> My position, to be clear, is not a patronizing one that posits people can’t do as they please with their money, but rather that a game of Russian roulette wouldn’t be so thrilling if you found out it was a full clip.
Might I suggest to the author posting some evidence/data that shows retail options traders getting burned? Burned in the sense of having no returns to speak of. Obviously, they're getting burned on bad spreads/lots of commissions (mentioned in the article).
I could be wrong but wouldn't simple logic dictate that... most people stop doing something that loses them money?
If they are losing 100% of the time (aka putting money in, it disappears, they are left with nothing over and over), wouldn't they stop?
Or are they winning just enough to keep them hooked?
I don't disagree. Wall Street = manipulative. Little guy loses. We get it.
But... what's drawing people to Robinhood? The thought of turning $500 into ~$1k+ really fast by guessing something correctly, right?
It's weaponized gambling. My question is, why is it so popular if they supposedly always lose/have nothing to show for it?
Might I suggest to the author posting some evidence/data that shows retail options traders getting burned? Burned in the sense of having no returns to speak of. Obviously, they're getting burned on bad spreads/lots of commissions (mentioned in the article).
I could be wrong but wouldn't simple logic dictate that... most people stop doing something that loses them money?
If they are losing 100% of the time (aka putting money in, it disappears, they are left with nothing over and over), wouldn't they stop?
Or are they winning just enough to keep them hooked?
I don't disagree. Wall Street = manipulative. Little guy loses. We get it.
But... what's drawing people to Robinhood? The thought of turning $500 into ~$1k+ really fast by guessing something correctly, right?
It's weaponized gambling. My question is, why is it so popular if they supposedly always lose/have nothing to show for it?