I only read upto page 10. There you (ElectricSavant) mentioned trending versus ranging. I believe you implied that if it trends, then it is not gambling. If this is what you meant, then I think you also meant that your strategy is a trending strategy. This month I read that the winners with ranging strategies tend to beat out winners with trending strategies. So I would presume that a trending or ranging market does not determine whether trading is gambling. I believe trading is gambling, but the winning trader trades the more probable position. But obviously the fxPadawan has a lot to learn as the vote here is 2:1 that trading is not gambling.
Thank you for voting...this thread is merely a poll, not an illustration of a strategy...per se' but if somebody would like to share the reasons why they believe that trading is "not gambling" or if they believe the opposite...then they are welcome to.
As was said within even those 10 pages I read, if you have an unknown outcome even with assigned probabilities, then you are gambling. Although someone also posted something to the effect that opening a business or many other acts we may perform daily are "gambles". In science, one may say that a process is repeatable "which provides the same output/outcome/result for the given inputs". If your trading method is "repeatable", by somehow controlling the inputs (or at least understanding all inputs/variables) then I suppose you are not gambling. So in IMHO, the trading method is directly related to whether you are gambling when you trade. Of course, the reason I am even here considering trading, is because I think it may be possible to identify the inputs required for repeatable favorable outcomes. Currently such consistent strategies I have considered provide only small gains due to the length of time I would be in the market.
"...Do not gamble. Speculation is not gambling. A gambler is one who does not know what will follow, and therefore takes chances. A speculator is one who knows what is ahead. A gambler possesses little knowledge and bases his trading on luck. A speculator, trading according to rules and laws, succeeds three times of five, and therefore needs no luck. (If you must satisfy your gambling instincts , play soltaire; it is much cheaper)...." George Seamans
As the duration of the trade lenghthens, does the risk or the unknown outcome increase? if you have an edge does it increase? Can Trading be "Not Gambling" and would "duration" have anything to do with it? what say you?...has everyone voted? Michael B. 557/276
Lets say you have a positive expectancy .. you just experienced a string of losses doubling the past historical statistic... what does that mean ...you are trading? does this information make trading "not gambling"? ..the strings mean jackSh**... what say you... have you voted?
Lucky behaviour. Reminds me of the story of the guy mowing his lawn. "Looks like rain" he thinks to himself. He begins mowing and steps up the pace as the clouds start rolling in. He puts his lawn mower away just as it starts raining. He says to himself. "Gee's I'm lucky". His neighbor on the other hand, who began mowing at the same time, but drags along as his usual self, doesn't finish mowing before the rain starts. His reply, "Just my luck".
If someone regards a particular activity as gambling on the basis that that activity's outcome is uncertain, then that person would regard life as gambling. Jim Dines has written some good stuff on trading vs. gambling in his book Mass Psychology in a chapter headed "Why All Gamblers Secretly Want to Lose" It is gambling if you want it to be. I prefer to call it what it is.... a means to an end.