Does anyone believe this? I have people tell me all the time how good at poker they are and how that means they will be good on our desk. Yes we play but I dont see it as being a gauge to how good you will do on a desk. Anyone agree? Disagree?
Disagree
Do you mean are they both forms of gambling? I can see how similar personality types would be attracted to both pursuits since each involves speculating your money partly based on skill and partly on luck. The nicest part being that when times are good, you can put it down to skill and when things go pear-shaped you can attribute it to bad luck. Is that unfair?
nice reply
Poker is much more about math then skill then trading
can a good poker player be made? how about a good trader?
there are rule based poker engines that can beat a seasoned poker player consistently
I suppose the key difference is that there aren’t any black swan events in poker. There are X cards in the deck and Y have been revealed at any one time. A computer programme can work out the probabilities based on that information. In trading, something can happen on any given day that has never happened before - hence why all our fancy quant models have failed so spectacularly in the last year. It would be like introducing the jokers into the poker game.
or like my friend says, " Can deuce’s be wild?"
Off the top of my head, a few traits that carry over: -Bankroll management -Emotional control (not going on tilt despite bad beats) -Quickly assessing probabilities and expected value -Paying attention to betting patterns and how the money is being moved into a pot. Figuring out what that means. -Looking for any sort of outside stimuli that could give insight into an opponent’s motivation in a particular hand -Learning that sometimes one just has to accept one’s losses. On a given night, one’s opponents can be better. Better to just swallow one’s pride and walk away -Detachment from the value of money while at the table I don’t think a good poker player will necessarily make a good trader though. A good question to ask a poker player is if he keeps records. Winning players keep records. Keeping records is also a sign of discipline and self-examination, both of which are necessary to trade.
Also: -Knowing when you’re better than your opponents but just unlucky in the short-term (meaning you should stick around) and knowing when you’re being outplayed and in over your head, is another useful skill to acquire. Bad players always think they’re unlucky, kind of like traders complaining “This market is completely irrational!”
comp sci- do you have any links/articles on what you mentioned? The only thing I heard of is when Phil Laak played against a computer. http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/ I think with regards to emotion/bluffing that a pro might have an edge. If it’s a computer vs Ivey, I’ll place my money on Ivey
Poker = Trading: Most poker players can’t win in the long term. You need more than a slight edge due to the house rake. Trading: EMH: Most traders can’t beat the market above the cost of transactions, etc.
I took 6 weeks off before starting my new job and was in LA playing cards 3-4 times a week with a friend. Ivey and Kenny Tran crush cash games and it was unreal watching them play. Very good control on emotions on those guys.
Carson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose the key difference is that there aren’t > any black swan events in poker. There are X cards > in the deck and Y have been revealed at any one > time. A computer programme can work out the > probabilities based on that information. In > trading, something can happen on any given day > that has never happened before - hence why all our > fancy quant models have failed so spectacularly in > the last year. It would be like introducing the > jokers into the poker game. About three years ago, some economists found the optimal play for Heads-Up in NL Texas Hold-em. The found a simple and elegant game-theorticial solution. I can try to search for the article, but there was an article in Jan 06 by James McManus in the New York Times.
SanFranCFA Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > comp sci- do you have any links/articles on what > you mentioned? > The only thing I heard of is when Phil Laak played > against a computer. > http://poker.cs.ualberta.ca/ > > I think with regards to emotion/bluffing that a > pro might have an edge. If it’s a computer vs > Ivey, I’ll place my money on Ivey I’ve read about number of projects, will have to dig it up
Great article. Bookmarked it. Chuckrox8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://www.beearly.com/pdfFiles/Sellers24102004.pd > f
I see how the traits are the same for both, but it doesn’t mean a good poker player is automatically a good trader and vice versa. The attributes that ‘cv’ posted above are right on target. But sometimes, the best trader/poker player is the one who doesn’t even understand or appreciate the game, but wins on luck consistently. We call him b@stard. It attracts the same type of person, but how that person performs can scale from a star trader to a gambling addict being tracked by the KGB.
Hi guys, i would definitely say that traders and poker players share some common features. Main one being to be able to stay cool when money at stake is very high and not loose your composure when you have losses. But other than that, it has nothing to do. Trading is mostly based on skills. Success in poker has a lot to do (i would say 75%) with chance, i.e the combination of your hand and the flop (im talking about Texas Hold Them poker), the rest being the ability to read other players hand and know when to fold. But you can be as smart as you want, if your hand and the flop are bad, you can`t do anything in poker.