Discussion in 'Psychology' started by ElectricSavant, Apr 10, 2005.
Is this an oxymoran... I like it...
There is an element of gambling any time you depend on a less than certain outcome.
Come on NS
You can do better than the "semantics" driven post...this is boring...
Apply it to the example (s)
Lets not turn this into another duh trading or gambling thread..
Come out with it...
what say you, why is trading gambling? don't post what sounds good. NS this is semantics
Sigh, this is getting boring....Same old ET...
Do most instruments range more than they trend by percentage of time?
Semantics? I'm trying to cut to the chase.
Show me an example contrary to my solution, and I'll splice the interlude back in.
Anyway, I can't download that attachment.
What if I don't care about the outcome....
What if movement in ANY direction is all I depend on?
What say you? Gambling or not?
P.S. Visualize another set of hedged pairs in the other direction. We have a total of four instruments now....or two if you want the perfect hedge
IC. well perhaps we have different thoughts. I'm just of the opinion that no matter how well developed your model is...price action is impossible to predict perfectly...so the best models are simply trying to place bets w/ the best odds. Like a poker player.
Difference of opinion/ view of trading.
I wish you luck w/ your strategies.
But trading does not have to be gambling....odds seem to conotate expectation...
Sorry if I'm boring you, but your question is irrelevant to the thread topic, which was whether or not trading is gambling. Trading exactly meets the legal definition of gambling, if the subject matter of the wager has no inherent underlying value.
Options have no inherent underlying value, by design, thus, trading options meets the legal definition of gambling, and therefore trading options is gambling.
If you wish to change the original question to something like: "Can the odds of trading be made routinely favorable for the trader," then your question may become relevant.
ET threads routinely become moving targets. I don't want to argue against a moving target. But, if you want to fix the question at some other point, then I'll be happy to discuss that point.
Excuse me, I read all your posts and agree with most of what you say. But sometimes, I get the feeling you post what sounds good and have no idea how to trade. No disrespct intended...
I am applying the proof that trading is not gambling by pointing to a working example.
We must take this step by step...
Sorry, but I want you to see this.
I cannot tell you an opinion.
If you believe that most instruments range more than they trend and can apply a percentage to it, then I say that trading cannot be a game of chance or gambling...or a desired unknown outcome...or luck...blah balah blah...
Maybe it can't be proven maybe it can? What say you..
Is trading gambling or not....
Separate names with a comma.