If your trading strategy has a positive expected value, "gambling" ceases to be a useful descriptor for it.
As I said elsewhere, calling everything gambling just because it isn't literally guaranteed is reductive and unproductive.
As I said elsewhere, calling everything gambling just because it isn't literally guaranteed is reductive and unproductive.
> Gambling (also known as betting) is the wagering of money or something of value (referred to as "the stakes") on an event with an uncertain outcome, with the primary intent of winning money or material goods.
Seems like a fit to me. Even if the expected outcome is positive, it is still uncertain, hence it is gambling. If you go to the casino and count cards at the black jack table, you have a positive expected outcome, however you are still gambling.
If you tell people your uncle goes to Vegas every weekend to gamble, they will have a markedly different reaction than if you tell them he goes and counts cards every weekend.
If you tell people your uncle just took out a huge loan to go to Vegas to count cards, they will have a different reaction still.
I don’t think it’s rational to talk about “options” as if they’re all created equal.
I think you’d find fewer people disagreeing with you, if you disambiguated by specifying naked puts and long calls.
Covered puts are downside insurance, like buying flood insurance for your home. It doesn’t make sense for these to be spoken about in the same category, but by talking about “options trading”, it gets lumped in.