Trader or Gambler?

[oliver123]

I've watched Pete, Caan Berry and other 'traders' on YouTube, etc. The message is always trading, getting in to and out of the market with a profit. Again, it's always profit - never losses. For me, as soon as you bet money on an event - ANY event - then you are risking your money. In other words, you are gambling.

Which takes me to an associated issue. We see it all the time in various media that gambling is an addiction: check out Gamble Aware, etc. The problem is purely financial and emotional. We keep reading that 95% of gamblers lose. Where they get 95% from God only knows. My attitude is to keep a certain emotional detachment from, in my case, Betfair. Of course, I use Bet Angel which gives me the edge but at the end of the day, as soon as I go in and snipe a possible winner, I am gambling.

So are you a trader or gambler?

[LeTiss]

This is a complex issue, a grey area.

All businesses risk money in order to make money - if you buy a run down house, to do up and sell on......you're considered a property developer!
However, there's no guarantee it's going to be a successful investment, as the costs of renovation may exceed your financial estimations.

If you lose 10% of your investment, you don't suddenly become a gambler - you're still a property developer, just not a successful one!

The difference between traders and gamblers for me, is that traders have an exit plan. That doesn't automatically mean you'll be a raving success though

[SeaHorseRacing]

Being aware of your risk

[northbound]

Trading, gambling, investing, taking a potential partner out for dinner...

It’s all gambling: taking a game of chance in the hope of a desired result.

No matter the gamble, you’ll win some and lose some.

No matter the gamble, over the long term you’ll be profitable only if you consistently get involved when the odds are favourable.

[jimibt]

as le tiss points out, at the end of the day it's all about the exit strategy. anyone focussing on lay based trading will know this only too well. if the odds aren't correctly calculated or the exposure is unbalanced, you risk losing 10 good trades for the sake of one badly executed trade (by that i mean exit - tho of course WHEN to exit is another matter completely!!)

[northbound]

IMHO 95% lose in the long term because they:

- Have no clue about probability / value

- They have a clue about value but haven’t found enough edges (I fit this category at the moment)

- Let emotions dictate their involvement, which inevitably leads to overstaking or taking poor value odds

[PDC]

I've watched Pete, Caan Berry and other 'traders' on YouTube, etc.

We keep reading that 95% of gamblers lose. Where they get 95% from God only knows.

Maybe you missed a few?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XotiPkGSP_M&t=2s

[TipTopTrader]

The message I got from the video's is don't turn trading into unplanned gambling, because you're losing, frustated etc with the trading.Hoping to win the money back.

[Adriaan]

I only ever think of myself as a trader when I'm trading football pre-match. The majority of my trading however is IP football. I consider this as just gambling but then with with value or live pictures as my edge. And tbh i'm OK with that for now.

[stueytrader]

I must say the 95% figure interests me too - how is that derived?

In terms of 'gambling v trading' I think the possibility to be losing is probably an identical issue for both. Gamblers can be carefully controlled in terms of risk, just as much as traders can.

[ShaunWhite]

I must say the 95% figure interests me too - how is that derived?

I think it's one of those stats that's never been defined (is it lifetime/does it mean those above a certain turnover etc) and the stats probably don't exist anyway.

The figure may have originated from a Betfair account manager but it's apocryphal.

[Derek27]

I've watched Pete, Caan Berry and other 'traders' on YouTube, etc. The message is always trading, getting in to and out of the market with a profit. Again, it's always profit - never losses. For me, as soon as you bet money on an event - ANY event - then you are risking your money. In other words, you are gambling.

Which takes me to an associated issue. We see it all the time in various media that gambling is an addiction: check out Gamble Aware, etc. The problem is purely financial and emotional. We keep reading that 95% of gamblers lose. Where they get 95% from God only knows. My attitude is to keep a certain emotional detachment from, in my case, Betfair. Of course, I use Bet Angel which gives me the edge but at the end of the day, as soon as I go in and snipe a possible winner, I am gambling.

So are you a trader or gambler?

There's a lengthy thread about it on this forum. Trading is a branch of gambling so all traders are gamblers but not all gamblers are traders. (A lion is a cat but a cat's not necessarily a lion).

But within that understanding, and within the trading community, we make a distinction between betting and trading to indicate the nature of our gambling. Claiming to be a gambler on here when you mean a trader may cause confusion and lead people to believe you're a bettor.

[TipTopTrader]

You watch or read anything about trading stocks,etc and they come out with the same number.Peter did a video on it and I think he said it was about 85% lose short term under 2 years or so and the longer the time period the higher the stats because short term luck etc was taken out.

Also we need to take into account defining what you call long term success.If you're making a good living or making a few dollars a week.

[stueytrader]

I must say the 95% figure interests me too - how is that derived?

I think it's one of those stats that's never been defined (is it lifetime/does it mean those above a certain turnover etc) and the stats probably don't exist anyway.

The figure may have originated from a Betfair account manager but it's apocryphal.

It may be related to some previous records from Betfair, yes. Though I also see this (or very similar) cited in sources that would pre-date Betfair even, for example discussions about how many financial day-traders are ultimately successful (only 5% allegedly...)

I agree though, that it's actually a figure plucked from no-where, as it's not clearly defined (what is success etc) and who on earth would even have enough stats to support the specific figure? i.e. no-one can know the entire pool of traders/gamblers I would say.

I must admit, I don't like the stat itself, as it presents a very negative image.

[jimibt]

I must say the 95% figure interests me too - how is that derived?

I think it's one of those stats that's never been defined (is it lifetime/does it mean those above a certain turnover etc) and the stats probably don't exist anyway.

The figure may have originated from a Betfair account manager but it's apocryphal.

It may be related to some previous records from Betfair, yes. Though I also see this (or very similar) cited in sources that would pre-date Betfair even, for example discussions about how many financial day-traders are ultimately successful (only 5% allegedly...)

I agree though, that it's actually a figure plucked from no-where, as it's not clearly defined (what is success etc) and who on earth would even have enough stats to support the specific figure? i.e. no-one can know the entire pool of traders/gamblers I would say.

I must admit, I don't like the stat itself, as it presents a very negative image.

one could say that the 5% *image* could be also happily perpetuated by those enjoying success - a smaller club is a more profitable club, therefore restricting membership by proxy maintains the status quo.