Intellectual effort is not the same as University intellectuals many of whom are IYI as Taleb rightly points out. IYI = Intellectuals yet Idiots. For example, I never went to university but I apply much intellectual effort to my trading every day...
Does luck play a part in your results? Good luck at times, bad luck at other times, or are most your results from pure skill?
I'm in denial. To be honest - when I enter based on strict criteria utilizing patience and discipline based on a backtested methodology, it does not feel like gambling. Even if it's a loss. But I'm still prone to getting 'reckless' once in a while and at those times I totally feel like I'm gambling and don't really know what I'm doing.
I consider I gamble when trading. I run a strict method, rinse and repeat, I take risks, but decades of trading experience. Yet every day, all day one minute to the next I have no idea which way my profits or losses will swing. Edit: since March this year +33% ROI after costs.
What (proper) trading and gambling have in common... 1. Risk of loss, and 2. uncertainty of outcome. What they DON'T have in common is "probability of outcome". When you gamble, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LOSE... You're hoping to prevail against odds which are against you and fixed... and you can do nothing to put odds in your favor.... that's why it's called "gambling". When you trade the markets, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO WIN.... With proper trading, you can stack the odds so heavily in your favor that it's almost impossible to lose! (Emphasis on "proper", of course.)
Ditto! You are the first person I've encountered (besides me) on this! Counting cards is most like trading.... you "get the money out" when the odds are in your favor. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that poker is a game of skill, not gambling.
Yep, that's why I said there are a few speculators in Casinos, the card counters (if allowed, or if not caught) and the Poker guys. Both of them aren't gambling assuming they're sticking to their game-plan. Mostly of course Casinos are full of gamblers with no chance over the long term of increasing their stake. Still, gambling can be fun with small amounts.
Think of this.... Let's assume 90% of traders lose. Therefore a definition could be assumed, when you trade you'll highly likely lose. Now people/traders evolve, with practice they should get better. Is a losing trader a gambler while a winner isn't? At what point in time does a gambler not be a gambler, the point of being profitable? What if for 6 months profitable, then a losing streak? Does said trader on losing become a gambler just because they had a losing streak?
Most traders lose early on in their experience. That's because they're trading on hope instead of knowledge. If you trade with "proper knowledge and discipline" (easier said than done), then you WILL NOT HAVE LOSING STREAKS! Years ago I once had a string of 9 consecutive losers. I have a friend who trades and once had a string of 14 losers. That was waaaaay back when.. before we really understood. (Can you imagine 14 lowers in a row? Every time you make a play you get chopped off at the knees. Sort of weighs on a fella, you know?) Now... I should NEVER have a string of consecutive losers... though I may have a "cluster of maybe 4 losers". When I get a cluster of 4 losers, I recognize that I SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THAT... and that I'm probably "trading around the wrong bias". That is, I'm "buying the dip" when I should not be... or I'm "shorting strength when I should not be". It doesn't take 10 losers to figure that out.
i like joe namath’s simple test it’s gambling if: a. you have to pay to play or risk losing money to play b. you win money if favorable outcome occurs but not all gambling is created equal. there’s advantage play and there’s uncontrolled gambling against very bad odds where do you fit in on that scale?