Merely pointing out that any transaction involves a transfer, and your claim that some transactions are worse because someone has less money at the end of it, is perhaps missing the point.

Unless the people you were dealing with both went into the deal knowing which one would lose money - then it's comparable to your 'placing a bet' analogy.

Sure, I'm not doubting that it was (probably) ethically dubious - and kudos for not participating in that industry any longer.

As to:

> If I give somebody $10 for a sandwich, I didn't lose the money. I traded it for something more valuable.

- that's clearly not true.

You have ten fewer dollars than you did before the transaction.

Whether it's more valuable to you is very much subjective, though if you asked someone if they'd prefer $10 or a sandwich, most people would say the $10.

Between $100 and ten sandwiches, I'd suggest all would choose the money.

Conflating 'winners' with who came out ahead in terms of self-assessed value proposition of a particular transaction is to also miss the point.

> We turned a profit by being smarter or faster or luckier than the people we traded with.

This is the essence of trade.