Connection between gambling and trading on stock/options/Forex markets
For stocks, I would not see these as profiting at the expense of another individual.  When you purchase/trade stocks, you are exchanging items of equal market value at the time of the trade. Both parties are getting a fair exchange when the transaction happens. If you buy a house, the seller has not profited at your expense. You have exchanged goods at market prices. If your house plummets in value and you lose $100k, it is not the sellers fault that you made the decision to purchase. The price was fair when you exchanged the goods. Future prices are speculative, so both parties must perform due diligence to make sure the exchange aligns with their interests.  Obviously, this is barring any sort of dishonesty or insider information on the part of either buyer or seller. There is economic value added to the marketplace, by having many investors trading stocks. The stock market itself can be thought of as a tool which provides additional 'liquidity' to the marketplace. Liquidity is the ease with which you can convert your assets into cash (for example, how quickly could you sell your car if you needed money to pay a medical bill?). Without a stock market, funds would be very illiquid - an investor would likely need to post advertisements to have other people consider buying his/her shares. Until the match between a buyer and seller is found, the person with the shares can't use the cash they need. On the other side of the transaction, are people who have an appetite for risk. This means that, for various reasons, they are willing to take on more risk than you, if it pays off on average (they are young [and have many years of salary earnings in front of them], or they are rich [can afford to lose money sometimes if it pays off on average]). Consider this like a transaction between your insurance broker - you don't want to pay for a new car if you get in an accident, and you're willing to pay total annual premiums that, on average, will cost more than that same car over time. You don't want the risk, but the insurance company does - that's how they make money. So by participating in any marketplace, you are providing value, in the form of liquidity, and by allowing the market to allocate risk to those willing to take it on. "There are moral distinctions that can be drawn between gambling and investing in stocks. First and I think most important, in gambling you are trying to get money for nothing. You put $100 down on the roulette wheel and you hope to get $200 back. In investing you are not trying to get something for nothing. You are buying a piece of a hopefully profit-making company. You are giving this company the use of your money, and in exchange you get a share of the profits. That is, you are quite definitely giving something: the use of your money for a period of time. You invest $100 of your money, and you hope to see that grow by maybe $5 or $10 a year typically. You may get a sudden windfall, of course. You may buy a stock for $100 today and tomorrow it jumps to $200. But that's not the normal expectation. Second, gambling is a zero sum game. If I gamble and win $100, then someone else had to lose $100. Investing is not a zero sum game. If I buy $100 worth of stock in a company and that grows to $200, I have in a sense ""won"" $100. But no one has lost $100 to give me that money. The money is the result of the profit that the company made by selling a valuable product or service to customers. When I go to the grocery store and buy a dozen eggs for $2, some percentage of that goes to the stockholders in the grocery store, say 5 cents. So did I lose 5 cents by buying those eggs? No. To me, a dozen eggs are worth at least $2, or I wouldn't have bought them. I got exactly what I paid for. I didn't lose anything. Carrying that thought further, investing in the stock market puts money into businesses. It enables businesses to get started and to grow and expand. Assuming these are legitimate businesses, they then provide useful products and services to customers. Gambling does not provide useful products and services to anyone -- except to the extent that people enjoy the process of gambling, in which case you could say that it is equivalent to playing a video game or watching a movie. Third -- and these are all really related -- the whole goal of gambling is to take something from another person while giving him nothing in return. Again, if I buy a dozen eggs, I give the store my $2 (or whatever amount) and I get a dozen eggs in exchange. I got something of value and the store got something of value. We both walk away happy. But in gambling, my goal is that I will take your money and give you nothing in return. It is certainly true that buying stocks involves risk, and we sometimes use the word ""gamble"" to describe any risk. But if it is a sin to take a risk, then almost everything you do in life is a sin. When you cross the street, there is a risk that you will be hit by a car you didn't see. When you drink a glass of water, there is the risk that it is contaminated and will poison you. When you get married, there is a risk that your spouse will divorce you and break your heart. Etc. We are all sinners, we all sin every day, but we don't sin quite THAT much. :-) (BTW I don't think that gambling is a sin. Nothing in the Bible says that gambling is a sin. But I can comprehend the argument for it. I think gambling is foolish and I don't do it. My daughter works for a casino and she has often said how seeing people lose money in the casino regularly reminds her why it is stupid to gamble. Like she once commented on people who stand between two slot machines, feed them both coins and then pull the levers down at the same time, ""so that"", she said, ""they can lose their money twice as fast"".)" "I think that the answer by @jkuz is good.  I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference:  Gambling games are typically ""zero-sum"" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a ""house"" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.)   None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to ""win"" since they typically have different objectives.  If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely.  The ""something else"" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk.  It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food.  If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the ""other thing"" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do."
"you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. ... So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. So, if you just wander in and say ""oh, hey, look, a bunch of options, i'm going to play games and have excitement"" then that is, in fact, some sort of gambling. Indeed, most trading activities will be like that to you. On the other hand, you might be engaged in other business where those things matter. You might be doing a lot of trading elsewhere in the market, for instance, and suddenly everyone freaks out and the stock market goes crazy and you lose a ton of money. To protect yourself from losing a ton of money, you might buy a binary option based on VIX (the volatility index) going over a certain level. If you're not in a business where you're buying it to protect yourself, then you should probably only buy the options if you have reason to think it'll be profitable and worth the risk. If you don't understand the risks, skip it." Well, to put things simply, the government debt level has to do with the money spent by government vs the revenue the government collects. The only tenuous connection between the stock market price and the capital gains tax collected at the end of the year. Granted there should be an increase in the CGT, it would be on the actual transactions made that incurred in Capital Gains. That is, at best, a drop in the bucket. Which Trump, by the way, wants to reduce. Since over a year, 100% of the shares are not exchanged, this would not be even remotely close to the increase in stock market value.   The Government simply us no ownership over the stock market value. The stock market also does not count into GDP, so you couldn’t use that to say your debt to GDP ratio declined.   They are just so unrelated that it’s senseless to link them. The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen.  An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about. If you can afford the cost and risk of 100 shares of stock, then just sell a put option.  If you can only afford a few shares, you can still use the information the options market is trying to give you -- see below. A standing limit order to buy a stock is essentially a synthetic short put option position. [1]  So deciding on a stock limit order price is the same as valuing an option on that stock. Options (and standing limit orders) are hard to value, and the generally accepted math for doing so -- the Black-Scholes-Merton framework -- is also generally accepted to be wrong, because of black swans. So rather than calculate a stock buy limit price yourself, it's simpler to just sell a put at the put's own midpoint price, accepting the market's best estimate. Options market makers' whole job (and the purpose of the open market) is price discovery, so it's easier to let them fight it out over what price options should really be trading at. The result of that fight is valuable information -- use it. Sell a 1-month ATM put option every month until you get exercised, after which time you'll own 100 shares of stock, purchased at: This will typically give you a much better cost basis (several dollars better) versus buying the stock at spot, and it offloads the valuation math onto the options market.  Meanwhile you get to keep the cash from the options premiums as well. Disclaimer: Markets do make mistakes.  You will lose money when the stock drops more than the option market's own estimate. If you can't afford 100 shares, or for some reason still want to be in the business of creating synthetic options from pure stock limit orders, then you could maybe play around with setting your stock purchase bid price to (approximately): See your statistics book for how to set ndev -- 1 standard deviation gives you a 30% chance of a fill, 2 gives you a 5% chance, etc. Disclaimer: The above math probably has mistakes; do your own work.  It's somewhat invalid anyway, because stock prices don't follow a normal curve, so standard deviations don't really mean a whole lot.  This is where market makers earn their keep (or not). If you still want to create synthetic options using stock limit orders, you might be able to get the options market to do more of the math for you. Try setting your stock limit order bid equal to something like this: Where put_strike is the strike price of a put option for the equity you're trading.  Which option expiration and strike you use for put_strike depends on your desired time horizon and desired fill probability.  To get probability, you can look at the delta for a given option.  The relationship between option delta and equity limit order probability of fill is approximately: Disclaimer: There may be math errors here.  Again, do your own work. Also, while this method assumes option markets provide good estimates, see above disclaimer about the markets making mistakes. "In short, yes. By ""forward selling"", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an ""option"". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say ""no, thanks"". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a ""point spread""; you ""win"" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you ""lose"" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it." "It is a binary options market licensed by the ""gaming authority"" of Malta. One of the most liberal ""pay to play"" jurisdictions in the European Union. It sells access to tighter regulatory regimes. This is distinctly a gambling website, not licensed or protected by securities regulations. But that aside, even if they were able to masquerade more as a financial service, none of that dictates whether you will lose your money. Therefore try to find reviews from people that already use the site. This is not investing, a distinction I am able to make because no product they offer has positive expected value. Cash settled binary options do sound like a lot of fun though! And maybe you can make successful predictions in the allotted time period of the option. The things I would expect are issues withdrawing your funds, or unexplained fees." The billion dollar jackpot is a sunk cost, a loss for prior bettors. If you had $250M and could buy every ticket combination, you'd be betting that not more than 4 other tickets will win on the next drawing. Even if 5 won, you'd have all the second place, third place, etc tickets, and would probably break even at worst.  Forget this extreme case. If I gave you a game where you had a chance to bet $100,000 for a 1 in 9 chance to win a million dollars, would you do it? Clearly, the odds are in your favor, right? But, for this kind of money, you'd probably pass.  There's a point where the market itself seems to reflect a set of probable outcomes and can be reduced to gambling. I've written about using options to do this very thing, yet, even in my writing, I call it gambling. I'm careful not to confuse the two (investing and gambling, that is.) No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game.  Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade.   But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question.  But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts.  Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that.  But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game.  All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money.  And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.