Well this is just false. Poker is a game of limited information. The ability to infer (correctly) the plays of the other guy is exactly the objective of both poker and trading. Game theory comes up regularly in both. Absolutely meaningless. Poker moves in the same way as the markets. If anything trading is more static - you don't have to watch your face now that the pits are gone!
Yeah but knowing the hole cards of your opponent in poker isn't where the edge lies. You know what your cards are, you know the board texture, you know what your opponent is betting and calling, what position you are both in, your stack sizes etc.
I'm not really a gambler, but I definitely see the similarities between trading & poker. You need a strategic edge, risk management, emotional control, & the ability to cut your losses when the odds are against you. I would assume that a professional poker player would have a higher likelihood of success in trading than the average person.
But that is not material to success. If what you seek could be known, EVERYBODY would eventually "get it" and there would be zero trading... as everyone would want the winning side and nobody would take the losing side. Overall, trading is a 50-50 proposition... but if you're smart, you can put the odds better than that in your favor. In trading you can put the odds in your favor by what you know and how you behave. In poker you cannot do that. As far as odds, you know "how many outs" and the percentage of catching one, but that is of no value as the play has already been determined.
@gaussian -- well said. Concise, and correctly to the point -- there is substantial correlation and transferral skills with Poker and Trading. But hard to recognize unless one is a substantially schooled and experience "player in both 'Games' " Thanks gaussian
gaussian is wrong. You apparently desperately want to believe he's correct... so trade any correlations you think you see. (But when you're living in a cardboard box under the viaduct, don't beg me for "spare change".)