As opposed to poker, where the skill sets involved to be profitable are... what? You tried to figure the game out and couldn't. No shame in admitting defeat. Congratulations on your success in trading. Of course you will find as many people who will say trading is pure luck, self-delusion, and marketing. They are also wrong, of course. Fletch
No matter the skill or experience level, even a newbie can win the WSOP and be concidered the worlds best. Haven't seen too many top 10 hedge fund managers with less then 10 yrs. experience, concidered the best of the best.
Yes, but what kind of living did you make? Ramen noodle living? or Lobster at the Bellagio living? Poker, like card counting, is not about luck. it's about skill. Is luck involved? SURE! Luck is part of everything. But the skillful will always make money in the long run...
<i>Reardon, I think that the media has done a fantastic job of hyping poker as an any mans game and road to riches but it reminds me of the stock market 95-2000.</i> ---> I've made that comparison too. (Although the Golden Age/easy money in poker ended over a year ago.) <i>I lived in Vegas for 3 years and made my living counting cards and playing poker.</i> ----> I call shenanigans on that statement. No serious poker pro ever sounds like you do, only the fish. You're claiming you've 'made your living' playing poker, but yet poker is 90% luck? In other words; without believing you had any kind of +EV edge, you were able to grind out a living at the poker tables off pure blind luck? It doesn't add up. You're not being honest here, and everyone can see that. <i>I've been trading fulltime for 3 years now ( a student of the markets for 10 yrs.) and I can say with some authority that trading is a far better lifestyle and the skill sets involved to be profitable are truly skill.</i> ---> Of course trading is a better lifestyle. It's also a better game. Poker=checkers/Trading=chess. So Joab, is backgammon mostly a game of luck as well?
Though I respect a lot of what you write, I couldnt disagree more with this statement. Poker, beyond the superficial understanding that most losing novices have, is extremely complex. I do not know what your depth of experience has been, but from what I have read, I understand that you mostly played mid-limit (30-60) games. The strategy there is night and day compared to the strategy needed to play high no limit (10-25 upto 200-400). I do not play these limits, but have several friends that do. In no-limit the cards become less important, and position and stck size increase in value. There is a reason that 'kids" (19-25yrs) make 300k-500k/month consisitantly. It is not luck. They are able to read an opponent, not so much as to whether they are bluffing or not, but to how much of a bet they will fold to. Obviously it is a little more complicated than that, but this skill lets say gives them a 60-65% edge going into a game, if one were to have that edge when entering a trade... If you want to see something sick, when in Vegas check out the high stakes no-limit tables. Stacks of cranberry colored chips ($25k) infront of guys who have to show proof of age to play. No, I dont understand it either. Or, you can just as easily go to FullTIlt.com or Ultimatebet.com and watch some of these insane games, 100-200 or 200-400 NO LIMIT. It is not a rare occurnce to se 200-300k pots. In the 80's, an intelligent, motivated 21 year old became a millionaire in investment banking. In the 90's the same 21yr old became a millionaire as a stockbroker. Late 90's to 01' it was daytrading. Now it is online poker.
Joab, it's hard to know where to start in terms of destroying your arguments; you've made so many wrong statements in this thread. I'll just pick this one. Winning the WSOP does not cause the poker community to consider you one of the world's best. Moneymaker is a great example. He made some terrible calls when he won, and simply got lucky, and was able to go through. I'm not saying he's a bad player; he was playing an aggressive style and that's what you need to do. But from what I saw in the highlights the year he won, he was playing like a typical mid-limit internet player. He is not considered a top player by anyone in the business. Also, your claims that you're a winning player just sound like b.s. to me. No winning player sounds like you do. I think it's likely that you tried to beat the game and couldn't. You have yet to explain how a small number of pros consistently finish high in the major tourneys. I do understand your claims. Like any faith based belief, the argument is this - 'It is so because I say it is so. Evidence? I don't care about the evidence'.
Gunslinger, props to finishing in the money, when I did it in '01 (omaha hi/lo no less) it was sooo much easier. As we speak i'm playing on full tilt (20/40) and the kids own these games. I still hold my own, but I know beta testers for ft that refuse to play online anymore! crazy.. congrats again.