Poker vs. Stock Market

[oroboros]

What's the real difference besides one being pushed on us as the greatest thing ever by money hungry corporations and one that's now banned. They're both gambling and risky, right? OMG WTF?

[euphoricism]

The stock market requires a fundamentally larger "breadth of knowledge" to take significant advantage of. It also requires far more capital than poker to get into meaningful rewards. And, those rewards take far longer to materialize.

[Harry]

"Personally, I don't think poker is all that different from buying stocks. If you're patient and you've got a sound strategy, you're going to beat the market in the long run. The same applies to poker. If you trade too much and frequently speculate on trash stocks, you are probably going to have relatively poor results in the stock market. If you play too many hands, you're probably going to lose at poker.

In truth, the people who call poker a game of chance either have never played or probably just aren't very good at it. Granted, it's also probably true that a lot of people who think they are good at poker are, in fact, gambling.

But if you look at it that way, poker isn't gambling any more than buying stocks is. Of course, I don't really think of the lottery as gambling, either (It isn't gambling if you know you're going to lose, right?). Last I checked, buying stocks online wasn't illegal, and playing poker online shouldn't be targeted for death, either."

http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/...?ref=foolwatch

[mcatdog]

Well for one, poker was a drain on the U.S. economy, a lot of money was leaving the country and going to cardrooms that were based overseas. That doesn't bother me but it apparently bothers the protectionists in Congress a whole lot. Selling stock on the other hand, does help the economy because it provides companies with capital to invest back into their own growth.

It also requires a lot more knowledge than poker. Most of us would be fish if we tried to get involved in the stock market.

[elipsesjeff]

Meh, this comparison has been easily made countless times over the past few years.

[Fnord]

Buy a random stock on a major exchange, hold it for a while and chances are you'll come out a little ahead.

Play a random hand and take it to the river, chances are you'll come out a little behind.

[Margin Of Error]

Buy a random stock on a major exchange, hold it for a while and chances are you'll come out a little ahead.

If the economy is doing well.

Play a random hand and take it to the river, chances are you'll come out a little behind.

Not if you are on an upswing.

[boost]

yah that was a horrible analogy fnord.

[sarbox68]

Stock picking is 1/3 fundamentals, 1/3 TA, 1/3 portfolio management and 1/3 juju.... and yeah, I know that adds up to more than it should.

Have seen the Fool quote around CRYP before, and of course there are similarities. No such thing as a sure hand (as I get JJJ A kicker cracked by a K on the river.....) or a sure investment. Stock value is pure supply and demand... guess u could argue that a full boat is worth a whole hell of alot regardless of what the rest of the table thinks.......

Bottom line difference tho (aside from the capital leak Fnord referenced, which is really no more of an issue than when you buy anything from any other non-US company... Bought gas from a Shell station lately??) is that one is an investment of working capital that (in theory) provides a company with resources to grow/expand/operate etc.

The other's a form of entertainment (kinda like a hooker, but you're not guaranteed to get screwed.... or is that like an ex-wife.... I dunno, I'm confused all of a sudden..........)

Both take skill, balls, and money...

but apparently only one offends republicans....

[Fnord]

wah wah wah wah

yah that was a horrible analogy fnord.

Variance.

Put money on a random company with a solid track record and you will tend to beat inflation. No skill involved. It's absurdly hard to beat an index fund.

Poker is a negative sum game.

[Harry]

Technical analysis is bs btw.