how? for real? what lot size do you buy/sell?
MT, do you believe all what you read? I do not. 90% and more of all written words are junk. Albeit this book has some good examples of ppl as I wrote above.
That a gambler, so called by the crowd, is making a living off his gambling doesn’t make him a gambler in the sense of the word. There are gamblers who drive gambling like a business and that is in no way sort of gambling in the sense of the word.
The op is risking his whole capital stake at once in every trade. That is no serious risk control at all and I highly doubt he has an edge. Or if he has an edge his money/risk “management” will kill his accounts anyways.
You never answered my question btw: Is a casino owner a gambler?
I guess I do understand your motivation to believe it’s gambling. It is however, from a viewpoint of a business owner, not. A hedge fund is no gambling institute. A bank is not as well.
You clear it up, then say this:
Gotta love the resumption of presumption:D
Since you don’t hit 100% accuracy, there is a risk of loss. A risk of loss entails chance, because you don’t know WHICH one will lose. Chance = gamble.
You guys are playing games with words to tell yourselves it’s okay to take a risk, but not okay to gamble. You can gamble with skill. Not every gambler is a loser, just most of them. Same thing with trading. Not every trader is a loser, just most of them.
You’ve warned him ad nauseam. Even after he asked you to stop.
There are plenty of warnings posted to noobs in this thread, including ones from me, your happy self admitted gambler.
Oh man I’d just lurrrrve to take a juicy bite into this tasty little appetizer, but even I know it’s an ugly looking car wreck waiting to happen.
I can’t quite see from this angle, but are you slightly blue in the face yet? 
I’m going to blow this one up & stick on the wall.
Every time I fancy cheering myself up with a chuckle or two I’ll spin around & let it all out.
But that’s just it. The word “gamble” has many different connotations. You guys are fitting it into a tiny hole, and not paying attention to the synonyms.
You don’t know what he had planned for money management. He never got a chance to explain it.
Yes. He is on the other side of every bet in the casino with the exception of poker, and sports bets.
Those are services more than bets, since the bettors are playing each other. In poker, the house takes a percentage of every pot, and in sports bets, they make the spread, and make a fee off every bet. The oddsmakers in sports betting are the key. They want players on both sides to equal out, if they are heavy on one side, they’ll move the odds to spur the other. All they want is heavy betting with equal money on both sides.
And might I add, THOSE are where the pro gamblers do business. They have no wishes to play Pai Gow Poker, or sit in front of slots for hours.
So, the people that invested in Madoff didn’t take a risk? How about the people that put their retirements into Enron’s hedge? And I hear Mr. Paulson’s big fund just took a few billion dollar hit.
Lehman Brothers was a bank… So was Bear Stearns. Were they safe? Every financial investment under the sun aimed at growing money from money, is a risk. Whether they are a blatant ripoff, or just poor management is no difference. There is a risk of loss with all of them.
MT,
well if you see any management of money with the op you are better than me. I don’t see any, lol.
I mean really if it comes to just rhetoric, you can define anything as gambling, if you put the definiton on top that chance=gambling, risk=gambling and whatever else is gambling. So, everybody is a gambler, because the whole life is risk and chance. I do however see this vision as a vision of a gambler, who sees life and thus everything coupled to life, as gambling. Sure you can see anything as gambling, but you if you project this opinion to anybody else, that is questionable I guess.
There are people who don’t see it like that. I am a businessman since a couple of decades. I would never go into a casino and bet any serious money. I did it with a friend and we both said we will “invest” 20 bucks. But that was not to risk or win anything. We knew before that it would just be to have some fun for some time and then it’s gone. We never dreamed of something like making a fortune.
That Lehman or others used a ponzi scheme doesn’t make it a gambling. Just the opposite. They had their edge and they knew it. Them drove it as business, however illegal it was. Too bad for the people who trusted blindly.
Regarding the casino owner: No he is no gambler, because he does not gamble. He drives a business with an edge, has definitely no fun while sitting there in the casino to lose his money and he sees it from a business perspective.
My definition of gambling is simple: If the outcome has to do with luck only, then it’s gambling. With luck only you can’t have an edge. If you have an edge, it is thus no luck only. If you use the edge, you are not gambling.
Nobody gave him a chance. And he wasn’t overtly clear about his methods other than saying he had basically a PHD in studying price, and picking value entries. So, best for me anyway, was to sit back and watch. Who knows maybe I’ll learn something!
But that’s just it.
Definitions make a word. I can’t throw out part of a definition just because it doesn’t fit what I want it to, or what I expect of myself.
I have a casino a half mile from my house. I have never darkened the doors of it. They are money pits, and I full well know it. The only reason I go to a casino is to catch a concert, or have dinner. They have some damn fine restaurants there. They know what draws people in.
But to say that there wasn’t a risk of loss for those people is erroneous.
He is on the other side of every wager.
Running a business or not, by that very definition of the word, he is a gambler.
Professional gamblers ALL have, and exploit edges. Would it be more appropriate to call them traders?
Quote Originally Posted by 4xpipcounter View Post
MT, I used a poor choice of words there. I don’t know you, so it would be presumptuous if I said you don’t use your head in trading. What I meant by “I think it is better to use your own head and trading skills than depending on rhetoric”, is that just because the Wall Street Journal says so, why just read and beleive it. Just because the WSJ says so it makes it so? I work with some college kids who attend a nearby college. One of the things I work with them on is to get them away from doing something just because the text book says so. Do it because you know with conviction that it is the right thing.
I hope I cleared that up that it was not meant as a directive concerning your trading.
You clear it up, then say this:
[B]That’s right. I’m glad it is clear. That was why I posted the apology for the wording, and you got it! That’s all that counts[/B]
Quote Originally Posted by 4xpipcounter View Post
Concerning you as a trader (This is my opinion.), I have my doubts you are doing well consistently because you are (By your own admission.) a gambler.
Gotta love the resumption of presumption
[B]I said it and I mean it. I don’t think there is any misunderstanding here. IMO, I have no confidence in you as a trader because you are a gambler. 7 years of trading and 4 years of posting on my blog with copious followers have told me that in this business if you are a gambler, you (“You” meaning a general statement not YOU.) are a loser in this business. [/B]
Quote Originally Posted by 4xpipcounter View Post
I post 85% winning trades. In order to address your comme It is not a gamble when I enter a position.
Since you don't hit 100% accuracy, there is a risk of loss. A risk of loss entails chance, because you don't know WHICH one will lose. Chance = gamble.
You guys are playing games with words to tell yourselves it's okay to take a risk, but not okay to gamble. You can gamble with skill. Not every gambler is a loser, just most of them. Same thing with trading. Not every trader is a loser, just most of them.
[B]I already made the point that 100% of all traders can be winners, whereas it is impossible for 100% of all gamblers to be winners, but evidently you missed that part or didn’t read it
Actually, you are playing on words to try and convince us we are losers, as in gamblers. [/B]
Quote Originally Posted by 4xpipcounter View Post
As far as preaching to Extract is concerned, I don't have the ability to preach. I know from personal experience, and like others, I can warn him, and I've done that. Aftrer that, all alusions are meant to warn newbies that read this thread that the path Extract is taking is a path to failure.
You've warned him ad nauseam. Even after he asked you to stop.
There are plenty of warnings posted to noobs in this thread, including ones from me, your happy self admitted gambler.
[B]Can’t resist sticking my nose in another conversation. There is no such thing as math tricks. You can play on words as in trying to convince seasoned traders they are gamblers. By now it is also very clear you are even wrong there. But, back to the point–lol.
2+2 will always equal 4. Someone else can come along and say 2+2=10. That’s also true if we are talking base 4. Still, no tricks. The math is cut-n-dry. I’ll be the first to admit to you I do not understand everything about the financing operations of a casino. The only common sense of it is that it takes many losses to finance the operations. It is also calculated by the casinos how much money needs to inflow, and then in return outflow in the form of winnings. After that they subtract variable expenses and fixed expenses to come out with an EBT–Earnings before taxes. After that, taxes are subtracted to end up with an EAT–Earnings after taxes, which is divided amongst the stockholders (Make a long story short.) That whole process started with Inflow minus outflow, which is equal to total gamblers’ losses. No tricks! The casino, like all other businesses want to get to a bottom line of net profit. There is no gambling from a business point of view (Referring to the casino.). If they want to stay in business, they have to continue to stay in profit, which means gamblers losing.[/B]
[B]The trader is exactly the same. A trader has to produce more profits than expenses in order to stay in business. If I don’t want to go back to work in a factory or sales, and I want to stay here in my home office with my dog on my lap and my wife waiting on me like she just did with lunch, as a business person, I have to stay profitable.[/B]
[B]Who knows? Maybe that will get you to see the parallels of the mathematics and no tricks, and the fact real profitable trading comes with work, which is a far cry from gambling.[/B]
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
No. Just call gamblers, gamblers; and call traders, traders.
I mean, come on. Isn’t it so much easier that way?
Professional baseball players play with a ball. Would it be appropriate to call them basketball players?
No. Just call a baseball player a baseball player, and a basketball player a basketball player.
Tang, the more this conversation progresses, the more I’m convinced you know the difference between a gambler and a trader.
BTW, the Reno Aces are doing pretty good this year at 53-36.
"Professional gamblers ALL have, and exploit edges. Would it be more appropriate to call them traders?
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
Yes I know that with the restaurants and motels. Used that on my own when I went to Las Vegas. I just brought that example up to describe what gambling is. Going into a casino, throwing in some bucks to have some fun for say an hour is the same like playing pool billard at the pub, throwing some bucks in and have some fun. Pure gambling.
Regarding word definitions: I guess I gave you a pretty good and not contradicting definition of how I see what gambling is. If you throw a dice or a coin you are gambling. Because the outcome is random, even in statistics. If you trade on an in financial markets, you have an edge, based on a fat tail, which is in common language a trend. If you use this edge, it is mere different from throwing a dice or coin or any such gambling activities, which are based upon the outcome of pure luck. I do speak and think in two languages. In German, gambling is called Gluecksspiel. Glueck is the German word for luck. At least: Almost no word has just one meaning. Most words do have several meanings.
So, whatever anybody calls anybody what he is doing, I do call anybody who is using a dice or coin or trading on fx without knowing or using an edge or screaming for a margin call like the op did a gambler. Whoever uses an edge and knows it, is not a gambler. It doesn’t say he will be successful, but the chance to be successful is higher than not to be. Not based on luck, but statistically proofed probabilities.
Several of your definitions are contradicting themself. If it is just about the pure word, then why does nobody call a bank or hedge fund a casino?
Anyways, under my definition it is very obvious why almost nobody would call an investor or trader a gambler: Because those ppl are involved in activities with an edge. As such, it is not gambling. Not just luck is involved, but an edge. Based on systematic approach and knowledge. If this is driven by professionals and to make money, it is no other thing than a business. Look at the definition at the IRS of a business. It is exactly that. Being involved in activities with the legal goal to make money.
As I said, the core differences between a gambler and an investor/traders are:
A gambler:
- Makes it for fun (at least in the first place)
- Has no edge
An investor/traders:
- Makes it for the goal of making money
- Uses an edge
I know there are some things which lie in between. Like a poker player who has a slight edge and is not doing it for business and just gambling beside his job. But to come to the core point I do not have to define every exception from the rule.
Regarding the op: I really do not understand now what you are talking about if you tell nobody gave him a chance. He said he doesn’t want to talk about risk and that’s where I cut off my conversation with him that time. I just replied to others. He had chances and he still has. Regarding learning: Yes, even a bad example is probably the best lesson you can take. He blew his account in a couple of days against all warnings which all came with sort of explanation and not just dogmatics. He seems to have an ego and with sort of that ego you can’t trade successfully. To trade successfully, you have at first to throw your ego out. It is not about being right. He mentioned he knows for sure (100%) which way a trade runs. That is ridiculous. If you can’t see that he is going to throw more money in what he will lose, then I can’t help you. With a gambler, there is no hope. Yea, gamblers hope, but that hope is as devastating like the hope for a comeback of a losing trade without any stop loss.
I won’t even bother trying to break that down into pieces to respond to.
But, since you two don’t think there are math tricks, try this one out. Maybe you’ll learn something.
Let’s use a slot machine, although it works the same for every game in the casino.
Say you walked into a casino, and put $10 in a dollar slot machine.
You elected to play a single dollar per pull.
The first pull nets you nothing, and you now have $9 left.
The second pull is also a bust, you now have $8 left.
The third pull gets you nothing, you now have 7$ left.
The fourth pull gets you three matching bars, and you win $5, you now $11.
The fifth pull gets you zip, you’re back to $10.
The sixth gets you nothing, you’re at $9.
The seventh gets you nothing, you’re at $8.
The eight pull gets you nothing, you’re at $7.
The ninth pull is a loser, and you’re at $6.
The tenth pull loses, and you’re at $5.
The eleventh pull gets you a cherry, or some random small gain figure, and you win $2. You are now at $6.
The twelfth pull loses, as do the thirteenth, and fourteenth. You are now at 3$
The fifteenth pull pays those same $5 bars, you’re back at $7.
You play the next seven pulls for no winners, and are now out of money.
The casino will say it lost money on you.
You will say you lost money on the casino.
Which is right?
No one has to give him a chance. He failed the 1st time around simply because he blew his account out because of overkill on his position size.
Would you give me a chance? I’m thinking, “Whoa! That question is as redundant as you get.” Whether you do or not will have nothing to do with how I trade. I could care less if you ever thought of giving me a chance.
The op comes on and says he is going to turn $200 to $200,000 in 7 months. It takes him about as week to flatten his account. Trading is based solely on the individual. It has nothing to do with someone giving them a chance.
It’s this simple. If you master your profession, you can build a dream. There is no such thing in trading as someone giving anyone a chance.
I made it clear that I thought Extract is a good trader (Even though I could be wrong.). He seems to know how to pick the direction a market is going. He did mention that a lot of the talk in this thread had gotten to him. This is simple. Extract still has to work on the mental approach of his trading. If he becomes effected by someone who disagrees with him, then it might be best for him to get out of the forums. Personal trading and profitability should be the number one concern of all traders.
I’ve actually enjoyed having these conversations in this thread, but once it gets in my way of time or anything else that has to do with my trading, then I would have to say, “It’s been a pleasure knowing you all, but I got to leave.”
"Nobody gave him a chance. And he wasn’t overtly clear about his methods other than saying he had basically a PHD in studying price, and picking value entries. So, best for me anyway, was to sit back and watch. Who knows maybe I’ll learn something!
Read more: 301 Moved Permanently
The one you want to direct that question to is their financial officer.
This appears to be a net gain of $10 for the casino. If you subtract variable expenses and fixed expenses for the casino rom that, and then the time on the machine, and maybe the free drinks served while there, maybe the casino lost money in that isolated incident.
The question you asked really has too many variables.
Another to keep in mind is that the casino said they lsot money from that incident. That does not mean they lost money from the incident.
So, by that definition, a high risk trader is a gambler. Should I call a profitable professional gambler an investor?
Keep it strictly on the math from the machine.
You put in $10. The machine paid out $12.
The casino lost 20% on their wagers with you, but you walk out minus ten bucks.
Fuzzy math…
Who is right?
And can they both be?
Now you want to play tricks with us, lol? Not with me! LOL! 
If the gambler lost 10 bucks then where is the money? The casino has the money, so them have to got the money as revenue in their books. It is not the question how and under which circumstances the 10 bucks changed the owner. Maybe some funny tax regulations take into account something different, but that might be just a byproduct of the well known relations between some casino gangs and the local government. 
If the casino loses money, then this is regarding to expenses. Plus as I said: To have an edge does nobody give a warranty. There are a lot of businesses out there who were founded, grew and died later on. If the expenses become too high and maybe outperform the income, it is just a question of time until the default. As long as you are no government and can print money, lol.
You guys said there are no math tricks. I’m showing you how a casino operates, while saying they only survive on a 2% income.
Yes, there are math tricks;)
Funny thing is, forex works the same way.
You got it! :22:
Just change profitable in “edge using”. The profitability is no indication. Even a gambler can win something. Lets say a lotto player. Or a gambler who wins at first instance and then stops gambling. He got lucky and doesn’t throw the money out to gamble against the edge of the casino owner.
And change high risk to “lucky”. High risk doesn’t mean gambling in itself. Just, if you take such high risks that you gamble on an edge against you, you scream for a blown account, lol.
[B]Those last two quesitons are irrelevant, because of the points I made above.[/B]
There are no math tricks. Those are maybe regulation tricks, but not math tricks, whatever the slang calls it, lol.
Forex works for me because of a fat tail or trending behavior and because I know that and use my edge, while having the same time control regarding my risk to protect my account. There is definitely no trick involved. And you can do that in every market. Some are better, some not as good, but all markets show more or less a fat tail outcome of probabilities.