I was wondering about an issue, to which type of games trading is the most similar. It can't be a cassino games, because at the cassino - in the long term - you have no chance to win, and they got 100% chance to make money.
It must be a zero-sum game, in which some players lose, and some players win as much as all losers lost. So, poker is very similar to trading. Scrabble also.
And now, I want to focus on a following issue: what's the percentage of successful and unsuccessful players in both games, and are these numbers close to "90% losers - 10% winners" in trading. And if they are, then we could assume, that the people who win in poker and scrabble have the same skills necessary to succeed in trading.
I don't how many people win in poker, but I know how it looks like in scrabble. There's a scrabble game in one of the polish online game portals. Each new player has a starting rank of 100 pts. And then, if a player wins, he earns 50 pts plus opponent rank, and a loser got opponent's rank minus 50 pts. Zero-sum game. The best player now, has a rank about 202 pts. My rank is 160 and I'm at 207th place. There are 87,000 players. The lowest rank is about 50. That's the only statistics i got. But it's enough to see what's going on. All 87,000 players have ranks between 50 and 202. The guy who has a rank of 160 is 207th. So there are about 86,800 players with rank below 160. I believe that the % of players with less than 120 rank is about 80 - 90%. 120 rank is higher than starting 100, but we must include something like commission costs in trading.
In general, I think games like poker or scrabble are very close to trading. People I know who are very good at scrabble and poker have - first of all - strong psychical skills. So, to succeed in trading, you must be strong psychicaly.
Maybe we should all focus on psychological aspects of trading, rather than seeking great systems and money management strategies.
Just my theoretical opinion.
DT-waw
It must be a zero-sum game, in which some players lose, and some players win as much as all losers lost. So, poker is very similar to trading. Scrabble also.
And now, I want to focus on a following issue: what's the percentage of successful and unsuccessful players in both games, and are these numbers close to "90% losers - 10% winners" in trading. And if they are, then we could assume, that the people who win in poker and scrabble have the same skills necessary to succeed in trading.
I don't how many people win in poker, but I know how it looks like in scrabble. There's a scrabble game in one of the polish online game portals. Each new player has a starting rank of 100 pts. And then, if a player wins, he earns 50 pts plus opponent rank, and a loser got opponent's rank minus 50 pts. Zero-sum game. The best player now, has a rank about 202 pts. My rank is 160 and I'm at 207th place. There are 87,000 players. The lowest rank is about 50. That's the only statistics i got. But it's enough to see what's going on. All 87,000 players have ranks between 50 and 202. The guy who has a rank of 160 is 207th. So there are about 86,800 players with rank below 160. I believe that the % of players with less than 120 rank is about 80 - 90%. 120 rank is higher than starting 100, but we must include something like commission costs in trading.
In general, I think games like poker or scrabble are very close to trading. People I know who are very good at scrabble and poker have - first of all - strong psychical skills. So, to succeed in trading, you must be strong psychicaly.
Maybe we should all focus on psychological aspects of trading, rather than seeking great systems and money management strategies.
Just my theoretical opinion.
DT-waw
). It is so tempting to play the higher odds bets especially when they just hit for other people.