Quote from Jachyra:
The debate switched to "chance" because the first two definitions of gambling both indicated that the results had to be dictated by chance... so obviously the definition of it became important.
But fine... for the sake of argument lets just say we take your definition.... that its gambling anytime the results are uncertain. I would still contend that if you consistently take more +EV trades than -EV trades, over the long run, the end result is CERTAIN... you will make more money than you lose.... GUARANTEED. If you take more -EV trades than +EV trades, in the long run, you will lose more money than you make.... GUARANTEED. The end result is very easy to predict and the outcome of doing either is very certain... and that is a statistical fact.
So, even using your own definition or connotation of the word, at best all you can say is that any one trade or any small number of trades are gambling. But that once you have enough trades to have a sufficient sample size, it can not possibly be gambling because whether you made or lost money, the outcome was certain and predictable in advance.