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.
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.
It's irrelevant. The purpose of this thread is to encourage people to study probabilities, statistical logic and the "signs" of the BIAS in the markets. On the end it does not matter what do we call it. If some of us still prefer "gambling" I have no objections, but I hope that some truly understood the meaning of statistical logic. That's all P.S. I liked the shape of this discussion. In most parts it was an intelligent, mutually respectful conversation. I wish we could be that civilized in our other threads.
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 .
The title of the thread was "is trading gambling" not "can the average person trade without having to gamble" ... obviously there are those in the know and those that are not in the know and lots of people in between. Some are gambling, and some are not.
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. Here is a small sample of how my edge works for live sportsbook betting. Once the event is underway, the actual %'s of winning shift based on what is happening at that moment in time. People are submitting lines that they are willing to book at that moment. Now let's say that at the end of the first quarter of a sporting event, you know based on the score, home team and/or what ever factors you monitor that Team A has a 60% chance of winning and Team B has a 40% chance of winning from this point. The lines offered are: Team A -155, Team B 145 In this case I would have no wager because both are losing propositons based on the %'s. However, if the lines were: Team A -140, Team B 130 I would wager on Team A because I would have an edge. It doesn't necessarily mean I will cash this wager, but if I did my homework correctly, in the long run I will collect more than I lose. Joe.