[static]

Well I think you both have some valid points but isn’t this the third or fourth time this thread has been posted?

Anyway on the one h you have JG saying that trading is like roulette Mick saying that it is about probabilities but not like gambling. It would seem that since gambling is all about probability that they are one the same. If the odds were not in favor of the casinos (or brokers in this case) they would not have millions of dollars to build huge resorts in the middle of the desert. In the same vein you could say that the odds are absolutely in favor of the brokers by means of the spread that we have to pay assuming that the market is completely rom that there is no way to predict which way price will go.

However -

That is a very big assumption. I think it is hard to dispute that the market has some short term memory that trends to exist. If you can identify these trends follow them do so on a large enough scale that spread is effectively marginalized (i.e. higher time frames) then you can create a probability of success that is above 49.999% with proper money management disciplined trading. Even in a completely rom market with correct money management skills you should be able to bring in a positive return.

Or at least that is how I underst the math. So long story short it seems to me like the most important thing is to know the probability of success of any given trade using your given entry exit rules over the long term sticking to it. Some of the other points you make are matters of opinion there really is no point arguing about them. But just as an aside isn’t spread a function of your broker not the market? If it was inherent to the market it should be the same on all brokers right?