[abduhl]

Alternatively, you don't get a rush from gambling because you have a lack of imagination on how you can beat "the math" and so have never gotten the rush from your plan working out (at least in your small sample size and from your perspective).

[WalterBright]

> you have a lack of imagination on how you can beat "the math"

I.e. I don't invest in ignorant fantasies.

I recall going to Lake Tahoe once. Buses would pull up to the casinos, disgorging mobs of silver-haired people rushing into the casinos to spend the day losing money.

It's sad.

[orojackson]

Or taking a different view that concurs with yours: investing in index funds or broad ETFs lets me match or beat most long-term investors with nearly zero effort. There's no need for me to waste my time reading "financial news" or developing super fancy HFT algorithms like some posters here have done. I just need to buy those index funds at my desired asset allocation and I'm good to go. Repeat until retirement. Very simple.

Granted, I do complicate things a little by insisting that I never sell anything I buy, not even for rebalancing, until retirement (otherwise I wouldn't be buying and holding in my eyes). However, I get around that by constantly rebalancing with new money [1].

Honestly, I find it rather jarring that as someone who usually frequents /r/personalfinance and Bogleheads, I see lots of investing suggestions on HN that do not involve indexing.

[1]: http://optimalrebalancing.tk/

[WalterBright]

I never really understood the "rebalancing" thing. It requires selling your winners. One thing about winners - they tend to keep winning!

Some people call it "locking in your gains". I call it "minimizing your returns".

[abduhl]

That’s weird - I call it “letting it ride” and “never leaving a hot table.”

Gambling is a word used to describe anything beyond your own acceptable risk tolerance.

[WalterBright]

My definition is more mathematical:

gambling - where the odds are against you

investing - where the odds are in your favor