/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9153243
Let's differentiate a gambler from a player. A gambler calculates the odds of victory and places his bet on what looks like the long term winner. When odds are tight like 6:4 for A:B, the gambler has yet to make a binary decision that favors only one side ie he is always expecting that player A wins against player B. This is similar to always having your umbrella when there is 51% chance of rain, always expecting rain from 50% or more, specially if bringing your umbrella costs you as much as getting wet by rain. Reality is made of these two-sided predictions besides all the statistics that you would like to bring to the table and use as an answer: you have to predict exactly what happens on each event, and there isn't a third position. The player is given two outcomes within the game: win or lose. Given the two he always expects victory when deciding to play the game. If odds are 1:5, the player yet expects victory 100% of the time he plays. Being given participation in the outcome seems to be the big difference between the player and the gambler. Now let's expand the concept of game to include gambling: a gambler is a player in the gambling game. Thus he has participation and expects victory at hard odds, due to competition, as well otherwise he doesn't play. But now since he is a player, that means people can bet on him, including himself. However his bet is by definition consistent with him as a player on the Gambling game. So he takes rewarded risks there, which is a contradiction. Thus to win at gambling you become a player, adding risks to beat the competition, and sole gamblers necessarily lose. Now, do you agree that of all traditional professions, the Trader is closest to the Gambler? The Edge of the Merchant is not comfortable, it is the Risky Investment, the Leap of Faith, the Tycoon Insight, that puts him on the long term good position, and a merchant who fails at that, fails and has to cheat one way or the other, sacrificing the long term.