I used to play full-time and I currently work in trading.

Poker is definitely gambling. Casinos are gambling, they’re just doing so with massive volume and tiny risk (afaik). Trading is gambling. Gambling well is a subset of gambling.

I think I would be OK if we wanted to define all endeavors with an unsure outcome gambling, but I believe that makes most things in life gambling which means we need another word for especially risky endeavors with an unsure outcome.

I think we have the same concept, but I'd be happy to call trading gambling if playing poker table games was called gambooooling.

I think if we have to make a distinction, then categorizing games of chance where you're wagering money or direct money equivalent seems like a fair one. And in that sense, I wouldn't consider every trip I make to a hole in the wall eatery gambling.

> You could die driving to the store, but the odds are tiny and the benefits are huge. Driving to the store isn't gambling.

This statement seems uncontroversial, but I am not sure it is true.

Driving to the store is one of the riskiest activities I (used to) regularly engage in. Now that I do it (much) less, I do indeed perform a risk/reward analysis of getting into a car (when before it was automatic, with an assumed zero risk due to normalcy bias).

It is possible that under a strict definition we are indeed gambling with our lives each time we get in an automobile.

Bet sizing in poker is not determined by the Kelly criterion, it's determined by maximum expected value with at most a tiny penalty for high risk.

Where you could in theory apply the Kelly criterion is in selecting which stakes to play at. But in practice it seems more chosen through rules of thumb / common sense / feeling than an actual application of the Kelly criterion.

Yes, exactly. Bets in the game are determined if they are plus EV, but what game you sit at is determined by Kelly Criterion (or usually a 20-25 buyin roll depending on the game, your life roll, etc)