Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Are you considering quitting your dayjob to daytrade?! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: milesofstyles who wrote (418)	1/24/1999 1:24:00 AM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 611

So why do people invest in the market if it's a losing proposition? Because it's not ... you're looking at a single data point (i.e. single trade) that doesn't take into effect time. If you look at the market over time it's a positive sum game ... without question. Dave

To: milesofstyles who wrote (418)	1/24/1999 1:50:00 AM
From: Dave O.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 611

< the stock moves two dollars for you and against me. we each have 1000 shares. you made 2k minus 20 bucks commission, 1980. i lost 2k plus commission, 2020. zero sum? > The only way this makes sense is if you shorted XYZ at 10 and I go long at that price. If it moves to 12 then yes, you've lost 2K and I've made 2K. What about a transaction where both the seller and buyer were long? Your example doesn't hold up. Both can make money. Taking into account probability theory and historical data shows a positive sum outcome. Dave

To: milesofstyles who wrote (418)	1/24/1999 3:58:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 611

The question of whether the market is a zero sum game is not relevant to anyone's individual market experience. I'll take a crack at tackling this question anyway, since it is interesting. As I understand it, the market would be a zero sum game, if for every hundred dollars I gain, someone else loses a hundred. Now, if A buys AOL at $100, sells it to B at $120, who sells it to C at $140, we have A with a $20 profit, B with a $20 profit, and C with high hopes. Obviously here everyone but C has won, and C hasn't lost. That's not a zero sum game. Applied to the market as a whole, if the market generally advances, creating larger and larger market values, then it becomes a fallacy that for every $100 made, $100 is lost. That logic only works in closed, static value systems. Given the history of the US markets, it has actually been possible for investors ON AVERAGE (that is the key mathematical concept here) to "win"--ie., come out positive. Thus, the market has simply not been a zero sum game.