You’re right, of course, about the long-term outcomes of a positive expectancy game. The problem is that so many people are ready to brand investments with that label when they don’t necessarily fit the bill. Great investments do, occasionally, stink up the joint. Arguing that a great investment can’t be a disaster (otherwise it wouldn’t be “great”) is an ex post facto exercise.

In other words, I think the distinction is one of convenience.

Nonetheless, there’s no question that traditional and/or strong investment strategy is far superior to traditional gambling. No question at all. And I certainly didn’t mean to misappropriate your analysis in order to make that point.

My guess is that we’d probably agree about almost all of this if we could find a way to cut through the a lot of the baggage-laden terminology.

In any case, thanks for reading.

CDB

When you play a positive expectancy game then profit becomes a matter of sample size and is a near mathematical certainty with sufficient sample size. That is what makes it an “investment” as opposed to a “gamble”. In fact, with gambling the greater the sample size the greater the certainty of loss. That is why all casino incentives exist to increase sample size and bet size – they have the positive expectancy and the gambler has the negative expectancy.

With regards to investing, your objective becomes to play only those hands that hold a known, positive, mathematical expectancy (not odds). It is a critical distinction in investment strategy (imho).

Hope this helps clarify my intended message from the post you cited.

Thanks, Todd