blah blah
Poker and the Beginning Trader
- Thread starter FanOfFridays
- Start date
Quote from NUTSNEAL:
I would suspect just about any of us dickheads with reasonable success at both.
P.S. and I really don't excuse you profanity, as I see no excuse for it. But, I could be wrong.
Just to 'go over the top" with more propaganda...LOL...
www.stocktrading.com/pokermarch.html
Don
I'm a mathematician. Always 1st in my class in math.
You apparantly focused on psychology...
Which does not leave one with significant formal training in logic/mathematics.
It shows.
Consequently...
You put forth logical arguements/proofs which do not "prove" anything...
But you don't have the background to understand this.
You lecturing me on mathematics...
Is as ridiculous me lecturing you on psychology...
And a complete waste of time.
rm+
THERUDEBOY
Guest
Nice list of similarities. Do you want a list of similarities between Mc Donalds employees and poker players? They are there.......if you want them to be there.
blah blah blah
So, let's see... you're an accomplished academic, and yet you don't know how to spell the word 'argument'...
Okay, red. Whatever you say, Chief.
So, let's see... you're an accomplished academic, and yet you don't know how to spell the word 'argument'...
Okay, red. Whatever you say, Chief.
THERUDEBOY
Guest
OK. Would stock XYZ ever be a cause for all in? You tell me, poker player extreme. And don't give me any shit about confidence, you mo mo! The big picture? Go away and play poker.
and AS a mathematician, you naturally focus on AN aspect of trading that is concomitant with your skills and specialty
and you are profitable
in my case, i focus on different aspects of trading, to include (but hardly limited to ) principles of TA, as well as market psychology in general (bullish percentage, commitment of traders, etc.)
and i make money
both methodologies work
your ultimate hubris is that you think the market IS math. it can be MODELEd mathematically (of course), and in the realm that you admit you specialize in you develop an edge through being a quant
it does not therefore follow that this is the only edge. in daytrading YM, my setups are rigorously tested. they rely on market internals,and specific setups that are also statistically validated. and as long as they hold true (remember the law of ever changing cycles in the market), they retain an edge and i continue to use them
you remind me of the academics who for years promoted efficient market theory. when in fact the market is clearly not efficient.
there is a saying about economists (who tend to make poor traders), and that they don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory. you remind me of them. in your arrogance, that your way is the only way, you only show how narrow and ideological you are.
as long as my methods continue to provide edge and i continue to profit, i will use my methods.
and props to u for using more. in trading, i think attitude and humility is a big part of being successful. you can't impose your will on the market. i trust that your quant analysis is thus a good method for you, for if you were ever to trade my methodology, yet with your inflexible dogmatic mindset you would surely lose money
traders tend to gravitate to a method that suits them (much like poker players) or lose their bankrolls
i see this more and more in nolimit holdem as well. playing purely the statistical method will not result in the best results btw. you have to play hte other players MINDS, not just their cards
***
I'm a mathematician. Always 1st in my class in math.
You apparantly focused on psychology...
Which does not leave one with significant formal training in logic/mathematics.
It shows.
Consequently...
You put forth logical arguements/proofs which do not "prove" anything...
But you don't have the background to understand this.
You lecturing me on mathematics...
Is as ridiculous me lecturing you on psychology...
And a complete waste of time
and you are profitable
in my case, i focus on different aspects of trading, to include (but hardly limited to ) principles of TA, as well as market psychology in general (bullish percentage, commitment of traders, etc.)
and i make money
both methodologies work
your ultimate hubris is that you think the market IS math. it can be MODELEd mathematically (of course), and in the realm that you admit you specialize in you develop an edge through being a quant
it does not therefore follow that this is the only edge. in daytrading YM, my setups are rigorously tested. they rely on market internals,and specific setups that are also statistically validated. and as long as they hold true (remember the law of ever changing cycles in the market), they retain an edge and i continue to use them
you remind me of the academics who for years promoted efficient market theory. when in fact the market is clearly not efficient.
there is a saying about economists (who tend to make poor traders), and that they don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory. you remind me of them. in your arrogance, that your way is the only way, you only show how narrow and ideological you are.
as long as my methods continue to provide edge and i continue to profit, i will use my methods.
and props to u for using more. in trading, i think attitude and humility is a big part of being successful. you can't impose your will on the market. i trust that your quant analysis is thus a good method for you, for if you were ever to trade my methodology, yet with your inflexible dogmatic mindset you would surely lose money
traders tend to gravitate to a method that suits them (much like poker players) or lose their bankrolls
i see this more and more in nolimit holdem as well. playing purely the statistical method will not result in the best results btw. you have to play hte other players MINDS, not just their cards
***
I'm a mathematician. Always 1st in my class in math.
You apparantly focused on psychology...
Which does not leave one with significant formal training in logic/mathematics.
It shows.
Consequently...
You put forth logical arguements/proofs which do not "prove" anything...
But you don't have the background to understand this.
You lecturing me on mathematics...
Is as ridiculous me lecturing you on psychology...
And a complete waste of time
THERUDEBOY
Guest
Whitster, you remind myself of somebody. Anyway. Here's a question.
Does a good poker player make a good trader....and vice versa?
Does a good poker player make a good trader....and vice versa?
Your patience with red deserves praise, whit. You are giving him credit which may or may not be due. As a fundamentalist (no pun intended), he chooses to see the world in a way that gives him a feeling of security of peace, or perhaps helps him avoid 'cognitive dissonance' in some other way. It is intuitively obvious that there are so many different and ways of trading the markets, and of playing poker, as witnessed by the story some posts back. Again, I would point out the differences between super-aggressive players and others like Dan Harrington. To suggest that one method of trading is necessarily worse or less effective than another is ignorant. It is all in the degree to which your personality is suited to the strategy you're trying to implement and the way in which you manage your risk.
As a fundamentalist, redman doesn't like grey. It's all black or white for him. Especially when it comes to posting about how great a trader he is, and how many winning months he has had, and how much return he makes, and how many trading floors he has worked on, and, and, and. He feels that if he says it enough times, in enough different threads, it may become true. The fact that he is contradicting himself from post to post, as I outlined earlier, is of no matter. Possibly some type of affective disorder, in a manic phase?
As a fundamentalist, redman doesn't like grey. It's all black or white for him. Especially when it comes to posting about how great a trader he is, and how many winning months he has had, and how much return he makes, and how many trading floors he has worked on, and, and, and. He feels that if he says it enough times, in enough different threads, it may become true. The fact that he is contradicting himself from post to post, as I outlined earlier, is of no matter. Possibly some type of affective disorder, in a manic phase?
"Whitster, you remind myself of somebody. Anyway. Here's a question.
Does a good poker player make a good trader....and vice versa?"
not necessarily. what i am saying is that many of the skills crossover from one discipline to the other - notably
1) analyzing the present situation on the fly. traders do this any # of ways - tape reading, charts, fundamentals, etc. etc. poker players do this by knowing the relative strength of various hands, their expected value, the implied odds,etc.
2) making choices related to above. and setting intelligent stop losses. knowing when the odds favor going all in, raising, calling, checking whatever to get the best pot odds. traders do the same with position sizing, stop loss setting
3) avoiding "going on tilt". poker players, like traders can suffer from the fact that even when the stats say "i should have won", they will still suffer from bad beats, etc. and NOT letting that get in the way of continuing to employ a sound methodology. traders need to avoid suffering a similar fate - doubling down on a bad trade when the market has clearly said 'you were wrong", etc.
trading, like poker, is based on probability, not determinism. you can hold pocket AA's and know that hand has very high EV, and be playing a poorer player, and draw a set on the flop and STILL lose. traders similarly have to recognize that losing in a trade, or the market not confirming their predictions is not an indictment of them, or their methodology - it's TRADING.
understanding psychology. traders need to understand market psychology. poker players need to understand the other player's psychology.
i think a critical difference is that in poker, each hand is independant. whereas in trading, each day is not independant - unless you are trading an IPO.
Does a good poker player make a good trader....and vice versa?"
not necessarily. what i am saying is that many of the skills crossover from one discipline to the other - notably
1) analyzing the present situation on the fly. traders do this any # of ways - tape reading, charts, fundamentals, etc. etc. poker players do this by knowing the relative strength of various hands, their expected value, the implied odds,etc.
2) making choices related to above. and setting intelligent stop losses. knowing when the odds favor going all in, raising, calling, checking whatever to get the best pot odds. traders do the same with position sizing, stop loss setting
3) avoiding "going on tilt". poker players, like traders can suffer from the fact that even when the stats say "i should have won", they will still suffer from bad beats, etc. and NOT letting that get in the way of continuing to employ a sound methodology. traders need to avoid suffering a similar fate - doubling down on a bad trade when the market has clearly said 'you were wrong", etc.
trading, like poker, is based on probability, not determinism. you can hold pocket AA's and know that hand has very high EV, and be playing a poorer player, and draw a set on the flop and STILL lose. traders similarly have to recognize that losing in a trade, or the market not confirming their predictions is not an indictment of them, or their methodology - it's TRADING.
understanding psychology. traders need to understand market psychology. poker players need to understand the other player's psychology.
i think a critical difference is that in poker, each hand is independant. whereas in trading, each day is not independant - unless you are trading an IPO.