Search results

I find it amusing that you jump on someone by suggesting that they don't know the definition, when you yourself do not know it. By definition, gambling is when one places a stake on an event with an uncertain outcome. That is it. As for your second part, you seem to be under the impression...

There is another conclusion to draw, and that is you're always gambling with your wealth :). Arguably, every action we take is a gamble. As for your comment about Doyle Brunson, why are you differentiating between a +ev poker player and a +ev trader? Why is one a gambler why the other is not...

I already think that most people in the financial markets are ignorant and stupid, so this doesn't change anything.

Most of the loss is perceived wealth, and the remainder transferred.

Nothing wrong with taking someone out to dinner, but if she expects special treatment for just being a victoria's secret model then I'd kick her out on her arse, regardless of my wealth.

My post was a point in the form of a question. I didn't expect him to post a reasonable reply :).

I feel nothing about a losing trade. It's just a pebble I step on the road to longterm success.

Any credible dictionary will disagree with you. Respectable, honest and legal professions? The financial markets are as dodgy as the 'gambling' markets, and about as many people have no idea. The negative connotation is generated by the ignorant masses, so if your problem is that people look...

Care to expand and present a logical argument?

Seems to me that people can't accept it out of pride, or because they're ignorant of the definition of gambling.

If you go by the official definition, investing is in fact gambling. Gambling is simply where a stake is placed on an event with an uncertain outcome. Most forms of trading or investment involve chance, so by definition, are gambling.

Sounds like a lot of gold diggers that are in denial about their true value.

And you have only been a member for a month. What conclusion should people draw from that? Number of posts or length of membership is completely irrelevent.

And you got that from where? It seems to be a very limited and biased interpretation.

The legal definition of gambling is irrelevent. It only serves to distinguish between 'traditional' gambling, and gambling in markets such as the financials. If you want to use the 'game of skill' argument, most forms of what the public thinks of as 'gambling' can be beaten in some way. In...

It doesn't matter, as the former won't necessarily be a good trader, and the latter may lose it after the inevitable correction.

No I don't. Look the word up in any dictionary, you'll find that there is no mention of it necessarily being negative expectation. Your definition is just what most people assuming 'gambling' to be. Edit, you also said You can also turn the odds in your favour in many traditional forms of...

Some of you clearly don't know the definition of gambling: having a stake on an event with an uncertain outcome. All trading is gambling unless the is no risk involved. I trade. I used to count cards and bet on sports. At all times I was gambling, but also with an edge.

1. Why is irrationality only discovered in hindsight? The only way I can agree with that statement is that the majority of people aren't aware of the irrationality because they're being irrational. 2. As for your examples, just because we're right over the longterm doesn't mean that the...

I suppose you guys just made up those numbers. As has been said, modern humans only appeared 100,000-200,000 years ago. Humans living only 40 years? Life expectancy at birth comparisons are completely flawed due to the improvements made in the modern era regarding child mortality and death...