kjent... This is the wrong thread for this...I think Proflogic had something going...(who I respect greatly). You seem to be missing the point here. I am not qualified to discuss this as Proflogic can, but I know this: Barrons ad....The market goes up you make money....it goes down you make money....That fat guy in the raft could be you or me, but the water he is floating in is where the money is made.... Michael B.
Ok, your right....on this...but that is its nature... oh please lets not get into the zero sum conversation...
Try this.. We are backpacking.... The trail ends with a big rock blocking it.... We turn around and go around the rock and get to the other side. Did we travel farther to get to the same place.. (the rock wasn't there last week) ? Why put limits on your range, trend, bias or direction...who cares...take what the rock gave, as you must return home...if you get lost take the profit you seek, from whatever obstacle that presents itself, while searching for your way back. If anybody get this..there could also be a parity point reached...but I do not think I can communicate it...
I don't think I've missed the point at all. You asked if trading was gambling. I believe that I have successfully answered the question in the affirmative. Furthermore, if you were certain that trading wasn't gambling, then you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place, because you would already know the answer. The fact that you have raised the question at all, strongly suggests that you are not at all sure of the answer yourself. From which one may reasonably infer that you are probably losing money.
I am not losing money and I am not as rich a Bill Gates as I just discovered this truth. In my opening remarks I revealed my thoughts... I obviously have offended you, for which I apologize... It is actually comforting to actually discover something that is my own... Michael B. P.S. For reasons unknown to us, there are many other that disagree with you in this poll, so far. But what does that mean, this is ET... P.S.S. What I have got from this poll so far, is that there are others getting control of their ever-growing realization of trading and that there are straight answers to this age-old question. I hope this traditional thread has caused one person to think and evaluate for themselves which split in the road to take. Perhaps there is not a correct answer., but please don't tell me this is just another thread on the subject, or my time is again wasted here as so often happens...
Dear Mr Savant, This is an interesting thread to me. I think though that the question tries to absolutely define something which varies. In otherwords trading can be gambling but it does not have to be gambling. For example, in gambling there are games that incorporate chance but also require some level of skill to emerge profitable over time (backgammon for instance). There are games which are 100% dependent upon chance (roulette, as mentioned earlier). There are games which one participant manufactures and maintains an edge. So in my mind, the variance I'm referring to can be illuminated by asking yourself this question: Is what the house (a casino) does at a roulette table constitute gambling? They have a statististical advantage which they play out over a large number of iterations. Most casinos win a large percentage of the time if they get enough opportunities to apply their edge. They also have overhead which must be met before their edge turns a profit. Even though they take the opposite side of everyone's bet I am hard pressed to refer to what the casino does as "gambling" because most casinos make truckloads of money regularly. Of course Mr Trump shows us that edge can be screwed up so there is no guarantee that even a casino will turn a profit. The people who know what they are doing make truckloads of money almost all the time - even after paying off the customers who win. That is just part of the game. I see trading in the same light. The trick is to manufacture and maintain a satisfactory edge; and have enough opportunities to apply that edge such that over a large N one can overcome the contest costs and turn a profit. My own trading takes advantage of the chop and the fact that markets only trend some 20-40% of the time. I do it with options. I am a small trader working towards having a similar advantage as the house does. I still have some work to do towards that end however but mostly I am satisfied with the progress I have made these last 7 years. My trading still has some elements of gambling which I am working towards eliminating. Peace and gtty, Lar
I am not in the slightest offended. Only one person on ET (and on only one occasion) has ever successfully managed that notable achievement -- and, there's no need to retell that tale. The market does indeed range widely. The problem is that when you personally enter it, your opponent, who is usually a market maker or specialist, will attempt to drive the market into a new range, in order to scare you into abandoning your position, and maintain a profit in his/hers. Thus, the range is not generally predictable in advance, at least, not to your personal profitability. Discovering how to overcome that circumstance is what separates the successful trader from the loser. Based upon your post, you now believe that you have "figured it out." Mazeltov.
Lar, Thanks for your thoughtful response so comman to these threads... Lets take it like this... if 2+2=4 could 2-1+2+1-2+2= 4? In this set could you trade some of the subsets and still arrive at the same place? without gambling? OR KNOWING THE OUTCOME? forget edge!