Thread: Forex vs Poker

Originally Posted by ;

Well explained, 1 disadvantage to blackjack is that you simply can't bank roll at all in the markets you are able to. you can't keep doubling your wager to pay a 26, as you well may know, the main reason behind the max bet, is. If you should begin with a $100 bet and lose, bet $200 the next hand and lose, bet $400 the next hand and lose, bet $800 the next hand and win, then you are currently $100, pocket the $100 and stat your best over back at $100. Problem is when you are capped by the tables in a max $500 wager, this doesn't work.

The markets nevertheless permit you to bet any...

Martingaling irrespective of the environment is a high risk low return venture that in the long run very rarely works out well, capped or uncapped. At least with a capped table in Blackjack your not going to get a chance to blow your entire account (unless it small in consideration to the max bet size).

Poker players of the professional kind use sound money management. Chris Ferguson actually stated that as a participant your capital preservation is crucial and that too many players risk way more than they ought to thereby handicapping there possible to get on a run. He states that a participant should split there entire capital in drama by 20 and that is the maximum they ought to risk in any 1 time. So if your capital base was $1000 you should just risk $50. Now to extract maximum value from the $50 he proceeds to say that they table limits should allow at least 100 big blinds (variations for ante tables) so to get a participant with $1000 they ought to be playing in the maximum at 25c/50c dining table. Regrettably and I can agree with this is that tables with these dividers are usually manned by individuals who don't have any respect for the money management side so having a solid comprehension of hand strengths and probabilities is a key today to both online and table poker.

Is there anyway to separate poker from gaming, well that depends on your view on gaming. Professional poker players can liken it but thats a different ball game. Trading could have the exact same viewpoint...

Sound money abilities nevertheless can help you to live more but I guess when the time is correct and you find yourself with a stastical edge or a high likelihood hand it is time to place some risk and faith in your abilities.

RT

Poker can certainly not be compared to FX trading differently you'd never find these 21 year old youngsters regularly clean the clocks of those so called expert players. There is absolutely no way someone trading FX for 2 years may control a FX trader that has been trading for a decade. The so called professional players became famous as they played in a pool of gamers. FX trading is 90% ability and 10% luck....poker is much more like 30% ability and 70% fortune.

Originally Posted by ;

Well explained, 1 drawback to blackjack is that you can't bank roll at all as in the markets you can. ....

Real blackjack pros NEVER use martingale. They gamble a unit consistently, when the probabilities are in their favor, increasing bet size just. And they must do this very carefully, lest they banned and be detected.

Problem is that modern day casinos have very sophistied countermeasures to generate a card counting egy almost impossible to implement. What was a income from the 1970s/1980s is much more difficult.

That is another parallel between trading and blackjack. Stake size should reflect the probabilities currently on offer, not the sum required to recover losses. All Currency Market martingales will eventually implode.

Originally Posted by ;

Poker can on no account be compared to FX trading otherwise you'd never see these 21 year old kids routinely clean the clocks of these so called pro players. There's no way a person trading FX for two years may dominate a FX trader who has been trading for a decade. The so called professional players became famous because they were playing in a pool of players. FX trading is 90% skill and 10% luck....poker is more like 30% skill and 70% luck.

I would tend to disagree. Poker is a game of odds luck plays a role in the last hours but the lead up to tables is all about probabilities.

Players who perform random cards and expect the home cards help them within their opponents only continue as long, also the number of players in a hand has a huge effect on the outcomes. This is the reason why players who perform professional increase and re-raise pots preflop and the result is so frequently in the favour of the hands in those circumstances. For anyone who has played live poker if it be online, casinos or even with buddies knows the importance of thining the field preflop. It not only has the effect of plogically putting you infront but it provides your hand, together with the high odds the best odds of coming out in front.

Most people assume poker has less skill than luck since they watch it on TV once the broadcast shows the'action hands'. The tournaments run for days to months together with the events being run over parts to allow for other tournaments between. TV compresses it all to a few hours. I've played numerous online tournaments have observed actionless hands for long intervals, which will be the luck factor, combined with a certain factor. Aggressive players win more pots but face the risk of being broken out quicker, conservative players may play the game for longer but risk slowly bleeding because of a combination of growth blinds/antes together with the other players being cautious when you suddenly start playing with a few hands. The players adapt to changes and can harness both. Can it be any wonder that players like Phil Ivey, Chris Ferguson, Gus Hansen as well as some of the newer experts like Racener and Dhumal are creating profound runs whilst the shear quantity of new players bow out early.

Trading has several big names which are in the field for years, making new gains, doing this and that. Then there are new players who overtime start to generate a name for themselves and I am certain that there are a considerable number of traders making money just as there are new age entrepreneurs. Just since they're not in the headlines like Buffet, Rogers and co doesnt mean they dont exist, and that's in both realms.

Poker and Trading both reward aggression with the risk of being put out early, they also reward the conservative character but equally the same require a delie balance of the two. Trading you'll find no where without funds is you are purely conservative, too aggressiveness will lead you out the door together with the empty suitcase but when the probabilities (the setups) that work best for you over a given amount of time show themselve that's when you need to ready, not to risk everything except to place a decent bet which will allow the rewards for that aggression.

That is my 2c, equally as a novice trader and a beginner poker player. Both I've had my moments in (no world series bracelets nevertheless ) both good and bad but equally require as much skill as luck in my frank opinion.

RT

Originally Posted by ;

Actual blackjack experts NEVER use martingale. They gamble a unit consistently, when the probabilities are significantly in their favor raising bet size. And they need to do this quite cautiously, lest they banned and be detected.

Problem is that modern day casinos have quite sophistied countermeasures to generate a card counting egy almost impossible to implement. What was a relatively easy income from the 1970s/1980s is currently a lot more difficult.

That's another parallel between blackjack and trading. Stake size should reflect the probabilities...

Yes damn those auto card shufflers that reshuffles the previous hands . Now is with friends in a home game you drink causing card counting to become a game and where the cash is generally quite modest. If it's possible to stay sober using 2-3 decks then it's possible to rely cards to disadvatage your teammates, not quite favorable and likely to get you banned from there houses if they have had enough of you winning hands but still enjoyable.

Ya 2 2 which was strictly a reference to Blackjack, all concepts seem plausible on paper. . .that's generally the extent.