should good traders be good poker players?

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by konviction, Jan 13, 2011.

  1. Crispy

    Crispy

    The reason I dont play poker is because I hate paying just to get involved and the time restrictions are stifling. Antes and rakes would kill me as I waited for my play to come.

    In trading we dont have to pay anything until our models tell us the odds are stacked. Then we can commit as heavily or as light as our system dictates. With ultimate freedom and unlimited variations on position sizing and actions.

    Poker is a great game but I think the comparison is weak. I know i`m in the minority but thats just my opinion.
     
    #11     Jan 14, 2011
  2. nLepwa

    nLepwa

    It is a non-issue as it can be accounted for in any poker "gambling" system.
    Beside you pay fees and slippage to enter the market.

    Ninna
     
    #12     Jan 14, 2011
  3. olias

    olias

    why is that stupid?
     
    #13     Jan 14, 2011
  4. nLepwa

    nLepwa

    Playing only extremely high quality hands is not the only way to stack the odds.

    You can have a positive expectancy system that plays (almost) every hand.

    Ninna
     
    #14     Jan 14, 2011
  5. Crispy

    Crispy


    I pay zero fees until odds are stacked in my favor and I decide to get involved. I can watch for eternity and pay nothing...in fact my treasury bills pay me to do nothing while I wait. This cannot be done at the tables.
     
    #15     Jan 14, 2011
  6. Correct. On both counts.

    For some dumbass reason, traders like to believe there is a strong correlation between no-limit poker and trading. There isn't.
     
    #16     Jan 14, 2011
  7. In theory you may be right -- although frankly I don't see how you can have a positive expectancy playing almost every hand unless almost means something different to you than me -- but in practice that's rubbish.

     
    #17     Jan 14, 2011
  8. nLepwa

    nLepwa

    Not correct.
    You have the opportunity cost.

    Blinds and trading costs are both constant negative bias on your equity. That's why I compare them.

    Whether you pay for the bias before or after entering is irrelevant as both the trading system and the poker system can account for this and retain positive expectancy.
    As illustration you could consider a trading system that is always in the market as "paying for seeing".

    Ninna
     
    #18     Jan 14, 2011
  9. If you play more than about 35-40% of your hands, you are probably going to lose money unless you are always playing against loose-passive fish or weak tights.

    The solid players would clean your clock eventually because there isn't a valid counterstrategy you could use that would have positive expectancy over time. You are paying too much pre-flop to play trash hands, and they won't pay you off when you hit enough to make up for the initial loss.

    I am sure such a strategy could work at low limits, but it will not scale up very well, and you would have to change strategy to beat harder games.
     
    #19     Jan 14, 2011
  10. Crispy

    Crispy

    I will respectfully disagree and assume we will not change the others opinion on this subject.
     
    #20     Jan 14, 2011