Trading is a zero sum game
- Thread starter breakin
- Start date
Originally posted by daniel_m
stu you psuedo-intellectual dimwit! geez i'm so sick of these people posting there crap on here, trying to sound smart with their fancy "proofs"....
thanks dan.
I knew I would get the recognition I deserve sooner or later
Trust you to be the first to notice. On the ball as ever eh
ps it's their crap not there crap.......keep up man ( and don't forget in future psuedo is spelt pseudo)
ps. how dare you call me intellectual
Like Bob the tomato says in Veggie Tales... "maybe we should read a book."
This thread continues to survive. Stu, don't get sucked into this thread. You have Excel issues, who knows what you might post.
As you know, I'm having troubles remembering the market closes at 4 and not 3.
2Good is offended by pseudo-intellectuals and borders on stroke.
Aphie can't find a date so he is playing a zero fun game.
And all of this has exactly nothing to do with "Trading".
This thread continues to survive. Stu, don't get sucked into this thread. You have Excel issues, who knows what you might post.
As you know, I'm having troubles remembering the market closes at 4 and not 3.
2Good is offended by pseudo-intellectuals and borders on stroke.
Aphie can't find a date so he is playing a zero fun game.
And all of this has exactly nothing to do with "Trading".
I agree, the question has little more than intellectual entertainment value (pushups for the brain?) unless there is some emotional validation lurking behind it, and eventually the argument devolves into semantics unless you want to do some heavy lifting. Messing with zero is the flipside of messing with infinity, both of which get hairy pretty quickly.
I still suspect the question revolves around one's view of future inputs:
Do future inputs count or do they not? If not, why not? If so, then why does poker have to be zero sum- if the stock market gets the benefit of future inputs, why not poker? What if there were a poker game with an infinite stream of new players replacing the ones who leave the table? Or what if the CME decided to come out with a perpetual futures contract with no expiration date? It would be kind of weird, but what would be the difference except no delivery and higher leverage than a stock?
ZSG yes/no can be interpreted in more than one way depending on one's set of initial hidden assumptions (which one may not even realize one has) in regards to other questions that may appear tangential but are really not.
And I wasn't worried about you at all Jem (nor u Neal)... u are of the few around here who seem to have your heads together. My response to u guys was tongue in cheek.
My 'something for nothing' concern was mainly the initial motivation to post on this thread... again not addressed at anyone specific, more an assault on the oft shallow zeitgeist of this place... no matter their end position, getting people to think harder (or think at all) is a small victory... and it's not a question of intelligence at all... I'd rather be a simpleton with common sense and analytical ability, than a sharpie wiseacre with just enough smarts to coast into foolishness on a regular basis....
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.
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.
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).
