A message to some day traders.

go read your past posts in this thread looks like u lack memory as well.
No I don't, move along. The topic was about technical analysis and how it revolves around prediction. Betting is a different discussion.
 
I was never fooled by technical analysis, fortunately.

Good luck.

Don't get caught with one of these...


XIV%20LT_0.jpg


That upward momentum tho...yikes.
I’d love to get caught with one of these. Marvelous money maker...ATM machine IF you know what you are doing which you apparently don’t because you fear the little black swan. They are some of the FASTEST money maker. Don’t believe it is a super fast money maker? Well just look to the far left then let the eyes scan to the right and up to just before the drop. Now look at the “time needed” to build the wonderful trend. Next look at the drop. Straight down almost. Finally look at the time for the drop. Conclusion: drop was fast .. very fast. The short term trader wins. The long term long trend trader is ...shall I say ...trying to clean his underwear. All your examples are actually destroying your premise...but you can’t see it. Black swans are WONDERFUL for the short-term trader. Disastrous for the long-term trader. But your head is stuck.
 
I’d love to get caught with one of these. Marvelous money maker...ATM machine IF you know what you are doing which you apparently don’t because you fear the little black swan. They are some of the FASTEST money maker. Don’t believe it is a super fast money maker? Well just look to the far left then let the eyes scan to the right and up to just before the drop. Now look at the “time needed” to build the wonderful trend. Next look at the drop. Straight down almost. Finally look at the time for the drop. Conclusion: drop was fast .. very fast. The short term trader wins. The long term long trend trader is ...shall I say ...trying to clean his underwear. All your examples are actually destroying your premise...but you can’t see it. Black swans are WONDERFUL for the short-term trader. Disastrous for the long-term trader. But your head is stuck.

Stop talking to yourself and contribute something useful. You post sounds like its coming from a crackhead.

I’d love to know what it is you think I am saying. Clearly a couple of you have strawmanned the argument in your heads and are stuck up Mr. Markets arse believing you can see all the sh*t in there.

Ulta got hit with an highly unpredictable, extreme event end of August that every model on planet earth wouldn’t have predicted. Were you there afterwards? Options on 260 strike went up 98,000% or so.

Same with 3M. Worst day in 30 years, a quarter or two ago. Hope you were there cleaning up.

You’re all talk, punk.

Did I say black swans weren’t wonderful? They can be very serendipitous.

Edit: but if they occur, to the downside, in the DIA/SPY/QQQ, you’ll have people committing suicide in real life, etc, as a result. So tread carefully when talking about the impact of a black swan and how great your P&L will be. It is what it is.

 
Last edited:
OP I doubt u ever traded in your life.
if u did then u would know "predict" is the wrong word to represent trading.
The right word is "bet".
View attachment 209739

The classic difference is the person trading assume that he can be wrong from the get go. Each trading entry defined with SL/Risk without that u cannot trade.
It also an acknowledgement u are trading the unknown Or in your terminology randomness.
You need not be GOD and all knowing info to trade the unknown and make money.People have been trading the unknown since ages thats why it is called taking risk. if somebody is GOD and have complete INFO then they will acquire entire planet money in a few trades.
there trade will be riskless ..technically it can't be called trading anymore.

If a person long say @ $100 with SL $90 and some black swan happens and the instrument goes to 0. guess what the person took $10 loss(assuming it is liquid enough and no overnight trading) and not more which is what he has already planned and defined as part his system.
nice explanation
 
If a person long say @ $100 with SL $90 and some black swan happens and the instrument goes to 0. guess what the person took $10 loss(assuming it is liquid enough and no overnight trading) and not more which is what he has already planned and defined as part his system.
False. Ever heard of gap risk? I wouldn't put SL into the same box as defined risk such as a option that has its max loss truly capped. SL has failed people many times where it would've mattered the most. SL is not equivalent to a defined risk. Tread carefully.

A stop-loss can fail as a loss limitation tool because hitting the stop price triggers a sale but does not guarantee the price at which the sale occurs.

Also your SL explanation implies trades are placed continuously when they're discrete. (One trade. Next trade. Another trade. Nothing. Another trade. So traded stock prices exist at discrete points in time.) And you assumed if it is liquid enough, liquidity can vanish at any moment. The picture your painting is an illusion.

1-signal-and-systems-basics-5-638.jpg
 
Last edited:
When, how and how many is for you and me a random event, tottaly depended on the participants of the moment and what they think.

If the activity of the traders who transact after we take a position (who therefore move price and determine our P&L) is not knowable, why would we trade? Surely we'd expect a net loss of the spread + fees?
 
nice explanation
His response committed 2 strawmans and assumes that gap risk doesn't exist. I don't know what is so nice about his explanation.

Edit: And he labels a SL as defined risk when it isn't really. --> "A stop-loss can fail as a loss limitation tool because hitting the stop price triggers a sale but does not guarantee the price at which the sale occurs."

It also assumes that continous-time when it is more discrete (One trade. Next trade. Another trade. Nothing. Another trade. So traded stock prices exist at discrete points in time.)

His post is misleading to an innocent passerbyer with its misguided implications.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top