Search results

i prefer to be bored. trading should not be exciting. trading should be profitable. my best trading is when i am dispassionate and precise if you are looking for excitement, you are probably not cut out for trading imo. don't seek excitement. seek consistent gains, with small defined...

i need to qualify my last statement. i am specifically referring to futures trading. futures trading, the pitfalls of poor money management, discipline, etc. are more dangerous imo than stocks, because of the increased leverage and the nature of these markets

no, the #1 reason traders fail is NOT edge because even WITH edge, a trader with poor emotional control, risk management, and money management is almost certain to fail you can have positive expectancy setups, but if you don't have the discipline to stick with them (even when they are not...

look, i train traders. im well aware of how and why they fail. it is not because trading is complex it is for a host of psychological/risk management/money management/emotional reasons, primarily it is not rocket science. it's really not

there is a difference between SIMPLE and EASY trading is not EASY it *is* simple. don't get me wrong, you can do all sorts of advanced analysis, spreads, etc. etc. etc. but it is NOT rocket science some of the best traders ever have not (necessarily) been super cerebral...

breadth and internals are key (to my trading methodology) when it comes to futures/index trading thus, comparison between breadth, various indexes (both equal weighted and cap weighted and even price weighted) is instructive

exactly. for example. DIA and YM move (generally) in concert. they have to, due to arbs. however DIA is part of a non-zero sum game (the stock market) YM is part of a zero sum game it is 100% correct that whether or not you are in a zerosum game says little to nothing about...

i think we basically agree, just concentrating on different points my point is that (and this is something i have learned from studying psychology, as well as training traders) is that concentrating on, expecting, etc. big gains (getting rich) is one of the surest paths to trader failure...

"The game ain't over until your broke or rich" trading is a business. i don't open a business in order to go broke, and i don't expect to (although it would be nice) grow rich trying to make outsize gains/greed/going for huge returns is one of the most dangerous psychological traps for...

AGAIN, it's a structure question if each position has an offsetting position, it's a zero sum market. if that is not the case, then its not a zero sum market. a zero sum market HAS to have the same amount of money won by positions to offset the amount lost by offsetting positions. if...

but every long contract has to have a corresponding short. it is the nature of a zero sum game just like every call you buy has to have a call writer, (who is thus short a call). these are created out of thin air. it's not a stock. it's an agreement. you have to have TWO sides to...

correction on my last post. in a zero sum game, any # of participants can win money (95% for example), but the AMOUNT of money won by the winners NECESSARILY equals the amount lost. to clarify

let's also not MAKE UP TERMS zero sum means something because it has been invented and defined as a part of game theory (try actually studying game theory). "negative sum" is meaningless. what you mean is commonly referred to as (as the previous poster mentioned) negative EXPECTANCY...

"Trading is a minus sum game" again, false. first of all, there is no such thing as a "minus sum game" according to game theory, but what you mean is that in futures - which is a zero sum game - if you INCLUDE commissions, more money is lost than won, since the exact amount of money won...

you people have no historical perspective i said this months ago... the idea that oil prices and indexes have an inverse correlation is recent only. it work(ed) like a charm so people (naive) assume its a market reality. it's not in the LONG term, oil prices and equity indexes have...

iow, when u look at all markets that trade in the dow complex the DIA etf the underlying dow stocks (NYSE) DIA single stock futures YM futures big dow futures dow pit contract options on dow futures options on DIA etc. etc. as an aggregate market, that is clearly NOT zero sum...

derivatives are zero sum a greater system (a derivatives market aggregated with an equities market) is not here is how it works derivatives = zero sum market aggregated market (derivative market + equites market) =/= zero sum again, it is a structure of market issue the fact...

"Of course you can count EVERYONE on the planet as players, then it is ALWAYS a zero sum game unless you're trading Galactic Credits with Aliens..." false. you still don't understand market structure you CANNOT by the nature of the market have more $ won in futures than lost...

"This is simply not true, because trading is not a zero sum game... this is true even for derivatives such as futures and options... and successful traders all know about that..." for derivatives it is, and cannot be other than a zero sum game. that's basic math for equities, it is...

"I do not suggest using 24hr data for MP even on currencies. It is best to split the sessions and treat each one as its own profile. " i respectfully disagree, with the caveat that when u use 24 hr data you must use volume TPO's not time TPO's (irealize "time TPO is redundant but u know what...