currency trading

[highnote]

Anyone here trade currencies?

What service do you use?

Japan is going to devalue the Yen. Currently $1 USD equals about 98 YEN. Over the next 5 years I have read that the rate will be 1 USD to 200 YEN.

How do you trade that?

[RaceBookJoe]

Anyone here trade currencies?

What service do you use?

Japan is going to devalue the Yen. Currently $1 USD equals about 98 YEN. Over the next 5 years I have read that the rate will be 1 USD to 200 YEN.

How do you trade that?

For the yen, I only trade the 6J, which is the futures contract. Never traded forex or options on currencies etc, maybe someone here does?

[PaceAdvantage]

Dick Schmidt...and he usually replies to threads about FOREX trading...

[highnote]

One commentator said he is in the process of converting his mortgage to yen because he figures the devalued yen will help him pay for half his mortgage.

I read where some UK banks offer foreign currency mortgages, but I haven't found any in the U.S. that offer them.

[DeltaLover]

Anyone here trade currencies?

What service do you use?

Japan is going to devalue the Yen. Currently $1 USD equals about 98 YEN. Over the next 5 years I have read that the rate will be 1 USD to 200 YEN.

How do you trade that?

It is almost impossible to make it as a not institutional forex trader.

The advantage large trading desks have over anyone is far more than whatever you can find in any other betting market.

In top of the fact that they occupy the top brains of the world, they also have access to extremely advanced hardware and sophisticated software, putting them way ahead of the crowd which routinely sees its money passed to them.

Do not trick yourself, daydreaming that you can outsmart them... It aint gonna happen... Stay clear..

[highnote]

I tend to agree with you. I tried trading forex about 10 years ago, but have forgotten how. It wasn't hard to learn, but I don't want to do it again. It was pretty boring. Poker is more interesting, but both are a grind.

I have had some luck with trading wheat, so maybe currency futures makes more sense?





It is almost impossible to make it as a not institutional forex trader.

The advantage large trading desks have over anyone is far more than whatever you can find in any other betting market.

In top of the fact that they occupy the top brains of the world, they also have access to extremely advanced hardware and sophisticated software, putting them way ahead of the crowd which routinely sees its money passed to them.

Do not trick yourself, daydreaming that you can outsmart them... It aint gonna happen... Stay clear..

[highnote]

The September Japanese YEN e-mini (J7U13) -- this is not the same thing that is traded on the forex, is it?


I tend to agree with you. I tried trading forex about 10 years ago, but have forgotten how. It wasn't hard to learn, but I don't want to do it again. It was pretty boring. Poker is more interesting, but both are a grind.

I have had some luck with trading wheat, so maybe currency futures makes more sense?

[DeltaLover]

I tend to agree with you. I tried trading forex about 10 years ago, but have forgotten how. It wasn't hard to learn, but I don't want to do it again. It was pretty boring. Poker is more interesting, but both are a grind.

I have had some luck with trading wheat, so maybe currency futures makes more sense?


As I have said in another thread before, horse betting is the best option when you have to choose between SE and poker:

It is more honest, needs much less bankroll, maintains the hope for a big score and leaves you enough time to sleep...

Horse betting to its top levels of operating, is unmatched by any other gambling activity...

All other games from poker to forex and from roulette to bacarat are just poor relatives of horse betting.... I am 100% convinced that success in horse betting requires even more skill, talent and intuition even than chess, bridge or anything else in the same domain.

Of course the learning curve is steep (traynor has a different opinion though, and he could be right assuming a different learning approach involving a mentor) and the spectrum of required skills is very wide, covering math thinking, stats, phycology, game theory in top of domain specifics like breeding, pace and speed handicapping etc...

[thaskalos]

As I have said in another thread before, horse betting is the best option when you have to choose between SE and poker:

It is more honest, needs much less bankroll, maintains the hope for a big score and leaves you enough time to sleep...

Horse betting to its top levels of operating, is unmatched by any other gambling activity...

All other games from poker to forex and from roulette to bacarat are just poor relatives of horse betting.... I am 100% convinced that success in horse betting requires even more skill, talent and intuition even than chess, bridge or anything else in the same domain.

Of course the learning curve is steep (traynor has a different opinion though, and he could be right assuming a different learning approach involving a mentor) and the spectrum of required skills is very wide, covering math thinking, stats, phycology, game theory in top of domain specifics like breeding, pace and speed handicapping etc...

Horse betting was the best gambling option out there...but things are changing, IMO.

The game is no longer what it was...

[barn32]

As I have said in another thread before, horse betting is the best option when you have to choose between SE and poker:

It is more honest, needs much less bankroll, maintains the hope for a big score and leaves you enough time to sleep...

Horse betting to its top levels of operating, is unmatched by any other gambling activity... Oh, God.

I am 100% convinced that success in horse betting requires even more skill, talent and intuition even than chess, bridge or anything else in the same domain.This could be true, but your statements above are false.

5% of poker players win. Maybe, MAYBE 1% of horseplayers win. (I personally believe it's a lot less.) That in inself makes poker five times better.

[DeltaLover]

Oh, God.
5% of poker players win. Maybe, MAYBE 1% of horseplayers win. (I personally believe it's a lot less.) That in inself makes poker five times better.

First of all, what is your source of information about the percentages you are providing? How did you find out that 5% of poker players and only 1% of horseplayers are wining? I am not aware about any relevant data.

But, let's assume you are correct and this is the case. (Still I am overlooking that you are just mentioning win / loose but surely this is not enough since the magnitude of the win should be taken in consideration, but again let's assume this is the case)...

Can you explain how this is making poker 5 times better?

Let me give you a toy game as an example and let you analyze it:

We have a zero take out game which is played among a universe of 1000 players. Each of them starts will $1000 and plays heads up against another randomly selected player for a coin flip for $1 a time. So each round consists of 500 flips. If a player gets broke he simply retires. Note that there is no skill in this game.. What do you think is going to happen after let's say 1000 betting rounds? I leave the prove for you but I can assure you that will have approximately 520 winers and 480 losers. On other words in this game 52% of the players are winners!

Based in your logic (and numbers) this makes it 10 times better than poker....

The truth is that when talking about poker we have to consider that the level of our competition deviates much more than horse betting where all the bets are reaching the same pool.

It is quite possible to find yourself seating at a table where your expectation is very negative and most of the times under today's conditions even if you are a good player you will rarely be be able to beat the take out.

Realistically speaking winning anywhere from 1 to 1.5 big bet (limit games) gives you bragging rights as one of the top players. Very few are able to do that, after the poker boom, that created hordes of wannabe pro's who have gone through significant study of the game and have started their career as internet players having the opportunity to improve their game extremely fast...

Fishes are very few today while sharks outnumber them by a factor of 5 and most of the time they compete among themselves keeping the game going until a single life player decides to join them...

The main problem with poker is that it is relatively easy game to master, especially compared with horse betting which is way more sophisticated and demanding game.

The more difficult a game is the more skill it has and the better it is for who posses it..

Unless you are lucky enough to play poker against extremely naive players who will always come back to give you their money, modern poker resembles more to a crap shoot, like AK vs QQ rather than a skillful game....

Please think a bit deeper...

[thaskalos]

First of all, what is your source of information about the percentages you are providing? How did you find out that 5% of poker players and only 1% of horseplayers are wining? I am not aware about any relevant data.

But, let's assume you are correct and this is the case. (Still I am overlooking that you are just mentioning win / loose but surely this is not enough since the magnitude of the win should be taken in consideration, but again let's assume this is the case)...

Can you explain how this is making poker 5 times better?

Let me give you a toy game as an example and let you analyze it:

We have a zero take out game which is played among a universe of 1000 players. Each of them starts will $1000 and plays heads up against another randomly selected player for a coin flip for $1 a time. So each round consists of 500 flips. If a player gets broke he simply retires. Note that there is no skill in this game.. What do you think is going to happen after let's say 1000 betting rounds? I leave the prove for you but I can assure you that will have approximately 520 winers and 480 losers. On other words in this game 52% of the players are winners!

Based in your logic (and numbers) this makes it 10 times better than poker....

The truth is that when talking about poker we have to consider that the level of our competition deviates much more than horse betting where all the bets are reaching the same pool.

It is quite possible to find yourself seating at a table where your expectation is very negative and most of the times under today's conditions even if you are a good player you will rarely be be able to beat the take out.

Realistically speaking winning anywhere from 1 to 1.5 big bet (limit games) gives you bragging rights as one of the top players. Very few are able to do that, after the poker boom, that created hordes of wannabe pro's who have gone through significant study of the game and have started their career as internet players having the opportunity to improve their game extremely fast...

Fishes are very few today while sharks outnumber them by a factor of 5 and most of the time they compete among themselves keeping the game going until a single life player decides to join them...

The main problem with poker is that it is relatively easy game to master, especially compared with horse betting which is way more sophisticated and demanding game.

The more difficult a game is the more skill it has and the better it is for who posses it..

Unless you are lucky enough to play poker against extremely naive players who will always come back to give you their money, modern poker resembles more to a crap shoot, like AK vs QQ rather than a skillful game....

Please think a bit deeper...

Hold on a second there, friend of mine...:)

You've questioned the authenticity Of Barn's statistics...so it's only fair that we question some of your own. Who told you that the sharks outnumber the fish 5-1 in today's poker games?

And where have you gotten the impression that poker without "extremely naive" opponents is like a crap shoot?

And even if the above observations were true -- which I doubt -- what makes you think that horse racing is different? Do you see many loose-betting fish in horse racing? The only fish that I know at the OTB have long gone busted...and are sitting on the sidelines looking for a handout.

[RaceBookJoe]

It is almost impossible to make it as a not institutional forex trader.

The advantage large trading desks have over anyone is far more than whatever you can find in any other betting market.

In top of the fact that they occupy the top brains of the world, they also have access to extremely advanced hardware and sophisticated software, putting them way ahead of the crowd which routinely sees its money passed to them.

Do not trick yourself, daydreaming that you can outsmart them... It aint gonna happen... Stay clear..

No where did the op mention anything close to daydreaming that he wanted to outsmart anyone. He just asked how to trade it. I know a few forex traders who trade from home on a laptop using a basic platform all pulling in high 6 figures/yr income..no sophisticated software/hardware. I assume you don't trade though but apologize in advance if I am wrong.

[Tape Reader]

It is almost impossible to make it as a not institutional forex trader.

The advantage large trading desks have over anyone is far more than whatever you can find in any other betting market.

In top of the fact that they occupy the top brains of the world, they also have access to extremely advanced hardware and sophisticated software, putting them way ahead of the crowd which routinely sees its money passed to them.

Do not trick yourself, daydreaming that you can outsmart them... It aint gonna happen... Stay clear..

DeltaLover,

I find it incredible that you are being given a free pass on the subject of betting the horses over the markets. I will accept the fact that you are a superior handicapper in horses, but do you have actual experience in trading stocks, futures, currencies?

[tucker6]

interesting thread

[ManU918]

The main problem with poker is that it is relatively easy game to master, especially compared with horse betting which is way more sophisticated and demanding game.

Wow... This is a pretty strong statement. If you can clarify your definition of "master" then maybe I will be able to comprehend your statement better.

[DeltaLover]

Wow... This is a pretty strong statement. If you can clarify your definition of "master" then maybe I will be able to comprehend your statement better.


This is not a thread about poker.

I will just let you know that the game poker is very close to be 'solved'. Do some reading about applications of game theory and Bayesian approach and we can continue the conversation.

You can start here:

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/limit-holdem-a-solved-game-6011/
http://deodiloude.funpic.de/sonia-poker-bot.php

and continue on your own.

[DeltaLover]

DeltaLover,

I find it incredible that you are being given a free pass on the subject of betting the horses over the markets. I will accept the fact that you are a superior handicapper in horses, but do you have actual experience in trading stocks, futures, currencies?


I dont thing I implied neither that I am superior horse handicapper nor that I have actual experience trading stocks. I might have both, but this is not the point.

When posting on this or any other forum I try to refrain from personal experiences, I rather use facts and logic rather that refer to what I have done in my personal life.

[ManU918]

This is not a thread about poker.

I will just let you know that the game poker is very close to be 'solved'. Do some reading about applications of game theory and Bayesian approach and we can continue the conversation.

You can start here:

http://www.pokernewsdaily.com/limit-holdem-a-solved-game-6011/
http://deodiloude.funpic.de/sonia-poker-bot.php

and continue on your own.

LOL... whatever you say.

[DeltaLover]

Hold on a second there, friend of mine...:)

You've questioned the authenticity Of Barn's statistics...so it's only fair that we question some of your own. Who told you that the sharks outnumber the fish 5-1 in today's poker games?



It is relatively easy to reach this conclusion.

At least it was easy when the on line poker was still active.

Starting from the assumption that the game is completely random we can create a statistical method to verify it. For example collecting several thousands of roulette spins we can easy conclude if it is fair, meaning completely random or not. The same concept applies to poker. When I was playing on line I was using a software to track all the hands I was playing and later analyze them in a per player basis using statistics to see how random the winners - losers were. I had even created an fish - index showing to me who are the habitual losers (fish) and who were not. There is also commercial software that can easily allow you to make this decision. As long as the win - loss record is public (as it was in on line poker) something like this was completely doable.

[DeltaLover]

LOL... whatever you say.


Do you know what is game theory and how it can be applied to poker? How about Baysian thinking ?

Do you know what are the consequences of game been 'solved'?

Read these and google for similar before you LOL and then we can talk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_%28poker_bot%29

http://betting.betfair.com/poker/poker-strategy/poker-variants/solved-games-151209.html

[thaskalos]

It is relatively easy to reach this conclusion.

At least it was easy when the on line poker was still active.

Starting from the assumption that the game is completely random we can create a statistical method to verify it. For example collecting several thousands of roulette spins we can easy conclude if it is fair, meaning completely random or not. The same concept applies to poker. When I was playing on line I was using a software to track all the hands I was playing and later analyze them in a per player basis using statistics to see how random the winners - losers were. I had even created an fish - index showing to me who are the habitual losers (fish) and who were not. There is also commercial software that can easily allow you to make this decision. As long as the win - loss record is public (as it was in on line poker) something like this was completely doable.

And your tracking software told you that the sharks outnumbered the fish by a 5-1 ratio at the tables?

[ManU918]

Do you know what is game theory and how it can be applied to poker? How about Baysian thinking ?

Do you know what are the consequences of game been 'solved'?

Read these and google for similar before you LOL and then we can talk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_%28poker_bot%29

http://betting.betfair.com/poker/poker-strategy/poker-variants/solved-games-151209.html

I am not going to hijack this thread. You seem like you know it all so I will continue to let you think that way.

[PaceAdvantage]

I am not going to hijack this thread. too late

[ManU918]

too late

How did I know you were going to write that?

[PaceAdvantage]

How did I know you were going to write that?You know it all... :lol:

[thaskalos]

too late

When you really think about it...isn't it all "currency trading"?

To me...only the battlefields differ.

[ManU918]

You know it all... :lol:

LOL good one. I'll refrain from further posting in this thread.

[barn32]

Let me give you a toy game as an example and let you analyze it:

We have a zero take out game which is played among a universe of 1000 players. Each of them starts will $1000 and plays heads up against another randomly selected player for a coin flip for $1 a time. So each round consists of 500 flips. If a player gets broke he simply retires. Note that there is no skill in this game.. What do you think is going to happen after let's say 1000 betting rounds? I leave the prove for you but I can assure you that will have approximately 520 winers and 480 losers. On other words in this game 52% of the players are winners!

Based in your logic (and numbers) this makes it 10 times better than poker....

Delta Lover.... Redo your math using a 10% rake.

EDIT: Please with the name calling.

[DeltaLover]

Delta Lover.... Redo your math using a 10% rake.

EDIT: Please with the name calling.


Introducing rake to the example, does not change its meaning.

Surely, as you increase the take out chances are that nobody is going to become a winner after an extended series of bets. The point I am trying to make using this example is that the percentage of winning players in any game is not a measurement of how good (or bad) it is.

Just for comparison the following are the results for a simulation I wrote for the game of our example adding take out. The simulation was covering a session of 500 betting rounds

RAKE Winners
==================
0.0% 47.0%
1.0% 36.0%
2.0% 27.0%
3.0% 15.0%
4.0% 7.0%
5.0% 7.0%
6.0% 6.0%
7.0% 1.0%
8.0% 1.0%
9.0% 0.0%

This type of games (bacarat for example) you can find them with approximatetly 1.5 to 2.5% rake. SO even in bacarat it is realistical to expect to have enough winners to greatly outperfrom poker or horses.

This is not the point though. It easy to detect that this happens due to luck alone and skill has no merrit in the final result of neither the winnes nor the losers/

Especially talking about games that are based in mutual pools (poker and horse betting both follow under this category) it is safe to assume that the more 'difficult' they are, the better it is for the skillfull player. An easy game, meaning one having very little skill, is guaranteed as you say to break all the players when there is a rake although periodically will have to present a relative high number of winners.

What really matters in any game of skill is the proportion of less skilled over more skilled bettors and of course the rake which can transform anything to a loosing proposition.

The problem with poker is analogous to pool, chess or any other game where players are easy to be handicapped and classified. The same does not apply to horse betting where the inferiority of an individual never becomes apparent to him, but he starts blaming luck, fixed races, take out etc, but he never admits his incapacity, keeping on feeding the pools with his money.

This attribute of horse betting, that is keeping all bettors in the same pool creates the nesseary conditions for the capable bettor to compete against the naive crowd under completely equal terms.

[Valuist]

Wow... This is a pretty strong statement. If you can clarify your definition of "master" then maybe I will be able to comprehend your statement better.

I would have to side with Delta Lover. You hear about plenty of players become strong poker players within a year of starting. I became pretty good at blackjack using basic strategy and card counting in less than a year. I don't know anyone who became a "knowledgable horse bettor" (not even saying profitable) with less than a year experience. There's just too many situations and scenarios that one can only get thru experience.

The process is probably faster now, due to simulcasting, but that could also backfire as it gives a beginner far more opportunities to get buried. But its like comparing baseball to the NBA. There's a number of players in the NBA who made the jump from high school. You never see that in MLB.

[barn32]

First of all, CJ has obviously never seen Saturday Night Live

Secondly, Delta, I am not in the mood to debate with you. You win.


OfAC77jWgzs

[DeltaLover]

First of all, CJ has obviously never seen Saturday Night Live

Secondly, Delta, I am not in the mood to debate with you. You win.


OfAC77jWgzs

I admit I did not know the expression. Horses keep me so busy that I do not have the time to watch any tv. At least I've learned something new today... ;)

As far as winning the argument, that's not the case.. We all try to prove our case to the others and to ourself more than anything else....

Some times we are correct some times not... I have been in both sides many times in the past and I am sure it will be like this in the future...