Search results

Then it won't be too hard to wait for the range to end and the trend to start. But really, a range has a probable end, a trend doesn't. No trend will continue for ever, but isn't it better being in something that might continue for a longer time than something that will probably end after a...

No. I'd like to buy above the bottom of a pull-back in the higher time-frame uptrend.

Yes, I think its wrong too. But I also think its wrong to buy at the bottom of a range. Or anywhere in a range. But that's just me.

There's 2 types of losses - one where you did everything within the rules of your strategy but the market took the route of lower probability, the other where you did not follow a strategy. One you cannot avoid and should therefore be ignored. The other must be avoided and you should stop...

Are there some conclusions possible? 1. We all trade using different approaches 2. Multiple different approaches can be made to work 3. Mostly we found a successful approach after trying multiple other approaches which we thought would work for us - and which didn't 4. Most of the successful...

That would mean 5 figures. Actually, I've been having a good run..............

In December 2010, Nine_Ender was right about 3 things - 1. the market was bullish 2. this could last until late 2012 3. only dumb money would be playing against the trend 1 - yes, though any kid with a chart could see that 2 - yes, though the market had been strongly bullish already for 21...

Conventional long-term buy-and-hold makes sense if you have a large portfolio that generates dividend income. Most of the shares selected will be blue chips in resilient sectors, so their companies should continue to prosper, and their share prices increase over the long run, important as it...

Is this from a Chinese fortune cookie?

Then you will fail.

I never work out what the distribution is, it might even start asymmetrical like yours, but then I'm adding additional positions to the winning markets so that the ratio of winners increases dramatically. e.g. prior to December I had 5 parallel trades on the Dow, right now I have 3 on the Nasdaq...

The obstacle cannot, just cannot, be recognising what is a trend.

Always set a stop-loss for every trade as soon as you open it. Preferably enter a trade vi a n order to take advantage of technical confirmation of your hypothesis and set the SL at the same time as you set the order. This eliminates heat of the moment errors too. BTW, if you try to set a SL...

Forgive me for saying this, but yes I thought you might say that. What makes you think you need to "catch up" so that you make money each and every day?

By the law of averages, some trades will be losers. But suspending trading makes it seem like these were errors or were not allowed for in the planning stage or went to unexpected depths of loss. Surely these things can'st be right? So why stop trading?

I had a career unrelated to trading and several unrelated jobs after I became disillusioned with that. I'm now enjoying early retirement (second time round actually). Some of these jobs are mildly interesting but the common thread through all is that they gave me virtually 100% the wrong...

I also believe in putting in the whole position at the first signal, that is, the maximum % of account capital I can stand, and many people use the familiar 2% rule for this. What I am talking about is not scaling in. But I did try to put over clearly that although multiple positions are opened...

And a 3rd signal? And a 4th? And a 5th? What about a trend that doesn't give any additional entry opportunities? These aren't academic or stroppy questions, I was holding 5 long positions on the Dow before Christmas. It is possible to be more aggressive without taking additional risk.

Who does this help in trading and how?

Good points mate. I can only ask (again), who has made the money out of the US stock indices' trend since 2009, the trend-followers or the reversal chasers?