Do You Think Trading is Gambling?

[JSSPMK]

tomato is a fruit, perhaps we should start a poll?

Quote from euclid:

Couldn't resist posting. It's the most interesting thread on ET at the moment, but the arguments are getting a little repetitive.

Now, I voted yes in the poll because that is the obvious logical answer given the dictionary definition.

But the term "gambling" is not normally used with such a broad definition. Gambling is usually associated with some form of entertainment, where the negative expectancy is compensated for by the excitement of the gamble. The primary purpose of this type of gambling is entertainment. Trading doesn't fit this usage of the word so well since it's so mind-bogglingly boring.

As for tomatoes. There's no frigging way that a tomato is a fruit and you're a clueless moron for even daring to suggest such a thing.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from smallfishleague:

It depends how you define gambling.

The public misconception is that gambling doesn't require skills. In some way, trading is comparable to gambling in that,

1. There is a big part of it out of your control and subject to luck of God.

2. Equipped with skills, you can win consistently.

Risking money on an uncertain outcome is Gambling.

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from JSSPMK:

tomato is a fruit, perhaps we should start a poll?

Oh, the IRONY!!!

Quote from JSSPMK:

2. Majority voted in favour of 'not gambling'

This is not a "what the majority thinks" kind of question.

I will explain what causes the confusion:

There are 2 kind of gamblings, COMPLETELY random and non-random but still based on chances and unknown probabilities of the outcome.

1. Completely random gambling: lottery, bingo, raffle, roulette,etc.

You never hear of a profesional lottery or bingo player who can make a living playing those games.

2. Not completely random gambling: poker, black jack, sport events, etc.

You did hear of pro-poker players, or card counters, who can make a living because they play the odds in their favour.

The same with trading, here are 2 examples:

1. Completely random trading: I pick randomly 10 stocks, 5 short 5 long and I will close them in 3 days automaticly. We can agree that I was gambling.

2. Skilled trading when odds are in the trader's favour: Any kind of proven trading method what gives a consistent edge to the trader.

Now since this thread is getting repetative, let's ask ourself:

Is the Platypus a mammal or what??? After all it lays eggs, has a duck-billed face and venomous...*

*It was a trick question, there is no such a thing as Platypus. I made it up....

 

[Dackster]

If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.



Dackster.

 

[ivanbaj]

Quote from Dackster:

If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.



Dackster.

'insider trading' is illegal. (CaptainObvious is trading right now so I took the liberty to state this.)

 

[Dackster]

Quote from ivanbaj:

'insider trading' is illegal. (CaptainObvious is trading right now so I took the liberty to state this.)

Why is it illegal? Because the SEC says so? The SEC also says that trading isn't gambling.

The 'Trading IS Gambling', lobby, seem to want it all thier own way.




Dackster.

 

[4444CJones4444]

Quote from Dackster:

If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.



Dackster.

I don't follow your logic. You can use the same analogy with gambling—buying referees, paying off players, collusion at the poker table, 'inside information' on injured horses or injured players.

 

[Dackster]

Quote from 4444CJones4444:

I don't follow your logic. You can use the same analogy with gambling—buying referees, paying off players, collusion at the poker table, 'inside information' on injured horses or injured players.

I don't follow your logic, you can't 'pay off' the market, because the market will react to 'news', only some get the news before the rest of the market.



Dackster.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Here's the best I can do in an attempt to provide what I believe is a rational answer:


If by 'gambling' you mean that the participants have less influence over the outcome of the game than the market maker, due to WHATEVER reasons may be (e.g. front running, etc.), then yes.

If not, no.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from Dackster:

If trading was to be gambling, all outcomes uncertain, then there would no such thing as 'insider trading', as the 'insider' would never be any wiser to an outcome no matter how much information they had.



Dackster.

no...while the outcome is still uncertain with inside info the odds are tremendously tilted in your favor, closer to certain than uncertain...