Gambling....

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBobo

Well stated still keep making my point. In its truest form gambling (possible loss of anything w/o guaranteed outcome) is gambling i.e. money, reputation, life etc.

This was fun but I’m out!

I’m glad I don’t see life that way.

Good luck to you.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBobo

Well stated but still keep making my point. In its truest form gambling see “risk” (possible loss of anything w/o guaranteed outcome) is gambling i.e. money, reputation, life etc.

This was fun but I’m out!

The key component of gambling is "high risk", which nothing you've said proves that investing is a high risk activity. The definition says nothing about possibly loss, it says high risk of loss, and to lose something generally means in its entirety.

So even in your example of FTX which is the worst possible stock investment outcome possible, it still was a better outcome than losing a gamble. As investors will see something back eventually.

By your line of reasoning, storing money in a bank would be a gamble because its only insured up to $250k banks aren't guaranteed from going insolvent either.

[Knappo 1307]

Originally Posted by 330ci

The key component of gambling is "high risk", which nothing you've said proves that investing is a high risk activity. The definition says nothing about possibly loss, it says high risk of loss, and to lose something generally means in its entirety.

So even in your example of FTX which is the worst possible stock investment outcome possible, it still was a better outcome than losing a gamble. As investors will see something back eventually.

You sound like a politician, you keep using the circle theory. And you are making JoeJoebobo's point. Sorry.

[huncho]

Originally Posted by 330ci

The key component of gambling is "high risk", which nothing you've said proves that investing is a high risk activity. The definition says nothing about possibly loss, it says high risk of loss, and to lose something generally means in its entirety.

So even in your example of FTX which is the worst possible stock investment outcome possible, it still was a better outcome than losing a gamble. As investors will see something back eventually.

By your line of reasoning, storing money in a bank would be a gamble because its only insured up to $250k banks aren't guaranteed from going insolvent either.

what do you mean investors will see something eventually? the money lost is gone forever. the company is bankrupt and has no money and it's in the bahamas so there's no course of action

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by 330ci

The key component of gambling is "high risk", which nothing you've said proves that investing is a high risk activity. The definition says nothing about possibly loss, it says high risk of loss, and to lose something generally means in its entirety.

So even in your example of FTX which is the worst possible stock investment outcome possible, it still was a better outcome than losing a gamble. As investors will see something back eventually.

By your line of reasoning, storing money in a bank would be a gamble because its only insured up to $250k banks aren't guaranteed from going insolvent either.

I think the key distinction is: the expected value of investing is supposed to be positive, whereas the EV of a gambling activity is negative. But in either case you could experience complete loss of principal

[330ci]

Originally Posted by huncho

what do you mean investors will see something eventually? the money lost is gone forever. the company is bankrupt and has no money and it's in the bahamas so there's no course of action

Didn't realize it wasn't a publicly traded company, in which case I have no idea what Joe Joe is going on about.

But a bit crappier of a situation than I realized for those invested. Not much recourse at all. Or atleast a very uphill battle to recover anything.

[Bill2e]

Originally Posted by JoeJoeBobo

With out the ability to gamble on sports it would be far less watchable for many. Just look what fantasy football did for the watchability of the NFL.

Fantasy ruined the NFL. The game played today is not football.

[Wcdhtwn]

Originally Posted by HHIslander

Gambling is always bad unless the government can regulate and tax it. Then it somehow becomes OK.

I don't think we're supposed to say that outloud... but I agree.

[Mifune]

Originally Posted by superdog

I think the rampant legalization of gambling is a travesty.

They just want the taxes to squander.

you surely can not be in favor of Illegal underground casinos... because that's where we came from originally... and that's where we will go back to if gambling is outlawed and left unregulated.

[Trailboss516]

Originally Posted by 330ci

i find the markets malicious and predatory of the poor.

+1

[1st amg]

I have been to Las Vegas 13 times. I have gambled in those thirteen visits a grand total of $1.75 in a slot machine that I happened to walk by in my clubbing excursions. I think the fact that I just hate to lose on anything I do has stopped me from gambling…..I wish I had the same thought process in the stock market!! Argh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superdog]

Originally Posted by Mifune

you surely can not be in favor of Illegal underground casinos... because that's where we came from originally... and that's where we will go back to if gambling is outlawed and left unregulated.

No sir. I’m not. But the flood gates have been opened.

I personally preferred it when there were a few hotspots to go to. Now it’s simply too easy.

I’m not saying we go to “none”, but surely that doesn’t mean I advocate going straight to “all”.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

I think the key distinction is: the expected value of investing is supposed to be positive, whereas the EV of a gambling activity is negative. But in either case you could experience complete loss of principal

I could die on my way to the grocery store too. Doesn't make it a risky activity.

[MrGoat]

Originally Posted by 330ci

I could die on my way to the grocery store too. Doesn't make it a risky activity.

I hate to disagree here my man but, tell that to the insurance company and see what they say.


Sent from my Apple privacy invasion product

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by 330ci

I could die on my way to the grocery store too. Doesn't make it a risky activity.

How about (A) investing in biotech penny stocks, versus (B) betting the Chiefs would win more than 5 games this season.

[330ci]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

How about (A) investing in biotech penny stocks, versus (B) betting the Chiefs would win more than 5 games this season.

I mean a quick Google search shows that the chiefs have won 6 games this season so it would seem to not be much of a gamble to guarantee they would win more than five games and invest it into whatever I felt was the best use of my money.

But my guess is after I win that bet, there's some bet with even further odds and a better spread to entice me to double down to potentially lose it all. Unlike stock investing where you can reinvest dividends or trim profits to improve odds elsewhere.the house is malicious and always fights back

[Chester01]

Its problem. The internet already exploits human psychology and dopamine pathways add gambling to that mix which is already addictive and sadly many people's lives will be destroyed.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by 330ci

I mean a quick Google search shows that the chiefs have won 6 games this season so it would seem to not be much of a gamble to guarantee they would win more than five games and invest it into whatever I felt was the best use of my money.

But my guess is after I win that bet, there's some bet with even further odds and a better spread to entice me to double down to potentially lose it all. Unlike stock investing where you can reinvest dividends or trim profits to improve odds elsewhere.the house is malicious and always fights back

The bet would be settled at the 5th win, so would likely be made before the season started. Point is, there’s no bright line dividing investing from gambling

[330ci]

Originally Posted by Star Ferry

The bet would be settled at the 5th win, so would likely be made before the season started. Point is, there’s no bright line dividing investing from gambling

It's a strawmans argument.


Investing produces a surplus, gambling doesn't. If people can't understand the efficiencies of systems and how wealth is generated. Theres little I can say to sway their opinion otherwise.

Not going to waste any more of my time.

Some people in this thread clearly would be much more successful putting it all on black.

[austinp]

I love casino gambling. Especially Craps. So much fun when the table is lively.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AzPaul]

Glad I have no vices.

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by AzPaul

Glad I have no vices.

I dunno … do watches count Paul?

[Ferdelious]

Pro sports held out for a long time but the advertising revenue became too lucrative. I don't blame either side. Anyone of age can buy alcohol, the key is to drink responsibly. Same goes for gambling.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Ferdelious

Pro sports held out for a long time but the advertising revenue became too lucrative.

Be interesting to see now that gambling is legal with the NHL if there are refereeing calls or score shaving scandals that will be occurring.

Also the issue of blown calls and video reviews now that the stakes are higher with millions on the line with each call.

Personally I just think it all cheapens the game with the sleaze of gambling attached and the unsavory characters it attracts.

[JasoninDenver]

I represented a professional poker player in a divorce years ago. His five year tax returns were like a roller coaster. To illustrate… up $450k one year down $300k the next and $400 the third followed by up $500k.

My impression at the time was “This looks like my IRA.”

[Watchdog]

The gambling ads are distracting and annoying. But they’ve built and integrated the system so well, to the point where many can’t watch without skin in the game, risking money they don’t have. It doesn’t help major, legitimate athletes endorse these gambling sites as if gambling were Pepsi.

Vegas is awesome. Gambling is exciting, but we will lose in the long run.

[albertf]

I enjoy gambling but think the all the social media posts glorifying huge parlays will negatively impact alot people who don't have good financial judgement/self-control

[OverGeared]

Originally Posted by JasoninDenver

I represented a professional poker player in a divorce years ago. His five year tax returns were like a roller coaster.

You've heard this old joke, right?

Q: what's the difference between a professional poker player and a large pizza?

A: the large pizza can feed a family of four.


On a serious note, gambling and games of chance can be really fun and exciting, regardless of how much money is involved, but the predatory tone of gambling advertising we're seeing borders (to me, at least) on flagrant false advertising. It's like taking the sole survivor of a horrible plane crash and using him as an advertisement for that airline. "Look how lucky THIS guy was! Pay no attention to the flaming wreckage behind him!"

When a sportsbook or online forum like FanDuel is willing to give you hundreds of dollars in credit just for opening an account, you know they're pretty f***ing sure they'll be seeing that money again soon. I hope everyone here who loves to gamble is also good at keeping a level head at the same time.

[Star Ferry]

Originally Posted by 330ci

It's a strawmans argument.


Investing produces a surplus, gambling doesn't. If people can't understand the efficiencies of systems and how wealth is generated. Theres little I can say to sway their opinion otherwise.

Not going to waste any more of my time.

Some people in this thread clearly would be much more successful putting it all on black.

Whether you participate in the thread is your call, but you can't just call everyone an idiot and declare the topic closed. The issue is not whether I understand investing, but rather how words like "gambling" and "investing" are inherently limited in their ability to describe reality.

Did "investing produce a surplus" for Madoff's investors or FTX's investors? It depends on when they entered and when they exited. How about an angel investor who invests in 20 promising business ideas and loses everything?

The best we can say is that, at the time of investment, these folks believed they were engaging in a category of activity that, in the aggregate, does produce a profit. So the angel investor believes that the types of investments he was making are profitable overall, even if they weren't profitable for him. I think a lot of angel investors are gamblers, but even after losing everything, many will continue to call themselves investors. An attempt (but not a great one) at an objective definition might be whether a "reasonable person" considers the investor's belief at time of investment to be reasonable.

last point is that, when we think of something as an investment, we do so retroactively. E.g., "US stocks have returned X% per year over the past Y years." But when an actual investment is made, there's only the belief (probably an objectively reasonable belief, in this case) that profit will eventually follow. Reality is messy, though, especially since lower performing companies will drop out of indexes and potentially even be delisted. So whether you're looking at the S&P 500 or the NYSE over time, you're not looking at a fixed basket of securities.