[XorNot]

Gambling is when the game is purely driven by luck.

Investing is when the instrument has measurable properties and explanations for why it will become more valuable - i.e. you invest in making your factory larger, so it can produce product more cheaply.

Betting on completely unregulated currency markets (which have good reasons that they shouldn't have any value at all) is gambling, because you're entirely depending on irrationality. That said...quite a few businesses with that model.

[sliverstorm]

Investing has a luck component to it as well.

The way I like to think of it is, it's gambling when your expected rate of return is negative or zero. It's investing when it is positive.

This is why a gambler is gambling, but a casino is investing/running a business.

[DennisP]

Good point, but an even better definition would take variance and risk of ruin into account. If you just look at expectation, then buying insurance would qualify as a gamble. I think most people would say it's more of a gamble to skip insurance.

Betting all your money on one hand of blackjack is a gamble, even if you've been counting cards and know the odds are in your favor. A casino spreading its money over millions of small bets is investing.

[sliverstorm]

That's a good point, and I will have to incorporate it in my example in the future.

[cookingrobot]

Gambling and market speculation (and even theft) are related in that they're all 0 sum games. Every dollar you make is a dollar someone else wishes they hadn't lost. Investing is different in that when you win and earn a return, nobody feels that they lost.

[joosters]

How about all those people who sell shares and then see them shoot up in value? They certainly feel that they lost.

[dragontamer]

Indeed.

The best example would be bonds. If you buy the California Bonds... the people of California may get a High-Speed Railroad within a year. They will not be able to accomplish the building of the High Speed Railroad without investor support.

30 years from now, the state of California will finish paying off your bonds. And you'll make some money.

Win/Win for everyone. Investors make money, and California citizens get High Speed Railroads today... instead of 30 years from now.

[joosters]

What is your expected rate of return from a horse racing bet? It's certainly negative if you pick a horse at random, but what if you chose the horse based upon form, conditions, odds and so on? It's still gambling, but you cannot prove that the expected rate of return will be negative in this case.

There are people who make a living from this, just like there are people making a living from investments. Likewise, there are lots of people that lose at both.

[Atroxide]

nicely put, never thought of it like that.

[andrewflnr]

So, poker isn't gambling? That's news to most of the world.

It seems pretty clear to me that gambling and investing are a continuum, with craps at one end and Treasury bonds at the other.

[BrandonM]

Poker absolutely isn't gambling for skilled individuals, any more than a casino is gambling by offering games of chance that have a house advantage.

[socillion]

Some of these altcoins are the epitome of the greater fool theory, where most participants are perfectly aware that it is a rationally poor decision to invest in them but do it anyway because they think someone will buy it for more later.

It turns out people can make huge returns even from investing in known scams - certainly not guaranteed, but it's better odds than gambling.

[XorNot]

Really? Only "altcoins"?

They have the exact same mechanics, structure, and backing as Bitcoin...

[socillion]

I only intended to comment on the altcoins that are known scams, but draw investors anyway.

Imagine you started XorNotBux, announced you were planning to sell a billion of them in a few months, then inflated the price with a much smaller supply in circulation. Some people will buy this (and possibly profit) fully knowing that you plan to obliterate it in the near future.

[SectioAurea]

False. They do not all have the same structure as Bitcoin. Many of them are explicitly structured as pyramid schemes (premining, instamining, stealth launches, closed source launches).

While very few have unique selling points over Bitcoin, it is dangerous to assume they are 'at least as useful' as Bitcoin.

[XorNot]

Bitcoin was extensively pre-mined.

[joosters]

Not at all. Is betting on a football match purely luck? Of course not, there's the skill of the teams and luck involved.

Investing == gambling. You can buy shares. Or you can make a bet with a spread-betting financial company that pays out in the same way that the shares do. We call one investing and other gambling, but there is no difference.

[jbellis]

The crucial distinction is that buying shares is not a zero sum game; it's possible for all investors to "win."

This is not the case in gambling or commodities markets; for me to win, someone else has to lose.

[joosters]

Why is that different from share deals? There's a buyer and a seller... if one of them wins, the other by definition must lose.

Call whatever you do 'investing' if it makes you happy, but as I said before, you can replicate financial 'investments' with spread-betting 'bets' and you will make the same gains and losses.

[dragontamer]

The #1 trade you make in investing is trading "money today" for "money tomorrow". The specifics of how to trade "today's money" for "tomorrow's money" differ in the forms of bonds, stocks, or options... but its all the same.

Someone wants money today, and is willing to give up more money tomorrow for that money today.

If it weren't for big stock IPOs, Angel Investors and Venture Capitalists wouldn't invest into startups. Not everyone is looking to hold stock for 20 or 30 years... especially Angel Investors who are addicted to helping out small startups.

Buying stock from an Angel Investor who is IPOing allows the Angel Investor to invest into another small company, and transfers the ownership of a (used to be) startup, to your control. IE: Facebook and Twitter. Angel Investors would rather own a smaller, more volatile company... while the typical investor would rather own the bigger, more stable companies for their retirement.

Its not necessarily about "winning" and "losing". If an early Facebook investor liquidates his $$$ in Facebook, it allows him to help out another company. He doesn't care how Facebook does in the future, because he's far more interested in helping startups.

Again, its win/win for everyone. Everyone benefits when the Venture Capitalists sell off their stocks to the Stock Market.

[im3w1l]

>if one of them wins, the other by definition must lose.

No. If you sell shares to pay for living expenses you do not lose. If you dilute your shares to raise capital to make your remaining shares worth more you do not lose.

[golden_apples]

The analog to that goes something like: all participants in a hand of blackjack can win. And even the house doesn't ”lose”: it makes an expected payout, which incentivizes the players to continue in the game, which over time will enrich the casino more.