> Just because clever people win doesn't mean you will win because you're clever. No, there is no guarantee. But you can develop an edge that is statistically

> Just because clever people win doesn't mean you will win because you're clever. No, there is no guarantee. But you can develop an edge that is statistically distinguishable from random outcomes, and less formally, that distinguishes your activity from gambling. > In order for you to win someone else has to lose. Single trades imply a zero sum game in which one counterparty has to lose for the other to profit, yes. But the market itself is not a zero sum game. The net, aggregate result of trading activity is positive value. > "But I'm recognising inherent market inefficiencies and adding value, not profiting off other's failed gambles". Phooey. You’re doing both, if we’re being frank about it. This is a positive statement - it’s plainly true and follows from reasonably agreed upon definitions. You can assign a normative (moral) value to the concept of arbitrage in zero sum games one way or the other, but that’s not really relevant to the discussion at hand. If you don’t want to participate in active trading, you don’t have to - you can invest in passive index funds, which is a perfectly sane and well-reasoned decision. Professional traders don’t try to disguise the fact that they profit from a zero sum activity between consenting adults. But that has nothing to do with the process of price discovery, which is a well-recognized economic concept that is facilitated by active trading. Price discovery is not a moral imperative, it’s just a thing that happens through economically incentivized asset exchange.