Vegas expectations = always negative, no matter how much time or thought you put into it
Private investing expectations = usually negative, but sometimes positive (and more likely positive with experience and effort, or within domains of personal expertise)
So why is the first a better deal to open to everyone without regard to wealth, whereas the second is so dangerous it must be encumbered with wealth-tests (not knowledge/skill/credential tests) and major legal barriers/overhead costs?
Here's an idea: let anyone invest, on the same basis as a traditional "accredited investor", whatever amount of cash they could also obtain, via withdrawals or loans, at a casino cashier cage. If it's OK to hand someone $10-20K in chips for negative-expectation games, why not let them invest $10-20K in maybe-positive-expectation learning experiences, without prejudice?
Poker in vegas has +EV in the right circumstances, as does card counting blackjack when coupled with player reward bonuses. Hell, roulette with a martingale system has a positive expectation if you have more money than the house and the bet size is unlimited.
So occasional +EV situations in Poker and Blackjack for a tiny fraction of the most disciplined players (and only at the direct expense of others) are why non-rich people are allowed to wager their entire life savings at roulette, lottery, and slot machines? And then even more than their net-worth, via lines-of-credit?
But then those same people – no matter how disciplined – must face large (practically insurmountable) paternalistic legal barriers against putting even a few dollars into private investments? Even in domains where they have personal expertise? And where the results can be positive-sum for all involved, rather than strictly zero- or negative sum?
The nonsense is still strong in the dichotomous regulation of gambling and investments. It's almost as if the paternalists want to protect poor people from becoming wealthy!
Roulette with a martingale system has exactly the same expectation as roulette without a martingale system, just a slightly different distribution of returns. Having more money than the house certainly isn't an advantage when you've lost 16 times in a row and they can't honour your next bet...
Vegas expectations = always negative, no matter how much time or thought you put into it
Private investing expectations = usually negative, but sometimes positive (and more likely positive with experience and effort, or within domains of personal expertise)
So why is the first a better deal to open to everyone without regard to wealth, whereas the second is so dangerous it must be encumbered with wealth-tests (not knowledge/skill/credential tests) and major legal barriers/overhead costs?
Here's an idea: let anyone invest, on the same basis as a traditional "accredited investor", whatever amount of cash they could also obtain, via withdrawals or loans, at a casino cashier cage. If it's OK to hand someone $10-20K in chips for negative-expectation games, why not let them invest $10-20K in maybe-positive-expectation learning experiences, without prejudice?