The logic is self evident and you cant refute it because you cant produce a risk free, chance free, impossible to lose way to make money through trading... or else everyone would be doing it
Thats probability and even if we took it to a subatomic level you would see there are no 100% calculations, quantum physicists hate it, but every now and then an electron will do something unpredictable... and thats the very nature of REALITY
Why do you need a second broker? The other way to express what you've done is just to close out your position, while "betting" that the market will retrace a little bit for you to re-enter. If it doesn't retrace, you're stuck with what you have. If it retraces completely and then some, you've given back your profit. In other words, just because you're up a few hands at baccarat, and then starting placing bets on both Player and Dealer simultaneously, doesn't mean you've stopped gambling -- you could have stood up and left the table with your winnings for the same result.
you will say that is a basis to make it not, "not gambling"...weak...weak my friend... In trading the sub-atomic would only cause a breakeven trade to occur...assuming you have an edge...
I thought I did produce a risk free example with the widgets. And for future reference. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... Rumsfeld Saying 'it doesn't exist because if it did everybody would be doing it' isn't a reasonable argument. btw. firms are doing it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
No you didn't because the entire trading world would just widget the market to death if you could make money risk free... does not exist... hence gambling ps: a reliance on the dictionary and wiki exposes a lack of confidence in your own opinions