Don, you hit it. and I believe you are qualified as you are a pretty good poker player I hear...or is it your brother..I can't keep you two straight... If you did not have the trading edge, I would gamble to say that you would never trade your openings. I believe Bright Trading (perhaps they do have a niche) cannot teach all of the traders how to trade, but it can teach many of them how to "think", which actually makes them quite dangerous (the trader). Michael B.
Thanks, it's always nice to hear something with a little respect (unusual around here at times, LOL)...Bob is the better poker player, but I've made a few final tables as well... Thanks, Don
Well...when I post it..most think I am just kissing a sponsors ass..but trading is so challenging, anything that you can do to put an ace in the (your) hole...you should do no matter what the cost is, it will be returned exponentially..be it boot camp or reading...or testing endlessly...or failing and restarting...etc.... Waste a lot of time, but as little as possible... TraDinG can be "Not Gambling". Folks, Please vote if you have not...and notify the moderator if you have changed your position (Traders are allowed to change their position ) Michael B.
Sorry to disagree, but unlike a business venture trading produces no worthwhile product or service. Thus when you have risk without any substantive achievement it's gotta be called gambling. Same like shooting dice. No product, no service, just gambling. Don
I think this could be simple to state without too much controversy: Unless one is omniscient, all endeavors are ultimately a gamble.
Not sure I'd define chance as a function of recklessness but as a function of things unaccounted for. You can do things to either reduce or increase the risk of an endeavor, but you cannot account and prepare for all risks since many are either unknown or improbable. So I suppose you could say that the chance one takes is improved or degraded by the thoroughness of their preparation (degree of recklessness). Hence the old axiom, "fortune favors the prepared."
I'm fairly confident that I already wrote this earlier somewhere in this thread: any activity where there is a stake involved along with an uncertain outcome is gambling. Some people gamble more wisely than others. Certainly business risk is a form of gambling, whether it is carefully considered or harebrained. It is just a matter of context. Why attach a stigma to the word itself? Look it up. It is what it is.
Everyone has their own subjective interpretation for the term "gambling". What can anyone here possibly gain from debating over something trivial like this? It's like arguing about the "divine command theorem", i.e. Is god holy because he is holy, or is it because men claim he is?