That is THE definition of zero sum. At the same time, a person is free to believe any definition he or she wants, silly or not.
technically , I probably can create a non-zero sum scenario via dividend and cost of carry , but I rather spend time looking for another profitable trades , LOL
"I would add that options and futures are less than zero sum. They are zero sum minus spread minus commissions" you are right about the commissions, but not the spread because for every person who loses the spread, somebody else makes it. the spread can work FOR you or against you. but if u buy on the bid, you can turn around and sell at the bid (assuming the market hasn't moved of course). it is only those who buy @ ask, then sell @ bid, who lose the spread. so, it's still zero sum the only "external cost" is a commission futures/options are zero sum, when simplified to exclude commissions. stocks are of course not zero sum.
This is one of the silliest most time wasting threads I have come across - and this forum is called "elite trader", laughable. Thank the Lord that a lot of the other threads here are more constructive and enlightening. It obviously only takes one twit to hijack the thread and go off at some ridiculous tangent, showing their total ignorance of options trading (yes, that's referring to you gkishot - you don't even seem to know the difference in risk between an option buyer and seller, as becomes obvious in your second post).
It is stupid to limit the definition of the 'game' to just the buying and selling options and ignore the underlying which the option is a derivative of. For many people the 'game' also includes buying and selling of the underlying which is not a zero sum game.
I will repeat what I said way earlier in my first post in this thread... Why does any of this even matter?