look, zero sum has nothing to do with whether or not you will make money zero sum has a precise meaning i suggest people look it up. it is tightly defined 99% of the people arguing that equities market ARE zero sum or that futures markets ARE NOT zero sum don't understand game theory. and game theory DEFINES what zero sum means. it's definitional.
This is definitely the funniest thing I have read all day this loser does not think 1000$ is credible lol, keep losing money and feeding my account in this "zero" sum game you are truly handicapped I hope this works out for you, all the best "truly"! How about the originator of this thread who is the branch manager of regina which is tied in with Saskatoon attests to wether or not this number is credible, you are a joke bittrend keep trying though. It will never cease to amaze me that those who think this is a winners game inevitably win and those who think it's a losers game inevitably lose.
1. No, because either I have smoked it or I didn't have any in the first place (i.e. you were assuming), or somebody stole it from me, or the rats ate it (oh, oh they ganged up on me again). 2. You could trade it as an ETF, because I would definitely not sell it to you, unless the sale was hostile (even then you would have to go to war with me). 3. You would have to find an exchange to trade the "pot" ETF, who would have to decide how many ounces per futures contract (depending on my usage, how much the exchange wanted to profit per contract, and, the volume of the ETF to be traded). Not to mention the trading currency of my choosing (include currency manipulation into that). 4. The exchange would then have to have an insurance (include rats, and war) to trade the ETF, and also the liquidiy in the form of a tangible asset (e.g. gold, US T bonds (who's value also fluctuates)). 5. All of the above assumes that my usage of the "pot" would increase (shorts) or decrease (longs), i.e. those taking long positions would want me to use less as they wanted to buy more for themselves. 6. You would then have to cash in the long futures contract, inorder to buy the "pot," at your time of choosing (which may be different to someone else i.e. your consumption is different to someone else). 7. Once you cash the long in, you have to know that I have the "pot" in storage (which also has a tangible cost, insurance). 8. I may invoke "force majour" for any number of reasons (I may not have it, it may have got stolen, my consumption may have increased). 9. I then have to deliver it to a place and time specified on the contract (involves tangible assets including insurance as you want to receive the "pot" in the condition stated on the contract (standard) i.e. not diluted. 10. If the "pot" got stolen, I claim the insurance, the shorts are then stuck, and thus not zero sum, as no long positions to off set. 11. YOU THEN HAVE TO EXCLUDE REFCO FROM THE EQUATION WHO ARE HAPPY TO KICK YOU AROUND LIKE A FOOTBALL, OR BOUNCE YOU AROUND ON THE COURT DURING MARCH MADNESS.
equity markets are probably not absolute zero sum, but many traders seem to believe that one man's misery is often another man's gain. it is war for many. so the concept of zero sum does get thrown into the mix. it's semantics, really...
"equity markets are probably not absolute zero sum, " amazing there is no probably about it they are not zero sum futures and options markets are read the thread again. get a book on game theory.
Its still a zero sum game , because the people who sold early, like yourself at 200, is missing out on potential cash they could have had selling at 350. So you are the loser on the trade from 200 to 350. And the company is the loser from 0 to the price you bought, as far as the stock market would be concerced, although we all know they benefit from the capital they raised by their public offering. But in theory the for every dollar the stock goes up the companies owners before the IPO are the losers.
Scalping with a time horizon of minutes or hours is a zero sum game... (Plus transaction costs)... Unless you want to make some tiny semantic distinction. No one is talking about investing here. Tiny semantic distinctions serve no purpose in most real life trading situations... And are strictly for losers.