Wrong... There is no cost to wait(the yield will reflect return)...as instruments range more than they trend....this is a fact. Now visualize the second pair of hedged instruments offset to the middle of the range of the first set of pairs.. Ok, you will say the sky is falling and anything is possible, but again this is semantics... There has never been a modern, exchange traded, currency trading in a straight line with no price change EVER for an extended period...
Folks... There is a nature of an instrument. You can measure historical MAE and MFE. You can measure volatility. Ok...You cannot measure infinity....or the future... Do you really want to rely upon the unknown for a basis to extrapolate the hypotheses that trading is gambling?... Weak arguments....We are traders.....not philosophers.... There is alway "what if" analysis and "if" and/or "then" reactions to price or condition....this is not gambling....and I say the deeper you get into a trade the less gamble it becomes, by using the posted examples...
First, let me restate the legal definition of gambling as succinctly as possible. Gambling requires three elements: 1. A prize (what you get if you win). 2. The element of chance (uncertainty in the outcome/the guess). 3. Consideration (money/bet). Instruments neither "trend" nor "range." However, certain major market participants have a vested interest in moving prices to levels that maximize those major market participants' profits. And, if a person can manage to discover what those price levels are, and place a bet before they are reached, then such a person can also make a profit (aka, the "prize"). The problem is that there is precious little evidence available from which the average person can discover those price levels with any regularity. This leaves most people with one alternative, i.e., guessing as to the outcome. Guessing + Consideration + Prize = Gambling. Therefore, trading is gambling. At least, for most people.
There is no collective... But in currencies there could be corporate currency orders at the desk...waiting for the 8:00 fix...But this is currency related and is an artificial run-up of prices to close the corporate order at a higher level to later profit from....thus a short term range is completed... But who cares..... That means there is more volatility to grab....and the fact that instruments range more than they trend, enables more realized P/L....But if you belive they don't that would mean higher unrealized P/L to endure...while grabbing volatility. But I will tell you this. If you stretch out all the pips of the chops verses the length of the trends...you will be more profitable grabbing the chop....this is the proof of range and that trading is not neccesarily gambling... This is the nature of most instruments..... Trading is not gambling with the examples I cite...But open my mind, I could be wrong.... certain major market participants have a vested interest in moving prices to levels that maximize those major market participants' profits
It is Gambling, but you seriosly increase your chances of winning to above 50% if you do some basic estimating. In a normal lottery the chances of winning are almost 0.
If you bought all the tickets would this be gambling? Visualize this....What if you bought half of them to win and half of them to lose, with a reversal option for later and a bonus off all the winnings in between?....what say you? gawd....don't you folks get it? Do I need to learn how to communicate all over again....What am i doing wrong...how can I explain this better. You do not need to decide anything, causing you to lose... Get out of the box...open your minds..... I know why the markets work now.....Some people will never get it... In a normal lottery the chances of winning are almost 0
OK. 1. If the market is fair, then it must be random. Otherwise, the market is not fair. It is the very randomness of the market that demonstrates its fairness. Instruments are a part of the market, therefore, if they are fairly traded, they must also be random. 2. It is well established, and mathematical proof of this, is available in any standard probability and statistics textbook, that it is impossible to predict, with any certainty, the outcome of a future, random event. One can analyze the probability of a series of random trials, only if all of the possible outcomes are known in advance. In a game of dice there are 36 possible outcomes, thus the probabilities are known. In the market, there are an infinite number of outcomes, thus the probabilities cannot be known. 3. If the market is random, and no future random event can be predicted with certainty, then instruments which make up the market of random events do not trend, nor range, because if they did, then the market would not be fair/random. This leads to the following, rather interesting hypothesis. If anyone discovers a means of predicting a future trend or range in the market or its instruments, then they have simultaneously proved that the market is not fair. Rather, it is rigged. If the market is rigged, then instruments may indeed trend or range. Some people have postulated that the market is indeed rigged, short term. The trick, is to discover, if it is rigged, then how is it rigged. Have you discovered that the market is rigged, short term? If so, then tell us how.