Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:45 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default The Ceiling Concept

This is my first post in the Poker Theory Forum but i think it's the correct place to post my concept. This post is basically a copy of my recent post from NVG however I thought my idea was important enough to warrant it's own thread.

Beware it is long - but i have included my original summary for anybody that just wants a summary.

Also please note the second part was written on the NVG subject of pro's and why they go broke, so it's slightly geared in that direction.

This is an original idea so please if borrowed give the credit here.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-29-2007, 12:49 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

The short of it is that poker is a game of investing money or gambling depending on how you play. But if we assume that we are playing under the pretense to invest our money intellegently than the same principles of investing in the stock market apply, however the stock market trades at a much larger level. The reason the top pro's are broke is because they have reached the poker ceiling, its similar to the investment ceiling which goes by some name. A name that i don't know.

If you talk to really good investment bankers, the best ones, they will tell that they can basically make the same average returns year after year say 15% as an arbitary number. It takes hard work but its sustainable...however, when their portfolio reaches around 500 million dollars then it becomes much more difficult to keep that 18% return rate. So i would propose that this is what has occured to the current breed of poker players. Because the poker economy is much small than the US stock market the ceiling is much lower.
So i would conclude that investing your money is good but only until say your reach 3 or so million to give an arbitary number. After that point it becomes much better to invest your money in a the stock market.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:01 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

I realize that i didn't complete explain my concept of the market ceiling. The reason there is a ceiling in the stock market at around 500 million dollars is that when your principle amount of money reaches that much, it becomes to large to invest in smaller companies, because you either will end up owning the company or not allowing enough shares for the market to dictate the value of it, you also can't invest small portions in lots of companies because of the ammount of time involved in researching the companies, you'd need a very very large team of great investors looking in many different markets, which is impractical. This basically forces you into investing in large companies, though the problem with this is that, large companies are generally held by lots of people so the shares are generally very accurate in representing the company worth. Similar to sports betting on the NFL, unless your the very best, the lines are so close to the true chance of a team winning, that the average bettor can not make any money off them.

So when were discussing this in regards to poker, the pool of players obvs shrinks as you move up in limits. You can't take advantage of all the donkeys at the 10nl level when your playing but the possibility that a good portion of the 8 players you will play against at your 10nl table will suck is very high, well the proportion of donkeys at each subsequent level decreases probably to some percent, although there may be some random varation. So when you start to reach the 100/200nl (some random level i choose) then the probablity that you will sit with a donkey has dratmatically decreases, and your now happy if some of the players have even a couple of leeks. So obv everyone undstands that the variance increases as skill increases.

The next factor is that if your treating your money and time spent at poker as an investment, than you'll be looking at your entire bankroll as your principle to grow. Now lets consider a poker player who has 1 million dollars, he wants to grow it, well he plays 25/50plo table and wins $5 000 so now he has $1 005 000 dollars. Congrats he just increased your bankroll by .5% so obv its kinda pointless so he steps it up to the 250/500plo tables and win $50 000, you just increase your bankroll by 5% , he feels like he accomplished something now. However, now that 5% of his entire bankroll is on the table and when he looses it, well it works a lot different from winning obv... ever time he wins 50k 250/500plo he's not winning 5% anymore and when he looses well the next time he buy's in to the game he's risking more than 5% of his money.

(going to use smaller amounts to make it easy)
100nl $2000br
win $100 = 2100br +4.7% increase to bankroll
win $100 = 2200br +4.5%
win $100 = 2300br +4.3%

Now watch when you loose

loose $100 = 1900br -5.2% decrease in size of bankroll
loose $100 = 1800br -5.5%
loose $100 = 1700br -5.9%
loose $100 = 1600br -6.25%

So as can be seen the compounding works against you on the way up, you need to keep more money in play to keep the same size of returns, however, as you loose money you can't keep at the same level of play without threating larger and larger percentages of your bankroll each time you play.
I hope this helps answer the question at bit better though.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:14 PM
Pot Odds RAC Pot Odds RAC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 71
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

[ QUOTE ]

This is an original idea so please if borrowed give the credit here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not completely original (perhaps independent) - don't expect footnotes and royalties.

That being said, interesting analysis, I'll look a little more closely at it when I have a bit of time and Brain Bandwidth.

First thing that comes to mind is "Lose <> Loose"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2007, 01:34 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

yah i know i got a little carried away with my whole

original idea part. but it is. well everything regarding the ceiling aspect in poker. i don't think that has ever been discussed before, i have by no means invented it in the investment sense.

i would like some feed back on this though because i think this could be a very important observation
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2007, 02:22 PM
HaiaN HaiaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NL200
Posts: 798
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

very interesting for sure!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2007, 03:46 PM
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Earth but relocating
Posts: 4,376
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

[ QUOTE ]
yah i know i got a little carried away with my whole

original idea part. but it is. well everything regarding the ceiling aspect in poker. i don't think that has ever been discussed before, i have by no means invented it in the investment sense.

i would like some feed back on this though because i think this could be a very important observation

[/ QUOTE ]

It is interesting, but not akin to the stock market at all. All the big boys in the market are/could act independently without any of the others, in fact the Quants would do much better without other Quant funds since they pretty much end up owning the same stocks. In the large game poker market they all need each other.

Perhaps I missed your main point, if so Sorry.

Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2007, 04:32 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

Jimbo could you explain your argument a little bit more. I don't have a business background so your reference to Quant is a little over my head.
And when you refere to
" All the big boys in the market are/could act independently without any of the others"
I don't understand were i discussed investing independantly or not.

(note i was going to write some sort of a response to Jimbo but it turned out as another summary of my previous points. But i love it to much to delete it)

My point originally was about earning such a large amount of money that it become difficult to invest it properly in a given market. So for some arbitary ceiling's i would say that if you were investing your money (i'm from canada) in the Montreal stock market, once the amount of money that you managed grew to, say 100 million dollars, you have basically outgrew that market, but you could move to the NYSE and begin to invest your money there. Because there are more people and larger companies, your investment becomes much smaller as a percent of the entire exchange, thus its easier to make 'smaller' strategic investments. But when the money your investing excedes 500 million dollars then you run into problems again. Not to say you can't still make the same returns as you did with 100 million dollars, it just become much more difficult. You have to be even better at investing that money and your going to be looking at companies that generally will generate smaller margins because there so large and heavily traded.

Tying this back to poker though, the point i am making is that the same principle that occurs in the stock market, occurs in poker aswell. Obv. the poker base is much much smaller than the stock market, so the ceiling becomes much lower because of that.

I think you are wrong if you think that the stock market and poker are different. I think they are very much the same, obvs they have huge differences but the principle of both is similar. Very similar
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-29-2007, 04:47 PM
Jimbo Jimbo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Planet Earth but relocating
Posts: 4,376
Default Re: The Ceiling Concept

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are wrong if you think that the stock market and poker are different. I think they are very much the same, obvs they have huge differences but the principle of both is similar. Very similar


[/ QUOTE ]

versa but not visa, in other words stock traders seem to be able to become good poker players, wheras there is a lot of evidence that the converse is not as true.

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.

Quant funds buy and sell based on math formulaes, unfortunately it turns out most of them using different formulaes come up with the same stocks to buy and to sell at about the same times. So they drive prices up higher for each other when buying and drive them down faster and lower than normal when selling. So they would rather be alone thanhave others at the big boys table and like I said in Poker this will not work without other major players in the game as well.


Just one more thing, a billion dollars is small these days, so 400 million isn't hardly noticed on the major exchanges. This doesn't change your point, just your decimal places.


Jimbo
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-29-2007, 08:01 PM
warrantofice warrantofice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 463
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.