Yes, there are varying degrees of control (investigation into a company before investing, folding a shitty hand in poker, etc) and risk. Perhaps you would go so far as to call these things "odds"?
Ill pass, I fall under middle class, lower end of it but still middle class. Your policies will have zero benefit for me financially, and your open support for DEI policies will hinder me greatly as a heterosexual white male.
I think lower tax benefits middle class/below middle class the most tbh. Canada's high tax actually hurt middle class and below the most. It makes it much harder to accumulate wealth and move up a tier in terms of social hierarchy for them. But it doesn't really hurt upper middle class with multiple real estate.
And high tax hurts purchasing power in economy..... except real estate(lol), that's what everyone try to buy after they have money in Canada and that makes middle class or below more poor.
The real underlying economic issue of Canada is far more complicated than just tax of course. Such as the lack of strong industry like tech or high end manufacturing that drive the economy growth, the highest GDP industry in Canada is real estate(lol), which is totally *** up.
Those are far more important issues than "DEI". Because the poor economy performance that Canadians are facing today is the fault of bad economic direction since 25 years ago. Arguing DEI is a waste of time.
your open support for DEI
policies will hinder me greatly as a heterosexual white male.
I do? I supported game dev and investor creative freedom to insert their ideology of any kind in their art in that woke game thread, that's all. That counts as supporting DEI?
I am from a region that is far more conservative region than Canada in terms of social policy, on a level that isn't anywhere close. Our most "left wing"(if that even exist here) party are more right wing than conservative party in Canada.
Irl I see black people on street like once per year lol.
If you think I'd put DEI anywhere close to top 20 priority when it comes to voting or suggesting a policy you are wrong lol. Our politicians and supporters argue about how money should be used everyday, and which country to side with on international level. DEI is like the last thing we care.
Horse racing, the stock market, blackjack, roulette are all gambling. Commodities are HIGH RISK gambling. Poker can be gambling but mostly isn't. Mahjong in the Chinese diaspora is like poker.
The cowboy in the "but its the only game in town" joke knows he isn't gambling, he is paying for amusement.
Gambling (also known as betting or gaming) is the wagering of something of value ("the stakes") on a random event with the intent of winning something else of value, where instances of strategy are discounted.
Buying stock is like owning a company. And you are buying it because the company is currently at a good price that seems worth it to you. The "good price" is determined by various indicator like PE ratio, NAV ratio, and projected industry growth etc.
There are plenty of business analyze and strategic decisions involved in the process when you decide to own a portion of a company.
That being said, some people do buy stocks with a mindset of gambling. Not everyone though.
Your definition of gambling is wrong then. And I can state that with confidence since you sourced it from Wikipedia.
Unless you're suggesting that games like blackjack and poker arent considered gambling? Because theres definitely strategy involved in those games and other games that are definitely considered gambling.
Unless you're suggesting that games like blackjack and poker arent considered gambling? Because theres definitely strategy involved in those games and other games that are definitely considered gambling.
Huh?
Chanti said:
Poker can be gambling but mostly isn't.
Chanti already said Poker mostly isn't gambling because it has strategy. I was simply saying in terms of strategy and decision making stock market isn't any less than poker. Which makes them both not gambling compare with pure luck based games like slot machines.
Also when it comes to random elements it doesn't have to be 0% or 100%. It can be 40% random 60% strategy for example. It's not black and white.
Idk that much about poker, but in stock market the influence of luck element is 50% at most. Black swan is bad luck, the market condition when you are in the market is luck based too. But minimize the impact of bad luck is part of stock market strategy already. Hence it's mostly not gambling.
Thats inflation, thats taxes, thats a *** up socialist globalist garbage govt at work.
Also, idk why you keep using this term the way you do. To me "globalist" always means Neoliberalism/free trade/globalization movement from 1980s, when free market policy leads to manufacturing industry moving to developing regions with cheaper labour.
This policy leads to multiple developing countries becoming more developed and richer but it also leads to the decline of manufacturing industry in the west. So I can see why it has a fair share of haters in the west.
But it absolutely does not equal to "left wing" nor "socialism" nor "DEI". The free trade policy doesn't exist to address social injustice issue, it exists for maximizing economic gains. People are just using this term incorrectly these days.
Sports betting isnt gambling because "skill involved"
Poker isnt gambling because "skill involved"
Blackjack isnt gambling because "skill involved"
Betting on ponies isnt gambling because "skill involved"
Yes, there are varying degrees of control (investigation into a company before investing, folding a shitty hand in poker, etc) and risk. Perhaps you would go so far as to call these things "odds"?
Poker is a game of skill with a random element. Blackjack is a game of chance that can be gamed by card counting. Casinos have made card counting harder by shuffling multiple decks rather than just one.
When it takes a team of top math majors from MIT* to beat the house the game is gambling for all the rest of us.
Harsh reminder that cryptocurrencies are currently unregulated and an easy way to pump and dump.
Mr Musk tried that with twitter stock and was immediately under investigation. He's been doing it with crypto since.
If you don't know what that means, no, it's not a frat party method of birth control, it's an illegal, for regulated financial markets, scheme where person says a whole bunch of crap to pump up the price of something then dumps it at its peak, having already made their cash. When the inevitable crash happens, they are no longer invested.
Poker is a game of skill with a random element. Blackjack is a game of chance that can be gamed by card counting. Casinos have made card counting harder by shuffling multiple decks rather than just one.
I don't agree at all. Poker (2 card/Texas Holdem) is 70-80% luck. Omaha (3/4/5 cards) is increasingly more luck based.
Poker is 100% luck. People say bluffing is a skill so poker is skill based. but they're wrong.
It doesn't matter how well you bluff if I get a royal flush every hand. Luck supersedes skill.
Luck element and solely luck are different things. Any form of gambling has a luck element, and most have a non-luck element. I would be surprised to hear anyone make an argument that betting on the horse races isn't gambling, but there are still cases where knowledge can lead to a better result than without it.
Poker gives you significantly more opportunity to improve your outcome aside from luck. Consider that the outcome isn't just win or loss, it's the amount won or lost on each hand. Extracting more value from winning hands and losing less value on bad hands are largely skill-driven.
Betting on memecoins (or crypto in general, or even stocks) has a considerable luck element. But, there is also a skill element, or chart analysis wouldn't be a thing. In these cases, a bigger issue is people who got lucky and credited it to skill; most of them will end up overconfident and eventually go bust.
Not really sure the point of this argument. If you want pure luck, go play roulette. Everything being discussed has at least some amount of skill involved.
Skill turns bad luck into slightly less bad luck but you can't skill your way out of your opponent having a straight / royal.
After luck is decided, if there's a chance, THEN you may apply skill.
(Unless you're the dealer, and are quit skilled at stacking the deck, but that's another topic)
You don't play a single hand of poker. You're going to lose hands, and you're going to win hands. Someone skilled will increase the amount they take on winning hands and decrease the amount they lose on losing hands. The skill isn't in getting better cards, it's in assessing how your opponents will react to your behavior and the probability that your current hand will win. The odds that an entire night of hands will be decided by luck are astronomically low.
You don't play a single hand of poker. You're going to lose hands, and you're going to win hands. Someone skilled will increase the amount they take on winning hands and decrease the amount they lose on losing hands. The skill isn't in getting better cards, it's in assessing how your opponents will react to your behavior and the probability that your current hand will win. The odds that an entire night of hands will be decided by luck are astronomically low.
The only hand that matters is the last hand. Skill your way through 200 hands and get unlucky on the last flop.
Luck gets first and last say.
TL:DR no matter how skilled you are, luck can still beat you.
I can already tell Eiryl's the type of hyper-conservative player who folds every hand unless they get dealt a good set of hole cards, and then either plays very aggressive on the river or folds. He doesnt understand the psychological aspect of the game because "its all luck".
Actually, does he even know that players can fold their hand in poker?? Like he seems to think landing a royal flush is an automatic win and you get everyones money.
This is a thread that I found on another website I post at. It can be really really interesting. I thought it deserved a place here.
Post your random thoughts for the day here, or anything else that intrigues you.
For starters, is it possible to give constructive critism to someone who doesn't have a neck? I totally just walked by a girl who didn't. Someone isn't getting a necklace for Valentines day!
And who decided black and white can't be colors? I want to say a racist. I really do.
