gambling"?
Joe.
#####################
It is definitly lies
1. Retail have no any edge
Profesisonal taked spread ,used foreign money and use information ,which
retail received (in best case) some later
2. - spread,-commission -tax
__________________
Joe.
First I believe you are trying to relate to wagering the spread before the game, 110 to win 100. This is very difficult to beat. The spreads are created by professionals and they are very, very good at what they do. Statistically, in the long run, they come very close to 50/50 on their spreads.
############################
Dear Sir
It is your problem .If this belive make you lucky .. not the problem .
But temmeber that Ken Uston before started top team in Black Jack was ...
Vice President of Pacific exchange and he'S team was completed with professional mathematiker
All activities of the team was related to readiness
of casino to give this team entry in casino
(Not the case today in EU ,in Germany ,Swiss
by first entry casino check operator pass and
entried all in computer network)
Best wish ...
First I believe you are trying to relate to wagering the spread before the game, 110 to win 100. This is very difficult to beat. The spreads are created by professionals and they are very, very good at what they do. Statistically, in the long run, they come very close to 50/50 on their spreads.
########################
www.oanda.com
That is market -maker . He taked each day
spread from approx 50 000+ clients to he's pocket
with help of specific algoritm .
( it is not very heavy algoritm )
Quote is manipulated . Used multiple source of liquidities ,but reflected one composite quote
Hello ETers---
If you put on a trade today, and you did not have inside information, you were taking a gamble on whether you would make a profit or take a loss.
Always remember, the outcome of a trade is unknown when you enter the market. Therefore, how could you deny that you were taking a "gamble" (or any of those "easier on the mind for some" synonyms others like to use) when you decided to take a risk in the market?
Happy trading to all my fellow gamblers, "statistical odds players, educated guessers, lucky participants, professionals, betters, game of chance players", or whatever term makes you feel good!
ssss,
Monthly chart, double top/reaction low broken, double bottom/reaction high broken + TL broken in a very liquid market. Which professional entity has the ability to spoof that type of price action on regular basis assuming your stops do not rest within 'noise' range? A rough estimate would be just fine. You seem to concentrate on tick type of trading activities (scalping), please consider the other type of trading.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
DG make me feel good. Dumb Gambler.
Quote from BSAM:
Happy trading to all my fellow gamblers, "statistical odds players, educated guessers, lucky participants, professionals, betters, game of chance players", or whatever term makes you feel good!
Quote from eagle:
DG make me feel good. Dumb Gambler.
Any other contributors?
ssss,
Monthly chart, double top/reaction low broken, double bottom/reaction high broken + TL broken in a very liquid market. Which professional entity has the ability to spoof that type of price action on regular basis assuming your stops do not rest within 'noise' range?
If that give you satisfaction , wish best .
... Monthly chart, double top/reaction low broken
would mutiple news which you are not expected (as example Lehman bankruptcy, 11 september )
A rough estimate would be just fine. You seem to concentrate on tick type of trading activities (scalping), please consider the other type of trading.
No ,author played paper moneys contest's in USA,Germany .
And in this ,where was winner was 1-2 very good operations (until 300%) with very good catch of movement 1 very good loss(-40%) and + another mix of high
freq operations with very heavy risk (near 70%) low profit . Profit from this kind of high freq/high risk operations was
not very high ,but enough secure advantage
against second placed competitor
Author evaluate he#s activities as successfull attempt to catch short lived sequence ,which
mostly related to game theory
##########################
possible some small(or very small) part of success related to author experience and readiness to make high risk
Best wish
Why do you keep beating the old drum about 1 trade, when OP's question refers to a line of events? Not a trade, but trading?
Quote from BSAM:
Thanks. I couldn't think of all of them.
(Of course, given the right set of circumstances, even a "dumb gambler" can make money.)
Quote from BSAM:
(Of course, given the right set of circumstances, even a "dumb gambler" can make money.)
No any doubt ,author not knew complex of news ,which tomorrow would presented .
Market-maker knew .
But if i knew all this news ,it would not possible
to say in most of the case ,how professional(market-maker) would use this news .
Which of this would decisive and how
As example last time Goog was good ,but all macro news from economy ,non comparble heavy was negative .Market up .
Can say ,that Goog is jews company and that is most important factor for market reaction . Author ready bet with jews ,But in future case reaction would another ...
Author point of view -retail have not any advantage
#######################################
very good correlated with retail market statistic .
Great win is possible for retail ,but rare 1 from 10 000
operators and this win full related to game theory ,
as in lotto
Quote from JSSPMK:
Why do you keep beating the old drum about 1 trade, when OP's question refers to a line of events? Not a trade, but trading?
Quote from ct_nz:
Only in the short run, not long term.
Quote from BSAM:
Hello ETers---
If you put on a trade today, and you did not have inside information, you were taking a gamble on whether you would make a profit or take a loss.
Always remember, the outcome of a trade is unknown when you enter the market. Therefore, how could you deny that you were taking a "gamble" (or any of those "easier on the mind for some" synonyms others like to use) when you decided to take a risk in the market?
Happy trading to all my fellow gamblers, "statistical odds players, educated guessers, lucky participants, professionals, betters, game of chance players", or whatever term makes you feel good!
Last question If I may, bottom line as far as you are concerned any type of business activity that involves uncertain outcome is gambling?
Quote from BSAM:
I'm not saying one can't have an edge.
If you made one trade today, you were trading.
If you made twenty trades today, you were trading.
But, one or twenty doesn't matter.
Each trade is an individual event and can go either direction.
Trade #1 is independent of trade #2. Trade #3 is independent of trade #2, etc. That's what a trader must understand and accept.
This is why many consider trading as gambling. Because the outcome of each independent trade is uncertain; hence, a gamble. If the outcome was certain to bring a profit, it wouldn't be a gamble.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Each trade is an individual event and can go either direction.
Trade #1 is independent of trade #2. Trade #3 is independent of trade #2, etc. That's what a trader must understand and accept.
###########################
Yes ,that is full right
Quote from Jachyra:
.....At best, all you can say is that it is impossible to determine whether or not you're gambling in advance......
Quote from Jachyra:
So even though you may not have any way of knowing in advance whether or not there are more buyers or sellers at any given time, it does not change the fact that given any moment where there are more buyers than sellers... anyone who is short is gambling while anyone who is long is not gambling. Conversely, at any given moment where there are more sellers than buyers... anyone who is short is not gambling and anyone who is long is gambling.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from BSAM:
Bro, this is exactly why trading is gambling.
Quote from JSSPMK:
Last question If I may, bottom line as far as you are concerned any type of business activity that involves uncertain outcome is gambling?
Quote from Jachyra:
Under this logic, if you took a bet where you were guaranteed to win $1 80% of the time and lose $1 20% of the time.... you'd be gambling......
Quote from BSAM:
Of course, the answer to your question is yes.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
in the end all one can do is try to put the odds in ones favor and roll with the punches.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
UBS, Blackstone Advisers Fed Insider Ring, U.S. Says (Update2)
Email | Print | A A A
By David Scheer and David Glovin
Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- UBS AG and Blackstone Group LP takeover advisers fed information to an insider-trading ring including a former Jefferies Group Inc. money manager in a scheme that yielded more than $8 million in illegal gains, federal authorities said.
Nicos Stephanou, associate director of mergers and acquisitions at UBS’s London office, passed information about bids for Albertson’s Inc., ElkCorp and National Health Investors Inc., U.S. prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission said today in criminal and civil complaints.
Ramesh Chakrapani, a managing director of Blackstone’s takeover advisory unit, leaked tips on two of the deals, the SEC said. The agency sued the pair and five others for involvement in the ring, while federal prosecutors in Manhattan announced criminal charges against Stephanou, ex-colleague Joseph Contorinis, a money manager for the Jefferies Paragon Fund, and a third man. Chakrapani, 33, was arrested last month.
“It is unconscionable when these highly paid individuals abuse their access to sensitive information and enrich themselves at the expense of others,” said Scott Friestad, an SEC attorney who supervised the case.
Albertson’s Bid
The alleged insider-trading network is the biggest uncovered by U.S. authorities since former UBS and Morgan Stanley employees were accused in 2007 of feeding tips on stock research and acquisitions to a ring of hedge funds. Allegations unveiled today expand on an insider-trading scheme alleged last month against Chakrapani relating to the 2006 bid for Albertson’s, the Boise, Idaho-based grocery store chain. The ring’s alleged gains include trading profits as well as losses avoided.
Stephanou, 34, a citizen of Cyprus who lives in London, was arrested at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey on Dec. 27 and remains in custody, prosecutors said. His lawyer, Christopher Morvillo, declined to comment.
Chakrapani’s lawyer Michael Sommer denied the accusations in an interview today.
Contorinis, 44, and Michael Koulouroudis, 58, who also allegedly received the tips, were arrested today. Contorinis’s lawyer, Benjamin Rosenberg, didn’t return a call. Koulouroudis’s lawyer, Michael Bachner, declined to comment. Koulouroudis was released on $900,000 bail, while Contorinis was ordered held on $7 million bail at a hearing today.
Authorities used a “novel” technique to detect the trading ring, said Daniel Hawke, head of the SEC’s Philadelphia office, which handled the inquiry. He declined to elaborate, noting that the investigation continues.
Banker Cooperation
Prosecutors won cooperation from a UBS investment banker who tipped the other defendants, Assistant U.S. Attorney Reed Brodsky said at a hearing today. Brodsky didn’t name the banker, who he said has been charged.
“The government has a very strong case,” Brodsky said in court.
Stephanou was among UBS advisers assigned to help Cerberus Capital Management LP prepare bids with a group of investors for Albertson’s in 2005 and 2006, the SEC said. He tipped at least three people to developments in the deal, including friend and ex-colleague Contorinis, the agency said. The pair had both worked as analysts at the New York office of Credit Suisse First Boston in 1998 and 1999, the agency said.
Contorinis, a resident of Fort Myers, Florida, bought $59 million in Albertson’s shares for the Jefferies hedge fund, the SEC said. Defendants in the case collectively gained or avoided losing $7.7 million on trades tied to the deal, it said.
Carlyle Group
Stephanou also leaked confidential information about the Carlyle Group’s plans in 2006 to buy ElkCorp, the Dallas-based maker of roofing and building products, according to the SEC’s complaint. Building Materials Corp. of America bought ElkCorp for about $1.1 billion in 2007.
Chakrapani, a London resident, was on a team of Blackstone advisers hired to help National Health Investors evaluate strategic options, including a buyout, in 2006, according to the SEC. He leaked information about a potential takeover to Stephanou, who passed it to at least one other person, prosecutors and the agency said.
Federal prosecutors last month charged Chakrapani with securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud for allegedly passing information to a friend about Albertson’s while working at New York-based Blackstone. The friend, together with family members, reaped $3.6 million, the SEC said in a related lawsuit seeking unspecified fines.
Tom Tarrant, a spokesman for Jefferies Group, a New York- based brokerage specializing in mid-sized companies, declined to comment. He said Contorinis left the company a year ago.
Blackstone spokesman Peter Rose said Jan. 14 the company was “shocked” by Chakrapani’s alleged breach of the firm’s policies and ethical standards after he was charged for trades tied to Albertson’s.
“UBS has assisted and will continue to assist the authorities in their investigation into the alleged actions of a single UBS employee,” company spokesman Doug Morris said.
To contact the reporter on this story: David Scheer in New York at dscheer@bloomberg.net; David Glovin in U.S. District Court in New York at 9245 or dglovin@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: February 5, 2009 17:30 EST
Quote from BSAM:
An "edge" which produces your 80/20 example would be great. What happens when your edge is gone? Does one lose all his gains and go negative? Does it become 20/80? Then, would the trader have "gambled" his money away because he thought he couldn't lose with what he used to use?
Nothing's guarenteed. No edge, no stats, etc. If each trade is a gamble (I think we agree on this), then what happens when, what a trader was doing doesn't work anymore? Wasn't he gambling that his edge would continue, because his stats told him so?
Ever hear of a great trader blowing out? Did these guys not believe exactly like you?
Gentlemen
All kind of activities in Universum related to game theory .
Strong scientfic .
Universum is infinitly .
Each process ,which have start and end is quasi occasional and can be multiple time duplicated in Universum ,as last(time, materija and space ) is infinitly
####################
Read Demokrit,Epikur, J.Bruno ,A.Poinncare,K.Ciolkowsky
Quote from ElCubano:
in the end all one can do is try to put the odds in ones favor and roll with the punches.
Quote from ssss:
Read Demokrit,Epikur, J.Bruno ,A.Poinncare,K.Ciolkowsky
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Screw that, I had enough, I'm going to watch some porn
#######################################
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46ENFzNC-Ok
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8KIjRlyXQM
Anyway, enough of all this talk of gambling, coin tossing, game theory, unkowns and the like.
Let me introduce you to OTPP (Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan), sponsored by the government of Ontario and the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Gamblers? Hahaha.
Dackster.
__________________
Dackster.
If trading is gambling, then gambling is trading?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
If trading is gambling, then gambling is trading?
If trading is gambling, and therefore gambling is trading, what's investing?
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
If trading is gambling, and therefore gambling is trading, what's investing?
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
If trading is gambling, and therefore gambling is trading, what's investing?
Quote from MAESTRO:
Investing is what you do when you are so dumb that you are not capable either to trade or gamble!
Quote from ByLoSellHi:
Eeeeaaasssy there, Cochise.
Some smart people may take some exception, given the odds between investing and trading.
IMHO.
Not that it will change any minds, but here are some wise quotes from 'how to figure the odds,' by Oswald Jacoby. 1940
"It has been said that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Actually, this statement is almost completely fallacious. Past experience of the human race tells us that we are going to die, but we cannot tell the date or the manner of our death. Past experience tells us that there will be taxes in the future, but their nature and size are only a matter of unpleasant conjecture.
The only thing we can be really certain of is that from birth to death we are completely bound by the ever present and wholly inconclusive laws of probability that govern every action and event."
------------------------------
What is Gambling?
Gambling is the wagering of money upon the result of any event or game of skill or chance.
Last paragraph of book:
A large part of the skill in gambling games consists in choosing or bringing about situations in which you have a positive expectation -- and avoiding situations in which you have a negative expectation.
The same is true in business. The skillful businessman invests in situations in which his expectations are positive; he avoids the negative expectations. Remember, however, that the best-laid schemes gang aft agley. No matter how big your positive expectations, you may still lose money on any single occasion.
If you know the odds, and the odds are in your favor, it's not gambling.
That means trading is probably gambling for 99.9% of all traders!
Quote from Doug Allen:
If you know the odds, and the odds are in your favor, it's not gambling.
That means trading is probably gambling for 99.9% of all traders!
is trading really gambling,is gambling even gambling,is denial really denial
Quote from achilles28:
Yep.
Successful trading is like counting cards.
Bet when probabilities are your favor.
if you dont know what your doing its gambling. If youve been doing it for years and know whats going on its strategy.
Quote from achilles28:
Yep.
Successful trading is like counting cards.
Bet when probabilities are your favor.
__________________
Men are like wine. They start out as grapes, but then it takes a woman to stomp the crap out of them until they're decent enough to have dinner with.
Can gambling/trading/investing, be automated for a positive outcome in the long run?
__________________
Dackster.
This is how I look at. I do not consider it and compare it to gambling in the traditional sense of general gambling. But if you are comparing it to a professional gambler, then it is pretty similar. I define general gambling as just rolling the dice and hoping for the best no matter the game. In general gambling, it is all based on luck and the casino’s expectation and your lack of expectation. On the other hand, a professional gambler (which comprises maybe 1 % of gamblers at most) is someone who understands the math behind the decisions they make, its implications, can read the situation and make an informed decision on what to do. They know what they are supposed to do in that situation. Granted, they may win or lose that particular round or hand, but they understand that they can make a decision and by doing the right thing, in the long run, they will come out ahead. While they have no control over the specific outcome of any one event, if they do the right things and make the proper decisions, over time they will be successful.
It is the same in trading. A good trader has a real edge and understands what they should be doing in almost every situation. Doing that requires the discipline to follow their rules without wavering. If I take this setup every time, I may not win on this trade or the next trade, but over the long run if I follow my setups (you do have setups and a real trading plan, don’t you?) over time you are as close to an assured success as possible. My point being if I have a positive expectation and I follow my rules, the larger my sample size or the more trades I take within my rules, the closer to certainty my success becomes. You have got to love the math when it is on your side.
Now if you don’t have an edge or understand my previous paragraph and its implications, then you probably fall into the general gambling category, whether you admit it or not. If that is the case, your failure is equally assured.
Good trading
TM
So many of you are having such trouble with the word "gambling". Then, to make matters more confusing, you try to make others believe that if one gambles, that he can't make money. This puzzle doesn't fit.
Answer these questions:
1. Do you know with certainty that each trade will be profitable?
2. Do you ever have a losing trade?
3. If you answered "yes" to number 2, then why did you make the trade, if you know that trading isn't gambling? (Mad at yourself?.....Mental problems, or what???)
3. Do you have a money management plan?
4. If you answered "yes" to #3, why do you have a money management plan?
Now, the answers, of course, are obvious, but they are asked for a purpose. If you trade, what you do know with certainty is that some of your trades will be winners and some will be losers.
Don't tell me that you're not gambling because you are able to win in the "long run". You are gambling each time you put down your money in hopes of making a profit, because you cannot guarantee me, or yourself, that the trade will make money.
Many of you are saying that if you are gambling, you will lose in the long run. aaannnnk.....Wrong answer. You should be saying: If you know how to gamble (a.k.a. trade), you can win in the "long run".
Therefore, there are some here, I am reasonably sure, who know how to trade. But for some strange reason, refuse to call it gambling.....BOO! See? It's not so scary.
So, call it what you like. You can put lipstick on a pig, but you still got a pig.
So let's take another look at the definition of "gamble". From dictionary.com:
gam⋅ble /ˈgæmbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [gam-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -bled, -bling, noun
–verb (used without object) 1. to play at any game of chance for money or other stakes.
2. to stake or risk money, or anything of value, on the outcome of something involving chance: to gamble on a toss of the dice.
–verb (used with object) 3. to lose or squander by betting (usually fol. by away): He gambled all his hard-earned money away in one night.
4. to wager or risk (money or something else of value): to gamble one's freedom.
5. to take a chance on; venture; risk: I'm gambling that our new store will be a success.
–noun 6. any matter or thing involving risk or hazardous uncertainty.
7. a venture in a game of chance for stakes, esp. for high stakes.
Hmmm...Anything vaguely remind you of trading?? ;>)
Quote from BSAM:
1. Do you know with certainty that each trade will be profitable?
2. Do you ever have a losing trade?
Quote from BSAM:
So let's take another look at the definition of "gamble". From dictionary.com:
Hmmm...Anything vaguely remind you of trading?? ;>)
Quote from Jachyra:
Under your very own definition, casinos are also gambling, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Quote from euclid:
Casinos not gambling? Eh? Gambling is their sole business.
Some casinos win, some go bust. Just like traders.
Jachyra---
If a person had wanted to wager 10 bucks on the outcome of the Superbowl, would you have taken the bet and put your money on your favored team?
Quote from BSAM:
Of course, they are gambling. But, they know how to gamble.
Quote from BSAM:
Jachyra---
If a person had wanted to wager 10 bucks on the outcome of the Superbowl, would you have taken the bet and put your money on your favored team?
Quote from Jachyra:
If you think casino's gamble, then there really isn't much I, or anyone here on ET can say to change your mind. I would suggest you go pick yourself up a good book this subject (of which there are many), but based on your previous comments, it seems like you wouldn't believe anything you read that is contrary to what you already think you know. So I'm not really sure what to suggest, except to just concede that you personally have a different definition and/or connotation of what gambling means than what is used in almost any book or written publication on the subject.
And the only way your dictionary.com definition supports your argument is by ignoring the first 2 or 3 definitions and immediately skipping to #5. Definitions 1 & 2 clearly state that the results have to be dictated by chance. And its common knowledge that the market is governed by the laws of supply and demand, not chance.
Quote from BSAM:
Jachyra---
If a person had wanted to wager 10 bucks on the outcome of the Superbowl, would you have taken the bet and put your money on your favored team?
Quote from BSAM:
I don't need to read a book to understand that when I take a trade, it is a gamble. That is, I might win, or I might lose. I do understand, very well what gambling is.
I believe in all those definitions.
Which ones do you choose to believe in?
When you enter your trades Monday, there's very definitely a "chance" that you could win....or lose.
Quote from Jachyra:
Your connotation of gambling is inconsistent with almost any book or publication ever written on the subject. Personally, it seems to me that you're using the word "gambling" synonymously with the word "uncertain."
Very good post.
I believe this discussion has now reached its apex, because BSAM has said that he considers all business activities, because they carry uncertain outcomes, a gamble. You say tomato, I say tomA'to, know what I mean? To me gambling is gambling & trading is trading. Yes there are similarities & trading can become gambling, yet, I don't consider trading, if talking about a consistently profitable trader, gambling
Quote from Jachyra:
I choose to believe definitions #1 and #2, because they are most consistent with both my personal belief and the two other dictionaries I double checked it against here at home. They clearly state that the results need to be dictated by chance -- and markets are governed by supply and demand, not chance. I already have previous posts explaining my thoughts on the definition of chance so I won't bother repeating it here.
Your connotation of gambling is inconsistent with almost any book or publication ever written on the subject. Personally, it seems to me that you're using the word "gambling" synonymously with the word "uncertain."
If I walked into any Vegas casino and grabbed any pit boss, dealer, or casino regular, or any person who has ever either written a book on this subject or taught it at a University, and told them that we're going to play a game of dice.... That I was going to roll a single die over and over again and that everytime I rolled a 1, they were going to pay me $1, and everytime I rolled any number other than 1, I was going to pay them $1.... you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who would consider that gambling, since on each roll they would have 5 ways to win and only 1 way to lose. Its a mathematical FACT, that if we played long enough, that they would make money -- lots of money -- GUARANTEED. The only way they wouldn't be GUARANTEED to make money would be if we didn't play the game long enough for the laws of averages to be accurately represented (meaning our sample size was too small) -- and even then there is an entire school of thought on this subject that would still not consider that gambling since on any single roll, whether you won or not, you would have had 5 times as many ways to win as you would have had to lose.
But, its a free country, and you're more than welcome to allow the word "gambling" to mean anything you want... for all I care you could use it to describe a car, a unicorn, or exercise -- or just about anything. But as far as this thread goes, you should understand that it means something completely different to anybody who has ever read or studied statistics, odds, and probabilities.
Bottom line... if you read that dice scenario that I just described, and think that its gambling to get paid even money on any number that comes up that isn't a 1... even though a 1 could be rolled 1, 5, or 20 times in a row, then you have a definition of gambling that's different than what most experts think of as gambling... and there isn't any point in trying to change your mind.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Very good post.
I believe this discussion has now reached its apex, because BSAM has said that he considers all business activities, because they carry uncertain outcomes, a gamble
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If any person have task to walk 300 foots on Fifth Avenue
in 180 seconds .
How great is chance ,that this person would perform this simple task ?
Very high , near 1 ,but not 1
#######################
Drunked driver can be present .
Science ,which related to all possible activities not only on
Earth ,but in Universe have name -
Game theory
##########
Read Antic philosophy and Poincare ,Morgenstern, Shannon
isn't a professional GAMBLER a GAMBLER?
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from JSSPMK:
To me gambling is gambling & trading is trading.
Quote from Jachyra:
I choose to believe definitions #1 and #2, because they are most consistent with both my personal belief and the two other dictionaries I double checked it against here at home. They clearly state that the results need to be dictated by chance -- and markets are governed by supply and demand, not chance. I already have previous posts explaining my thoughts on the definition of chance so I won't bother repeating it here.
Your connotation of gambling is inconsistent with almost any book or publication ever written on the subject. Personally, it seems to me that you're using the word "gambling" synonymously with the word "uncertain."
If I walked into any Vegas casino and grabbed any pit boss, dealer, or casino regular, or any person who has ever either written a book on this subject or taught it at a University, and told them that we're going to play a game of dice.... That I was going to roll a single die over and over again and that everytime I rolled a 1, they were going to pay me $1, and everytime I rolled any number other than 1, I was going to pay them $1.... you'd be hard pressed to find ANYONE who would consider that gambling, since on each roll they would have 5 ways to win and only 1 way to lose. Its a mathematical FACT, that if we played long enough, that they would make money -- lots of money -- GUARANTEED. The only way they wouldn't be GUARANTEED to make money would be if we didn't play the game long enough for the laws of averages to be accurately represented (meaning our sample size was too small) -- and even then there is an entire school of thought on this subject that would still not consider that gambling since on any single roll, whether you won or not, you would have had 5 times as many ways to win as you would have had to lose.
But, its a free country, and you're more than welcome to allow the word "gambling" to mean anything you want... for all I care you could use it to describe a car, a unicorn, or exercise -- or just about anything. But as far as this thread goes, you should understand that it means something completely different to anybody who has ever read or studied statistics, odds, and probabilities.
Bottom line... if you read that dice scenario that I just described, and think that its gambling to get paid even money on any number that comes up that isn't a 1... even though a 1 could be rolled 1, 5, or 20 times in a row, then you have a definition of gambling that's different than what most experts think of as gambling... and there isn't any point in trying to change your mind.
Trading and gambling do have a lot of similarities and share a lot in common... but at the end of the day, they're two completely different exercises in odds and probabilities. Not to mention that one actually serves a valid, legitimate purpose and function.
#######################################
For retail*s -no ,author support point of view
that retail have no any edge .
By long game ,chance of loss
########################
is more
#########
For professional with good chance yes .
Advantage of roullte in casino with event game in Montecarlo
51.60 to 48.40
It is enough to make multiple mln $ per years
with mutiple 1000 of operations
Advantage of market -maker as Oanda ,if this fair
(what is with good chance no ...read regulary investigations report*s of SEC,CFTC,NFA) some comporable 52-53%
With mln operations per year it is enough to have multi mln $
profit
I know you have a different definition, but I'm not sure what it is.
##########################################
Better use not dictionary definition ,as this adressed moral
by smal citizenchip group
by scientific definition by work*s of J von Neumann ,Morgenstern , Shannon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
Economics and game theory
Von Neumann's first significant contribution to economics was the minimax theorem of 1928. This theorem establishes that in certain zero sum games involving perfect information (in which players know a priori the strategies of their opponents as well as their consequences), there exists one strategy which allows both players to minimize their maximum losses (hence the name minimax). When examining every possible strategy, a player must consider all the possible responses of the player's adversary and the maximum loss. The player then plays out the strategy which will result in the minimization of this maximum loss. Such a strategy, which minimizes the maximum loss, is called optimal for both players just in case their minimaxes are equal (in absolute value) and contrary (in sign). If the common value is zero, the game becomes pointless.
Von Neumann eventually improved and extended the minimax theorem to include games involving imperfect information and games with more than two players. This work culminated in the 1944 classic Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (written with Oskar Morgenstern). The public interest in this work was such that The New York Times ran a front page story, something which only Einstein had previously elicited.
Von Neumann's second important contribution in this area was the solution, in 1937, of a problem first described by Léon Walras in 1874, the existence of situations of equilibrium in mathematical models of market development based on supply and demand. He first recognized that such a model should be expressed through disequations and not equations, and then he found a solution to Walras' problem by applying a fixed-point theorem derived from the work of L. E. J. Brouwer. The lasting importance of the work on general equilibria and the methodology of fixed point theorems is underscored by the awarding of Nobel prizes in 1972 to Kenneth Arrow, in 1983 to Gerard Debreu, and in 1994 to John Nash who had improved von Neumann's theory in his Princeton Ph.D thesis.
Von Neumann was also the inventor of the method of proof, used in game theory, known as backward induction (which he first published in 1944 in the book co-authored with Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour).[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
ElCubano,
I think Maestro answered a similar question, once you realise how to reverse the odds in your favour it stops being gambling, it becomes something else. Once a casino realises you are counting cards, you won't be getting any more free drinks
Then try & tell them that you a pro gambler, see what they say. In gambling we are not meant to reverse the odds, it's meant to be entertainment where majority lose & occasionally some lucky dude/ss will scoop a jackpot.
Can one follow a trend when gambling? No.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
Application and challenges
Game theory has been used to study a wide variety of human and animal behaviors. It was initially developed in economics to understand a large collection of economic behaviors, including behaviors of firms, markets, and consumers. The use of game theory in the social sciences has expanded, and game theory has been applied to political, sociological, and psychological behaviors as well.
Game theoretic analysis was initially used to study animal behavior by Ronald Fisher in the 1930s (although even Charles Darwin makes a few informal game theoretic statements). This work predates the name "game theory", but it shares many important features with this field. The developments in economics were later applied to biology largely by John Maynard Smith in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.
In addition to being used to predict and explain behavior, game theory has also been used to attempt to develop theories of ethical or normative behavior. In economics and philosophy, scholars have applied game theory to help in the understanding of good or proper behavior. Game theoretic arguments of this type can be found as far back as Plato.[1]
[edit] Political science
The application of game theory to political science is focused in the overlapping areas of fair division, political economy, public choice, positive political theory, and social choice theory. In each of these areas, researchers have developed game theoretic models in which the players are often voters, states, special interest groups, and politicians.
For early examples of game theory applied to political science, see the work of Anthony Downs. In his book An Economic Theory of Democracy (Downs 1957), he applies a hotelling firm location model to the political process. In the Downsian model, political candidates commit to ideologies on a one-dimensional policy space. The theorist shows how the political candidates will converge to the ideology preferred by the median voter. For more recent examples, see the books by Steven Brams, George Tsebelis, Gene M. Grossman and Elhanan Helpman, or David Austen-Smith and Jeffrey S. Banks.
A game-theoretic explanation for democratic peace is that public and open debate in democracies send clear and reliable information regarding their intentions to other states. In contrast, it is difficult to know the intentions of nondemocratic leaders, what effect concessions will have, and if promises will be kept. Thus there will be mistrust and unwillingness to make concessions if at least one of the parties in a dispute is a nondemocracy (Levy & Razin 2003).
[edit] Economics and business
Economists have long used game theory to analyze a wide array of economic phenomena, including auctions, bargaining, duopolies, fair division, oligopolies, social network formation, and voting systems. This research usually focuses on particular sets of strategies known as equilibria in games. These "solution concepts" are usually based on what is required by norms of rationality. In non-cooperative games, the most famous of these is the Nash equilibrium. A set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if each represents a best response to the other strategies. So, if all the players are playing the strategies in a Nash equilibrium, they have no unilateral incentive to deviate, since their strategy is the best they can do given what others are doing.
The payoffs of the game are generally taken to represent the utility of individual players. Often in modeling situations the payoffs represent money, which presumably corresponds to an individual's utility. This assumption, however, can be faulty.
A prototypical paper on game theory in economics begins by presenting a game that is an abstraction of some particular economic situation. One or more solution concepts are chosen, and the author demonstrates which strategy sets in the presented game are equilibria of the appropriate type. Naturally one might wonder to what use should this information be put. Economists and business professors suggest two primary uses.
In the UK gambling profits are free of capital gains, because majority simply can't win consistently enough, also losses can not be offset against tax bill. On the other hand providers do pay taxes on gains, which means they simply can not justify their activities as gambling.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
ElCubano,
I think Maestro answered a similar question, once you realise how to reverse the odds in your favour it stops being gambling, it becomes something else. Once a casino realises you are counting cards, you won't be getting any more free drinks
Then try & tell them that you a pro gambler, see what they say. In gambling we are not meant to reverse the odds, it's meant to be entertainment where majority lose & occasionally some lucky dude/ss will scoop a jackpot.
Can one follow a trend when gambling? No.
################################
For retail sector trend ,fundamental ,market santiments
are only means of desinformation ,which used from professional*s
"Buy on rumour ,sell on news " one of example of Wall Street
adgio
Quote from nyustudent:
+1. That is exactly what his problem is
Well that and he thinks that casinos make hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year gambling. Gaming revenues account for a significant portion of casino profits. And since many casinos are publicly traded companies, call me crazy, but I dont think it would fly too well with wall street if it was left up to pure dumb luck whether or not they hit their earnings every quarter. And remember that a casino doesn't have the option of utilizing any money management strategies or have the option of varying their bet sizes. They have to cover every bet that is placed by their customers, who are the gamblers, and still they are able to make money consistently. So obviously, they are not gambling.
I am more than certain that gambling house's lawyers have looked into definitions of the word gambling, wouldn't they benefit from officially being recognised as a gambling entity? Of course they would. But, it's not possible, therefore one can only conclude that there is something in definition of that word that distinguishes it from a businness operation. Odds/probabilities (other nuances)?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
I am more than certain that gambling house's lawyers have looked into definitions of the word gambling, wouldn't they benefit from officially being recognised as a gambling entity? Of course they would. But, it's not possible, therefore one can only conclude that there is something in definition of that word that distinguishes it from a businness operation. Odds/probabilities (other nuances)?
#########################
Public moral ,which based on political doktrin and scientific facts
are different things .
Most popular book is this ,which is no related to scientific facts
Bibel .
Propaganda ,that is most important for profit .
Implant in head*s of broadly mass demand ( investment ,consum &) and make profit from that .
But that all related to game theory . Outcome can be near 1 ,but no 1 .
As example most heavy
Investment Banks crashed in 2008
Quote from euclid:
I know you have a different definition, but I'm not sure what it is.
You say that for it to be gambling, there has to be an outcome determined by chance. Does it have to be entirely by chance, like your die rolling example, or can it be partly chance like say a sports event? Wagering money on events entirely decided by the skill of the players is also considered gambling isn't it?
Also you give the die rolling example as also not gambling when it is entirely decided by chance. Your reason being very high expactancy. So at what exact expectancy does gambling become not gambling? Negative expactancy is only mentioned in one of the definitions quoted earlier i.e #3; which is the one I thought you were using.
I think of trading as analagous to walking into a casino with a computer in your shoes. It's gambling, but gambling to win using superior information and a statistical advantage rather than gambling for fun.
Quote from Jachyra:
My personal opinion (which was made clear early on meant nothing), is that anytime you're getting paid more than the risk you're taking, its not gambling... and anytime you're getting paid less than the risk you're taking, its gambling.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from Jachyra:
Of course I wouldn't because that would be gambling.
A primary objective of federal regulation of commodity futures trading in the United States is the elimination of market manipulation.............................
But we all know that it goes on all the time.
One of the reasons why some people assume trading to be gambling is because they fail to understand that the old adage - prices oscillate, though trends persist is still there. How many understand that and manage to build a strategy around that?
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from BSAM:
Okay. Thanks for answering the question.
So, you are apparently opposed to any form of gambling. This is why you refuse to admit you are taking a gamble when you trade. Is this not correct?
I'm am trying to get to the bottom of why a person like yourself, who obviously has a good mind, is flat braindead in being able to admit that when you take a position in something with an uncertain outcome, it is gambling.
Are you against gambling for religious reasons? If you are, that's your business.
Although I do find it quite amusing, and rather fitting that when people talk about "being on the good side of a coin flip" that they're usually referring to having a 55% to 45% slight edge... which ironically, is almost the exact margin of "no" to "yes" votes in this thread's poll results.
Quote from Jachyra:
.....Does that mean that just getting on a plane is a gamble?.....
Jachyra is just debating the definition of the term 'gambling'. He doesn't consider +ev bets (whether casino or markets) to be gambling, he only considers -ev and uninformed bets to be gambling. Correct Jachyra?
Quote from Mr J:
Jachyra is just debating the definition of the term 'gambling'. He doesn't consider +ev bets (whether casino or markets) to be gambling, he only considers -ev and uninformed bets to be gambling. Correct Jachyra?
I've debated over the definition in this thread, and I'm pretty sure it was with Jachyra. The funny thing is somehow it switched from 'gambling' to 'chance', when I said 'chance' is always a factor.
The fact is that any credible dictionary has at least one definiton as this: to place a wager on an uncertain outcome. Gambling in a casino or trading in the markets both fit this description (the two factors being 'stake' and 'uncertain outcome'), so I don't know why people still deny it. It's also pretty clear that many people don't read, as I've brought up the definition a number times only to see people ignore it and state something along the lines of "trading isn't gambling because I have an edge".
The definition isn't really important though, just as long as it is understood that bets/trades need to be placed with a positive expectation.
Quote from Jachyra:
.....I have known many people who have made quite a nice living gambling professionally -- both in the markets and at the casino. But the question of the thread was "is trading gambling" and the answer to that question is quite simply -- no. Although I've said many times that its not only possible to gamble in the markets, that its probably more common for people to gamble in the markets than not.
Quote from BSAM:
Let's see here now.....
Your friends gamble in the markets.
It is possible to gamble in the markets.
It is probably more common for people to gamble in the markets than not.
Yet, you are that rarest of breeds who participates in the markets, but your tading isn't gambling.
Hmmmmm.....(Scratching head).....Sumpin' jest don't scheem right here.
Quote from Jachyra:
I never said that... you did. I try to do my best to avoid making sweeping generalizations and blanket statements.
???HUH???
Quote from Mr J:
I've debated over the definition in this thread, and I'm pretty sure it was with Jachyra. The funny thing is somehow it switched from 'gambling' to 'chance', when I said 'chance' is always a factor.
The fact is that any credible dictionary has at least one definiton as this: to place a wager on an uncertain outcome. Gambling in a casino or trading in the markets both fit this description (the two factors being 'stake' and 'uncertain outcome'), so I don't know why people still deny it. It's also pretty clear that many people don't read, as I've brought up the definition a number times only to see people ignore it and state something along the lines of "trading isn't gambling because I have an edge".
The definition isn't really important though, just as long as it is understood that bets/trades need to be placed with a positive expectation.
Quote from Jachyra:
But fine... for the sake of argument lets just say we take your definition.... that its gambling anytime the results are uncertain. I would still contend that if you consistently take more +EV trades than -EV trades, over the long run, the end result is CERTAIN... you will make more money than you lose.... GUARANTEED. If you take more -EV trades than +EV trades, in the long run, you will lose more money than you make.... GUARANTEED. The end result is very easy to predict and the outcome of doing either is very certain... and that is a statistical fact.
So, even using your own definition or connotation of the word, at best all you can say is that any one trade or any small number of trades are gambling. But that once you have enough trades to have a sufficient sample size, it can not possibly be gambling because whether you made or lost money, the outcome was certain and predictable in advance.
Like Don said:
If you made money - good
If you lost money - bad
Money in the bank end of week - excellent
Whether a trader considers to call trading gambling is a personal matter. Everybody knows that it is not widely accepted as gambling, because apart from similarities there are also differences, that's why we have so many words, so that different meanings have matching words.
But I will argue that it is not beneficial for a trader to realise that "trading is gambling" as some have suggested, understanding how to control risk/probabilities/etc. are of course essential.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
"...There is no such thing as an event being "due." An event is not more likely just because it has not happened for a long time. For example, many people mistakenly believe that if one color in roulette has won several times in a row then the other color is overdue and they should bet on it. While the ratio of reds to blacks will always approach 50/50 in the long term, it can not be concluded that this will happen in the short term. It does not matter what the history of past spins is; every trial in games of luck like roulette are independent, and each color is equally likely to come up every time. If you don't believe me, try guessing the toss of 1,000 coin flips using any method of prediction you like. I guarantee that 99% of the time you will get between 459 and 541 correct.
The idea that events can be "due" is known as the Gambler's Fallacy..."
Markets are driven by humans, a true gambling event is independent of all previous ones & can not be guaranteed as there is no intervention of a human. So considering that, why would trading be gambling? Surely it is dependant on how an individual goes about it.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from BSAM:
Let's see here now.....
Your friends gamble in the markets.
It is possible to gamble in the markets.
It is probably more common for people to gamble in the markets than not.
Yet, you are that rarest of breeds who participates in the markets, but your tading isn't gambling.
Hmmmmm.....(Scratching head).....Sumpin' jest don't scheem right here.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from JSSPMK:
Markets are driven by humans, a true gambling event is independent of all previous ones. So considering that, why would trading be gambling? Surely it is dependant on how an individual goes about it.
Quote from Jachyra:
I completely agree... true gambling events are governed by chance... the markets are governed by supply and demand.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from ElCubano:
think about if it really wasn't gambling...it'd be 95% make it and 5% don't ...considering the cost to entry into this industry....peace
__________________
Dackster.
Quote from nyustudent:
OMG thats a GREAT point! Even their own definition doesnt support their claim that trading is gambling.
Plus their arguments are getting so ridiculous. Now they want us to believe that flying on an airplane is gambling just because there is always some small chance that it might crash? Get real dudes! Is eating also gambling just because there is always a small chance that you might choke and die?
Quote from Jachyra:
The debate switched to "chance" because the first two definitions of gambling both indicated that the results had to be dictated by chance... so obviously the definition of it became important.
But fine... for the sake of argument lets just say we take your definition.... that its gambling anytime the results are uncertain. I would still contend that if you consistently take more +EV trades than -EV trades, over the long run, the end result is CERTAIN... you will make more money than you lose.... GUARANTEED. If you take more -EV trades than +EV trades, in the long run, you will lose more money than you make.... GUARANTEED. The end result is very easy to predict and the outcome of doing either is very certain... and that is a statistical fact.
So, even using your own definition or connotation of the word, at best all you can say is that any one trade or any small number of trades are gambling. But that once you have enough trades to have a sufficient sample size, it can not possibly be gambling because whether you made or lost money, the outcome was certain and predictable in advance.
Quote from BSAM:
...why don't we see your name on the Forbes 400 list?...
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from JSSPMK:
.....Forbes 400 is full of people that take risks using favourable odds......
Quote from BSAM:
Er, uh, hmmm.....Wouldn't that constitute ga....No, no that.....that couldn't be gambl.....gambling?.....Or, could it???
Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my! I'm so confused. ;>)
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
Not if you make money, Baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from ElCubano:
Not if you make money, Baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from JSSPMK:
I believe this discussion has now reached its apex, because BSAM has said that he considers all business activities, because they carry uncertain outcomes, a gamble. You say tomato, I say tomA'to, know what I mean?
Quote from nyustudent:
This pretty much sums it up.
Except I would take it one step further. With the exception of dropping an object from his hand and being certain that gravity will make it fall to the ground, it doesn't seem as though there is anything at all in this world that he wouldn't consider gambling since the outcome of everything is uncertain.
When I first started trading years ago I would have said it wasn't gambling and that trading was just equivalent to repetitive short term "investing" because you have an edge and a positive mathematical expectation over the long run.
Now though I do think it's gambling because no matter how good the trading system... the future is always an unknown and even the casino can lose over extended periods.
So now I gamble with my money by using a positive mathematical expectation over the long run. I essentially "card count" the market with an edge better than I can get in Vegas playing blackjack. And there are so many various tables to play in the market that I can easily pick and choose and find the best dealers to play with based on the "characters" that participate in the various markets.
Quote from Jachyra:
But fine... for the sake of argument lets just say we take your definition.... that its gambling anytime the results are uncertain. I would still contend that if you consistently take more +EV trades than -EV trades, over the long run, the end result is CERTAIN... you will make more money than you lose.... GUARANTEED. If you take more -EV trades than +EV trades, in the long run, you will lose more money than you make.... GUARANTEED. The end result is very easy to predict and the outcome of doing either is very certain... and that is a statistical fact.
gam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
In the sense of
1.a, traders are gamblers because the bet on an uncertain outcome, regardless the presence of an edge or methodology.
1.b, traders are gamblers if the market is a game of chance for stakes. I do not know the answer to this. It is probably not a technical issue but a matter of perspective.
2, traders are gamblers, because they take a risk in the hope of gaining money
3, traders are gamblers if we consider their acts potentially hazardous to their accounts and in certain cases to their health.
Therefore, we can conclude that traders are gamblers, although, contrary to common belief, gambling is not always a sensless and useless activity.
Hey, I have just designed a completely new and non-gambling trading system, it involves a dice and a coin, it trades once a day:
1. At the open I roll the dice. It will give the entry time, 1 means 10 am, 2 means 11 am, ...6 means 3 pm.
2. I flip a coin, head means long, tail means short. At the time determined in Step #1 I go long or short of ES futures according to the coinflip's result.
3. Automatic 5 pts target and 5 pts stop loss. Whichever gets hit first takes me out of the position. If neither is hit by 4 pm, I exit at the close.
Can someone write a code for this clearly scientific and non-gambling trading system and backtest it??? Many thanks....
Pek, how about this one, find a H&S pattern on a monthly/weekly chart and keep shorting neckline support with stops being say 1/50th of a realistically projected target.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from intradaybill:
gam·ble (gmbl)
v. gam·bled, gam·bling, gam·bles
v.intr.
1.
a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
b. To play a game of chance for stakes.
2. To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
3. To engage in reckless or hazardous behavior: You are gambling with your health by continuing to smoke.
In the sense of
1.a, traders are gamblers because the bet on an uncertain outcome, regardless the presence of an edge or methodology.
1.b, traders are gamblers if the market is a game of chance for stakes. I do not know the answer to this. It is probably not a technical issue but a matter of perspective.
2, traders are gamblers, because they take a risk in the hope of gaining money
3, traders are gamblers if we consider their acts potentially hazardous to their accounts and in certain cases to their health.
Therefore, we can conclude that traders are gamblers, although, contrary to common belief, gambling is not always a sensless and useless activity.
What's entertaining is how you have now linked personal interpretation with a fact
Quote from BSAM:
Good post, ib. But, sit tight bro. Some will come along here and string together a bunch of superfluous speech in an attempt to "prove" that your factual statements are wrong. Very entertaining.
__________________
"TRADE WHAT YOU SEE" - Master Osorico
Quote from Dackster:
If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.
Dackster.
Quote from MAESTRO:
Gambling is a layman term for the "Game of Chance".
Any time you put your money at risk you are taking a gamble!
Trading is a kind of a game where bets are consciously placed on the perceived higher probability outcomes of this multiplayer game.
Trading is nothing more than the act of buying or selling!
Trading is a typical non-cooperative game (John Nash) where each individual strategy depends on the success or failure of other people's strategies.
Trading is nothing more than the act of buying or selling!
Gambling is typically referred to as "uneducated guess activity" but for a professional gambler it is not so.
Gambling is when you place a bet, aka, a trade!
His/her decisions usually are driven by the prior knowledge of the probabilities distribution of a known game.
For the majority, trading decisions are usually driven by misinformation that is put in the public arena for a specific purpose!
Few have seen beyond this farcical illusion and proceed to take money out of the market by knowing when and how to act!
Quote from MAESTRO:
I think it is not so much the ability of a trader to discover the information, but objective properties of the game to possess structural bias that can or cannot be discovered by a particular participant makes the difference.
Unless the coin is objectively unfair the ability to discover it may not exist
Quote from ivanbaj:
I think I get it. Assuming that the game is a betting game, and the car is worth $100,000, and you have to bet $40,000 to play the game.
The chances of picking the correct door is 1/3. You do not have an advantage. Playing will be gambling.
But assume the host (who knows where the car is) opens a door with a goat now you have an advantage and it is not gambling on a long run.
To trade you need to find this type of information in the price/volume MP what ever and create an edge.
and to crown it off, the trader can also create a so called "positive expectancy" system by becoming disciplined at what they have discovered - what a joke
Honestly , I think it is. You don't own anything , just the promise , and you bet for outcome .
And it beats me , why this Fukin Gov. wants to regulate
sports betting and doesn't want to regulate the wall street.
Quote from ElCubano:
how do you know when you are gambling or not??? after the fact??
Quote from Mario66:
if you dont know what your doing its gambling. If youve been doing it for years and know whats going on its strategy.
If you don't know what you are doing you should not be doing it, aka, stupidity!
If you have been doing it for years, then you should know what you are doing!
If you are still doing it for years, and don't know what you are doing, then stupidity can be replaced by addiction.
If you are addicted and losing you might need help.
If you are addicted and winning you might want to help others.
Quote from MAESTRO:
ABSOLUTELY!!! That is the ultimate answer to the topic of this thread!
[QUOTE]Quote from ivanbaj:
Interestingly my trading has come to this:
If price is trying to go UP and fails then go short.
Sometimes, but if you do this all the time you will be one sorry trader!
If the door opens and there is a goat, change doors.
Goat is actually very nice when cooked gently!
It feels more like playing a chest game than gambling.
Works well. /QUOTE]
.
Quote from nysestocks:
Anytime you put your money at risk you are taking a gamble, aka, gambling!!
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Maestro A Freudian slip (chest) ?
Quote from Doug Allen:
Experience, i.e., doing it for years, helps ingrain the odds into your head subconsciously. Therefore, enough of the random luck factor is removed.
I don't see how it is that much unlike gambling. I think it has more to do with the type of trader you are.
Day Trading or Long Term are two different animals.
You still have research involved in both activities.
In poker for example you learn to read a players tells or behaviors while with a stock you well, research it....
__________________
Stock Trading Software
Quote from Doug Allen:
Experience, i.e., doing it for years, helps ingrain the odds into your head subconsciously. Therefore, enough of the random luck factor is removed.
Quote from ElCubano:
I guess you don't read what people are posting...
Quote from Mr J:
So every one of your trades wins. No? Then the "random luck factor", aka "variance", is existent. If it is existent for one trade then it exists for all, which means that entire careers are at variance's mercy. The more good trades you make the more likely you are to succeed longterm, but there are no guarantees.
Quote from ammo:
do you think gambling is gambling?
Quote from Mr J:
So every one of your trades wins. No? Then the "random luck factor", aka "variance", is existent. If it is existent for one trade then it exists for all, which means that entire careers are at variance's mercy.
Quote from DeeDeeTwo:
You have a very limited understanding of stats.
Do you think IB's Market Making operation is gambling?
Do you think IB is "at variance's mercy".
Have you ever even looked at IB's financial statements?
My hedge fund has roughly the same risk profile as IB's MM operation...
Because most successful trading firms...
Grind out steady profits...
Using CLASSIC Market Making and Relative Value Arb techniques...
While staying VERY close to market neutral at all times.
This is not a secret... nor is it rocket science...
The problem with most of the losers here...
Is that they got sucked into some nonsensical "strategy" that doesn't work...
And then spend 5 years in a dead end before quitting.
What fun.
trading is gambling..if you profit from it you are a professional gambler and if you dont you are just a gambler..thats the only difference..card counters are professionals , joe schmoe at the blackjack table is a gambler..
Quote from moonlightxpress:
trading is gambling..if you profit from it you are a professional gambler and if you dont you are just a gambler..thats the only difference..card counters are professionals , joe schmoe at the blackjack table is a gambler..
In as much as gambling is playing the odds then trading is gambling. The difference between trading and most other forms of gambling, like the casino and the lottery for example, is that in trading you determin your odds by the strategy/edge you trade rather than having the odds stacked against you by a house or bookmaker. Traders who do not get this may as well be playing their money on the roulette table.
Quote from Mvic:
In as much as gambling is playing the odds then trading is gambling. The difference between trading and most other forms of gambling, like the casino and the lottery for example, is that in trading you determin your odds by the strategy/edge you trade rather than having the odds stacked against you by a house or bookmaker. Traders who do not get this may as well be playing their money on the roulette table.
, long!
Quote from DeeDeeTwo:
You have a very limited understanding of stats.
Do you think IB's Market Making operation is gambling?
Do you think IB is "at variance's mercy".
Have you ever even looked at IB's financial statements?
My hedge fund has roughly the same risk profile as IB's MM operation...
Because most successful trading firms...
Grind out steady profits...
Using CLASSIC Market Making and Relative Value Arb techniques...
While staying VERY close to market neutral at all times.
This is not a secret... nor is it rocket science...
The problem with most of the losers here...
Is that they got sucked into some nonsensical "strategy" that doesn't work...
And then spend 5 years in a dead end before quitting.
What fun.
Quote from Mr J:
I'm amazed I opened this thread again.
If there is no certainty, then IB would be at "variance's mercy". Risk management is most cases isn't about removing risk, it's about minimising risk to such levels where failure or even large drawdowns become an extremely unlikely occurance.
You talk as if your operation and others like it have no risk at all. That's quite ignorant.
Quote from Mr J:
Risk management is most cases isn't about removing risk... it's about minimising risk to such levels where failure or even large drawdowns become an extremely unlikely occurance.
You talk as if your operation and others like it have no risk at all. That's quite ignorant.
Trading is gambling - so what! It isn't a business per se either - running a fund that involves trading is a business. Get real.
That said, I've made a nice living for a number of years as an independent trader.
Quote from Mvic:
In as much as gambling is playing the odds then trading is gambling. The difference between trading and most other forms of gambling, like the casino and the lottery for example, is that in trading you determin your odds by the strategy/edge you trade rather than having the odds stacked against you by a house or bookmaker. Traders who do not get this may as well be playing their money on the roulette table.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from DeeDeeTwo:
You cannot seem to relate to fact...
That IB has a very low risk business model...
And just sailed thru the biggest Financial Crisis in a 70 years...
While continuing to post profits.
My firm has as very similar risk profile on a smaller scale...
And is posting record profits 2007-09
This is not rocket science...
But just sticking to CLASSIC Market Making and Relative Arb techniques...
And understanding how to build Market Neutral hedges and baskets and Portfolios...
Whether on a small or large scale.
Nothing is stopping you guys from doing this...
Learning how to do this...
But I suppose it's much easier...
To make bizarre statements about claims of "no risk".
This is like Obama saying...
We have a "choice" between "unlimited risk" and "no risk"...
Between spending $8,000,000,000,000 or "doing nothing".
Hey, riddle me this...What separates a losing trader from a losing gambler?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but.... When Trading, one doesn't need to be "right" about a given outcome, but with Gambling, how can you be wrong about the outcome, but win the bet?
Yeah... it's like playing blackjack while counting cards.
Trading is exact opposite of gambling... if you are gambling, you are not trading.
__________________
trend is your friend
If you don't have a solid trading plan and are throwing money into the market without understanding what is going on, then you're gambling.
Quote from Dr.Greenback:
Hey, riddle me this...What separates a losing trader from a losing gambler?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but.... When Trading, one doesn't need to be "right" about a given outcome, but with Gambling, how can you be wrong about the outcome, but win the bet?
Trading requires a plan to succeed, just as with any business. Gambling takes luck, or card counting. Either way, without planning, you're going to lose, so it has to do with whether there's a plan. No plan means you are gambling. If you have a plan and compare yourself to benchmarks, you'll do fine. It's when you get stupid and overleverage yourself causing you to nuke your account that makes trading the same as gambling. As long as you understand this and have taken enough years to find your edge, yes, years, then you'll do fine trading.
Investing has positive expectancy, and gambling has negative expectancy, and this is the main difference. While most traders do lose, it is because they have no plan. Taking the time to develop one will keep it from "seeming like" gambling. Again, this takes at least two years, three and you'll start to be long term profitable.
"Speculation [trading] is often misunderstood as being the same as gambling, when in fact it is the opposite of gambling. What gambling involves, whether in games of chance or in actions like playing Russian roulette, is creating a risk that would not exist, in order either to profit or to exhibit one's skill or lack of fear. What economic speculation [trading] involves is coping with an inherent risk in such a way as to minimize it and to leave it to be borne by whoever is best equipped to bear it."
-Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics-a common sense guide to the economy
yes or no, depending on your reason(s) for placing trades.
Quote from dsss27:
"Speculation [trading] is often misunderstood as being the same as gambling, when in fact it is the opposite of gambling. What gambling involves, whether in games of chance or in actions like playing Russian roulette, is creating a risk that would not exist, in order either to profit or to exhibit one's skill or lack of fear. What economic speculation [trading] involves is coping with an inherent risk in such a way as to minimize it and to leave it to be borne by whoever is best equipped to bear it."
-Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics-a common sense guide to the economy
Yip...just like blackjack.
__________________
The trend is your friend.
Quote from Dr.Greenback:
Hey, riddle me this...What separates a losing trader from a losing gambler?
Correct me where I'm wrong, but.... When Trading, one doesn't need to be "right" about a given outcome, but with Gambling, how can you be wrong about the outcome, but win the bet?
Quote from Mr J:
I forgot to state that by "outcome", I'm talking about the right side to take before the game/trade, not the result itself. If we're talking about the result itself, then a gambler can't be wrong about the income and win the bet, since in gambling you either win or lose the stake completely.
__________________
Joe.
Quote from Mr J:
since in gambling you either win or lose the stake completely.
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Whenever you put your money at risk - you are taking a gamble - a.k.a GAMBLING
Quote from nysestocks:
Whenever you put your money at risk - you are taking a gamble - a.k.a GAMBLING
__________________
Freedom, I have much love for ya!!
Quote from ElCubano:
I agree...
Anytime you risk ASSETS or MONEY you gamble, not that you can't have an edge with your gambling.
You can gamble with your money, rolex watch, cars, house, loans and even your future.
Therefore you could view life as one big gamble! Really! You just pick the gambles you take
Some people like to do crazy things...
some like to get into risky businesses during "bubbles."
If you think about there's so much we gamble on every day, in small ways.
Quote from Jaytrade:
Anytime you risk ASSETS or MONEY you gamble, not that you can't have an edge with your gambling.
You can gamble with your money, rolex watch, cars, house, loans and even your future.
Therefore you could view life as one big gamble! Really! You just pick the gambles you take
Some people like to do crazy things...
some like to get into risky businesses during "bubbles."
If you think about there's so much we gamble on every day, in small ways.
Websters dictionary's description of the word, Gamble is;
To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest.
To play a game of chance for stakes.
To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit.
Based on that I would say that "most" people that are in the markets "gamble" though there are those who I dont believe gamble and those are successful traders.
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:30 AM.