Trading is like (a)chess (b)poker (c)checkers (d)roulette?

I would like to hear what people think?

Do You think Trading is more like (a) Chess (b) Poker (c) Checkers or (d) Roulette?
and why do you think that?

I will say what I think later

TEB

stuck in a limbo.

Poker because it is necessary any probability analysis, but you also need luck

Sry for bad english.

Yes ...

(a) Chess - Because there are strategies that can be employed to counter the moves on the board.

(b) Poker - Because even a losing hand can win if played correctly. :nerd:

(c) Checkers - Because every so often there's some bigger cat with a crown who can jump you from any direction with no warning.

(d) Roulette - Because in life, anything you don't know the outcome of, in advance, for absolute 100% certain involves at least ... some luck.

When I 1st read your post
I thought you said
bingo
lol

Of course Chess!

Margin Call is the same as checkmate in chess.

d, like roulette....the broker being the 0, and the 00. ( also they stand for some of the brokers worth, and to represent regulations)

Fun discussion.

What about (e) pro blackjack? The required approach and math behind MM is identical, and it’s theoretically possible to whittle down the house edge (cf. br0ker costs) by using knowledge and skill (card counting and advanced gameplay). Sure, MM works the same as with roulette, but with roulette the gameplay is pure ‘luck’ (unless you can find a physically biased wheel). However, roulette payoffs on different bet types (2:1, 3:1, etc) is somewhat analogous to RR in trading: everything else being equal, payoff (RR) is inversely proportional to win rate.

IMO trading is not at all like poker. Firstly, the MM is completely different. When is going “all in” a viable trading MM? The market effectively has an infinite amount of money compared to the retail trader; whereas with poker one is competing on an equal footing against one's peers. And secondly, retail traders can’t use bluffing or manipulation to beat the market. The 'market', as presented in a price chart, appears as a single, inscrutable adversary; whereas with poker, you're playing against multiple human opponents whose psyche, and consequent play, can potentially be manipulated by your actions.

Chess? I don’t know. May be analogous if you’re able to ascertain bank manipulation from price movement and maintain one move ahead, trading with the smart money. But if you’re otherwise trading without some kind of an edge, then there’s a big element of luck — and there’s no luck in chess. Chess is a fascinating blend of art (flair/innovation) and science; trading arguably is, also, although possibly in a different way.

A little off-topic, but people compare trading to running a business. I disagree. Businesses involve customers, creditors, mortgages, marketing, managing staff and inventory: the very headaches that trading promises freedom from. Trading involves a somewhat different (and IMO more difficult) personal skillset: patience, nerve, discipline, self-belief, endless perseverance. I see retail trading as more of a game: it’s just me against a giant pattern generating machine, where I must process raw data, and somehow find solutions to math and pattern based problems, to exploit them for profit. And all without any direct interaction with other people, from the comfort and privacy of my own home.

Just my 2c.

Roulette coz the casino (aka insiders) are always manipulating the game (market) :-)

(F) Jump rope. You have to find the rhythm of the market...join at the right time...stay with the rhythm...and jump out without tripping. If you have the rhythm right you can stay and play for a long time. If the rhythm changes. You jump off quickly or fall flat on your face. As well, those who set the rhythm can change it any time they want just because the want to see you fail.

Poker, obviously...poker

I just read your answer...
I like your answer, christopher...

This.

likely true but not really he point of the question

Football because you always choose a side to play with

To me, poker is a close second to backgammon when describing trading.

The dice is the fickle Market, and market conditions change with each throw, and winning depends on skill in "managing" your backgammon checker placements better than your opponent i.e. other Market participants.

It "feels" even more like trading when your opponent is one of those neural computers that SEEMS like it's cheating all the time with it's dice throws.

this is game of throne,

Roulette ...and Russian one at that.

It is Choker half chess and half poker. Poker coz of luck and MM and calculation of cards and emotion and Chess to think ahead of opponent unfortunately opponents are in large number so you relly on sentiments.

Casinos don't need to manipulate the games, they simply win over time because they offer games only where the odds are in their favor (aka the 'house edge').

Mike Shackleford's Wizard of Odds is the most comprehensive site I've found that explains the ins and outs of gambling games (and the futility of all betting systems).

Yes, I've been beaten by GNU backgammon many times, and I know the feeling well.
It seems like the computer is inordinately lucky with the dice, but in reality the neural algo is simply positioning the checkers in such a way as to have a best feasible move for every possible next dice roll (1,2,3,4,5 or 6).

Top grandmasters can beat the world's best chess algos. From what I've read, it's due largely to their ability to 'think outside the box' and devise innovative moves and combinations that the algo didn't anticipate. Whereas backgammon is controlled largely by the limitations imposed by the dice, and hence the algo can more easily analyze every possibility, and 'plan' its next move accordingly. Or to put it another way, this means that chess is part art and part science, whereas backgammon strategy can effectively be resolved to pure science. At least that's the way I understand it; anybody please feel welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

Nice.