Are you really not understanding my point? Ridiculous. I will continue investing my hard earned cash in the stock market, despite your insistence that poker is just as good an investment.
No one has ever said that poker is as good as an investment. That does not mean that there are plenty of investments that are just as bad.
Definitely, there are. I'm saying there is a tremendously important distinction between casino gambling and investing.
Why you would do such a thing is beyond me. I agree with you as far as what the letter of the law currently is (before this new law). But I'm saying that what the government is doing is not really an outrage, because I see these offshore companies as esentially loopholes to allow people to do what really has been illegal. That's all I'm saying, I'm not arguing with what the law was previously.
wow this thread went nuclear. hayes I'm not sure but have you been burned in the market before or something?
David Sklansky would. He says poker is gambling right there in his book. He has written several definitive books on poker.
if you ask poker pros they will tell you tournament play involves much more luck than cash game play. poker players who make a living at it do it thru cash games...not tourneys. so maybe the moral of the story is that stock TRADING (which I am a professional at) is like cash game poker, except good traders make money more often than cash game poker players. traders and investors don't have every single last bit of info out there but if you are patient you will wait and find the low risk/very high reward situations. just some random thoughts there.
Theoretically the stock market is regulated and the investor can make informed economic decisions on real data. As I have said before though I think it is more of an Oz-like house of cards built on gullability and the rule of the greater fool..... case in point if you own Microsoft what part of their $56 billion cash on hand are you getting? I think it's about 2%, so it would only take you 50 years to get your investment out of it if some fool doesn't offer you more than you paid for your shares. Still the history of the stock market is that a majority of people make money and it is a valuable tool for value creation that generally benefits the quality of life for all Americans. But what vice has ever actually been outlawed where it ceases to exist for those who really want to do it? Why couldn't I as an American , set up a bank account in the Caymens with a revolving credit line that I use for on-line poker that originates from a site in Aruba? The government may make it a little more difficult but they won't stop it. Didn't they finally capitulate on importing drugs frm Canada today (he asks as he pops his Canadian Lipitor) I only play the free sites. Betting hard earned cash on the flip of a card or the tumble of dice is really kind of dumb, but hey, adrenline is a hellova drug.
Nah, the worst I've been burned was pre-IPO options! lol. I'm not saying it is a bad idea to invest in the stock market. I just think it is incredibly naive to say that investing in the stock market is not gambling or to propose you can eliminate risk from your portfolio. Oh yeah, and I'm pissed off that I'll soon either have to drive to a casino in a neighboring state or to an illegal cardroom to play poker. Sklansky? Never heard of him. Interesting read: Two of a Kind? With a poker face, Wall Street sees similarities between a card game and its own game By MICHAEL SANTOLI FOLKS WHO WORK ON WALL STREET love their games. Witness the prevalence of broker-hosted golf outings and trading-room betting pools. And, every so often, Wall Streeters' affinity for games converges with their obsession for trying to figure out the stock market, generating a fashionable metaphor for thinking about investing. It's now one of those times. There's a vogue in investment circles for exploring the world of gambling -- particularly poker -- in the hunt for insights into investor psychology, good decision-making and sharp risk-reward analysis. Of course, the language and lore of betting has long been a part of the rhythm of the Street. The terms "ante," "vig" and "house money" have all doubled as shorthand for investment phrases. And both Wall Street and the gambling demimonde tend to attract young men dreaming of easy money. Some rely on their wits; others use complicated computer-driven systems to coax profits from long odds. But these days -- at investment conferences and in market-strategy essays and chats with portfolio managers -- a more high-toned, analytical take on the gambling arts and sciences is being aired. Legg Mason's celebrated fund manager Bill Miller hosted a provocative conference for clients last fall in Las Vegas, where his colleague David Nelson delivered a talk on the ways in which poker is akin to investing (read it at http://www.leggmason.com/billmiller/conference/illustrations/nelson.asp). Just this month, the Society of Quantitative Analysts held a seminar featuring presentations on sports betting by a finance professor and another on Texas hold 'em poker. The latter was delivered jointly by a Harvard Business School professor and a former professional poker player-turned-options-trader-turned-hedge-fund-manager. The blackjack-as-stock-trading analogy is a tempting one for investors to seize, mainly because blackjack is a "beatable" game, given enough statistical computing power, strict discipline, a permissive casino boss and sufficient capital to weather the vagaries of handby- hand luck. Market pros also like the comparison because blackjack "is the only casino game of chance whose outcome depends on past outcomes," as John Allen Paulos writes in A Mathemetician Plays the Stock Market. That's because each player sees all the cards that have been dealt and can then compute the odds of any unseen card being dealt from the remainder of the deck. There are other simplifying aspects of blackjack that may draw investors' interest. A player bets only against the house, whose dealer must adhere to rigid rules known by everyone. For instance, the dealer will take another card until he or she has a 17 or better, or has busted by having taken cards that add up to more than 21. If only the stock market were so straightforward. Sure, investors routinely extrapolate past performance to project future investment results. But everything from academic studies to mutual-fund disclaimers exposes the fallacy of relying on the historical record to infer performance down the road. And in the markets, no investor knows, in advance or after the fact, what "rules" are motivating the investor on the other side of the trade. Justin Wolfers, a Stanford professor who is joining the staff of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, has shown that legal sports-betting "markets" are mostly as efficient as financial markets. And they're inefficient in some of the same ways, mainly rooted in participants' behavioral biases. For instance, deep long shots in horse racing are systematically over-bet, meaning that 50- 1 shots win far less often than once in 50 times. In the same way, deeply out-of-the-money stock options routinely are priced higher than their theoretical value. This may be due to a "What the heck" impulse among players, and a human inability to distinguish long odds from truly minuscule odds, says Wolfers. Poker gets the most play as a Wall Street metaphor, for good reason. Both it and investing are "probabilistic" pursuits, requiring imperfect analyses of many possible outcomes. Both are games of incomplete information, meaning that players can only estimate their odds of success, because certain factors remain unknown. Perhaps most interesting, both investing and poker expose behavioral tendencies that can spur irrational decision-making and can be exploited by other players. Clearly, those who put money on the line in either game recognize they are taking their chances on the course of subsequent events -- no guarantees. The trick is for investors and poker players to train themselves to think in terms of probabilities, understanding that a large portion of the bets that look good when they're made will go sour. Winning, in both cases, is a matter of coming out ahead a slim majority of the time. Stocks and poker being games of incomplete information distinguishes them from other games requiring intellect and wits. Chess, for instance, offers full transparency and symmetry of information to both players, which means there can often be an unambiguously "correct" move. In the markets or at the poker table, only educated guesses are possible. There are known probabilities (how many kings might be left to be dealt, how often a stock has outperformed the market after hitting a certain valuation), which must be blended with unknowable facts to generate tactical decisions. Also in both venues, the concept of "expected return" is useful. Stock analysts can compute price-earnings ratios, project earnings growth, plug in prevailing interest rates and use other measures to arrive at a theoretical expected return for a stock, just as a poker player can figure the odds of a pair of queens winning a hand, given other common cards that are showing. But, in either case, that expected return is only a starting point. All these theoretical similarities may be of some interest, but what's truly illuminating about comparing poker with stock picking is the role of human nature and behavioral tendencies to determine success or failure. A behavioral quirk common to stock and card players is that so many inferior competitors happily go up against better-equipped sharks. The illusion of simplicity and the chances of lucking into a big payday make for a steady supply of dumb money. Notes David Sklansky, in his definitive The Theory of Poker: "It doesn't take long for pool players or golfers to realize they're outclassed and to demand to be handicapped, but losers in poker return to the table over and over again, donating their money and blaming their losses on bad luck, not bad play." The traits that determine good play from bad are pretty much the same, whether flipping chips or stocks. The Legg Mason Funds' chief investment officer, Michael Mauboussin, cites three common attributes of the most successful investors: a focus on process versus outcome, a constant search for favorable odds and an understanding of the role of time. The focus on process is a matter of discipline, making sure decision-making is sound and sticking with it even when the result is sometimes negative. Recall that this is a probabilistic game, where the object is simply to win more often than lose, and to win more money when winning than is lost when losing. Sklansky offers what he calls the fundamental theorem of p oker: "Every time you play a hand differently than the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose." This is akin to a good investor's ignoring short-term price movements that affect a portfolio, while constantly reviewing the thesis behind each stock holding to ensure that it's sound. A bedrock piece of poker wisdom is to play a hand only when you see the odds in your favor, or, in gambling terms, when you "have the best of it." Says Sklansky: "Serious gamblers bet only when they have the best of it; when they have the worst of it, they pass." And, say the experts, when you have the best of it, wager aggressively, to drive up the value of the pot. If a hand is good enough to hold and to "call" other players' bets, then is should be good enough to "raise" them. Doing this isn't easy for many, if not most, people. Behavioral research consistently shows that humans are risk-averse when it comes to gains but reckless when trying to avoid losses. In the market, this tendency means that investors lock in profits too quickly on stocks that have risen and stubbornly hold on to losers too long (or add to positions as they fall), in hope of "getting even." Randy Cohen, the Harvard Business School professor who spoke to the analysts group on poker recently, describes different hands as being high- or low-volatility hands. Working toward a straight or a flush -- hands that become more likely the more cards are dealt -- is like owning an option, or being long volatility. This means the player should bet low and try to make the game last longer, to improve the chances of completing a winning hand. Holding a high pair is like being short volatility, meaning the chances of prevailing fall as other players get more cards. Here, the player should bet aggressively to scare off other bettors and end the game quickly. Of course, knowing the odds and living by the probabilities is only one part of winning at poker. In the short term, luck can trump brains. But in the long run, the small minority of players possessing skill and discipline can overcome random chance. Sounds a bit like Wall Street, doesn't it? http://www.thelavinagency.com/artic...reet.pdf#search="david sklansky stock market"
Another article. This one from the Motley Fool articulating the similarities between stock investing and poker: Do Less, Earn More By David Meier June 9, 2006 In The Theory of Poker, David Sklansky defines the objective of poker as winning money, not winning pots. He also says the sucker at the table is usually the person who plays every hand, no matter what the cost. I want to make money in the stock market (and not be the sucker), and you probably do, too. So how can we do it? By following some simple rules great poker players use to maximize their winnings: 1. Play more hands when the odds are in your favor and less when the odds are not. 2. Bet big when the odds are in your favor. Wired for action As humans, we are wired to act. We want to participate and be a part of the action. Wall Street understands and exploits this, because more action from us means more revenue for them. Think about it. Prices and research reports and financial magazine headlines tempt us to make lots of investment decisions just as growing pots can entice poker players to play too many mediocre hands. Don't be lured into that trap. Too much action is expensive (antes and calls in poker, commissions and taxes in investing) and can even cloud (link launches a PDF file) our judgment. Follow the money I know what you're thinking -- laying down hands is tough. So is waiting for bargains in the stock market. We want to make money now. Doing so means we need to be in the game. But hear me out: Following a "do less, earn more" strategy can prove to be very successful. In his article "Investing: Profession or Business?" (link launches a PDF file), Legg Mason's chief investment strategist Michael Mauboussin shows some interesting data about fund managers who have beaten the market on average over a 10-year period. They play fewer hands Twenty-seven of the 31 managers on the list held their stocks for two years or more. Eighteen of the managers held their stocks for four years or more. They bet big on their best ideas Those 27 managers that held their stocks for at least two years had 37.4% of their assets in their top 10 holdings. Those 18 managers that held theirs for at least four years had 46.1% of their assets in their top 10 holdings. They beat the market over time Those 27 managers who invested with patience and made big bets on their best ideas beat the market by an average of 2.3 percentage points after taxes. Based on my analysis, those 2.3 points over 10 years on a $100,000 investment earns an extra $55,000. Not exactly chump change! Some hands to play Today, many of the best value investors are saying that even though small caps continue to be hot, large caps offer some attractive possibilities for good returns. Some names that come to mind are Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) and eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) Wal-Mart is a great business that generates good returns and lots of cash. However, the stock is down from its all-time, wildly inflated price of $69.12 back in December 1999, when it was trading for more than 50 times earnings. Today, Wal-Mart is a stronger business with a much better valuation. Will it average 25% annual returns for the next 10 years? No way. But at these prices, the odds are much better that it will outperform the market over the next 10 years (and it should do it with less risk, as Wal-Mart is probably not going out of business anytime soon). So Wal-Mart could be an interesting way to steal some antes from the market. eBay is a fascinating yet misunderstood company. Most people see eBay as an online flea market. I don't think that's quite right. I believe eBay is in the business of creating and monetizing markets. eBay performs its job very well. I calculate its return on invested capital as being 20% last year, excluding its investment in Skype at the end of the year. Today, worry surrounds the company. Analysts are worried about slowing growth and the lack of a catalyst. Investors are worried that eBay forked out too much money for Skype, and everyone is worried that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) has eBay in its crosshairs. I don't see it that way. I see an incredibly strong business model with a moat full of spikes and alligators and boiling oil. That's because eBay's interactive networks (auction site and PayPal) create strong bonds between buyers and sellers, making switching costs very high and generating a significant competitive advantage. And Skype should reinforce those bonds and help facilitate the growth of its fixed-price business by efficiently bringing together buyers and sellers to share information. eBay's stock is not cheap today, but I think this is a situation where calling at today's prices to play for a flush draw after flopping two hearts could take a very large pot. Some tough hands to fold| Not investing in stocks that are going up fast is just as tough as folding a good poker hand (pocket jacks) because the odds of winning are not in your favor (the flop comes down ace, king, 4). Take, for instance, energy drink maker Hansen Natural (Nasdaq: HANS). It's a great business that's growing fast. But why would I pay a price-to-free cash flow ratio (P/FCF) of 79 for Hansen Natural when Motley Fool Inside Value selection Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), with its lasting franchises and huge cash flows, sells for a P/FCF of 19? Fast-food restaurant Chipotle (NYSE: CMG) is another example. I love its made-to-order business model. I love its food, and I love its growth opportunities. However, I don't like the frenzied following who drove up the price post-IPO. Chipotle had better fill in its rich valuation with lots of cash -- otherwise, the ace or the king on the board is going to get paired up and beat our pocket jacks. The Foolish bottom line Great poker players and great investors have patience and discipline. Neither makes money over the long run chasing pots or hot stocks. Instead, they pick their battles very carefully and have the courage to place big bets when the odds of winning are in their favor. And as the data shows us, those types of investors make considerably more money over time. At Motley Fool Inside Value, we try to exhibit that same patience and discipline. Our service wants to find the market's dream stocks -- not be the sucker at the table. If you want two stock picks a month and free access to our entire lineup of recommendations, click here for a free 30-day trial to Inside Value. There's no obligation to subscribe. Fool and Inside Value team member David Meier does not own shares of any of the companies mentioned. Wal-Mart and Coca-Cola are Motley Fool Inside Value recommendations. eBay is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor pick. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2006/commentary06060928.htm
I would agree with you if the original post or your response were largely about the substance of the law (ie that online gambling was being shut down). What robbie wrote about - and you responded to - was not principly the gambling ramifications, but the tactics in passing it (or at least such was my understanding). If you are against the substance of the rider, then by all means vote against those who proposed it. On the other hand, if the complaint is against the tactics used in this particaular case, it makes no sense to protest it by voting out the people who did it in favor of other people who do the same thing. That would be like not voting for a party because they lie or miss votes, when in fact pretty much all of them lie and miss votes.
Online skill gaming is an interesting alternative. I am involved with a company that will in the very near future offer games online which people can play against each other for money - but the outcome of the games is based predominantly on skill, not luck (that's arguably true for poker as well, but due to the uncertain/inconsistent legal classification of poker we do not include poker in our offering so far).
Not smart of a reeling party to enact very unpopular legislation BEFORE some crucial elections for them. VOTE DEMS ...get them McCarthiasts out of power. Gambling is legal in a majority of states, and if you LIKE the fact that the internet is a place of free trade, then you can not blame countries for allowing gambling and not policing where the people that log into their sites come from. What I see happening is that people start depositing a large some of money in internet offshore banks and then from their to the casino sites. No way to stop the web ! Power to the people !! DD
In my case, I'm upset about even more intrusion by the Federal government in our lives, SM. Believe it or not, there are many, many Democrats who think that is a bad thing in most cases. As for what you are referring to, I merely said it was a horrible rider on a bill... one that shouldn't have seen the light of day. I didn't make a statement about one party doing that (putting riders on bills) to the exclusion of the other. I know too much about politics to say something that stupid! Keep D&D Civil.
Poker is a game much like football is a game. It doesn't necesitate gambling in the way we know gambling to mean betting money on an outcome. You're all about the semantics. Well I'll put you down for pushing gambling as part of the Texas public school curriculum. Nice. Again playing semantics. Under your definition of civil rights issues we can also add jaywalking, polygamy, and public nudity since the government limits our rights to do those things. My definition of a civil rights issue, and what I feel is the traditional defition, is a right fundamentally guaranteed by the Constitution that is being denied a certain segment of the population. Gambling hardly falls into that column and it certainly poses no slippery slope argument to other Constitutional rights IMHO.
Then I merely misinterpreted your comment. I agree that we should have less government involvement in our lives, though I am not sure that voting Democrat is the path to that goal. Let's rally some support for libertarians.
