Pokker vs elukutsed, seosed ja erinevused. Artiklid.

[ESTPatrick]

Poker vs Trading (aktsiatega lühiajaline kauplemine)

The best article about trading I've come across in a while is actually not about trading. It's about Poker. I am not a Poker player but some of the things mentioned in the latest Economist's article could very well be said about trading. To wit:
"The object is to control the swings of luck with skill, figuring out how to win the maximum with your luckiest hands and lose the minimum with your unluckiest one".
"Over the long run, a player with a head for calculating odds and a feel for the psychology of the game, such as bluffing, will always overcome an untalented opponent."
"The skill is in the betting. And it is apparent in the fact that you can win without the best hand. More than half of all hands end without the cards being shown, not because one player got lucky but because he managed to persuade the others, given their analysis of the available information and the size of the pot, that it was sensible to fold."

It seems Poker also has its share of skill vs luck controversies:

"Online poker sites have reams of game-by-game data. These could, in theory, be used to show what makes some players better than others, and what defines their skill (bluffing? Shrewd betting based on the rapid calculation of odds? Or both?). Through research in this area has been thin on the ground to date, number-crunchers are starting to rise to the challenge......These efforts may produce fascinating results. Or they might reveal nothing much. Even if the data highlight strong trends, it may still not be clear which are caused by skill and which by luck..."

One thought I've had while reading this is that, if we're ready to accept that good Poker players are more than just lucky and that, whatever the nature of their set of skills, they are more skillful than the other players, why is it so controversial (among a certain set of people) to say that good traders (or investors) are skillful and not lucky only.

http://musingsofatrader.blogspot.com...s-trading.html


Kergelt koomiline, kuid siiski mõtleva panev artikkel, kuidas outsaider näeb pokkeriga seost enda töökoha suhtes.

[Tigrano]

Õige mees loeb juba postitust ma vaatan ;D

[Davy]

Õige mees loeb juba postitust ma vaatan ;D

;D

Tõsi traderi amet on põhimõtteliselt sama mis grinderi oma, ainult programmid mida nad kasutavad, on erinevad :P

[Tigrano]

;D

Tõsi traderi amet on põhimõtteliselt sama mis grinderi oma, ainult programmid mida nad kasutavad, on erinevad :P

Ma pakun, et börsidel toimuv ei ole nii läbinähtav ja samuti ei saa kõike nii hästi kontrolli all hoida.

[ESTPatrick]

Hea artikkel (loen neid oma magistritöö raames, ideede ammutamiseks), kus arutatakse ideaalse pokkerimängija omaduste üle, toon boldina välja kes lugeda ei viitsi, mind ajas ikka naerma kohati. Vaadake kas teis on eeldusi 1000/2000$ regulariks saamisel

The Life Cycle of a Poker Player

January 2008 | Brandon Adams
I was talking with a friend of mine who’s one of the best No Limit players in the world. He told me that in the two years, the crop of No Limit players would be scary, much better than those at the top of the game today. I agree. Perhaps these players are already out there, but don’t yet have the bankroll to play in the big games (an unfortunate requisite for being considered a top player). Or maybe they’ve not yet turned twenty-one.

My friend’s view was that he should maximize his win while he’s at the top of the game, and then move out of the way a bit when the new crop takes over. This is smart forward-looking bankroll management. No telling how many players in time past failed to recognize when their time was up.

I’ve seen a lot of the high stakes poker landscape over the last couple of years, and my observation is that poker has not yet seen a full package of talents. There’s no Roger Federer of poker. Usually the top players excel in one or two aspects of the game and are merely very good in the other aspects. You will see analytical brilliance in Brian Townsend or Phil Galfond; you will see incredible instincts in Phil Ivey or Kenny Tran; you will see unmatched poker knowledge and speed of thought in Barry Greenstein. But you will not observe all of these things in the same person. It’s inevitable that people who put together these talents will rise. The new level of money and status in the game right now is attracting potential comers, and the talent pool is increasingly international.

Let’s take a giant leap and compare skill levels across two entirely different games: poker and chess. It seems to me that in poker no one has ever reached the level of mastery reached by the top chess players. The level of skill that Gary Kasparov in his prime exhibited on a chess table has never been matched by anyone on the green felt. This is open to argument, but I believe it to be obviously true and that there is a deep reason for it: Poker wears people down.

Forget for a moment the degeneracy that surrounds poker. The poker world is rife with addiction, drug and alcohol use, depression, and sleep deprivation; but we will ignore for a moment the effect of these things on one’s abilities over time. I believe that there is something inherent in the game of poker that makes it difficult for one to steadily increase one’s ability over time. Namely, I think that the chief attraction of the game — its ability to kick up adrenaline and other stress chemicals — actually subtly damages the brains of poker players, making it difficult for them to study their game and improve over time. There are mounds of evidence suggesting that even relatively mild stress can damage the brain’s frontal lobes and impair learning and memory.

It’s well known that brain function (especially the ability to learn new skills) declines with age, starting at about age nineteen. I’m speculating that poker accelerates this process, but we should expect strong life cycle tendencies even if this is not the case. In the academic realm, specialists in different disciplines peak at different ages, depending on the relative importance in their particular field of sheer processing power (IQ) versus accumulated knowledge. In fields for which processing power weighs very heavily (math, for instance), academic abilities peak very young (around 25). In fields such as history, where accumulated knowledge weighs heavily, the peak occurs at age fi fty or later.

I believe that online poker is much more processing intensive than live poker and depends much less on accumulated knowledge (about behavioral tendencies, for example). It’s not surprising that the top online players tend to be much younger than the top live players. My guess is that the expected peak for a serious online player would be 24 or so, and the expected peak for a live player would be around 33. I would further expect the skills of the live player to fall off more slowly after the peak than the skills of the online player.

It’s not too hard to paint the picture of the perfect poker player. First and foremost, he (or she) has to be born with an instinct for the game. Some people simply have the game in their blood. Everyone develops hand-reading and people-reading skills over time, but only people with strong innate talents are capable of developing these skills to a world-class level. Second, the perfect poker player must be very smart, with an excellent memory and high quantitative and analytical aptitude. Third, he must protect his talent and smarts with good life management. I agree with Patrik Antonius’ view that top players of the future will also need to be extremely fit.

The fourth and fifth attributes of the perfect poker player are not consistent with the attributes of a well-rounded person, in that the perfect poker player must use the years when he peaks intellectually (around age nineteen) to study the game as deeply as possible. This includes the study of the tools, such as game theory and probability theory that one can apply in poker. The final attribute is that, in one’s twenties, one must be focused on gaining as much poker experience as possible. As long as we are exploring the antisocial: A possible sixth attribute of the perfect player is that he is unmarried.

Poker is not yet sick enough that people consciously set out on paths such as the one suggested above. By chess and tennis standards, the path outlined above would be picture of restraint, which is surely one of the reasons those worlds produce talents of the Kasparov-Federer caliber. It is only a matter of time before poker training takes on this level of intensity.

The online world has an additional complication related to the existence of hand-analyzing software. People who don’t have facility with the newest and best tools will lose out to those who do. Failure to keep up technologically can lead to a player’s demise.

On a practical level, a poker player should always try to keep his ego in check and rationally assess his relative skill level. In addition, the concept of bankroll management should be expanded to a consideration of how his relative skill level is likely to evolve over time.

Brandon Adams is the author of Broke: A Poker Novel and The Story of Behavioral Finance (with Brian Finn). He’s a regular in the biggest cash games and tournaments.

relative skill level is likely to evolve over time.
Brandon Adams is the author of Broke: A Poker Novel and
The Story of Behavioral Finance (with Brian Finn). He’s a
regular in the biggest cash games and tournaments.



http://www.bluffmagazine.com/magazin...-Adams-928.htm

[zyxxx]

Hea lugemine.

[leho57]

Third, he must protect his talent and smarts with good life management. I agree with Patrik Antonius’ view that top players of the future will also need to be extremely fit.

see on midagi mis pokkerimängijatele vast kõige ebatavalisem/raskem tundub. Kogu see elustiili teema ja ka füüsiline seisund.