No, it is still a form of gambling, but one that affords an informed player potentially better odds than other casino games.
Basic strategy blackjack is gambling because basic strategy will not get the odds on your side. Advanced strategy aka card counting will get the odds on your side, but there's a serious investment of time and effort to get good at card counting without being detected by the pit bosses. The casinos treat counters as if they were cheaters. It isn't cheating, but nobody's been able to bring a court case to settle the matter. Counters want to be undetectable, not litigators.
Disagree. Most people will say "risk of loss" = "gambling". But Casinos are built on the premise (certainty) that the player overall must lose because the payout for winning is less the probability of winning... in the law of large numbers. Let's use for example, roulette.... and assuming a perfectly random wheel... the law of large numbers says the house eventually wins all the money because the payout is 35:1 when the probability of winning says the payout should be 37 or 38:1. That 2% or so edge is ALWAYS in the house's favor. So any and every player is trying to "get lucky" against unfavorable odds. Now lets compare a card counter in black jack... when the deck count is in his favor and he bets bigger because of it, he can put the odds in HIS favor by 2 or more percent. Proper trading is like card counting except the winning edge in trading is much greater than 2%. If one strictly limits his definition of gambling to "risk of loss", then buying a coke from a vending machine must also be "gambling"... sometimes you don't get your drink due to a malfunction.
Of course. But good business is informed gambling. For example, when a businessman chooses a store location, he can either do so on a whim, or he can due some marketing research, traffic analysis and so on. The better informed he is, the better his chances are of having a successful business. However, there is still no guarantee. He may put the odds in his favor and stand a far better chance than the whimsical fellow, but the outcome remains uncertain. The future can be like that. Unless, of course, if you're Halliburton...
like you said we are arguing semantics but i think you are taking the definition of gambling to levels of absurdity. basically you are saying every action we ever take in life is a gamble. when you take things to this end words become somewhat worthless. just my opinion
Your argument further corroborates my original premise. Ralph vince once said, "In a negative expectation game, there is no money-management scheme that will make you a winner." I think that sums up your argument regarding games of chance that are not in your favor. And I don't disagree there. If you are going to gamble successfully, then part of that process is understanding what games to play and which games to stay away from. Understanding why negative expectation games are not favorable (like your roulette game ex) is part of the process of systematically understanding the rules of risk management applied towards any type of speculative gambling/gaming endeavor. The original argument I made (way back on the first post), is that you should spend more time understanding trading in terms of a gambling system (which games should i play-- why do I have an edge in blackjack -- why is roulette a negative expecation game, etc..), rather than read the deluge of books on studying anecdotal chart patterns. Not all -- but the far majority of the latter type of books, are extremely subjective in their approach, and a good waste of time. I think anyone that's honestly been down this path can relate. However, as stated earlier, at this point most seem to be quibbling over semantics. Hopefully, we can get over that hurdle so others might ascertain the true message of thread.
I would say that if the vending machine is rusted out and looks like it hasn't been serviced in decades, then attempting to buy a drink from it is definitely gambling, and not very wise gambling at that. Gnome, I revert to the basic definition of gambling, which is betting on an uncertain outcome. Beyond that, the distinction is between intelligent, informed gambling and stupid gambling. Therein lies the distinction insofar as I am concerned. Some outcomes are more uncertain than others and can often be deemed as such a priori.
Not really. Just to the levels of dictionary specificity. Beyond that, you are injecting either personal or cultural bias.
FWIW professional card counters (i.e., those actually good enough to make a living at it) refer to themselves as gamers, not gamblers. Gamblers are those people at the craps tables, at the slot machines or sitting next to the gamers while playing basic strategy blackjack.
That's your definition, not mine.... and while I don't know which (if either) is the correct and "official" definition, I chose to regard yours as incomplete. I'll offer one more example, then I'll be done... The life insurance business. Does that seem a "gamble"? The insurance company charges a premium significantly in excess of the probability of the insured dying... yet, there is "risk of loss" and "uncertainty of outcome" regarding each insured. I don't now nor have I ever regarded trading as gambling.