What are similarities between trading and gambling? | Page 13 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Trading vs gambling 97 replies

Trading IS Gambling... 46 replies

Forex Trading or Gambling 21 replies

Similarities between CADJPY & USDJPY? 0 replies

trading or gambling? 14 replies

Attachments: What are similarities between trading and gambling?
Exit Attachments

What are similarities between trading and gambling?

  • #241
  • Nov 11, 2015 1:45am Nov 11, 2015 1:45am
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} There are no truths. Only models with apriori assumptions. It allows us to progress and prevent being blinded by dogma.
exactly my point
Time hides Nothing
  • #242
  • Nov 11, 2015 2:02am Nov 11, 2015 2:02am
The real difference is that in gambling you are dealing with numbers. There is no emotion.

Trading is exactly the opposite. We have booms and busts because of emotions. Experienced traders realize that they do not trade charts, they trade people. Now people have all kinds of superstitions. If you know these, you can exploit them.
If you are good at something, never do it for free--Joker
  • #243
  • Nov 11, 2015 2:10am Nov 11, 2015 2:10am
Quoting Copernicus
You have to be so careful about underlying assumptions of mathematical models as an edge can often be found in the assumptions themselves. For example an assumption such as 'independent event' whilst in theory makes perfect sense, cannot be actually achieved in practice. For example a roulette wheel and a single spin is not actually an independent event as it is a 'process of events over a period of time' that can be integrated to create an almost infinite array of discreet events in the single spin of a wheel. Each integrated event holds information...
I think we're getting jumbled up in terms of what we're calling independent.

I agree with you that from the beginning of a spin to the end of a spin, there is a huge series of depentent events. It's extremely complex and with enough data and computation power, you could predict the final resting place to some degree. (Though, for all intents and purposes, it's random, unless thos machines work well. haha)

However, if you take the entire spin as one event and you compare spin to spin, I consider those independent events. In other words, just because the wheel was spun and the ball bounced around and all kinds of physics happened to result in the ball landing on 17 (even the specific spot on 17 where it landed), I think we can agree that this outcome of it landing on 17 in the first spin will have absolutely no bearing on what happens in the next spin. The outcome of the next spin mayb depend on the starting position and velocity of the ball, etc., but it will not depend on the outcome of the last completed spin. In this sense each spin is statistically independent of every other spin.

I certainly don't think that if I kept historical records of all the spins over the past year, that there were be any sort of meaningful pattern I could extract from that data to help me determine what the next spin will be. But with market prices, I think it is possible to glean some useful information from hisorical price movements, enough to find statistical edges. The market is more like a roulette wheel that is constantly in motion and price is the ball that you're trying to track. All of the forces at play make for some very complex behaviour, but I think that some degree of prediction is possible (in the sense of a positive expectancy).

It is a very different thing to say that my past performance has some effect on future prices. While past prices may affect the upcoming prices, the market certainly doesn't care about the outcome of my past trades. The entry and exit points where any trader gets in or out has no effect on where price is going. (Unless that trader has enough money to move the market.) So this is why I consider my separate trading positions to be independent of one another.

The only way that a trader's past trades might affect his future trades is psychologically, e.g. if he or she starts to act irrationally after a losing streak. But it is exactly at these times when it is most important to remember that future price movements are statistically independent of your personal past outcomes! Therefore, there is no reason not to take the next viable setup/opportunity for your approach that you find in the market (or some other market that it also works on).
  • #244
  • Nov 11, 2015 2:19am Nov 11, 2015 2:19am
Quoting mathematician
{quote} I think we're getting jumbled up in terms of what we're calling independent. I agree with you that from the beginning of a spin to the end of a spin, there is a huge series of depentent events. It's extremely complex and with enough data and computation power, you could predict the final resting place to some degree. (Though, for all intents and purposes, it's random, unless thos machines work well. haha) However, if you take the entire spin as one event and you compare spin to spin, I consider those independent events. In other words, just...
I couldn't agree more with what you have mentioned. As we look at our chart, we are trading within a script. Being able to identify where we are in the script is the key factor in determining how the rest of the script plays out.
  • #245
  • Edited 7:17pm Nov 11, 2015 7:43am | Edited 7:17pm
Quoting mathematician
{quote} I think we're getting jumbled up in terms of what we're calling independent. I agree with you that from the beginning of a spin to the end of a spin, there is a huge series of depentent events. It's extremely complex and with enough data and computation power, you could predict the final resting place to some degree. (Though, for all intents and purposes, it's random, unless thos machines work well. haha) However, if you take the entire spin as one event and you compare spin to spin, I consider those independent events. In other words, just...
Yes I take on board what you say ....and believe it or not.....I am a supporter of your general thrust. I just wanted to ensure that critical thinking is not lost (for many others) in the blind acceptance of supported truth statements guilded in abstract mathematics to lend power to the argument. The reality is that maths is a powerful tool for an abstract model of reality and the history of science has shown that these abstract models continually are overturned with more powerful abstract models with new associated maths.

By using physics, positive expectancy can be delivered in the game of roulette simply by non conditional summation of individual spins with a >50% win rate. In fact the game of roulette is not dependent on conditional probability at all unlike say many other gambling games such as black jack and poker. Those that use progression based systems for roulette (eg. Trioplay, Martingale systems etc.) however can never overcome the 'independence' between consecutive spins.

So a definition of positive expectancy being the difference between gambling and trading in my opinion is not accurate. That is why I favour an opinion that suggests that both trading (more accurately speculation) and gambling are simply convenient definitions that apply to whether you participate in a game of probability or sit at a computer terminal and speculate in the market.

To suggest (as others do) that one is more noble than the other is simply presumptious twaddle as both forms can deliver positive expectancy dependent on how you play them or more specifically what systems you deploy with them.

....anyway, it probably is being pedantic to pursue this further as the wisdom of what you, Hanover, Numbnuts etc are suggesting is being lost in translation, but the casino is where I cut my teeth before my trading career and I certainly did not attend casinos to lose money.
  • #246
  • Nov 11, 2015 7:46am Nov 11, 2015 7:46am
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} Yes I take on board what you say ....and believe it or not.....I am a supporter of your general thrust. .
Time hides Nothing
  • #247
  • Nov 11, 2015 7:47am Nov 11, 2015 7:47am
Quoting CindyXXXX
{quote}
The Devil is in the detail.
  • #248
  • Nov 11, 2015 7:50am Nov 11, 2015 7:50am
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} The Devil is in the detail.

lol just kidding with you


Quoting Copernicus
{quote} YesBy using physics, positive expectancy can be delivered in the game of roulette simply by non conditional summation of individual spins with a >50% win rate. In fact the game of roulette is not dependent on conditional probability at all unlike say many other gambling games such as black jack and poker. Those that use progression based systems for roulette (eg. Trioplay, Martingale systems etc.) however can never overcome the 'independence' between consecutive spins. .
My brother used to do quite well every 2nd evening going to the local casino and trapping a portion of the old wheel they have there.

When we went to vegas he lost 4 or 5k in one night expecting to be able to do the same
Time hides Nothing
  • #249
  • Nov 11, 2015 7:56am Nov 11, 2015 7:56am
Quoting CindyXXXX
{quote} lol just kidding with you {quote} My brother used to do quite well every 2nd evening going to the local casino and trapping a portion of the old wheel they have there. When we went to vegas he lost 4 or 5k in one night expecting to be able to do the same
A bit similar to me. I with a couple of other mates used to sprint up to the Brisbane (Treasury) casino to drop a team Martingale system on a table (to not arouse suspicions). While the Martingale (as we all know) evenatually blows up in your face, some derivations allow you (with luck) to do some potent damage, at least enough to cover our weekly expenses using money we could afford to lose. Eventually they politely asked us to leave, not that they were worried about a Martingale, but they didn't like the way we hijacked tables. I think they still have my mug shot :-(
  • #250
  • Nov 11, 2015 8:12am Nov 11, 2015 8:12am
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} A bit similar to me. I with a couple of other mates used to sprint up to the Brisbane (Treasury) casino to drop a team Martingale system on a table (to not arouse suspicions). While the Martingale (as we all know) evenatually blows up in your face, some derivations allow you (with luck) to do some potent damage, at least enough to cover our weekly expenses using money we could afford to lose. Eventually they politely asked us to leave, not that they were worried about a Martingale, but they didn't like the way we hijacked tables. I think...
haha Nice... My brother would just stalk the trend of the wheel and come up with a zone it was consistently landing in and spread his bets over that zone. In vegas I didn't place one bet the whole time we were there. I hate gambling.

But it's a similar experience to traders. Something will work in one day,week, environment, condition, whatever. And suddenly they expect that it will work forever. The very notion of this thought to be true becomes blinding to rational thought. Like a drug. It's lazy, it's easy, it's safe.

But it can't be this way. Much like me posting on this forum gr
Time hides Nothing
  • #251
  • Nov 11, 2015 8:29am Nov 11, 2015 8:29am
Quoting Copernicus
{quote} That is why I favour an opinion that suggests that both trading (more accurately speculation) and gambling are simply convenient definitions that apply to whether you participate in a game of probability or sit at a computer terminal and speculate in the market. To suggest (as others do) that one is more noble than the other is simply presumptious twaddle as both forms can deliver positive expectancy dependent on how you play them or more specifically what systems you deploy with them. ....anyway, it probably is being pedantic to pursue...

You nailed it right there!
Business, investing, Trading ....gambling, speculation, the good , the bad ..... the ugly in the end of the day it's all the same game. Like pretty much everything else. We divide the world into winners and losers......
We invent different terminology and we play with the words, so we can feel better, smarter, more and important. It's all a matter of perception.
When the banks/funds make a killing during bull markets, people call them big investors and smart top managers.
And when the funds lose their shirts in some financial crisis or during bear markets - people shake heads in despise and scream - degenerate gamblers.
It's the same thing in the end. Win or lose, it's part of the game.
But can you imagine what will happen if we change the words?
Just replace everywhere the words trading and investing with gambling and betting....and it instantly makes you think, what kind of world we live in, and how much our perceptions and beliefs determine our actions, and ultimately our success.
  • #252
  • Nov 11, 2015 9:40am Nov 11, 2015 9:40am
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Trader or gambler.png Size: 223 KB
  • #253
  • Nov 11, 2015 12:53pm Nov 11, 2015 12:53pm
On Wall Street.... IT'S LEGAL

UK Guardian:
Top poker player Phil Ivey loses court battle over £7.7m winnings
American sued over baccarat game after owners of London Crockfords Club claimed ‘edge-sorting’ technique was illegitimate

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...llion-winnings
  • #254
  • Nov 11, 2015 10:22pm Nov 11, 2015 10:22pm
A very good explanation behind one of my first comments:

More losers ---> more winners.


http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/13613-baccarat-betting-banker-and-dragon-on-every-bet/4/

gr8player
April 13th, 2013 at 9:52:49 AM


Hello, MangoJ. Thank you for taking the time to "inform" me about the negative expectation of the house edge, saying, in a nutshell, that I will suffer the same fate as everyone else, my bets are not "magically" excluded, from being subjected to that negative 1.06% that the house charges. Very enlightening. I wish I could say "refreshing", but, my friend, I've had that very same "math lesson" presented to me countless times by various "bean counters", as I like to call them.

So, let's see.......let's try to break this all down in rather simple terms, shall we?:

I bet 100 beans. I am being paid, even on a winning wager, roughly, only 99 beans of profit in return. Correct, MangoJ? I am, in effect, being short-changed a bean for each winning wager due to the built-in casino's vig (read: edge). If you think about, it's money well-spent on the player's part, because, after all, the casino has certain "fixed" expenses (mortgages, salaries, utilities, etc.); so without their house edge there'd be no real justification for putting on the game for us to play. So I'm fine with the miniscule edge.

But, wait, say the bean counters....that so-called "miniscule" house edge will, over the long term, tear my bankroll to shredded wheat, for there is no way to overcome our being short-changed that bean on our winning wagers. In fact, one would need be a fool to attempt it, for it is nothing more than an exercise in futility. In is wriiten not just in "stone", but in the "mathematics".

That should suffice in summing up their position in rather simple terms.

Pardon my indulgence as I respond thusly:

Balderdash!

The house edge means N.O.T.H.I.N.G.! In fact, less than nothing.

Raise your hand if you've ever heard of the casino's "hold", or "hold percentage". THAT, my friends, is where the casinos REALLY make their dollars. The hold.

Think about it like this, if you will: Do you think that the guy betting with "both fists" (recklessly overbetting his bankroll) at the craps table is losing due to the house edge? No. He's losing because he, like the 99% of gamblers, are betting with pure greed in mind and no plan in mind. All they're thinking about is: How much, and how quickly, can I win? Do you think that it's the house's edge that is the downfall for these players? Or might their biggest problem be with THEMSELVES?

And, lest anyone think otherwise, Baccarat is just the same....players betting like absolute morons. In fact, the casino "hold" percentage is probably largest at Baccarat, even in the face of it's lowest house edge percentage. Why? Because it's THE PLAYERS, NOT THE HOUSE EDGE.

Entertainment. Excitement. Greed. There's the motivation for most people as they're playing in the casino. One percent house edge? Heck with that....if they'd come play in my basement, I'd give them an "even prop" (no house edge) any day of the week....they're all gamblers, playing to lose. And that's 99% of the gambling public....just begging to be relieved of their money. It is that mentality that fills the casino's coffers more than that edge ever could.

And that, my friends, INCLUDES those "bean counters".

They, too, haven't developed their games to a "successful" stage, and, ipso facto, if they can't do it, well, then, their logic follows....IT CAN'T BE DONE.

To which I again reply:

Balderdash!

It can be done. I can more than make up for that "one bean shortfall", by utilizing MY PLAYER'S EDGES.

Can anyone dare tell me that:

Betting when I want, at the time I deem it most advantageous;
Betting where I want, again as I deem it most advantageous;
Sizing my bet to best suit my purposes;
Ending a session when I deem it best to do so;

.......does not more than make up for me being short-changed that one bean for every one hundred won? I dare anyone to tell me that my edges are worthless, or not worth as much a few percentage points.

Know this: All the casino has over me is their paltry 1%. The table can't think, it can do nothing but spew out decisions. It can't think. I can think. I am aallowed to use my brain to the very best of my abilities to get the better of this non-thinking entity, and I'll be ****** if I can't do that. I'd quit this game in a hheartbeat if I weren't able to get the better of that big piece of felt.

C'mon, man....use your common sense. Stop hiding behind that miniscule house edge as your excuse for failure, and look within YOURSELF. Because, my friends, if you're consistently coming up short at the casino, therein lies the problem...in the mirror.

That 1%? The casino laughs at that one percent all the way to the bank when they collect their "true hold percentages".

But you know who cowers down to that same 1%....those that ALLOW IT to get the better of them. Those that trust only in the casino's mathematics, instead of making their own math work out to their own advantage.

Once again, I wish it for all of you.
  • #255
  • Nov 11, 2015 11:22pm Nov 11, 2015 11:22pm
Quoting R19
It can be done. I can more than make up for that "one bean shortfall", by utilizing MY PLAYER'S EDGES.
Well that's basically what we've been saying. We've been saying that in order to consistently make money, you must have an edge. But if the person you're playing against has an edge over you, then he'll be the one gradually making money and you'll be gradually losing money. So yes, it's all abut edges, and if you expect to have long-term succes, then you need an edge. We all agree on that.


Quoting R19
Can anyone dare tell me that: Betting when I want, at the time I deem it most advantageous; Betting where I want, again as I deem it most advantageous; Sizing my bet to best suit my purposes; Ending a session when I deem it best to do so; .......does not more than make up for me being short-changed that one bean for every one hundred won? I dare anyone to tell me that my edges are worthless, or not worth as much a few percentage points.
If you have an edge in a certain game or trading approach, then no, I can't tell you that your edge is worthless. I would agree with you that your edge is exactly what will let you win eventually.

But I can come up with some games of chance where your simply won't have an edge and then no betting style will help you.
  • #256
  • Nov 11, 2015 11:28pm Nov 11, 2015 11:28pm
Quoting R19
A very good explanation behind one of my first comments: More losers ---> more winners. http://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambl...n-every-bet/4/ gr8player April 13th, 2013 at 9:52:49 AM.

To clarify... this is post by someone else and that is why I copied it and posted it here. Basically, he or she is stating that the casino not only earns their house edge, but a lot more from crappy gamblers. That is, most are not playing properly. This makes the casino a lot of money and the ability to afford a lot of winners.

That is why I like the idea of playing when a casino is packed...
  • #257
  • Nov 12, 2015 12:58am Nov 12, 2015 12:58am
Quoting R19
{quote} To clarify... this is post by someone else and that is why I copied it and posted it here. Basically, he or she is stating that the casino not only earns their house edge, but a lot more from crappy gamblers. That is, most are not playing properly. This makes the casino a lot of money and the ability to afford a lot of winners. That is why I like the idea of playing when a casino is packed...
Oh definitely, in a game like poker, having a bunch of amateurs around the table really helps your edge!
  • #258
  • Nov 13, 2015 4:01am Nov 13, 2015 4:01am
Quoting nubcake
{quote} The odds given to you will reflect that, and in the long-run you will lose because at the end of the day the bookmaker only gives odds that end-up leaving him with money in the end. It's my understanding that there are rare times where the odds aren't quite right and you can do a form of arbitrage. You can't bet, or trade, on probability alone when the payout reflects those probabilities. This is why those retards who make a hundred 1 pip wins speak tonnes of shit until the inevitable trade they hold onto that tanks them. At some point the...
I don't know if you need to "know more".

A lot comes down to emotion. I can testify on this, as my demo is going great guns, and for the real account, I am still trying to recover losses.

If we play the odds, ie back the favourites, they will usually win. Who the favourite is usually common knowledge. Yet people still go against the trend and bet the other way.
  • #259
  • Nov 13, 2015 2:24pm Nov 13, 2015 2:24pm
Quoting samgrey
{quote} I don't know if you need to "know more". A lot comes down to emotion. I can testify on this, as my demo is going great guns, and for the real account, I am still trying to recover losses. If we play the odds, ie back the favourites, they will usually win. Who the favourite is usually common knowledge. Yet people still go against the trend and bet the other way.
No. Being on tilt is an extra variable that goes against you on top of whatever else. It doesn't change the underlying reality that if you just base your decisions on regularly known stats you will lose in the long run because nobody, ever, is going to give you odds that doesn't end-up with them always walking away with some of your money.

I don't know why you would think otherwise.

Why the fuck do you think mt4 is so chock-loaded full of indicators and shit? I'll give you a hint: It's not because it helps in any way, shape, or form. All it does is confuse and distract people into thinking they have some type of advantage when all they are doing is flipping a coin every time they enter the market. They don't have any extra, external, information. They have no edge.

I'm not going to argue with you about this. If you think you can base your trades on probability alone then good luck to you.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #260
  • Nov 13, 2015 2:56pm Nov 13, 2015 2:56pm
Quoting nubcake
Why the fuck do you think LIFE is so chock-loaded full of indicators and shit?
Somewhat fixed it for you.
1 trader viewing now