poker pro to trading

[djack]

I've been a poker pro for about a year now (I quit my post-college job for reasons not relating to poker), but I'm thinking of getting a job trading. I've been successful playing poker, but for me it's not a career. I never meant to be pro this long, but the money is good and the hours are great. Still, sitting in front of my dual monitors 8tabling shorthanded games is absolutely not what I want to do with the rest of my life.

I've spent alot of time thinking about what I want to do and what matches my skills: trading. I'm in Houston, so energy trading seems like a natural fit. I went to Rice and did pretty well, so I imagine I'll be able to find a job (though if anyone wants to offer an interview...).

Random thoughts:
1. Should I mention poker on my resume? Traders tend to like successful gamblers. Paluka mentioned in another thread that his hedge fund even requires 2+2 books. Still, poker isn't on my resume now, because I think there is still a certain stigma.

2. Should I mention poker during the interview? After a first impression, people can be more forgiving. I think if I mention poker, this is where I would do so.

3. Successful poker players who decide to get "real" jobs is probably a relatively recent phenomenon. Sure, folks have always done it (eg, Roy Cooke), but the total numbers must be much higher these days.

Sklansky has mentioned that he was offered a job in the past couple years by a trading firm. I wonder how common it is for poker players to go into trading?

4. I may be taking a pay cut to get a "real" job, but I think my long-term EV is much higher. However, because th immediate pay will probably be lower, I've procrastinated about finding a job trading. It doesn't help that I hate looking for a job.

5. I need a break from poker. In my only job out of college, I left my job after 15 hours every day and immediately logged on to play poker. It was fun. A year of 4tabling later, and it's not so fun. Even playing live bores me now (maybe more so).

So I'm moving on. Monday I start looking for a job trading energy.

[Aceshigh7]

Good luck to you. From reading your post you sound like you will be very successful.

Personally I would not mention poker on my resume. And whether I brought it up in the interview would depend on the "feel" I was getting during the interview. If you feel like it could be helpful then by all means, but if you're interviewer is a little less friendly or you can't manage to find a good segueway into the subject then I would not mention it.

Good luck!

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Eric Sidel was a trading pro before he became a poker pro and the Babe was a pro options trader before she picked up the game. If traders can become poker players, then I see no reason a poker player can't learn to trade. There are many similiar skills used in trading and in poker. I think there is a large (older) thread on this very topic in the archives. Trading is actually easier than poker in some ways, since there is not as much short term luck involved. However, you must have strong discipline to exit trades when they go against you and to manage your capital. Read the books Market Wizards and New Market Wizards for some wonderful insight into the world of trading.

LGPG

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Paluka]

What did you major in at Rice?

[gvibes]

I'm not sure how helpful the following is, but a friend of mine was interviewing to be a prop trader. They were asking him a bunch of probability questions, and most of them involved cards ("What are the odds of getting dealt a pair of aces in hold'em?", etc.). I'm sure it would come out sometime during the interview.

[johnfromvirginia]

I think there are at least three things you ought to be thinking about. First, whether you mention poker on your resume or not is a tough call, but you cannot duck the question of what you have been doing for the last x years. If you don't mention it, they're likely to assume that you have been day-trading or something--which isn't really any better than poker in their eyes. In any event, you're probably not going to get the chance to "wait until after the first interview." I give you about a 95% chance that "So, what have you been doing for the last x years?" will be one of the first three questions they ask you in any interview. You do not want to be shooting from the hip when you answer that question.

Second, you should be aware that being a trader is not the big-balls, big-shot, super cool job that it used to be. My brother is an equities trader. My best friend is a bond trader. Two nights ago a bunch of us went out for drinks and they were all talking about how a few years ago, it was not uncommon for them to make a six-figure profit on a trade. Now, they are scrambling around and working for hours to complete a trade that will yield a profit of just a few thousand dollars. Now, you have to understand that when I say "profit," I mean profit for their employer, not for the trader. In the old days, an equities trader might get to keep 25-30% of the total amount of profit that he had made for the bank in a given year (bond traders, lower percentage, but similar dollars). In those days "bonus time" was absolutely sick. The traders were seldom unhappy and if they were, they had no one to blame but themselves because their bonuses were a percentage of the money they had made for the boys upstairs. These days, the bonuses get smaller and smaller as the methods by which the profits of a trading desk are measured become harder to decypher and bonuses aren't really tied directly to the amount of money you make anymore anyway. They are pretty much discretionary. In a nutshell, the average trader is not making what he used to and most of my friends believe that in 5 years, the banks won't really have to pay them any more than they would an accountant or a staff attorney--a decent living, but we're not talking big dollars.

Finally, I'm not sure there's a market for traders right now. I don't know anything about energy trading, but I've got a good friend who is an experienced equities trader. He had his own list with a bank for 7 years and made a profit every year and got a nice bonus. Then the bank he worked for got taken over by another bank and they closed the trading desk. (As an aside, this is happening more often than you think. Trading desks are just disappearing.) My friend decided to give day trading a try. What the hell? He was a successful trader. Why not keep 100% of the profit? In spite of all his experience, my friend was a total failure as a day trader and now after two years, he's trying to find a job on a trading desk. He can't find anything and his resume has got to be 10x more attractive than yours (no offense). The market is not good for traders right now. It may improve, but alas, if it does it will be because the current traders are washing their hands of what is becoming a much less attractive career and leaving some empty seats behind.

Sorry for the long winded rant. But this is something that I've been listening to people talk about for 10 years. So, I feel like I have a little inside information on this line of work.

[djack]

Political Science. I was two intermediate theory classes away from also having a double major in Econ. I just didn't want to take the intermediate theory classes because they were worthless. I took all of the necessary upper levels for an Econ major.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are at least three things you ought to be thinking about. First, whether you mention poker on your resume or not is a tough call, but you cannot duck the question of what you have been doing for the last x years.

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't a problem -- I've had a few microbusineses that will go on the resume.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, you should be aware that being a trader is not the big-balls, big-shot, super cool job that it used to be. Two nights ago a bunch of us went out for drinks and they were all talking about how a few years ago, it was not uncommon for them to make a six-figure profit on a trade. Now, they are scrambling around and working for hours to complete a trade that will yield a profit of just a few thousand dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe this to be mostly true for equities and bonds. I do not believe this to be true for energy. That said, money isn't the motivation for me to become an energy trader.

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I'm not sure there's a market for traders right now.

[/ QUOTE ] I snipped the part where you specify that you only know about equities traders. I think what you say is true for equities traders.

I've done my research. Your point is well taken for equities, but not for energies. Energy trading in Houston is booming right now, and has been booming for awhile (excepting the post-Enron era). Energy markets are much newer and hence usually less efficient than equities markets. For example, coal derivatives are just being traded in the past couple months for the first time ever. Merill Lynch is apparently building a coal trading desk in Houston right now.

[Masquerade]

Hi, I work in finance and it's very, very difficult to just walk in a get a job as a trader without any prior experience. Why are they going to hire you as an energy trader when they can take their pick of PhD/MBA types who might well have written theses on energy derivatives.

And most traders arent sitting there making speculative investments with their employers money! Typically you'd have to gain several years experience on a desk first.

[djack]

I have friends who were hired straight out of Rice for it.

[djack]

You sortof touch on my weakest point, Masquerade. I don't have much of a background in math.

I have only one calculus class (taken at a local university while in high school) plus probability and physics classes I took freshman year. I got A's in both, but the physics wasn't very calc-based. And I only eked out an A in physics because I still don't understand what's going on with optics.

Also, I recognize most traders aren't speculating. Energy traders spend most of their time trying to minimize risk using derivatives.

Also, it takes time before they let you trade on your own book.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
You sortof touch on my weakest point, Masquerade. I don't have much of a background in math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this point is going to really hurt you.

[djack]

Yeah. I think you're right. Still, I think it's surmountable.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Loz,

You won't be RUNNING a dept. You will be working for a department. That makes a big difference in what you need to do and know. MUCH trading is mechanical and won't require huge creativity. The systems take a while to learn but putting on trades is not nearly as difficult as some are suggesting. If you can get hired by a big firm, you have NOTHING to lose by trying it. Don't be discouraged.

LGPG

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
Loz,

You won't be RUNNING a dept. You will be working for a department. That makes a big difference in what you need to do and know. MUCH trading is mechanical and won't require huge creativity. The systems take a while to learn but putting on trades is not nearly as difficult as some are suggesting. If you can get hired by a big firm, you have NOTHING to lose by trying it. Don't be discouraged.

LGPG

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all this. But as someone else pointed out, trading isn't what it used to be. To really get paid now, you have to be one of the guys who they are going to rely on for decision-making. I don't think trading is a very good field to go into if you think there is a good chance that you are just going to be one of the guys doing the "mechanical" aspect of things.

[midas]

Loz:

I don't know why people on this board are saying that trading is dead - it is the exact opposite, trading is hot and the action is all at the hedge funds. Billions of $$$ are currently sitting in hedge funds looking for a good place to invest. I will agree that with all this $$$ looking for good investments - margins/spreads have thinned thus returns have diminished.

Let's set another thing straight - traders are generally good gamblers because they understand simple risk but just because you are good at poker, you may not make that good a trader. The stakes are a lot higher in trading where one all-in doesn't just cost you the pot but your job as well. In hedge funds you are graded every day and investors can pull their money if they think you are a lousy investor.

The pressure is tremendous because so many more factors can tank your investment in trading than in poker which is finite. Do you realize all the factors that move the price of oil? Are you ready to learn? Also, forget the math is needed crap - traders need to know how the current set of available information will cause buyers and sellers to act thus moving the price of anything including oil.

If you're serious about being a trader - get your butt to New York City and get any job that will expose you to the action and work your way up. The only thing Houston has going is energy trading and that severely limits your available options.

I wish you the best of luck, I hope you aren't one of the crowd on this board who think that 4BB/hr is the Holy Grail - in the high stakes world of trading - a poker week's pay is considered lunch money.

[Glenn]

"Also, forget the math is needed crap - traders need to know how the current set of available information will cause buyers and sellers to act thus moving the price of anything including oil."

This does not apply to derivatives. You absolutely have to be strong in quantitative analysis to value a derivative. As far as other things go, it is probably less important, but someone who is not good at math is starting with a handicap. Someone who can't compute pot odds can still win at poker, but who would you let play with your money between this person and a math genius? There is no shortage of people who want to be traders. There is even less of a shortage of people who think they can be traders. What percentage of people who have no relevant credentials but think they are smart and would be good traders can actually make real money trading? His best option is probably a few more years of schooling. Unless he has an "in" somewhere he will probably be stuck at some shady prop firm where you pay your own losses. Applicants with above average but not unique intelligence who have relevant degress and experience seem to already be a dime a dozen.

[Zele]

I'd put it on my resume. It will either be a positive or neutral to most potential employers.

On another note, look forward to a nice side income playing your colleagues. Almost every trader thinks he (or she) is a poker god, but the average skill level of traders is only slightly higher than the general population.

[johnfromvirginia]

The experience point is another excellent thought. My brother was a trader's assistant for 3 years before he got his own list. TA's are paid like secretaries on Wall Street.

[johnfromvirginia]

While what you say about the hedge funds is definitely true, getting a job as a hedge fund trader is an absolute fantasy for someone with no trading background. Out of a group of about 15 guys I know who all started here in New York at about the same time (~1990), one of them runs the trading desk at a hedge fund and another one works on a hedge fund desk, but he suspects that it's not going to last. The successful one is a lawyer/MBA who, through intelligence and very hard work, picks stocks better than anyone I've ever met. Every other trader I know would probably slit his mother's throat just to get a chance to work on hedge fund desk. To a trader it's probably the equivalent of finishing in the money in the big game at the WSOP.

[johnfromvirginia]

LOL. I have definitely found this to be true.

[midas]

John:

The kid just got out of college - he's got time to get experience!!! If he wants to be successful he'll have to work hard, pay his dues and work his way up. Life isn't poker where you can play a $40 satellite and win your way into the final table of the big game!!! BTW, 2 out of 15 of your buddies(13+% odds) hit this "dream" job and I bet hard work not luck improved their odds.

Poker players (and most gamblers) are always looking for the quick and easy score. Very few have what it takes to be successful in the real world.

[quadzilla]

I am a headhunter and placed energy traders before the Enron fiasco. Don't mention poker on your resume. Many traders are gamblers, boozers, etc. Employers still see gambling as a bad habit. See how things go at the interview and it may be worth mentioning at that point.

As far as a pay cut goes don't worry you'll be better off trading if you see any success at all. Before Enron energy companies would hire almost anyone as a scheduler. It will give you a good chance to get your foot in the door. If you are sharp they will probably move you up to monthly trader, then weekly, then daily, then hourly. Monthly, weekly, and daily traders do well but, it wasn't uncommon for a good weekly trader to make $1,000,000 + per year.

I haven't dealt with in it in a few years but, I'm sure it is still good. Be aggressive, find out who the managers are, and get in front of them. Then do what you have to do to progress to the job you want.

[lehighguy]

I work in trading for a Wall Street firm in NYC. It really depends alot of the firm/manager. General tip:

Traders and people that worked thier way up from the bottom will be more appreciative of poker. The "born rich" and Ivy League legacies will look down on it.

You could further classify it in terms of two kinds of poeple in the trading world:
1) The people that think there is a right kind of banker.
2) The people that care about profit.

You will need to gauge the mood of your interviewer before deciding what to say. However, keep in mind you have a gap on your resume. They WILL ask what you were doing, and you'll have to answer.

I suggest tying poker to some other hobby. I was a competitive chess player, and I tie poker skills to chess skills when I explain things because they are both strategy games. That will make it easier for people to understand.

[Dan Mezick]

As noted, markets that are not trending are typically not good for spawning alot of new traders. It appears that the metals, commodity and energy markets (in general) might be in the early stages of significant (and perhaps long-term) trending.

As for in-house traders that go solo: part of the potential pitfalls they face have to do with a complete lack of accountability, when solo.

In-house, traders have many externally enforced rules, various ratios, specific measures, and someone they must answer to. Structure is imposed.

Solo, one must forge specific rules (beliefs) and stick to them, and do so without any external authority to guide.

There is no structure per se that is not 100% self-imposed.

The familiar lament of the successful in-house trader that fails miserably only after going solo is a very common story in trading circles. Why?

Perhaps the most successful people in all walks of life are highly accountable to themselves at all times, and in all situations.

Poker included.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]

If you're serious about being a trader - get your butt to New York City and get any job that will expose you to the action and work your way up. The only thing Houston has going is energy trading and that severely limits your available options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Money isn't that important to me. I'm pretty sure I'm going to do well in whatever I do. There's always law school for those who want to make alot of money with zero risk.

I'm not leaving Houston. I love Houston, and if I ever leave again, it'll be too soon.

Also, there's alot more energies to be traded than just oil. My hope is to get into natural gas.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
There's always law school for those who want to make alot of money with zero risk.



[/ QUOTE ]

I make more money than all my lawyer friends and they work at least 40% more hours than I do.

[djack]

True, but there's pretty much zero risk to law school. If I go to law school, I am nearly guaranteed to be making a million dollars a year 10 years from now, assuming that I work my butt off.

It's not quite as guaranteed in trading.

Also, you live in NYC or Philly (I remember you mentioning the name of the fund you work for), and I've spent too many hours in the Philly suburbs to risk that. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's always law school for those who want to make alot of money with zero risk.



[/ QUOTE ]

I make more money than all my lawyer friends and they work at least 40% more hours than I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Joe826]

This is undoubtably an idiotic question, but why would anyone prefer trading for a firm to trading just for themselves? I guess I could see how capital issues could become a problem for the individual trader, but barring that, why give up the extra money if you already have capital to work with?

Also, can anyone recommend some good books on futures? Just this month i've gained an interest in trading as something I might like to do down the road. I picked up Alexander Elder's "Come Into My Trading Room" which has been a really good book. Atleast, I think it's really good--I have no standard to judge it by.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
This is undoubtably an idiotic question, but why would anyone prefer trading for a firm to trading just for themselves? I guess I could see how capital issues could become a problem for the individual trader, but barring that, why give up the extra money if you already have capital to work with?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I said "some people don't have as much capital as they need", it might be one of the biggest understatements of all-time.

[stoxtrader]

certainly the biggest reason I think would be risk - would you rather have a 5% chance of not getting paid for the year, or a 10% chance?

the 10% chance probably carries a higher upside, and you can pick your own numbers, but I would think you have less risk working for a firm.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is undoubtably an idiotic question, but why would anyone prefer trading for a firm to trading just for themselves? I guess I could see how capital issues could become a problem for the individual trader, but barring that, why give up the extra money if you already have capital to work with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Leveraging at or near LIBOR is a pretty sweet deal.

[mrbaseball]

There is HUGE psychology involved too. I have traded the Chicago markets (CBOT, CME) for the past 18 years. But I have also traded pretty much all commodites and their options and more than my share of stocks and stock options. A good portion of that was "on my own" and the difference in the level of heat is astounding. The stakes are enormous and just one little fluke occurance can put you out of business for good.

Also it's interesting the way "trading" has been discussed in this thread. As if it were generic. There are all different kinds of trading. A Chicago market maker is different from NY equities or cash bonds or derivatives or energies in Houston or pure arbitrage or some guy banging out technical trades on Trade Station in his basement. Each has it's own unique skills required.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
There is HUGE psychology involved too. I have traded the Chicago markets (CBOT, CME) for the past 18 years. But I have also traded pretty much all commodites and their options and more than my share of stocks and stock options. A good portion of that was "on my own" and the difference in the level of heat is astounding. The stakes are enormous and just one little fluke occurance can put you out of business for good.

Also it's interesting the way "trading" has been discussed in this thread. As if it were generic. There are all different kinds of trading. A Chicago market maker is different from NY equities or cash bonds or derivatives or energies in Houston or pure arbitrage or some guy banging out technical trades on Trade Station in his basement. Each has it's own unique skills required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

[johnfromvirginia]

[ QUOTE ]
True, but there's pretty much zero risk to law school. If I go to law school, I am nearly guaranteed to be making a million dollars a year 10 years from now, assuming that I work my butt off.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is extremely naive. I graduated at the top of my class from a top law school and I know a LOT of hard working, well educated lawyers who are grinding it out and will never be rich. Furthermore, partners at top firms do not average a million dollars a year anymore. The top 1% of the lawyers in this country probably don't all make $1M/year. With very few exceptions, that kind of money only comes to two types of lawyers: (1) SUCCESSFUL personal injury lawyers and (2) white shoe firm partners who bring in the clients. The partners at the white shoe firms who do all the work, but don't bring in the clients typically don't even have an equity stake in the firm anymore. Plus, the partner track is usually 9 years now. So, if you took your LSATs this year, you might be up for partner in 13 years. A first year partner at most firms makes between $200K and $350K depending on the size of the market.

I don't mean to keep raining on your parade, it's just that this thread keeps going down roads that I am pretty familiar with. If you are young and want to give trading a try, by all means give it a try. As a young man with few or no obligations, what have you got to lose. Generally speaking, the traders I know are a lot happier than the lawyers (the lawyers all wish they had a mulligan). If it doesn't work out, you can try something else. It's just that you should be aware that both law and trading are long hard roads where the really big payoffs are not hanging low on the tree--like poker or anything else, I guess.

[turnipmonster]

[ QUOTE ]
True, but there's pretty much zero risk to law school. If I go to law school, I am nearly guaranteed to be making a million dollars a year 10 years from now, assuming that I work my butt off.


[/ QUOTE ]

seems to me like you might want to think about what your goals are, and then what the best way to achieve those goals is. I know lots of lawyers and none of them are making anywhere close to the figure you describe.

--turnipmonster

[johnfromvirginia]

I think your numbers are a little off. If you are trading for a firm, you are trading with their money. You have a 100% chance of getting paid at least your salary. You might not get a bonus and you might get fired, but you'll get your salary. 98% of daytraders fail within two years and by "fail" I mean they lose everything. "Everything" in this context, of course, refers to their money, not the firm's money. It is a very different scenario. When the Chicago trader who posted earlier said there's more heat involved in trading on your own, he knew what he was talking about. The risk/reward ratio is completely different. Like playing no limit hold em in a real cash game instead of a tournament where all you lose is your buy in. Probably worse, because like I said, as a desk trader, you have a 100% chance of being paid at least your salary.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, but there's pretty much zero risk to law school. If I go to law school, I am nearly guaranteed to be making a million dollars a year 10 years from now, assuming that I work my butt off.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is extremely naive. I graduated at the top of my class from a top law school and I know a LOT of hard working, well educated lawyers who are grinding it out and will never be rich. Furthermore, partners at top firms do not average a million dollars a year anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not serious. I worked for Skadden (not even the nyc office) in high school, and those partners were all making a million bucks. I saw the occasional EFT deposit stub, so I know what I say is true.

That said, I'm not interested in nitpicking over how much attorneys can make. I know what my opportunities would be in law.

[stoxtrader]

agreed. I don't plan on assigning well thought out numbers. there are too many variables.

[johnfromvirginia]

[ QUOTE ]
You're not serious. I worked for Skadden (not even the nyc office) in high school, and those partners were all making a million bucks. I saw the occasional EFT deposit stub, so I know what I say is true.

That said, I'm not interested in nitpicking over how much attorneys can make. I know what my opportunities would be in law.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bullshit. I've never seen a high school kid serving coffee at a firm like Skadden in any city and certainly not in any capacity that would give him the "occasional glance at an EFT." Furthermore, most (but not all) lawyers would agree that Skadden is the VERY BEST LAW FIRM IN THE WORLD. If you go to law school thinking that you can expect to do half as well as a Skadden partner then you are on crack kid. Skadden is the creme de la creme in every major city. They are not always considered true white shoe, but they are the most aggressive, most intelligent, top of their class and, above all, most highly compensated large firm lawyers in the world. The only lawyers that make more than the average skadden partner are the really lucky personal injury guys. However, partners in the next firm down the chain from Skadden make about half what the skadden guys make and the number three firm distributes less than that. You need to do some due diligence son. You're looking at Moneymaker and Raymer and thinking the average poker player must make a lot of money "if he works his ass off." The reason you're not interested in "nitpicking" about what your opportunities would be in the law is because you're a dreamer who has no idea what he's talking about, but who isn't interested in informed advice.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
Bullshit. I've never seen a high school kid serving coffee at a firm like Skadden in any city and certainly not in any capacity that would give him the "occasional glance at an EFT."

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, I can't believe you just called me a liar. That is outrageous. For what it's worth, I was a floating secretary for partners in the 5th largest Skadden office off and on for about 4 years. When I was new, I opened a few things that I shouldn't have, and I saw how much they made (it's actually pretty interesting the way the partners decide how much each partner gets).

It's amazing to me that you have made so many judgments about me based on a couple posts.

[johnfromvirginia]

Look, if you have really made a living playing poker for any length of time, then you are obviously intelligent. The inquiries and observations you have made about trading are not ridiculous, but your conclusions about the legal profession are. If you were really were a floater at Skadden, then nothing you saw there is a reasonable sample of anything outside of Skadden. It's a one of a kind firm in an also-ran profession full of dissatisfied also-ran lawyers. BTW, some of my friends from Georgetown are/were associates here at the New York office and last I heard, the partner track at Skadden was 10 or 11 years and about 1 out of every 10 new associates there makes partner. I bet it's easier to become a Navy SEAL. People go to work for Skadden so they can put it on their resume when they go somewhere else to try and make partner. They used to have a link on their website where former associates could go to keep in touch with each other because almost nobody who makes it through the front door makes it to the top floor. Just getting a job as an associate there is a major accomplishment. Making partner is not something anyone can reasonably assume they might accomplish--even at one of their smaller offices.

[djack]

I don't know why you have such incredulity for everything I say.

I'm pretty confident I could get hired at Skadden. I was pretty close to a few partners. Also, it's 8 years, not 10 or 11. Your 1 in 10 stat is pretty close though.

And yes, "Skadden alumni" do get an annual book with all Skadden alumni addresses. There are also occasional Skadden alumni events. Many of the other major firms do this as well.

Again, you just assumed I know nothing about the legal profession, when nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I was assuming that I would make partner at a major firm, but I don't think that is at all unreasonable for me. And yes, I know the statistics.

Why you just decided to call me a liar repeatedly is something that I neither understand or respect.

[johnfromvirginia]

[ QUOTE ]
Why you just decided to call me a liar repeatedly is something that I neither understand or respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was just once. The rest was just disagreement. I think it's hysterical that you take it so personally. I think it's even funnier that you think you know more about this subject than I because you were a floater off and on for four years. Kid, I AM A LAWYER AND MY BROTHER IS A TRADER. I have a JD and an LLM from top schools and I worked in M&A and corporate tax for one of the largest firms in the world for over seven years. My brother worked for a Wall Street firm for over 13 years. This started out as just me giving you what I thought was some good advice about something that I happen to know a little bit about, but it has evolved into you getting very offended because you don't like what I'm saying. How do you keep your cool at the card table?

Furthermore, I'll bet you every dollar you made at the card table last year that if you take everyone who made partner at Skadden this year and average out the number of years ago they graduated from law school, that number would be higher than 8 and would probably be closer to 10 and that number is increasing for the associates in later classes. The people who graduated with me in the class of 95 are just starting to make partner at the top firms. The only people who already made it went to small cities or smaller firms in big cities. My friends at Skadden now believe that the current first years will be associates for at least 10 years. There are always individual exceptions, but the fairways are getting longer all the time. But back to the original point (earlier in the thread) regardless of how long it takes, "hard work" will not make you a partner at Skadden. With very few exceptions, only the ability to bring in new clients will make you a partner there. So, unless your high school friends or your fraternity brothers are starting some companies and you can help take them public in 10 years, that door is shut to you and it always will be.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
The top 1% of the lawyers in this country probably don't all make $1M/year. With very few exceptions, that kind of money only comes to two types of lawyers: (1) SUCCESSFUL personal injury lawyers and (2) white shoe firm partners who bring in the clients. The partners at the white shoe firms who do all the work, but don't bring in the clients typically don't even have an equity stake in the firm anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. I assure you that partners at top firms average well more than $1mm. Partners at my firm average more than $2mm. And we don't do personal injury work.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, most (but not all) lawyers would agree that Skadden is the VERY BEST LAW FIRM IN THE WORLD.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Now that is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Seriously, are you even a lawyer? Skadden is ok, but I'm quite certain that if I asked anyone in my hallway what the "best law firm in the world" is and said that they couldn't pick ourselves, not one of them would say "Skadden".

[johnfromvirginia]

First, I'll concede that a lot of people who really know what they're talking about would choose a firm like Cravath or Sullivan & Cromwell as the best of the best. Despite what I said in my posts, I would. But you have to admit that if you didn't go to all the right schools and you're a greedy little bastard who played poker for a few years after graduating from college, an aggressive monster like Skadden is probably going to be at the top of your list (as I think it would be for a lot of people who went to schools where Cravath doesn't do on-campus interviews). There are a lot of things at which Skadden may be the top dog--like M&A and the complex financial derivative instrument du jour. But like I said, a LOT of people do not consider Skadden to be a white shoe firm.

Second, the average comp of the top firms is typically published (although, I can't imagine why) and when I left the business just over a year ago, at the time there were 15 firms in New York City whose partners averaged over $1M/ year. Those firms had a total of 1,850 partners. See http://www.nylawyer.com/news/03/01/012703c.html Note that at two of those firms, the average comp was only $1M+ for equity partners. It was under $1M for all partners, but I won't nit pick.) Now, I think you would agree that the lawyers in New York are the highest paid in the United States, if not the world. Do you have any idea how many lawyers there are in this country? About one out of every 200 people! When I was in law school, there were more people in law school than there were lawyers currently in practice. The stats I cited above are just the New York partners in the top 15 firms in the city. But let's say for the sake of argument that every partner at a top 100 firm in the United States made $1M/year (a laughable assumption). They would probably constitute less than 1/10th of 1% of the lawyers in this country. So, how do the rest of the top 1% make their 7 figure incomes? You're out of your mind.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I'll concede that a lot of people who really know what they're talking about would choose a firm like Cravath or Sullivan & Cromwell as the best of the best. Despite what I said in my posts, I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh...Most would say Wachtell or Boies or another boutique before they would say those. Although those are huge firms comparable to Skadden.

John, you've repeatedly called me a liar, offered me advice where I didn't asked for it, and generally condescended to me.

To everyone else who has (and might in the future) contribute to this thread, I thank you very much. Energy trading isn't a field with alot of literature written about it, so anything has been at least somewhat helpful.

John, your advice isn't helpful.

[johnfromvirginia]

Of course my advice isn't helpful, I don't know what I'm talking about. BTW, Wachtell is a firm "like Cravath or Sully."

My advice about trading is a sort of "informed conjecture." I know a lot of traders, but I've never been a trader. My advice about law school can be summed up in one sentence: Don't go to law school unless you are absolutely certain that you want to be a lawyer for reasons that have little or nothing to do with money. If you do decide to go to law school, I hope you print out this thread, seal it in an envelope and open it after you've been in practice for about 2 years or so because if you're like 95% of the rest of us that went to law school, it'll be among the worst decisions you ever made even if you do really well.

[Poker blog]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, Wachtell is a firm "like Cravath or Sully."

[/ QUOTE ]
In terms of prestige, Wachtell is way better.

[PS. When arguing Skadden itra-politics, you should know
more Skadden partners or associates....I'm just saying. One or the other would be helpful to your argument. Especially since I've worked in 3 Skadden offices.]

Honestly though, I'm not interested in your opinions of law firms. I turned down UVALaw last year because I wasn't sure.

The only thing I'm interested in is knowledge and advice on how to get into energy trading. I think I have a few ins, but I'd love to hear about more.

[johnfromvirginia]

[ QUOTE ]
This is undoubtably an idiotic question, but why would anyone prefer trading for a firm to trading just for themselves? I guess I could see how capital issues could become a problem for the individual trader, but barring that, why give up the extra money if you already have capital to work with?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an idiotic question. I wondered that for years. I'm not a trader, but from what I've picked up from the many traders I know is that "desk traders" and "day traders" are really completely different animals and desk traders have certain advantages that day traders don't have. For example, a market maker is required to buy and sell the securities on his list (to help create a market). He can also take positions in the stocks on his list, but as a market maker, he is buying from people who want to sell and selling from people who want to buy. So, he buys on the sell side and sells on the buy side. So, the same way you get screwed when you buy a stock and immediately lose the gap between the bid and the ask even if the price hasn't budged a penny, the MM enters the same transaction and immediately makes money on the gap between the bid and the ask even though the price hasn't budged because bought on the bid and he's going to sell on the ask. Even if he never accumulates a position in a stock, he can usually make money just creating a market and taking a little taste of every share that moves on and off his books. Also, MMs and other desk traders have access to a lot more information than a typical day trader--or at least they used to. I don't know if this is necessarily true anymore. Day traders can buy access to an awful lot of info these days.

Fund traders don't get the same advantages that market makers get, but they have their own set of advantages. First, they have a huge amount of capital to work with and they can apply a lot of pressure to the banks to get what they want. But the main advantage is that they start out with a massive fee from the fund and then they get a percentage of whatever the fund makes. So, in a bad year (when the fund loses money) the team that manages the fund might make enough from their fee to pay all their overhead and distribute a small bonus to the fund managers and any guys that did particularly well. In a good year, the year-end bonuses would make your head spin.

But regardless of what kind of desk you are working on, I think the biggest difference is that a desk trader isn't putting his own money at risk. If he loses money, he might lose his job; if he makes money, he'll get a percentage of the upside. The day trader is laying down his own coin on every trade. Even if you have the capital to do it, that's a lot of heat--even for seasoned poker vets like ourselves /images/graemlins/laugh.gif