I feel like this is LGBT & I can't give them the right 'gender'
If he's a bad gambler - yes, he'll go broke so scaling would be a bad idea.
If he's a good gambler - he'll have the bank & the conviction to make the play.
Difference between "trading" and "gambling"
Have you not heard of the Kelly criterion?ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:36 pmI feel like this is LGBT & I can't give them the right 'gender'
If he's a bad gambler - yes, he'll go broke so scaling would be a bad idea.
If he's a good gambler - he'll have the bank & the conviction to make the play.
Even if you have an edge, if you over stake you will lose or even blow your bank.
The same applies to traders. Some traders just need to get it right 55% of the time to succeed. If you plough the bulk of your £20000 bank in one trade, you need to get it right 99% of the time (and blow your profits on the 1%).
- ruthlessimon
- Posts: 2094
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm
Might not have made myself clear - Yes "Filled as much as he can" relative to his risk profile & bank size obviously. My point was, he should have provisions in the strategy to back again, if the price reaches 13/8, 7/4 etc. Not that he'd put his bank on 6/4
Fair enough.ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:43 pmMight not have made myself clear - Yes "Filled as much as he can" relative to his risk profile & bank size obviously. My point was, he should have provisions in the strategy to back again, if the price reaches 13/8, 7/4 etc. Not that he'd put his bank on 6/4
This is my take;
A gambler places bets on a particular outcome of a sport or various sports in order to profit using his/her knowledge of that said sport. A good gambler will make a profit, usually having a fair amount of knowledge and control over his/her bets placed. A bad gambler will lose money from lack of knowledge and control over the bets placed and is highly influenced by emotion and excitement!
A trader, good or bad is the same as the gambler above, but the diffrence is the trader has the ability to cut the loss at any given point, whereas gamblers place the bet, leave it and see what happens.
I was a gambler and by my definition above, a bad one, as generally I lost money. 3 years into Trading and I am now starting to see reasonable profits, all down to cutting the loses, but it has taken the 3 years to get to this point.
A gambler doesn't have the option to learn to cut losses, they either win or lose, a trader through skill/edge/knowledge however you describe it, chooses what amount to lose and so has an edge over gambling.
Both are linked but not the same. 20 years a gambler - 3 years a trader and simply by not losing money trading I am outperforming my gambling years!
What I will say though, is it as exciting as when I was gambling.?......no, but that's the price I paid for excitement!!
A gambler places bets on a particular outcome of a sport or various sports in order to profit using his/her knowledge of that said sport. A good gambler will make a profit, usually having a fair amount of knowledge and control over his/her bets placed. A bad gambler will lose money from lack of knowledge and control over the bets placed and is highly influenced by emotion and excitement!
A trader, good or bad is the same as the gambler above, but the diffrence is the trader has the ability to cut the loss at any given point, whereas gamblers place the bet, leave it and see what happens.
I was a gambler and by my definition above, a bad one, as generally I lost money. 3 years into Trading and I am now starting to see reasonable profits, all down to cutting the loses, but it has taken the 3 years to get to this point.
A gambler doesn't have the option to learn to cut losses, they either win or lose, a trader through skill/edge/knowledge however you describe it, chooses what amount to lose and so has an edge over gambling.
Both are linked but not the same. 20 years a gambler - 3 years a trader and simply by not losing money trading I am outperforming my gambling years!
What I will say though, is it as exciting as when I was gambling.?......no, but that's the price I paid for excitement!!
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 4:23 pm
Ok after 2 pages I cant go on at the moment, some excellent points my only regret is that this is wasted on Bet Angel forum when, if you own this software you have more than an excellent understanding of betting. These points need to be seen by the generally ignorant public who say "the bookie never loses", "have you ever seen a bookie on a bicycle" and look at you like you have a syringe in our arm when you tell them about betting.
If I hear one of those old chestnuts in person one more time Ill KO the person who says it.
Was out for a game of golf one day, betting came up with one of my playing partners, the other then says "a nasty habit if I may say" to which I responded "as a matter of fact I do mind" and strode off up the fairway
I do find however than people around my generation (27yo) and younger are very open minded to these things and quite interested about hearing about trading and other methods in betting. It must be the online era and the erosion of the 9-5 and "work hard, study hard, try hard, do everything hard" mindset of many among older generations
If I hear one of those old chestnuts in person one more time Ill KO the person who says it.
Was out for a game of golf one day, betting came up with one of my playing partners, the other then says "a nasty habit if I may say" to which I responded "as a matter of fact I do mind" and strode off up the fairway
I do find however than people around my generation (27yo) and younger are very open minded to these things and quite interested about hearing about trading and other methods in betting. It must be the online era and the erosion of the 9-5 and "work hard, study hard, try hard, do everything hard" mindset of many among older generations
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/ ... n-fare-mumEuler wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:27 pmWhen I've watch gamblers, like Harry Findlay, for example, and they bet to win. There doesn't seem to be much detail or logic behind it. Whereas traders tend to work to a detailed brief and expectancy. You know where you are going wrong.
Of course, not all traders are pure traders and some are gamblers calling themselves traders.
"Findlay’s reckless streak came to a head in 2007 when he wagered £2.5m on New Zealand to win the Rugby World Cup. He booked a box at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff to watch them romp home in a quarter-final."
Now that is a wild punt as opposed to a trade. Some kind of a distinction there.
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
I'm sorry but I'm not sure Twitter is the gold standard when it comes to facts and this one is dubious.
What's the difference between old fashioned bookie and a gambler? Lots of the old indy shops could go all afternoon without a single bet outside the top 3 and only get a balanced book once in a blue moon.
They lived by their skill at pricing up a field and that's exactly what pro gamblers do. They made a good living by offering terrible odds and had punters who accepted their prices. Gamblers want good odds and find layers who'll take their bets, and if they can't they sit tight. Maybe having just 1 or 2 value bets a week.
Didn't you first started by backing draws in combos from your own analysis, profitably? Luck? I might have misremebered that but as you say in the My Trading Story video "luck is where opportunity meets ability" so perhaps you have a different definition of luck.
It's a tough gig taking on the boss... waiting to be humbled in public, but if I question you it's not to say you're wrong per se, it's because I don't understand the explanation of why you're so sure you're right. It's especially confusing as with you being the industry guru, the default assumption is that you are.
Obviously you've no obligation to explain anything but successful gambler = pure luck is a pretty bold statement.
I'm not sure if Euler was agreeing with the quote or just quoting, but if you back a 3/1 winner, if your aim was just to back a winner, then it is pure luck.
If your aim is to get 30% winners on all your 3/1 bets thereby making a 20% ROI, which is more like what serious gamblers are aiming for, then you need a bigger sample to determine if the aim as been achieve. If the aim has been achieve or if the gambler has made a profit over a decent period of time, nobody can argue that it's luck.
Whichever twit tweeted that quote obviously doesn't understand gambling and believes it's about nothing more than backing winners. Mind you, about 98% of the population probably doesn't understand gambling.
If your aim is to get 30% winners on all your 3/1 bets thereby making a 20% ROI, which is more like what serious gamblers are aiming for, then you need a bigger sample to determine if the aim as been achieve. If the aim has been achieve or if the gambler has made a profit over a decent period of time, nobody can argue that it's luck.
Whichever twit tweeted that quote obviously doesn't understand gambling and believes it's about nothing more than backing winners. Mind you, about 98% of the population probably doesn't understand gambling.
-
- Posts: 863
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 6:47 pm
Have to agree that it is wrong to classify all 'gambling' as purely based on 'luck'.
Equally, not all of a trader's results will be down to their 'skill' - some of it will also be due to luck.
Equally, not all of a trader's results will be down to their 'skill' - some of it will also be due to luck.
Perhaps it's a question of "refinement" - as in distillation and sophistication.
Many people seem to consider speculating to be a rather indulgent and morally hazardous activity (addiction, effect on families and wider society, etc).
We distinguish between people who enjoy the morally hazardous practice of alcohol consumption in terms of our perception of their degree of sophistication (including their self-control and the effect that their practice has on wider society) - so that a middle-class drinker can be a "fine-wine lover," and their enjoyment of alcohol can be considered a mark of their refinement/status, whereas a park vagrant is a "wine-o" or an "alcoholic" (pejorative). And this is a meaningful and worthwhile hierarchy, given the wider social effect of the two classes of behaviour.
So i'd maybe make the same distinction between people who "trade" in a controlled and ultimately profitable manner on the one hand, and a gambler who punts their family fortune on NZ to win the World Cup at the beginning of the tournament, or on wild accumulators etc, on the other.
So traders of any kind, speculators, investors, gamblers or all doing roughly the same activity, and we use different words to distinguish them on the basis of our perception of their refinement? So not an exact science at all (in technical terms), more a question of consensus on what should be the social status of an activity, with "gambling" a more pejorative term to describe wilder behaviour, and trading referring to something more disciplined/refined in a rather general sense.
Many people seem to consider speculating to be a rather indulgent and morally hazardous activity (addiction, effect on families and wider society, etc).
We distinguish between people who enjoy the morally hazardous practice of alcohol consumption in terms of our perception of their degree of sophistication (including their self-control and the effect that their practice has on wider society) - so that a middle-class drinker can be a "fine-wine lover," and their enjoyment of alcohol can be considered a mark of their refinement/status, whereas a park vagrant is a "wine-o" or an "alcoholic" (pejorative). And this is a meaningful and worthwhile hierarchy, given the wider social effect of the two classes of behaviour.
So i'd maybe make the same distinction between people who "trade" in a controlled and ultimately profitable manner on the one hand, and a gambler who punts their family fortune on NZ to win the World Cup at the beginning of the tournament, or on wild accumulators etc, on the other.
So traders of any kind, speculators, investors, gamblers or all doing roughly the same activity, and we use different words to distinguish them on the basis of our perception of their refinement? So not an exact science at all (in technical terms), more a question of consensus on what should be the social status of an activity, with "gambling" a more pejorative term to describe wilder behaviour, and trading referring to something more disciplined/refined in a rather general sense.
- MemphisFlash
- Posts: 2159
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 10:12 pm
- Location: Leicester
this is what a gambler will do
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.