5201 pts ยท May 18, 2012
> skill based than they are chance based. They are like poker, not like a casino...
*facepalm* That's the point... Everything has risk, I don't consider something gambling of it is more skill than chance. Stocks are more >
I think we have different definitions of gambling. To me gambling is something more chance than skill. Stocks are much more like poker...
> doesn't consider it a slur, then it isn't one... Outsiders have no say. This is also why I hate when people say jif instead of gif...
> slur because people intentionally used it as one and others inferred the derogatory meaning. So again, if everyone in the conversation >
> wasn't originally a slur it was just a word for a dark skinned individual and wasn't used as a slur until 200 years later. It became a>
> typically inoffensive words can be used as a slurs. This is in fact how most slurs came into existence in the first place. The N word >
> it's not healthy to use words improperly, but people aren't often rational. So sometimes slurs can be used in inoffensive ways just like >
> is just consensus that's used to guide discussion. This is why when someone says "literally" everyone understands they mean figuratively.>
By that definition going outside to check the mail is also gambling, as there is a non-zero that you will be hit by a car doing so...
> AWESOME! Robinhood has to pay most of the bill and they will all be individual cases. They could easily get buried like other companies...
> weren't on purchased on margin though, (if any) almost certainly not legal. Still, they may have to go to arbitration over this, which is>
For sure, some rights can't just be waived. Still, I'm of the mind that selling the margin stocks was legal. The ones that were sold that >
Exactly!
Yeah, Robinhoods explanation was pure BS, I'm just saying Robinhood was very different from webull.
No, day trading is poker. Everyone wants to figure out what everyone else is going to do with whatever information they may have...
> everyone else has and what they are going to do with it... It's far more skill than chance...
> in the market gets different cards containing information, some good, some bad. Everyone is then trying to predict what information >
No, it's poker, VERY different. Casinos are pure chance, day trading is responding to what everyone else on the market is doing. Everyone >
Humans still have to react to the disaster to change the price though, and they won't all react the same way, which is my point...
> insignificant number of trades to be reasonably considered in this argument though...
> things that effect the exchange itself, such as technical issues that prevent buying and selling... Those effect a statistically >
The thing is, the accident can't effect the stocks, only the people's reactions to it can. The only accidents that can effect stocks are >
They didn't say it was pure chance, they were saying it has elements of chance but also skill...
> avoided at all costs, but does prove my point that jobs, businesses, and welfare are separate issues from the economy...
> that is still an economy that can have lots of money moving with no jobs or businesses... It's also a terrible shitshow that should be >
> possible and has happened in communist countries before. The government gives an allowance and the people spend it with the government. >
Technically, just as jobs can be replaced by the government, so can businesses. We aren't seeing that right now, but it's technically >
> lately, but the stock price was being depressed significantly by the shorts...
It was super undervalued before though, I think true value is somewhere in the 20-30 range. There has been a lot of good news about them>
> skill based than they are chance based. They are like poker, not like a casino...
*facepalm* That's the point... Everything has risk, I don't consider something gambling of it is more skill than chance. Stocks are more >
I think we have different definitions of gambling. To me gambling is something more chance than skill. Stocks are much more like poker...
> doesn't consider it a slur, then it isn't one... Outsiders have no say. This is also why I hate when people say jif instead of gif...
> slur because people intentionally used it as one and others inferred the derogatory meaning. So again, if everyone in the conversation >
> wasn't originally a slur it was just a word for a dark skinned individual and wasn't used as a slur until 200 years later. It became a>
> typically inoffensive words can be used as a slurs. This is in fact how most slurs came into existence in the first place. The N word >
> it's not healthy to use words improperly, but people aren't often rational. So sometimes slurs can be used in inoffensive ways just like >
> is just consensus that's used to guide discussion. This is why when someone says "literally" everyone understands they mean figuratively.>
By that definition going outside to check the mail is also gambling, as there is a non-zero that you will be hit by a car doing so...
> AWESOME! Robinhood has to pay most of the bill and they will all be individual cases. They could easily get buried like other companies...
> weren't on purchased on margin though, (if any) almost certainly not legal. Still, they may have to go to arbitration over this, which is>
For sure, some rights can't just be waived. Still, I'm of the mind that selling the margin stocks was legal. The ones that were sold that >
Exactly!
Yeah, Robinhoods explanation was pure BS, I'm just saying Robinhood was very different from webull.
No, day trading is poker. Everyone wants to figure out what everyone else is going to do with whatever information they may have...
> everyone else has and what they are going to do with it... It's far more skill than chance...
> in the market gets different cards containing information, some good, some bad. Everyone is then trying to predict what information >
No, it's poker, VERY different. Casinos are pure chance, day trading is responding to what everyone else on the market is doing. Everyone >
Humans still have to react to the disaster to change the price though, and they won't all react the same way, which is my point...
> insignificant number of trades to be reasonably considered in this argument though...
> things that effect the exchange itself, such as technical issues that prevent buying and selling... Those effect a statistically >
The thing is, the accident can't effect the stocks, only the people's reactions to it can. The only accidents that can effect stocks are >
They didn't say it was pure chance, they were saying it has elements of chance but also skill...
> avoided at all costs, but does prove my point that jobs, businesses, and welfare are separate issues from the economy...
> that is still an economy that can have lots of money moving with no jobs or businesses... It's also a terrible shitshow that should be >
> possible and has happened in communist countries before. The government gives an allowance and the people spend it with the government. >
Technically, just as jobs can be replaced by the government, so can businesses. We aren't seeing that right now, but it's technically >
> lately, but the stock price was being depressed significantly by the shorts...
It was super undervalued before though, I think true value is somewhere in the 20-30 range. There has been a lot of good news about them>