Poker vs Trading
1 2 3 ...

thread: Poker vs Trading

  1. #1

    Poker vs Trading

    I decided to learn the game ever since I watched the poker tournaments on TV few months ago. It turns out I really like it. Poker is much like trading and I believe that it's the best practice for trading.

    This is precisely what I have learned up to now in poker (that is coming from a guy who did not understand what a complete house was)

    Most winnings will come from playing very few pick starting hands. When I started out, I found myself playing every hand, thinking that the blinds will not hurt much. But as I perform, I realize that playing tight way you will fold frequently by playing every wager. I didn't realize how much money I lost getting into bets. THese include up, so it is best to jsut play premium hands (for the time being ).

    Poker is all about probabilities and skill. Luck is a small influence. A strong starting hand may lose its edge as you find the flop. That is what the hands that are great will be and why you keep seeing the same faces at closing tables, even though everybody knows the principles. It's skill despite the fact that you're dealt with random hands!

    I am still studying the plogy aspect of poker, such as knowing when to bluff and how to read other people's cards.

    So how does this translates to my own trading?

    After taking a look at charts the last 3.5 years, I understand that excellent transactions work out fast. These transactions are like my hands that are great that I should be aggressive with. But you will never know how the hand will unfold once you input (flop). So you have to play with the trade willing although right to close out-even if the transaction is a pocket A's quality. You know they are beat when searching at the community cards although I see people go in with great startig hands.

    I have VERY tight risk management. I have stopped out a lot; Like the many palms while playing poker, that I fold. But when my transactions go my way my winners are 5x the winners. However, I guess people want to be instead of triumph in the long run. It's the exact same thing in the two worlds.

    It's fruing in the beginning to give up these trades so fast especially when these transactions operate out in the long run. It a hand however after the river card, you found that you would have had a complete house. Poker taught me to keep playing my egy because if I continue to all those hands, I'll drop in the long run even though I may win from time to time.

    I am not sure how plogy plays trading as it does in poker since it is a lot more difficult to judge other trader's rankings especially for forex market. But so far trading the way I play poker is currently paying off.

  2. #2
    Junior Member Clarwitter's Avatar
    6
    I've pointed this out a dozen times to various folks, including on forums. A lot of individuals will still reject it, probably because they are being so defensive about the negative connotations of the term, that they can not take the proper definition
    I tell folks I bet in financial markets whenever I get asked what I do for a living. Said that people will leave me .

  3. #3
    Senior Member Tataylo's Avatar
    435
    I am not educated enough about Poker to disagree with anything that's being said here, but I think the Trading/Poker analogy is flawed on at least two counts:

    1. I've watched players go all in on tournaments on TV. When should a forex trader go all in? (and that I believed Kelly MM was competitive, LOL).

    2. Poker players overbet a feeble hand. However, where is your trading analogy? How can a small retail trader bluff the market (or even his br0ker)?

    IMO the sport approach and MM of a 1980s Blackjack pro (card counter) is more analogous to what is required of a trader. A very small edge over a single, too-large-to-be-manipulated opponent (the casino); always tight MM; rigorous discipline and patience; no chance for strategic subterfuge.

  4. #4
    Thanks Ted, I am thinking about playing those sit and gos online, they seem great to me payout shrewd, just sitting tight and attempt to enter the last 3. You play with cash games or tourneys?

    Regards

    mark
    I havent played much for a couple of weeks, but I mainly play limit holdem cash games (retro I understand ).

    I perform with a couple sit n gos today and again. I would advise that you and 90 or 45 man tournaments play with with however. On account of the poularity of table games, there are players that are good and it has grown into a very efficient market.
    You would be hard pressed to accomplish ROI over 10% in all but the cheapest stakes matches. The 45 man games are a lot milder, since the payout arrangements are extremely top heavy and many players don't make any alterations. Inevitably where money management comes from it is possible to go long periods without cashing in a bigger field, but thats.

    I've recently tried a little Pot limit Omaha, in super micro stakes, and I will say that the achievable winrate there appears MUCH greater than Holdem, the variance involved can also be disgusting. Having played a bit of poker I can safely say most traders don't know drawdown, they believe they do.

  5. #5
    I played at a serious recreational level of online play about 4-5 years ago, before it was outlawed from the U.S.

    The standard of play is a lot higher today that you don't have a bunch of Americans coming home after work to dismiss a couple hundred dollars online when drinking a beer, watching TV, and trying to reveal the other players at the table just how clever they are. We are a group.

    It was possible to multi-table quite low limit hold em' and conquer minimum wage with a little account. It's not so simple following the explosion of the weak Americans and online play mostly gone, the standard of play is so much higher. Chris Moneymaker and his 2003 WSOP win brought the masses to online play, the U.S. laws against it today make it hard to fund an account, and it's more difficult to get money out.

    Alright, what to do...
    Get a few novels, play alot with a little account (sounds like trading huh?)

    Hold em' has some horrible bankroll variations even with perfect drama. I suggest getting some expertise in an off-shoot that's a few gamers.
    I picked Omaha Hi-Lo, it requires a lesser bankroll and brings a few bad players due to the high opportunities to win or divide the pot on any four cards.

    Stay away from No Limit matches for awhile, until you truly know what you are doing. That's if you are the poorer player, where you'll lose big.

    Take notes on most of your competitors, you will see them if you are online much. Online websites have a way to do this. . .do the job, it will pay off.

    Keep a separate notebook for the sessions, duration of time, win/loss $, players, general table strength, limit you played , etc.. (Sounds like trading doesn't it?)

    If you are getting beaten at a specific level of drama, then fall down and play smaller. The same as trading, keep the emotions in check. No revenge playing to make it.

    Mostly, have fun with it... the cash management you have heard from trading will definitely help out.

    Exactly like trading, you are making probability wagers, sometimes they work and they don't.

  6. #6
    I'm not knowledgeable enough about Poker to disagree with anything that's being said here, but I think the Trading/Poker analogy is flawed on at least two counts:

    1. I have watched players move all on championships on TV. When if a forex trader move all in? (and I believed Kelly MM was competitive, LOL).

    2. Poker players occasionally overbet a hand. But where is your trading analogy? How can a small retail trader bluff the market (or perhaps his br0ker)?

    IMO the match strategy and MM of a 1980s...
    WRT to stage 1;

    A poker player at a tournament views the entire event as if it were a single trade, so to speak. Each hand may be analogous to trade direction of a position.
    All-ins make good TV, but they are also some of the easiest choices a player will make throughout the tournament. Frequently his hand will be forced the size of the dividers and by the chipstacks. The risk: reward ratio has come to be so favourable that any two cards can perform.

  7. #7
    I played with at a severe recreational degree of online play about 4-5 years ago, before it was outlawed in the U.S.

    The caliber of play is much higher now that you don't have a bunch of Americans coming home after work to dismiss a few hundred dollars online when drinking a beer, watching TV, and attempting to reveal the other players at the table just how clever they are. We are a crass bunch.

    It was possible to multi-table quite low limit hold em' and conquer minimum wage which has a little account. It is not so easy anymore, after the explosion of online play...
    Some good things, apart from the first. Poker is really legal in US. Its a matter of what sites you're permitted to play. Pokerstars has virtually cornered the US market. The old giant Party poker required a hit as it lost its US customer base. I am not sure of the legislation, which I think varies from state to state. There is an ongoing battle to eliminate the restrictions on US plyers.

    I have heard that attainable win rates have skyrocketed over the last five or so years in several games, the poker market is growing quite effective.

  8. #8
    I guess I should state that I haven't played much since the compliions of the laws they passed regarding the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

    You are correct, I shouldn't say it is illegal.

    I concur, PokerStars is most likely the best place to play. I have been partial to Absolute Poker they have traffic that is much reduced although bonuses for first time players.

    Prepared to exchange Omaha Hi-Lo novels for Hot Forex Tips!
    Only a little joke.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Tataylo's Avatar
    435
    WRT to stage 1;

    A poker player in a tournament views the whole event as if it were a single trade, so to speak. Each hand may be analogous to trade direction of a place that is trending.
    All-ins make very good TV, but they are also a number of the easiest choices a player will make throughout the tournament. Often his hands is going to be forced the size of the dividers and by the chipstacks. Essentially the risk: reward ratio has come to be so favourable that any two cards can perform.
    Thank you to this clarifiion. If I understand egy pertaining and the mechanics sizes of blinds, to chipstacks, etc are peculiar to Poker. And it is unlikely that a trader would come across a setup where the RR is so positive he must upsize his bet to anything like the same extent.

    Of course I realize that I am being pedantic in the extreme, and that nobody is suggesting that the analogy is perfect on every count.

  10. #10
    Junior Member QuimFokt's Avatar
    16
    I've heard that attainable win rates have skyrocketed over the last five or so years in several games, the currency market is becoming quite effective.
    Poor souls. I think trading is easier, a lot more profitable, and less time consuming.

  •