Trying to formally define some of these words wasn't so successful the first time in moving the conversation forward, but here was what I was able to dig up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gambling gam⋅ble    ˈgæmbəl / [gam-buhl] verb, -bled, -bling, noun âverb (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. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chance chance    /tʃæns, tʃɑns/ [chans, chahns] noun, verb, chanced, chanc⋅ing, adjective ânoun 1. the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled From my perspective, the part that reads "the absence of ANY cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled" is the important part. 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 and thus not gambling. Based on how I read and interpret those definitions, its both possible to gamble as well as not gamble in the markets because we know for a fact that lots of people do in fact place trades without first having ANY information that can be used to "predict, understand, or control" the outcome, and there are also people who believe they have such information, but are incorrect and really don't. 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. So my official position was that it can be both, depending on the information available to the trader and the strategy being implemented, thus, the answer to a question like this is not binary. But these guys seem to want a multiple choice answer to a question that calls for an essay.
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
Exactly. Who really cares though, right? What matters is whether you apply your skills in such a way as to make a profit when you put your money on the line. Good trading/betting/gambling to you!
If you saw one of my previous posts (re: - analogy), then you would know that I have 0 interest in your penis
01001010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01100111 01101001 01110110 01100101 00100000 01101101 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01101111 01101110 01100101 01111001 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01101111 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100111 01100101 01110100 01110011 00100000 01101000 01110101 01110010 01110100 00100001
only ur risk..not the outcome...if one could control the outcome of a trade he would hit his target 100% of the time... show us a trade that you can control the outcome..im an idiot that knows nothing, so i dont mean disrespect....
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.
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?