I went to Gambler's Anonymous

Quote from axeman:

Gambling is a psychological flaw. When you cannot control
yourself, and take un-researched risks, THEN you are gambling.


peace

axeman
More...

Gambling is not a psychological flaw. Gambling can just be a form of entertainment. Many people can gamble occasionally and are not psychologically flawed. Millions simply have fun going to Vegas or the track and gamble with no addictive behavior involved, nor any psychological flaws underlying their behavior. Buying a lottery ticket occasionally is hardly an indication of a psychological flaw...yet it is gambling.

I would challenge you to find any reference in any accepted psychological journal or textbook that describes occasional and random gambling as a psychological flaw.

The issue is whether or not someone can walk away from any behavior without withdrawals, whether the activity is gambling, trading, drinking, smoking, etc.

Any activity that results in the degradation of body, mind, and spirit that cannot be stopped or overcome via the exercise of will is considered addiction. GA is about powerlessness over the addiction of gambling, which has its roots in a lack of spiritual connection with a higher power.

One common definition of addiction is the repeated performance of an action with the expectation of different results.

Traders who repeatedly lose money trading, then cannot stop themselves from trading or simply walk away without withdrawal symptoms are addicted to the trading process.
 
Argue semantics all you want.
This is not what im referring to in the context of this thread.

peace

axeman



Quote from ARogueTrader:



Gambling is not a psychological flaw. Gambling can just be a form of entertainment. Many people can gamble occasionally and are not psychologically flawed. Millions simply have fun going to Vegas or the track and gamble with no addictive behavior involved, nor any psychological flaws underlying their behavior. Buying a lottery ticket occasionally is hardly an indication of a psychological flaw...yet it is gambling.

I would challenge you to find any reference in any accepted psychological journal or textbook that describes occasional and random gambling as a psychological flaw.

The issue is whether or not someone can walk away from any behavior without withdrawals, whether the activity is gambling, trading, drinking, smoking, etc.

Any activity that results in the degradation of body, mind, and spirit that cannot be stopped or overcome via the exercise of will is considered addiction. GA is about powerlessness over the addiction of gambling, which has its roots in a lack of spiritual connection with a higher power.

One common definition of addiction is the repeated performance of an action with the expectation of different results.

Traders who repeatedly lose money trading, then cannot stop themselves from trading or simply walk away without withdrawal symptoms are addicted to the trading process.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Argue semantics all you want.
This is not what im referring to in the context of this thread.

peace

axeman
More...

You defined your terms, so it is a partly a semantic argument.

Here is your definition from this thread of gambling:

"I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason."

You then follow with this statement:

"Gambling is a psychological flaw."

Throwing some coins into a slot machine is taking a risk of losing those coins without a well thought out, researched, reason. Therefore, by your definition it is gambling.

Someone asking out a woman he meets at a bar and taking the risk of rejection without a well thought out, researched, reason also meets the criteria of your definition of gambling.

Going home and sleeping with that girl without any protection from possible sexually transmitted diseases is also taking a risk without a well thought out, researched, reason.

However, I again challenge you to explain why any of these behaviors is the result of a psychological flaw.

I think you would discover that those who are experts in the field of psychological flaws would say these occasional and non compulsive behaviors are just human nature.

Those who "gamble" on the stock market, or who are discretionary traders relying on intuition and luck, are not necessarily psychologically flawed.

The psychological flaw presents itself when the uncontrollable behavior of gambling has a detrimental effect on mind, body and spirit.

It is not the act of gambling that is psychologically flawed, it is the inability to stop destructive behavior that reveals the underlying psychological flaw.
 
You are ignoring the context and missed my context switch.

In my original post I ALSO said:

If you trade for the action, the highs, the lows, do NOT
have the discipline to follow the rules of a proven system,
and can't stop yourself from trading when you shouldn't,
then you ARE a gambler.



I'm describing someone who is compulsive and cannot
stop themselves, like a drug addict. This is what I mean
by a psychological FLAW.


Later... in a sub-thread comparing business men to
traders I said:

"I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason."

Here the context is different, and I am NOT referring to
the psychological aspects of gambling behavior, but
contrasting/comparing business risk/trading risk,
and completely blind risk, which some people call gambling.

Like I said... this is about semantics. Gambling has many
definitions, and they are context dependent.

People who have uncontrollable urges which force them to trade/gamble
are GAMBLERS. And people who make blind risks
are GAMBLING. But the word has different meanings
depending on the context. Thats why it's even being
argued.


"Someone asking out a woman he meets at a bar and taking the risk of rejection without a well thought out, researched, reason also meets the criteria of your definition of gambling.

However, I again challenge you to explain why any of these behaviors is the result of a psychological flaw."

They DONT show a psychological flaw.
They only meet my second definition which
is really about taking calculated or uncalculated risks.

However, if they guy ran around hitting on every girl he
came across uncontrollably/compulsively like he was addicted to some
kind of drug, then he would meet my first definition, which
deals with an actual psychological flaw containing compulsive
types of behavior.



peace

axeman





Quote from ARogueTrader:



You defined your terms, so it is a partly a semantic argument.

Here is your definition from this thread of gambling:

"I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason."

You then follow with this statement:

"Gambling is a psychological flaw."

Throwing some coins into a slot machine is taking a risk of losing those coins without a well thought out, researched, reason. Therefore, by your definition it is gambling.

Someone asking out a woman he meets at a bar and taking the risk of rejection without a well thought out, researched, reason also meets the criteria of your definition of gambling.

Going home and sleeping with that girl without any protection from possible sexually transmitted diseases is also taking a risk without a well thought out, researched, reason.

However, I again challenge you to explain why any of these behaviors is the result of a psychological flaw.

I think you would discover that those who are experts in the field of psychological flaws would say these occasional and non compulsive behaviors are just human nature.

Those who "gamble" on the stock market, or who are discretionary traders relying on intuition and luck, are not necessarily psychologically flawed.

The psychological flaw presents itself when the uncontrollable behavior of gambling has a detrimental effect on mind, body and spirit.

It is not the act of gambling that is psychologically flawed, it is the inability to stop destructive behavior that reveals the underlying psychological flaw.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

You are ignoring the context and missed my context switch.

I am ignoring nothing in your post. Sorry you feel ignored, it is not a fact.

If you trade for the action, the highs, the lows, do NOT
have the discipline to follow the rules of a proven system,
and can't stop yourself from trading when you shouldn't,
then you ARE a gambler.


This contradicts your primary definition. Your definition didn't include the key element of "inability to stop the behavior."

Gambling is not a psychological flaw.

The inability to stop or control gambling is the result of a psychological flaw....big difference.

A gambler who cannot control their behavior is known as a compulsive gambler.

Gamblers who make their living gambling without compulsion are not compulsive gamblers by definition, but professional gamblers.

I'm describing someone who is compulsive and cannot
stop themselves, like a drug addict. This is what I mean
by a psychological FLAW.

I agree with the definition of a compulsive gambler, who like a drug addict cannot control their behavior. They indeed are psychologically flawed, but non compulsive gambling is not the consequence of a psychological flaw.

"I define gambling as takings risks WITHOUT a well thought out, researched, reason."

I don't agree with your definition at all. Someone may think through clearly the pros and cons of gambling, be very aware of the risks, and reasonably decide to gamble anyway. They may gamble just for the fun of it.

Engaging in a game of chance is not unreasonable.


Here the context is different, and I am NOT referring to
the psychological aspects of gambling behavior, but
contrasting/comparing business risk/trading risk,
and completely blind risk, which some people call gambling.

Some people call many things gambling, and they often fit loosely under that definition. The initial thrust of this thread was about GA and trading, so I am evaluating gambling in that light. Gambling in context of GA is engaging in games of chance, or investments of chance.

If you look at GA's definition given in the initial post, it is categorically about games/investments of chance.


"This includes the stock market, commodities, options, buying or playing lottery tickets, raffle tickets, flipping a coin or entering the office sport pool."


In my opinion, this is more than simply about semantics, but how people view their own relationship with money, and how they choose to invest it, gamble it, or spend it.

Many people feel they are elevated beyond gamblers by their approach of "speculation" and intellectual approach, but they too can fall into the same obsessive and uncontrolled behavior of the gambler.

There are compulsive speculators too who need GA and recovery from their addiction.
More...
 
Quote from aradiel:

[BAnd hmm did I mention I can relate so f much with the "dream world of the compulsive gambler" quoted from the GA booklet, its not even funny, it actually scares the shit out of me. [/B]
More...

LOL!! It scared the s**t outta me too when one of the people at the GA meeting read it aloud. For the next 20 minutes while others where reading other passages of the booklet, I kept flipping back to it.

At the end of night, I concluded that sharing one strikingly similar characteristic of compulsive gamblers doesn't necessarily make me a compulsive gambler. That is probably why you have to answer yes to more than 7 of the questions to start raising flags instead of just 1. I also concluded that the similarity was worth investigating further and that is why I started the thread.

BTW, I view the argument on semantics as a tangent to the real issue. The question is how can we improve as traders by acknowledging it shares similarities to gambling. The person who posted the innerworth article was very helpful. I printed it out and underlined these two lines that will help me be more disciplined:

"It's all a matter of executing the strategy effortlessly and mechanically over and over so that the odds will work in your favor."

"I'll trust my strategy, repeat it over and over, and the odds will work for me."

Cheers,
DNAJ65000
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

Many people feel they are elevated beyond gamblers by their approach of "speculation" and intellectual approach, but they too can fall into the same obsessive and uncontrolled behavior of the gambler.

There are compulsive speculators too who need GA and recovery from their addiction. [/B]
More...

This is probably why things like commodities, horses, sports betting are particularly seductive for the gambler because he may think he is using reason.

I saw a PBS program on compulsive gambling. It had this guy who did horses. Knew all about horses. Studies them all the time. But he didn't follow the odds using a disciplined plan or create a portfolio of bets the way a the professional horse bettor describe in the NYT article might.

He used his array of track trivia and tips to fool himself into thinking that he had some special ability and that he knew which horse was really going to win. He didn't make good bets: he went for the big win.

Also he was really into emotional highs and lows. Crises, emergencies, followed by hope.

A professional trader doesn't get all involved in the outcome of a certain trade. He knows that by calmly working his plan, he's going to get a certain profile of wins and losses that will be profitable over time.

He has a true belief about his trading abilities based on sober experience and he knows what he can expect from the markets. He doesn't use a mass of facts to fool himself or supply himself with false or exaggerated ideas.
 
Quote from aradiel:



And hmm did I mention I can relate so f much with the "dream world of the compulsive gambler" quoted from the GA booklet, its not even funny, it actually scares the shit out of me.
More...
You don't need horses, cards or stock trading to enter a dream world. Look at all those coffee house writers and poets. Then compare that to a Neil Gaiman who approaches the task of writing as a professional.
 
Quote from dnaj65000:



LOL!! It scared the s**t outta me too when one of the people at the GA meeting read it aloud. For the next 20 minutes while others where reading other passages of the booklet, I kept flipping back to it.

At the end of night, I concluded that sharing one strikingly similar characteristic of compulsive gamblers doesn't necessarily make me a compulsive gambler. That is probably why you have to answer yes to more than 7 of the questions to start raising flags instead of just 1. I also concluded that the similarity was worth investigating further and that is why I started the thread.


Cheers,
DNAJ65000
More...

In theory, my answer to ALL those questions are yes. I believe my greed can be paralleled only with the greatest emperors and dictators of the past centuries. But I say 'in theory' because those thoughts that my mind produces every minute are just... thoughts. Eventhough its true it often hollows my soul I know they are counter productive and harmful for myself so I have a high rate of success in not letting those thoughts turn into actions.

See, I don't even trade and I will continue to maintain this policy until I feel that both my mind and spirit has reached the point of a certain desired maturity. I also bought just one luxury item this year, and its wasn't even that expensive.

So far I have been having success in keeping that beast called greed in the jail and letting it go when needed. I have the key and the chains, its up to me to decide when the beast must go and when it must be jailed back. Its a really tuff task to ponder but I can feel I evolve and advance every day. Bottom line is I am light years away from my goal, my destiny, but Im sure on the right track, and the longer my journey gets, the harder it feels.

Now that Im thinking... greed was always inherent to my character, but a certain car awoke it and a certain blue eyed blonde literally put the beast on a extreme rage state.

yea...



Again, about the 'gambles paradise', Im still amazed, I mean, the coincidences are 100% literal.
Last month the only thing I could think about was a cuban swiss watch that comes in a NICE cigar humidor case that I plan to give to my dad in his birthday [philanthropy], and during this current week I already dreamed 3 times about a certain penthouse I see everyday when Im driving my sister to school [penthouses, obviously :D] Now going any further would make me feel like a complete idiot, so I will stop from here.
 
Quote from dnaj65000:

Quoted from the GA booklet:

What is the dream world of the compulsive gambler?

This is another common characteristic of compulsive gamblers. A lot of time is spent creating images of the great and wonderful things they are going to do as soon as they make the big win. They often see themselves as quite philanthropic and charming people. They may dream of providing families and friends with new cars, mink coats and other luxuries. compulsive gamblers picture themselves leading a pleasant gracious life, made possible by the huge sums of money they will accrue from their "system". Servants, penthouses, nice clothes, charming friends, yachts and world tours are a few of the wonderful things that are just around the corner after a big win is finally made.
Pathetically, however, there never seems to be a big enough winning to make even the smallest dream come true. When compulsive gamblers succeed, they gamble to dream still greater dreams. When failing, they gamble in reckless desperation and the depths of their misery are fathomless as their dream world comes crashing down. Sadly, they will struggle back, dream more dreams and of course suffer more misery. No one can convince them that their great schemes will not someday come true. They believe they will, for without this dream world, life for them would not be tolerable.

This passage in the GA book hit home. I don't know if you guys agree with it, but I certainly do about the philanthropic and "system" comments.
More...

(After almost 2 years from the last reply, I feel like this thread still has potential)

That text from the GA booklet represents pure human nature and Im not ashamed of at least once experiencing the thinking of all of them. Those concepts would exist even if no one has ever thought of them. So, having those ideas in your mind basically means that you are conscious about the world that encompasses yourself.

The side effect of knowing clearly what is good is the hallow of the defined evil. Everyone has those mentioned vices inside. The very few ones who can dominate and manipulate them are more likely to succeed in life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top