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".) By your [deficient] definition, "crossing the street" would be a gamble. 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.
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.
No I don't. Look the word up in any dictionary, you'll find that there is no mention of it necessarily being negative expectation. Your definition is just what most people assuming 'gambling' to be. Edit, you also said 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.
You are describing "skills"... The Texas Supreme Court once ruled, "poker is not gambling.. but rather a game of skill"... I see gambling as "attempting to beat fixed odds against you"... where the payout is always smaller than the probability of winning. 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. 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.