Advice to all newbies

[Laissez Faire]

I agree with you on everything there except I've never back tested when you do you get results that you would not have necessarily got and you feel differently about them then you would have when the thing was live and you were doing it. I've only ever forward tested

I would argue both is needed.

If you're only forward testing it would take you one full year to experience one full year of trading.

If you're back-testing/back-checking intensely, you can in theory and practice go through 10 years in the same amount of time you're just watching a live chart for one year. So, only forward testing may not be the most efficient use of your time.

The best is to do both, IMHO.

 

[Steve777]

I would argue both is needed.

If you're only forward testing it would take you one full year to experience one full year of trading.

If you're back-testing/back-checking intensely, you can in theory and practice go through 10 years in the same amount of time you're just watching a live chart for one year. So, only forward testing may not be the most efficient use of your time.

The best is to do both, IMHO.

You would never do what you do in a simulation versus real life I just I don't advise it I actually disavow any purely mechanical strategy that could even be postulated to be evaluated in such a manner but that's the great thing about freedom

 

[Laissez Faire]

You would never do what you do in a simulation versus real life I just I don't advise it I actually disavow any purely mechanical strategy that could even be postulated to be evaluated in such a manner but that's the great thing about freedom

Of course not. Which is why I said both is needed.

If you can't master and understand yesterday's market on a historical chart, there's no way you'll understand tomorrow's market on a live chart.

It's no different from how a pilot will start out in a simulator. There's a learning curve here.

Back in the day I would back-test historical days bar-by-bar by starting at the start of the day and scrolling one bar to the right per time 'taking signals' and making notes. It was NoDoji who used to post here who gave me the idea, so giving credit where credit is due. In a short amount of time I went through an incredible amount of market days learning much more than if I were simply spending 6 1/2 hours to experience one full market day.

I think that for a newbie this is a way to fast-track your learning. Spend 6 months doing this and crafting a method. Then start forward testing it. Or even do both simultaneously if you have the passion and drive.

To this day I'm still logging every single day/week and doing market studies. It's really the only way to learn and stay sharp.

You really can't be a follower in trading. You need to be 100 % independent and that only comes through your own work. No shortcuts.

 

[Darc]

So you have been figured out a critical thing, the single reason why 95% of the traders lose, yet you are still among the 95% of losing traders, after 20 years.

You aren't in a position to advice others on what to do, the only thing you are an example of is what NOT to do.

Padu teaches a lot of Brooks material, with his own experiences added in. This is very good of him.

Whether you are a better Trader or not, Padu is the better contributor.

Give him a break please.

 

[Steve777]

Of course not. Which is why I said both is needed.

If you can't master and understand yesterday's market on a historical chart, there's no way you'll understand tomorrow's market on a live chart.

It's no different from how a pilot will start out in a simulator. There's a learning curve here.

Back in the day I would back-test historical days bar-by-bar by starting at the start of the day and scrolling one bar to the right per time 'taking signals' and making notes. It was NoDoji who used to post here who gave me the idea, so giving credit where credit is due. In a short amount of time I went through an incredible amount of market days learning much more than if I were simply spending 6 1/2 hours to experience one full market day.

I think that for a newbie this is a way to fast-track your learning. Spend 6 months doing this and crafting a method. Then start forward testing it. Or even do both simultaneously if you have the passion and drive.

To this day I'm still logging every single day/week and doing market studies. It's really the only way to learn and stay sharp.

You really can't be a follower in trading. You need to be 100 % independent and that only comes through your own work. No shortcuts.

Okay and well let me re-specify that in some sense I don't oppose backtesting because I did some myself and I did the high frequency trading experiment I devised a simulator which would actually operate a order bookmark it and then it took a lot of work to actually reproduce the results of the paper and I took it live and I also did try to do some simulation with buy reconstructing the actual order book but it turns out that it's tremendously difficult to maintain the state of such things because even though you may be a small fry and not big compared to the market due to it being so much unaccounted for things in the simulation I would advise not getting too cocky based on that because when I went live it turned out that even 60 microseconds response time I was still getting smoked by the other entrenched players and so I wound down that experiment and I actually had a cough and so I grabbed a bottle of Vicks vapor rub and it made me think of VIX and so well anyway the rest is history. But back testing in a sense were given the sample path of history which results as the as the deck is dealt as the day goes by on whatever security it may be but if you try to simulate what you would have done it just it'll never work I mean I guess you got to fly in the flat simulator before you go out to war that's true I guess I did a lot of my back testing in my head with theory and looking at charts but I found that any mechanical solution or programmatic solution inevitably gave results that differed so much from the real thing it is good trading against maybe a simulated market because that's the real process it reacts to wars and famine and s*** like that and a random number generator can't generate those sort of exogenous shocks and however market participants might react to them and stuff like that but I've just thought the premises ridiculous of back testing something because that implies that you could go and mechanically do whatever you ended up doing that inevitably which in some you can but you cannot get perfectly back to that thing it's kind of like the no cloning theorem in quantum mechanics

 

[Laissez Faire]

Okay and well let me re-specify that in some sense I don't oppose backtesting because I did some myself and I did the high frequency trading experiment I devised a simulator which would actually operate a order bookmark it and then it took a lot of work to actually reproduce the results of the paper and I took it live and I also did try to do some simulation with buy reconstructing the actual order book but it turns out that it's tremendously difficult to maintain the state of such things because even though you may be a small fry and not big compared to the market due to it being so much unaccounted for things in the simulation I would advise not getting too cocky based on that because when I went live it turned out that even 60 microseconds response time I was still getting smoked by the other entrenched players and so I wound down that experiment and I actually had a cough and so I grabbed a bottle of Vicks vapor rub and it made me think of VIX and so well anyway the rest is history

100 % true.

The reality is that even if you have a profitable system you may not be able to execute it in real time with actual money on the line. Trading is rigged against human nature and only the few can actually do what's required with money on the line.

Of course, most people don't even have a profitable method.

It took me a long while to start trading my own method fully. Tuesday this week I took home 120 points on the short side. It's not that long ago I would have taken 5-10 points on the same trade and watch the market helplessly go to my target without me.

The truth is most people are better off forgetting about trading. The cost of making it is just too high. It's a poor investment in your time when there are easier alternatives to make money.

 

[Steve777]

100 % true.

The reality is that even if you have a profitable system you may not be able to execute it in real time with actual money on the line. Trading is rigged against human nature and only the few can actually do what's required with money on the line.

Of course, most people don't even have a profitable method.

It took me a long while to start trading my own method fully. Tuesday this week I took home 120 points on the short side. It's not that long ago I would have taken 5-10 points on the same trade and watch the market helplessly go to my target without me.

The truth is most people are better off forgetting about trading. The cost of making it is just too high. It's a poor investment in your time when there are easier alternatives to make money.

Indeed someone asked me teach me everything you know I said haha I laughed I said let me do it for you... I need to get some cards.. this one fellow wanted to know how to trade so I showed him a screen and was like yeah that's my daily p&l and he asked what I had to risk to gain that and when I pointed to that column dude nearly passed out they just don't know what it takes so I agree totally with what you said

 

[p0box4]

Padu teaches a lot of Brooks material, with his own experiences added in. This is very good of him.

Whether you are a better Trader or not, Padu is the better contributor.

Give him a break please.

I'd prefer being a better trader over a better contributor every single day, one pays the bills, the other does nothing.

Also, I wouldn't say he's a better contributor either, he might contribute more, but the value of his contributions are below average.

 

[Robert Morse]

I agree. In addition I rarely see back testing match real trading and "oddly" real trading is never a higher profit and almost always lower. And 10 years to study trading with no income sound like getting a PHD with loans to carry you over, only to work a job making $30K per year. Except maybe being a surgeon, no study should take 10 years before you can make it work.
Perfectionism is fear: Michael Law said, "At its root, perfectionism isn't really about a deep love of being meticulous. It's about fear. Fear of making a mistake. Fear of disappointing others. Fear of failure. Fear of success" (Yes, I used Search Labs | AI to find a good quote. I'm not that well-read)

I agree with you on everything there except I've never back tested when you do you get results that you would not have necessarily got and you feel differently about them then you would have when the thing was live and you were doing it. I've only ever forward tested

 

[Steve777]

I agree. In addition I rarely see back testing match real trading and "oddly" real trading is never a higher profit and almost always lower. And 10 years to study trading with no income sound like getting a PHD with loans to carry you over, only to work a job making $30K per year. Except maybe being a surgeon, no study should take 10 years before you can make it work.
Perfectionism is fear: Michael Law said, "At its root, perfectionism isn't really about a deep love of being meticulous. It's about fear. Fear of making a mistake. Fear of disappointing others. Fear of failure. Fear of success" (Yes, I used Search Labs | AI to find a good quote. I'm not that well-read)

When I say since 1999, that's not like adding linearly, by the way. I'm not sure if one could actually. Well, I've always wondered how the whole the academic system operated. I'm an outsider, but I don't why they should have to study for years under this arduous system. And then I see job postings like paying 20 to 30k for a educated people. So I I don't get involved in that, I guess. I mean, I don't really have to.

To answer this question accurately, we'd need to analyze data on a large number of music producers and their career trajectories. However, I can provide some general insights based on common patterns in the music industry:

1. Varied timelines: The time to commercial success can vary greatly, from a few months for some exceptionally lucky or well-connected individuals to decades for others.

2. Average range: Many successful producers spend around 5-10 years honing their craft before achieving significant commercial success.

3. 10,000-hour rule: This concept, popularized by Malcolm Gladwell, suggests that mastery in a field often requires about 10,000 hours of dedicated practice. For a full-time producer, this could translate to about 5 years of work.

4. Networking factor: Success often depends not just on skill, but also on building industry connections, which can take several years.

5. Technological changes: With the rise of digital technology and online platforms, some producers now find success more quickly than in previous decades.

6. Definition of success: The definition of "commercial success" can vary widely, from producing a chart-topping hit to consistently making a living from production work.

7. Genre differences: The timeline might differ depending on the genre. Electronic music producers, for example, might find success more quickly than those in more traditional genres.

It's important to note that these are generalizations. Individual experiences can vary significantly based on factors like talent, opportunity, location, and luck. If you need more precise data, you might want to look for industry surveys or academic studies on music producer career trajectories.



Same difference