Although a beginner in practice, he was a veteran in theory, for prior to entering the financial arena he had made hundreds of imaginary purchases and sales, nearly always at a profit. Moreover he had discovered that one may play both sides of the market, apparently with equal safety, and that the biggest “killings” are said to be made on the “short” side. By selling “short” on bulges and “covering” (i. e., buying the stock in to cover the sale) on reactions, it was possible not only to make money both ways, but also to avoid the tedium of waiting inertly for opportune occasions to buy at bargain-prices. From the experience of others he derived a valuable lesson, namely, that investors and traders are always too eager to keep their capital constantly employed; that they are prone to hold stubbornly to one position, either long or short; and that the wellnigh irresistible impulse to get back into the market after selling out, whether at a profit or a loss, has probably been the ruination of more speculators than any other one cause. Playing the market both ways seemed a sure means of forestalling this error. STOCK MARKET TRANSACTIONS APART FROM GAMBLING The thought of becoming a stock “gambler” was farthest from this man’s mind; for gambling in any form was contrary to his code of ethics. But buying and selling legitimate commodities could not be construed as gambling; therefore stocks and bonds, being legitimate commodities, could be bought and sold without doing violence to the most sensitive conscience. In order to gamble, one must “risk or stake something on an uncertain event;” which is popularly regarded as a vice, and is made legally wrong because it is said to be injurious to the public morals. It also is morally wrong to gamble, because if you win you deprive your fellow-being of something without giving any adequate return. Our friend contended that stocks bought at figures below their intrinsic value are so sure to advance, that the transaction does not come within the given definition of the word _gamble_; also that the same rule applies to stocks sold at prices far above their worth, no matter whether for long or short account. He reasoned that if he gained by selling a stock short, although someone was apt to be the loser, he had no means of knowing who that someone was, therefore he assumed no moral responsibility in prudently acquiring money in a businesslike way, even at the expense of some indefinite person who had been foolish enough to risk it. If the act of selling stocks which one does not own is regarded by some as being unethical in the strictest sense, it is at least sanctioned by general custom. All sorts of goods are sold for future delivery, even before they are manufactured; and our erstwhile merchant had often sold leather for forward delivery, while it was still in process of tanning; hence he had no scruples against selling stocks in anticipation of being able to buy and deliver them later.