Re: The Ceiling Concept
I will disagree with you again Jimbo, that poker players cannot or have trouble becoming good stock traders. I don't mean to be some sort of arse, but i would like to hear what sort of evidence you have to prove 'the converse is not as true'
I could easily write a couple of paragraphs stating why attributes developed in becoming a winning poker player would help in becoming a successful investor. Obv. you can't step right from one to the other, and the 'base' knowledge needed in investing is much larger than poker. however to be a winner at poker there is so many special qualities that must be developed that would help with investing you money in the stock market, something that i don't think all stock investors have mastered but which need to be mastered by a poker player so they don't become a major leak. (I might go into more detail later)
but to summarize the point - distancing yourself for you investment, for a poker player to bluff and play aggressively they must not look at they money as that but rather as a tool or chips used to make more money. This pertains to basic investing in that if you have made the correct choice and you believe the stock still can make money you shouldn't be concerned in a drop in stock price. Or if they need to they can sell the stock and not be concerned with a loss. many good investors have a lot of trouble taking a loss and get to attached to their investments. Poker players learn quickly when you drop a poor investment, be it a bluff or a 3rd nut hand.
Attribute 2: Making the corrected decision, in both poker and investing you can make the correct descion and still loose money, lots of money. But as a good poker player knows, i doesn't matter if you loose money (obv to a point and within your bankroll) so long as you made the correct descions along the way. because so long as you continue to make the correct decisions you will make money in the long run.
Poker players are concerned with long term results not short term results. playing poker you learn extreme displine, you can't or the better people don't play drunk or tired.
anyways i feel like i'm beating a dead horse here. you get the point. i'd love to hear a counter point to this, but i think is pretty comprehensive my argument. obv it riddled with spelling and grammar errors but hey not everyone a broker.
-----------
the rest of your argument.
'I think you skipped my main point. If there was only one Warren Buffet type guy in the stock market he could make all the money he would ever need, if there was only one Doyle Brunson who would play in the big game he would be lonely and make nada. '
the point above is a little crazy. i mean if there was only warren buffet. he would be just as lonely as doyle brunson. and the funny part about that is they would both be old people clinging to pieces of paper that basically mean nothing. Stocks and cards really are nothing, they both get their power/value from everyone agreeing they have value. just like money. So if only warren buffet owned shares they won't be worth a dam thing, unless they were voting shares but you knwo what i mean.
And when i was talking about 500 million, that number may have increased by a couple hundred million, but the problem isn't exactly getting noticed on the market, its the fact that companies that are traded in the $15-$40 dollar range (obv take into accound the multiple the companies traded at) - in and around that value. are generally the juicest stocks to be trading with
because at that level they are established companies so their is less risk of them going to zero but there is also a larger high side too because there is still lots of room for them to grow into zadda zadda zadda. but when you reach around the 500 million dollar mark. your not really able to trade in these companies because you need so many of them to soar for it even to influence your bottom-line. so your forced to trade in the larger companies.
4 cents?
|