It could imply he's still learning and has realized what he needs to learn can't be found at one single source. Thus, he's developing a complete picture about what he thinks is needed to be a successful trader via many different resources.
Al Brooks, I apologize..
- Thread starter MarketAddict
- Start date
It could imply he's still learning and has realized what he needs to learn can't be found at one single source. Thus, he's developing a complete picture about what he thinks is needed to be a successful trader via many different resources.
I enjoyed this from Moniod:
(A) I really don't understand why one independent trader needs to evaluate another independent trader. Is it because for a trader to agree with another trader, one needs confirmation that a trader is really a successful trader? Imagine the situation we would run into if a star NFL quarterback refused to listen to his coach for the sole reason that the coach was not a successful NFL quarterback. Yet, this seems to reoccur again and again here.
(B) Or, is it because traders in ET are skeptical about others' success? If that is the case, then any amount of "supporting documents" is not enough. One can always, and for valid reason, ask for more confirmation. My question is (rhetorical of course), if one does not believe in a claim made by a trader, why not just ignore that trader and move on? Why all the rattling and finger pointing? If one is claiming success by lying, it is the liar's problem not the listener's, isn't it?
(C) In any account, returns of an independent trader are not meaningful to another independent trader. It seems to me that what another independent trader should be interested is in a trader's expectancy -- not the size but the direction: Is the independent trader having a positive or negative expectancy. Note: This expectancy can be defined only based on the trader's period 'cos that is what makes sense to that trader.
When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, most probably it is a duck. But the problem is one needs to be aware how a duck sounds, and how a duck walks before one can make the above inference. Maybe that is the problem here. Not very many people have seen ducks or are ducks themselves, so they have problems making the inference!
(A) I really don't understand why one independent trader needs to evaluate another independent trader. Is it because for a trader to agree with another trader, one needs confirmation that a trader is really a successful trader? Imagine the situation we would run into if a star NFL quarterback refused to listen to his coach for the sole reason that the coach was not a successful NFL quarterback. Yet, this seems to reoccur again and again here.
(B) Or, is it because traders in ET are skeptical about others' success? If that is the case, then any amount of "supporting documents" is not enough. One can always, and for valid reason, ask for more confirmation. My question is (rhetorical of course), if one does not believe in a claim made by a trader, why not just ignore that trader and move on? Why all the rattling and finger pointing? If one is claiming success by lying, it is the liar's problem not the listener's, isn't it?
(C) In any account, returns of an independent trader are not meaningful to another independent trader. It seems to me that what another independent trader should be interested is in a trader's expectancy -- not the size but the direction: Is the independent trader having a positive or negative expectancy. Note: This expectancy can be defined only based on the trader's period 'cos that is what makes sense to that trader.
When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, most probably it is a duck. But the problem is one needs to be aware how a duck sounds, and how a duck walks before one can make the above inference. Maybe that is the problem here. Not very many people have seen ducks or are ducks themselves, so they have problems making the inference!
Good post.. I think why people ask for proof is because they probably aren't successful yet.. And they probably need some type confidence or motivation to continue be a trader.. I used to think like that so this is why I can say this with confidence..
It took me a while to figure this out, but once I realized this, it became easy to tell those who have achieved what for them amounts to success from those who are still struggling or given up on trading (but not posting). You can tell by the character of one's posts, especially the manner in which they are critical of others, if they are successful or not. There is a difference between debate and discussion (two successful people can disagree with one another and look for common ground) and trolling.
Yes he does focus a lot on bar by bar, and this why I said his stuff didn't make sense to me until I was able to read market behavior (context).. I can't stress this so much.. If you want to become successful you have to be able to read behavior.. No system, no ideas, no trade set up will ever help you if you don't know how to read the market.. Back in the days I would be scared to go counter trend, but now I don't really care.. If the market tells me to counter trend i will counter trend... And guess what? If my trade doesn't work out who cares.. Do you know why? Because most likely there's another HIGH probability trade right after that allows me to get back in the trend.. It takes a lot of screen time, a lot losses, a lot of depress days, a lot of blown accounts to get to that level..
Is it ok for someone to pull out a gun and shoot into a crowd? Most people would say no it's not ok.. But the people that understand context wouldn't say no.. They would say it all depends on the situation.. Was he/she being attacked? Did someone else pull out a gun first?
I see a pin bar, triangle, trendline break.. Should I take the trade? It all depends on the situation..
Disagree with those who think someone should not post their P&L,when making claims to a method that has turned their trading around. Yes,the need for tangible proof may be requested by those still seeking,or it may be by those who know the proof is in the pudding.
IMHO,posting outstanding verifiable trading results has massive upside with zero downside.
IMHO,posting outstanding verifiable trading results has massive upside with zero downside.
And how exactly does knowing someone else's trading results improve one's own unless one knows the trading plan? And if one knows the trading plan, what difference does it make whether someone else or no one else had success with it as one is perfectly capable of finding out for himself?
Would you rather learn from a successful millionare trader with proven results or would you rather learn from a failed trader who's never earned money in the market place?
They just keep raising their hands.
Not for me.
The thing is that I know for a FACT that there have been at least ONE guy on this site who is NOT successful as a trader, yet he made people believe he was and he took on a guru role and wanted to teach others. If one guy did it, is it unlikely to think that a lot of other people do the same? And what do we have then? We have a situation where the blind is leading the blind.
If you want to teach others, I think you should be honest about your results. Even if you are a loser, I can still learn from you and share ideas, but why would you hide the fact that you're a loser? In the commercial scene, I can recall for instance that Van Tharp has been honest about not being a trader himself. It doesn't mean he's useless as a coach (I have no idea).
When I was more active here and used to post a lot in the ES journal, I would often get PMs from guys who wanted to share ideas or teach from me and I would always be honest about the fact that I was not yet wildly successful. I couldn't dream of leading people astray in that manner and have them risk their money due to my ideas or opinion.