How are poker and trading related/compared?

[donone]

As long as you have between 20 - 30 buy ins, there isn't much of a risk.

E.g. On a £2.5/5 table - the max buy in is £500. You should have at least £10,000 in your poker account before you play that type of blind level.

I agree with your idea of rebuying in tournaments, though. Cash rebuying is quite different, however.

What we're talking about here is a semantics mismatch - You're talkiing about "sanitised" Internet Poker ? where you pre-determine the amount of your "downside" - whereas my "pure cash" remarks were directed at "live poker" = I thought my references to Brunson & Livermore would have made that clear.

My hope is to "graduate to live poker tourneys" with access to big money. & my "fear" of cash Poker stems from a historical event where my great grandfather lost a Velvet factory playing poker.

Developing a "confidence" in "No limit" cash games would put me at risk of being tempted into Live cash games, with a risk of repeating history - Especially in view of what I wrote initially with regard to "Sunspot moments" If you can limit yourself to these tiny "cash" games on the Internet (Scalping) - then you may well be right BUT for myself - I couldn't guarantee that

"Rebuys" - Again we're talking of different situations - my tourneys - your "Getting stopped out" in "No Limit" cash - We don't really have an issue here "to get our teeth into" either I can't argue with "rebuys" in that situation because you're going to "Start again" (New trade) - although I'd go for a walk or make a brew or something to give myself "Closure" rather than just getting Straight back in, with the possibility that the "bad beat" would still have me partly "on tilt"

 

[min_loss]

Both poker and tradng require calculated risks and well timed aggressions. Techical analysis and backtesting are like knowing the odds to every preflop hand, watching the market twist and turn all day is like seeing your odds diminish or appreciate with every card on the flop, turn and river.

We can argue all day about whether tourney's or cash games are more legitimate, as we can whether intraday scalping or old-school buy-and-hold investing is the right way to go. Bottom line, it's all subjective. People make money as donks at the table, as tight players and as loose cannons...Any given day andy given style.

At the end of the day we're talking about risk managment and knowledge of the game in which you play. When Im on my game im flipping over cards and I've got my opponent 4:1, if I get sucked out on...I know the odds are in my favor the next several hands ( assuming im making the right reads and play). After gaining all the knowlege I could about setups, T.A., entries and exists, strategy and indicators I was turned on to the world of Trading Psychology. Assuming you have a general idea of what you're doing, you have got to win hard and lose easy, real easy. Both poker players and traders are winners and losers for a living; most sessions have a combination of the two and it comes down to wheather you're wins can outlast your losses. You can "not-win" more than you win and still be successful as long as you have a game-plan and effective strategy. Trading losses are sort of like bad beats or your first losing hand at blackjack...they are costs of doing business in these industries.

 

[min_loss]

On the subject of rebuying I think it is imperative. If you have been sucked out on or dueched as we say, the odds are now in your favor if you play sound poker. Ill never sit at a cash table with my whole bankroll (obviously), and I will never sit at a cash table with less than 3 or 4 full buy-ins. Im hopeing for a 4:1 or 5:1 advantage on my opponent but know that his pair of dueces might take out my ladies this time. To not have more ammunition in my bag is not understanding the essence of risk or gambling for that matter.

At the poker table, bad beats or poor play can often result in a state of "tilt", in which the player is off-center, not thinking clearly or acting rationally and thus making bad decisions. The pressure starts in your eyes and burrows its way down your throat into your gut where it gnaws at your innerds...However when you are sitting at a tradestation and you've been taken ( perhaps you've gone on to make poor impluse plays thereafter or perhaps that first loss was enough to set you off), its more like a tsunami hitting you square on than being tilted by wind at the card table.

 

[Chorlton]

niraj, just out of interest, what are you doing here if you neither trade nor gamble?

To answer your question though, you keep folding until you get a hand that's got a high probability of winning.

Well Said !!! Simple concept but so true !!!

 

[Masquerade]

Well Said !!! Simple concept but so true !!!

Except for when you get dealt AA and get called by 4 other people. Everyone knows pretty much what sort of hand you have and you have no idea of theirs and AA against 4 other hands is by no means a great favourite. Maybe 30% chance of winning at best.

 

[Chorlton]

Except for when you get dealt AA and get called by 4 other people. Everyone knows pretty much what sort of hand you have and you have no idea of theirs and AA against 4 other hands is by no means a great favourite. Maybe 30% chance of winning at best.

Well in that case, I would assume one would bet small and worst case then get out with a small loss....

 

[Masquerade]

Well in that case, I would assume one would bet small and worst case then get out with a small loss....

But that's not likely for a few reasons. Let's take this scenario: You're playing super-nit 9 handed. You get dealt AA and you've mucked the last 20 hands waiting for your premium hand. In this time you've lost your blinds.

So you look down at your Aces, you've got 5 people behind you - you're not going to make a small bet. You're going to make a big bet obviously to try and cut down the field you're up against and to try to make up the money you've lost in blinds. So you throw in your big bet, someone calls with a fairly decent hand. The next player calls because he's figuring he's getting 2-1 and his 83 offsuit could pay off big if he hits (knowing you've got a premium holding by the way you've been playing super tight.) The other players just call because the odds are so great to see a flop - so either way it doesn't make much sense to make a small bet, and a big bet will only either scare off the action or have no real effect.

 

[Chorlton]

But that's not likely for a few reasons. Let's take this scenario: You're playing super-nit 9 handed. You get dealt AA and you've mucked the last 20 hands waiting for your premium hand. In this time you've lost your blinds.

So you look down at your Aces, you've got 5 people behind you - you're not going to make a small bet. You're going to make a big bet obviously to try and cut down the field you're up against and to try to make up the money you've lost in blinds. So you throw in your big bet, someone calls with a fairly decent hand. The next player calls because he's figuring he's getting 2-1 and his 83 offsuit could pay off big if he hits (knowing you've got a premium holding by the way you've been playing super tight.) The other players just call because the odds are so great to see a flop - so either way it doesn't make much sense to make a small bet, and a big bet will only either scare off the action or have no real effect.

Not necessary.... If different players appear and disappear during different games then no one (or only limited players) would know you had been playing tight up to that point.
I know someone who made a fair bit of money playing online (when it first became popular) using this technique.

Anyway, this is getting away from the real message that I believe Bramble was trying to make, which I believe is the importance in following strict Money Management rules ...

Well, that was my view of it anyway....

 

[RogueTrader888888]

cash is the staple diet of 95% of poker pros. the ones that rely on tournaments for income quickly go broke unless they hit "the big one". there is even arguments that say that big tournaments are bad for poker since winners remove money from the poker community (and spend it on cars/flats), whereas cash players who win slowly but surely keep building the bankroll.

i am not anti-tournament as they are quite fun to play and its great feeling to beat 300+ other players and make it to final table. however, one has to realise that blinds get way too big way too quickly and its the equivalent of playing bingo at the worst of times.

 

[RogueTrader888888]

big bet will only either scare off the action or have no real effect.

If you raise sufficiently and u get 5 cold callers then next time raise more (if its limit then ur screwed). Standard raise is 2.5x blinds but early position i prefer to raise 3x-3.5x but if its really loose table then standard raise can be 3.5x or from utg / early position try to isolate by limp raising.

I rather win a small pot than lose a big one - no excuses for not protecting your hand.

 

[Masquerade]

If you raise sufficiently and u get 5 cold callers then next time raise more (if its limit then ur screwed). Standard raise is 2.5x blinds but early position i prefer to raise 3x-3.5x but if its really loose table then standard raise can be 3.5x or from utg / early position try to isolate by limp raising.

I rather win a small pot than lose a big one - no excuses for not protecting your hand.

I'm normally about 3-4x depending on position - I don't mess about with it pre-flop.

But my point was even if you make it 5x and someone calls with a pocket pair. Then the next person is getting the right odds to call regardless of the price and then after that on a maths-based decision anyone who considers themselves to have 2 live cards should call.

 

[RogueTrader888888]

But my point was even if you make it 5x and someone calls with a pocket pair. Then the next person is getting the right odds to call regardless of the price and then after that on a maths-based decision anyone who considers themselves to have 2 live cards should call.

this chain reaction of calling means that the 3rd person cold calling usually has the 3rd best hand of all (KJ, AT, 88 and below and junk like that). If he were a poor player he'd get screwed with a hand like KJ on K49 type flop when he may be clearly beaten by AK. Having said that he may have 44 and flop a set, works both ways - thats why I dont play nl lower than 1/2 online as the game is just a big joke.

 

[min_loss]

this chain reaction of calling means that the 3rd person cold calling usually has the 3rd best hand of all (KJ, AT, 88 and below and junk like that). If he were a poor player he'd get screwed with a hand like KJ on K49 type flop when he may be clearly beaten by AK. Having said that he may have 44 and flop a set, works both ways - thats why I dont play nl lower than 1/2 online as the game is just a big joke.

If he were a poor player hed be betting his Kojack like he had flopped a set, or worse yet, slow playing it because he thinks he has IT. The strong player sits there with his high pair, highest kicker wondering what this guy really knows about the game. It comes down to remembering how this player has acted on previous hands.

Online poker is a bit diluted because you compromise tells, facial ticks, breathing patterns and meak/strong calls and raises for the amount of time a player takes to make a call or muck. On the other hand the hand history is only a click away and assuming the guy has sat at the table for 30-40 hands you can browse back quickly and see what type of cards he or she has turned over and in what position the hands were played.

 

[RogueTrader888888]

On the other hand the hand history is only a click away and assuming the guy has sat at the table for 30-40 hands you can browse back quickly and see what type of cards he or she has turned over and in what position the hands were played.

I highly recommend purchasing pokertracker as it will give you an "edge" over most other players. I have some players in my pokertracker database with over 2000 hands!

 

[Jaydee]

I highly recommend purchasing pokertracker as it will give you an "edge" over most other players. I have some players in my pokertracker database with over 2000 hands!

I was looking at some of these: there's pokerspy, pokertracker with HUD and hold'em indicator. Which is best in your opinion?

 

[RogueTrader888888]

Which is best in your opinion?

Pokertracker 3 together with PokerAceHud(have to pay but worth it) or Gametimeplus (free)

 

[min_loss]

I thought about that however I don't think I care all that much how a guy was playing 2 months ago, or last week as much as today. At the end of an 8 hour run, incurring bad beats, I've seen strong players ( whom I'd played with on several occasions ) look like donks. Consistency is a strength skill for good players, but its learned and not readily acquired. From my experience, the players with which Id need to review hand histories may not be all that consistent. Thus, may play differently between sessions and even throughout one single session.

Thats my belief without ever having used the tracker, I could most certainly be wrong. And if it gives you an edge, or makes you feel like you have an edge, more power to the tracker.

trade on

 

[RogueTrader888888]

From my experience, the players with which Id need to review hand histories may not be all that consistent. Thus, may play differently between sessions and even throughout one single session.

That is true. The program gets huge swings from hands 10 to 100 (so I do not pay much attention to it) but after that and certainly after 1000 hands, stats are very consistant and all the badbeats, tilt and swings, day to day changes balance out since u r taking account many many hours of playing. One of the problems with online poker is that different people may play on friends'/relatives' accounts and that may make you make incorrect reads since you could think it was the original person playing.

three most important stats are:
vpip: voluntarily put $ in pot (completing small blind counts and calling a raise from bb as well. So anytime one sees a flop outside just checking the big blind). This number should be about 25-30 for 6max limit games.
raisepreflop %: self-explanatory. Should be about 15-20% for 6max
Aggression: 1 is normal. Good players should have it between 2 and 3.
Showdown percentage: About 33-35%

Good stats therefore should be 27/22/3/33 for limit and for nl i think 20/15/3 is good.

 

[min_loss]

showdown percentages under 50%? I realize that a certain amount of showdowns may not have been action hands, meaning they were checked down, or all in calls preflop ( w/ low stakes involved), but generally if I am making decent money I need 75% of showdowns to go my way...

I have no problem giving hands up on the flop or turn if I don't have it or don't believe I can make it happen. However there is no excuse for riding out a worse hand, and worst of all CALLING down a worse hand at the river, 60% of the time...I am quite protective of the hands I choose to the table

 

[RogueTrader888888]

33-35 is for limit. for nl it should be a lot lower, something like 20-25 since most hands end on the flop or dont go to showdown unless its checked down (which doesnt happen that often in higher games).

U r right that in nl calling a substantial river bet is a horrible move, however, when out of position and inducing a bluff, it can be highly profitable.