should good traders be good poker players?

[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.

 

[nLepwa]

Quote from Crispy:


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.

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

 

[olias]

Quote from sumfuka:



... if you are dealt a pair aces you can go all in and most likely someone stupid enough would match you. And there are no skill's involved.

why is that stupid?

 

[nLepwa]

Quote from Swan Noir:

The biggest difference -- and it is a huge difference -- between poker and trading is that for most of us, in the size we trade, our trades are are virtually always faded if we choose liquid markets.

If I sit down in a 10 seat ring game and only play extremely high quality hands the two or three best players at the table will trip to that very quickly, the next level of traders will only be a bit behind them and before too long it will become a topic of conversation -- and derision -- so that even the dunces will understand.

I am forced to mix it up or the only time I will get called is when I am facing very strong hands. As I mix it up I, to some degree, I am forced to move away from the choicest hands.

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

 

[Crispy]

Quote from 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

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.

 

[Scataphagos]

Quote from Crispy:

"... Poker is a great game but I think the comparison is weak. I know i`m in the minority...

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.

 

[Swan Noir]

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.

Quote from 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

 

[nLepwa]

Quote from 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.

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

 

[fframe38]

Quote from Swan Noir:

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.

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.

 

[Crispy]

Quote from 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

I will respectfully disagree and assume we will not change the others opinion on this subject.