[Bill Dozer]

I think for most people it certainly is but I also do not think you can make the generalization that all sports bettors are gambling...unless you are going to say that all stock investors are gamblers.

Sports betting and stock trading mirror each other. In my opinion, if skill can produce a long term positive expectation, unlike roulette or slots which obviously is gambling, it should be called investing. You can't say you are investing in slots but you can invest in a great price on the Yankees the same way you can on an Enron share.

I am going to say that the only major difference is that there are more bad investments dangled in front of sports investors. The market moves quicker and by the time you do some research the price can change.

Stock people? What % of investors make money long term?

[Bill Dozer]

Yes Dan, I stole the topic from your article.

[tacomax]

One important difference is with regard to the long term return of the investment.

With the stock market you can safely assume that diversifying your investment will, over the long term, result in a profit - that's a long-term positive expectation. Even with the regular market crashes, you portfolio is likely to be in positive territory in any long term period. That level of profit will increase if you do a good job and will decrease if you do a bad job, ceteris paribus.

Conversely with sportsbetting there is a long-term negative expectation. If you hit 50% over the long term then the vig is going to kill you in the end. You have to do a good job to cover the vig, you have to do an even better job to get into profit.

Stock people? What % of investors make money long term?

Due to the positive expectation then, over the long term, the % of people making money (that is making at least some profit) would be pretty high.

Day-trading of shares is more of a sports betting type scenario, though, than long-term "buy and hold". That's all about waiting for a price you want, nailing it and then cashing in after a few days.

[isetcap]

It really depends on your approach as to whether or not you are gambling. You can be buying real estate and based on your approach, it could definitely be a gamble or it could be a rock solid investment. The key to swinging yourself from gambler to investor no matter what your endeavor might be is figuring out a way to make sure you have a positive return in your favor over the long run. If you are hitting on 50% of your sportsbook plays with no concept of money management, then obviously you are simply gambling, but if you are an excellent money manager who hits on 56% of his/her plays then you are an investor. People can say you are gambling all they want but you and your bank account will know that is not the case.

[pags11]

I think there are handicappers and gamblers...handicappers have a system and use money management and are in it for the long term, whereas gamblers do exactly that...they put large ammounts on games with little research and go through hot streaks and many cold streaks...

[bigboydan]

Yes Dan, I stole the topic from your article.

no big deal bill.

now to answer your question....


it's basicly the same thing sorta. accept with stock you might not lose all your money.

[MrX]

When you buy stock, you are purchasing a tangible property. You own a piece of a company. Buying stock is not the same as sports gambling, just as buying a house is not.

People love to claim that what they are doing (playing poker, handicapping, etc.) is not 'gambling' because they win. If you're making wagers on uncertain events, you're gambling. Gambling is not synonymous with losing, however.

Gambling is nothing to be ashamed of if you're good at it...
just as investing is nothing to be proud of if you're bad at it.

[isetcap]

The classic definition for gambling is: to bet on an uncertain outcome.

When you buy a house solely for the purpose of living in it then it is nothing more than tangible property, but when you buy a house with hopes that it will appreciate in value while also affording you a place to stay, you are indeed gambling as you are uncertain as to whether or not your property will actually appreciate. When you purchase stock because you want to prove you have ownership in a company then you are purchasing something tangible but if your intention is to own the stock in hopes that it will increase in value over a time period, then you are most certainly gambling based on the classic definition. Using this definition we can classify any activity as "gambling" in the classic sense. Perhaps that's why some idiots and cliche artists like to say "Life is a Gamble".

Since few intelligent people would accuse someone of being a gambler simply for buying a house or some stocks, let's take a closer look at the connotation of gambling which introduces the notions of "luck" or "fate". If you are doing anything that utilizes a strategy or formula which proves a profit margin, then you are removing these aspects (luck or fate) from whatever activity you are doing.

A lay person might look at a gentleman who plays Blackjack as his sole source of income and label him a "gambler". That gentleman might actually be an experienced card counter (if he has made money over a long period of time then he must be) as opposed to a gambler. Therefore, I would again suggest that once you remove luck from the longterm equation, you have effectively graduated from gambling.

Just by saying an activity doesn't involve tangible assets by no means categorizes it as gambling either by classic definition or contemporary interpretation.

[MrX]

Good points isetcap.

I would certainly agree that it's not wrong to call playing the market, buying property, or most business decisions for that matter, gambling. One definition of gambling is simpy 'taking risks,' so nearly all investing could be called gambling.

But I've never bought into the claim that blackjack or poker or handicapping cease to be "gambling" once you have a proven edge. I've made my living at poker for over ten years, but if poker (even when I'm playing) isn't gambling then I don't know what is.

[Dead Money]

I would have to say that if you are putting up money to win money...it is gambling.

Buying something, (The Knicks +5.5) is not a material object, cannot depreciate or apreciate, unlike a stock, bond, auto, home.

[isetcap]

Good points isetcap.

I would certainly agree that it's not wrong to call playing the market, buying property, or most business decisions for that matter, gambling. One definition of gambling is simpy 'taking risks,' so nearly all investing could be called gambling.

But I've never bought into the claim that blackjack or poker or handicapping cease to be "gambling" once you have a proven edge. I've made my living at poker for over ten years, but if poker (even when I'm playing) isn't gambling then I don't know what is.

Certainly the actions are typically categorized as "gambling", but neither you nor I would do what we do if we felt we truly felt we were gambling or allowing "luck" to dictate whether or not we have money to pay our bills.

[onlooker]

Squares gamble, sharps invest.

But really, I like reading the different point of views on this subject. Keep them coming guys.

I feel it is gambling, because your putting money up on a uncertain outcome like others said above.

[isetcap]

I would have to say that if you are putting up money to win money...it is gambling.

Buying something, (The Knicks +5.5) is not a material object, cannot depreciate or apreciate, unlike a stock, bond, auto, home.

The Knicks+5.5 can absolutely appreciate or depreciate in the exact same way that any tangible asset will have a fixed price at any instant in time. If you have Knicks+5.5 at 12PM and come gametime the line is Knicks+1, then your contract has definitely appreciated.

[isetcap]

Squares gamble, sharps invest.

But really, I like reading the different point of views on this subject. Keep them coming guys.

I feel it is gambling, because your putting money up on a uncertain outcome like others said above.

There's no investment in this world that can be made using money that does not contain some element of uncertainty.

[Dead Money]

I guess it is a matter of opinion isetcap.

The way I look at is the line moved, you are still "gambling" 110 dollars to win 100.
You may have gotten a better value on the bet, but the the big picture is you are posting up a dollar amount to win a "fixed dollar amount"

I do not see how the 110 dollars you posted up appreciated or depreciated in that scenario.
Just my 2 cents.

[isetcap]

I guess it is a matter of opinion isetcap.

The way I look at is the line moved, you are still "gambling" 110 dollars to win 100.
You may have gotten a better value on the bet, but the the big picture is you are posting up a dollar amount to win a "fixed dollar amount"

I do not see how the 110 dollars you posted up appreciated or depreciated in that scenario.
Just my 2 cents.

You are right, we are just arguing semantics at this point and ultimately it doesn't bother me too much what anybody calls it. In fact I'm kind of pissed off at Bill for even starting the subject! And to think he stole the subject from BBD!!! Oh man I'm about to have a Natrass moment...

I will say this though...If I have the Knicks+175 and the line moves to Knicks+110, then my contract has appreciated.

[Dead Money]

I know what you are saying.

I usually only think this hard when I'm trying to cap a game.




I'm gonna go take a couple vikes now...

[isetcap]

I know what you are saying.

I usually only think this hard when I'm trying to cap a game.




I'm gonna go take a couple vikes now...

Do you play in any online ring games? If so, who do you like to use?

[MrX]

I think almost everyone here is intellegent enough to know the differences between the various types of investing and the various types of gambling. What it mostly comes down to is whether we like the word "gambling" or whether it carries too many negative connotations in our society. Just as successful day traders (I assume that there are some) don't want to call themselves day traders, I often hear successful gamblers insist that what they do is not gambling. I still say it is, but I like the word gambling. It was an acquired taste, though. For many years I told anyone I met that I was a computer programmer to avoid the looks from people who thought I was a goofball that was getting lucky for a little while. These days I enjoy the conversations that come up when I say I'm a gambler.

[isetcap]

I think almost everyone here is intellegent enough to know the differences between the various types of investing and the various types of gambling. What it mostly comes down to is whether we like the word "gambling" or whether it carries too many negative connotations in our society. Just as successful day traders (I assume that there are some) don't want to call themselves day traders, I often hear successful gamblers insist that what they do is not gambling. I still say it is, but I like the word gambling. It was an acquired taste, though. For many years I told anyone I met that I was a computer programmer to avoid the looks from people who thought I was a goofball that was getting lucky for a little while. These days I enjoy the conversations that come up when I say I'm a gambler.

Well said. I usually like to let people "figure out" on their own I am a "gambler". They feel so witty when they say that, as if they were the first to make the discovery. Then I occasionally spend about an hour telling them otherwise and they usually end up walking away in fear and filled with disappointment. I guess I just don't like those clever people too much.

[raiders72001]

Everything's a gamble. The only question is to what degree and if the government wants to call it gambling to make it illegal. Poker is now called a game of skill and not gambling. When Roberto decided to meet me for drinks he took a gamble that I wouldn't slap him around for those negative things he posted about me.

[raiders72001]

good post

[datek23]

Everything's a gamble. The only question is to what degree and if the government wants to call it gambling to make it illegal. Poker is now called a game of skill and not gambling. When Roberto decided to meet me for drinks he took a gamble that I wouldn't slap him around for those negative things he posted about me.

Was it a drink fest or slap happy fest?, how funny.

[slacker00]

Sports betting IS gambling, by definition. The sportsbooks do everything they can to ensure this fact. They chase out every advantage player they can, in the same way casinos chase card counters from blackjack tables. Sure, blackjack can be beaten "in theory". Even so, the ones that can implement such a theory are chased off before they can do much damage to the casino. Sports betting will continue along this line, trying to attract new players while keeping an eye out for advantage players. For the advantage player, it isn't really investing as much as it is trying to evade detection as a "parasite" in the system.

[Bill Dozer]

The Knicks+5.5 can absolutely appreciate or depreciate in the exact same way that any tangible asset will have a fixed price at any instant in time. If you have Knicks+5.5 at 12PM and come gametime the line is Knicks+1, then your contract has definitely appreciated.

Good post.

[Bill Dozer]

One important difference is with regard to the long term return of the investment.

With the stock market you can safely assume that diversifying your investment will, over the long term, result in a profit - that's a long-term positive expectation. Even with the regular market crashes, you portfolio is likely to be in positive territory in any long term period. That level of profit will increase if you do a good job and will decrease if you do a bad job, ceteris paribus.

Conversely with sportsbetting there is a long-term negative expectation. If you hit 50% over the long term then the vig is going to kill you in the end. You have to do a good job to cover the vig, you have to do an even better job to get into profit.



Due to the positive expectation then, over the long term, the % of people making money (that is making at least some profit) would be pretty high.

Day-trading of shares is more of a sports betting type scenario, though, than long-term "buy and hold". That's all about waiting for a price you want, nailing it and then cashing in after a few days.

I hear ya but like sports betting there are "ifs" involved. Investing on a team offers quicker results and less time to make informed decisions. Because of that, the sportsbooks offer players many bad investments and many bite.

Maybe you could say that if you believe the odds are in your favor (the positive expectation) then you are making an investment?

I think a sports bettor, and moreso a middler, can be an investor more than someone like my Uncle Joe who buys stocks. A middler can show the value of the points he is getting and knows the ROI. Same with flat betting. If you can find points worth more than the vig on the market odds, you would not lose in a long term effort.

Even if my Uncle Joe invests conservatively, he would only have the market history to go by.

[LVHerbie]

I would have to say that if you are putting up money to win money...it is gambling.

Buying something, (The Knicks +5.5) is not a material object, cannot depreciate or apreciate, unlike a stock, bond, auto, home.

I don't about that... If I "buy" the knicks at +5.5 and the line drops to say knicks +1 I would have to say that my bet's value has diffently depreciated in value... if it raises to say knicks +10 my bet defiently has value well above the 11/10 I previously paid for it... look at sports exchanges online or live betting during the game... seems there is alot of similarity between this and futures markets, with the ability to scalp back a bet or, say sell back your gold future early, and at some point both are going to have a cash value... obviously there is probably much more risk with a bet, in that is either worth more then you paid or nothing at some point but I diffently see similarities...