Trading is a zero sum game

[stu]

Originally posted by aphexcoil


You shouldn't call yourself such derogatory names! Oh, and your example is wrong.

We could both buy/sell at the same time and profit. Think of a basic sinewave. If the transaction occurs as the middle zone and you exit your long position at the crest while I continue to hold until my exit at a trough, we both win at the expense of the people who bought at the crest and sold at the trough.

So, this analogy of two traders exchanging a commodity and one having to lose is rediculous. There is generally another fool somewhere willing to make your trade profitable. If you can't find one, give me a ring (maybe I'll be trading by then).

we both win at the expense of the people who bought at the crest and sold at the trough.
Both win at the expense of...!!

btw I haven't referred to my self. You've made another assumption

 

[stu]

Originally posted by ElCubano


you can win the other side of the trade and still be net negative......

so what ??

 

[ElCubano]

Originally posted by stu



so what ??

exactly my point........

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by stu
Contorting what should be a simple definition into a wordy intellectually academic equivalent to pumping mind iron may well be entertaining but pointless for any clarity, unless perhaps the purpose is to create ambiguity in order to allow one's own opinion to have a value where it may otherwise not be valid.
A definition is no lodger a definition if it is based only upon one's own assumptions. The purpose of a concise explanation of a phrase or word is for a common comprehension so that people may communicate with understanding.
There is a tendency for the intelligentsia of Elite to want to determine how things are and should be. The occasional shallow zeitgeists of this place sometimes come up with some amazingly simple but illuminating insight.

One more thing, if the other side of a trade, or deal MUST lose for you to win, it's a zero sum game.

LOL

Intelligentsia? Nigga please.

Stu, I think you missed my point totally and completely
(deja vu all over again).

The fact that people often have different underlying assumptions, though they do not realize it, is exactly the point I was trying to make. If we all made the same implicit assumptions, 90% of arguments would never come about in the first place.

It is often the case that if two people violently disagree on 'A', and both of them think their viewpoint on 'A' is obvious and clear as day, then neither has stepped back to realize they have made contrasting assumptions in regards to undiscussed element 'B' which leads to 'A' and catayzes belief in regards to 'A' in the first place.

And yes you are right, the goal is to find common ground. And to find common ground, it is necessary to dig up and weed out the hidden assumptions that are creating the conflict. We are both trying to get to the same place- clarity of understanding- but you wrongly assume the journey is easy.

And this necessary process- of finding where deeper assumptions are misaligned and then rectifying those misalignments before moving forward- or alternatively agreeing to disagree- is the "overcomplication" that you speak out against. Presuppositions / first assumptions are like the foundations of a building; they have to line up before you can build anything on top of them.

To reverse a wonderfully eloquent phrase from Dan M:

"It's not f--in' simple, it's f---in' complex!"

 

[daniel_m]

darkhorse, in typical fashion, is unnecessarily complicating matters. sure everything, at some level, is connected, but in order to be able to succinctly and coherently discuss a certain subject we need to arbritrarily draw the line at some point as to what is relevant, and assume that some things just "are". otherwise we'd have to drag ourselves through a quagmire of epistemology every time we wanted do discuss some topic. in the case of ZSG and the stockmarket, that line is drawn at the dollar value positions (long and short) of the market participants. as the stockmarket is a perpetual entity and there are unequal amounts of longs and shorts, for the purposes of this discussion (not to mention for the purposes of making money) the stock market is not a zero sum game.

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by daniel_m
there are unequal amounts of longs and shorts, for the purposes of this discussion (not to mention for the purposes of making money) the stock market is not a zero sum game.

Not having the patience to wade through this thread, the bottom line is Daniel hit it on the head here. It is certainly NOT a zero sum game.

As I said, I have not read all the responses, but I don't need to. This is a clear issue. I can't even begin to see where it can be argued. This is not an "opinion" issue, as are so many that are debated on this site. This is simple mathematics.

Peace,
rs7

ps: welcome back Darkhorse!

 

[terrh]

what are these guys talking about? I think I agree with all of them ?? its only money

 

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by daniel_m
darkhorse, in typical fashion, is unnecessarily complicating matters.

LOL

Originally posted by rs7


Not having the patience to wade through this thread... This is a clear issue. I can't even begin to see where it can be argued... This is simple mathematics.

double LOL

 

[daniel_m]

LOL = last refuge of defeated position.



oh, no wait. 2nd last refuge. you still have the, what's it called again? the darkhorse multi-variate complexity shield?

 

[rs7]

Originally posted by darkhorse


double LOL

OK, a double LOL must mean I am wrong? Dark, my man, am I? All the wealth that disappeared in the stock market ended up somewhere else? It IS an net zero game?

rs7