Chris "Jesus" Ferguson was a prop trader with Bright Trading. I am not sure if he trades anymore but, it looks like he chose poker. Granted he is at the top of his game, so probably not the best example. http://www.stocktrading.com/Pokerarticle2006.htm
ohh Ferguson was the Bright poker guy that blew up? I remember reading about that but didn't know who he was at the time. Thats another huge difference between poker and trading. You can watch the best poker guys in the world "trade" and how they play. We basically have no idea exactly what the best guys in the world do at trading. Jim Simmons isn't going to do a TV show and show you how he plays his game, not to mention even if he did you couldn't play that way anyway.
Yeah, and last you heard how many of the "top" poker players have gone out and started their own hedge funds and parlayed their millions into more millions? You can say that a good poker player will have a few big advantages over anyone other newbie trader, that being a likely larger starting bankroll and less intimidation from a swinging p/l. But how they built that bankroll to begin with was a willingness to gamble, to put their money on the line for a slim mathematical advantage. On any given hand, it's 99% luck, 1% skill, right? That just doesn't translate into the markets, especially for an individual trader using his own funds. Odds etched in stone don't exist except in retrospect, the reflexivity that is a fundamental structure of the markets just doesn't carry the same weight in a standard deck of cards. Anyways, can't you just imagine how some of the great players would handle getting stuck in a bad trade on the spoos? Who wouldn't double down in a friggin heartbeat lol? These guys are just numb, for better or for worse. But black swans don't exist in poker, at least not when it comes to the magnitude of your potential losses.
On any hand, this is true (99% luck,1% skill). But over 100K hands, it's like 99% skill and 1% luck. This is the minimum point that people will look at to help determine their winrate, but even this sample can be deceptive. This year I had a 100K sample that was breakeven, and another 100K where I made 50K. This is an extreme example of variance.
This is something I would be afraid of and know it's def realistic. If I just played poker, I would have a good amount of time to try other things, but trading would be difficult to do since most people believe trading isn't a part time job. I could trade and play 9 tables at once (I got a real sick computer setup), but this setup wouldn't be very conducive to learning from my mistakes. I don't like sitting around and watching tv, etc, so I'd have to find something else to work on. I play alot of sports so I could join intermurals leagues in Chicago. I would need another project. Maybe I'd just start playing piano again or something like that. Another point I want to make is the jobs that I applied for. I used ETers list of top firms in addition to wallstreetoasis.com lists and have gotten a few offers from them. I'm gonna post those lists just to show I've only applied to good firms. From all my research, it seems these are the best firms. I also got an offer from a good hedge fund and considering that, too. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118520&highlight=prop+firms I applied to the top and 2nd tier with 3 offers. http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/best-proprietary-trading-firms
Yes, in poker, that 99:1 will eventually turn itself all the way around in the long run. But all I can say in regards to individual trading is that such a thing just doesn't exist. Because in the end the entire market, the entire game, will change, and you can throw all your stats out the window. What if they took out all the fives and tens in the deck (and they didn't tell you about it either)? How will you compare how you play now with how you played before? And when would you realize where that before/after point was? Maybe exactly at the moment they decide to put all the 5's and 10's back in? I don't know how others feel about this, but for me it was either you know what's going on or you don't -- there is no inbetween for long. But even if you trade as if you know, you always need to prepare/expect for what you don't. Variance basically goes out the window. Although both poker and trading share alot when it comes to uncertainty and imperfect information, beneath it all one is random/controlled, the other is anti-random disguised as random. edit: sorry if the above isn't very clear, but I just don't see much translation between poker and trading except for the glaring fact that having made alot of money in one will definitely help you on your way to getting started in the other. In fact the superficial similarities between the two may actually be a detriment when it comes down to actual learning? Who knows, I have no idea what it's like to play at high stakes games where the "cards don't matter", so fwiw.
Did the article mention Ferguson by name? -- or-- Did the article mention an unnamed Bright poker guy and you're assuming it was Ferguson? I'm really curious. A link would be great.
I will say that I had a lot of success with poker. Played it all through college with a couple friends and made a good amount of money for me at the time. It was 1000000x easier than trading. But the rewards of trading are leagues above what you can accomplish in poker not to mention that mentally it forces you to go to another level. I have no regrets that I didnt stick with poker. But I gave up a LOT to become a profitable trader.
I think there are some clear similarities but by understanding them alone won't make me a profitable trader. Some of the traits that I think are useful are: not being results oriented, having no fear of placing a bet/trade, understand risk vs. reward better than most, understand bankroll management to a tee, calculating odds and probabilites, and using statistics to create an edge. Quite a few top tier firms use poker in their training process so there's gotta be at least a decent correlation.