Then you should understand stochastic processes, Wiener processes and Ito's lemma. The challenge is the noise term usually dominates, but...
It is OK to give up. Have a good day sir.
Almost everyone is lying. Because there's no such...
- Thread starter DeadTrader
- Start date
It is OK to give up. Have a good day sir.
There is a legendary grain trader that was having million dollar days back in the 60's - he was still trading at 85. In his last interview he spoke about being a student of the market & still learning about himself as a trader. The hallmark of the great traders, always the student.
Trading is not easy, it's a long hard road - you have to expect to fail before you succeed. Trading requires an unconditional persistence that very few have, not to mention a lot of disposable cash.
Any advanced skill takes many years to get really good at it - to get to the expert level 10 years is probably the low bar. A beginner electrician or plumber for example is an apprentice their first 5 years, it takes them 7-10 years to be able to be able to pass the 'Master' licensing test.
The few traders that carve out a decent living from it typically have 5-10+ years of experience - and there are some traders with 10+ years at it that are still not profitable.
Trading is not easy, it's a long hard road - you have to expect to fail before you succeed. Trading requires an unconditional persistence that very few have, not to mention a lot of disposable cash.
Any advanced skill takes many years to get really good at it - to get to the expert level 10 years is probably the low bar. A beginner electrician or plumber for example is an apprentice their first 5 years, it takes them 7-10 years to be able to be able to pass the 'Master' licensing test.
The few traders that carve out a decent living from it typically have 5-10+ years of experience - and there are some traders with 10+ years at it that are still not profitable.
Last edited:
No offense, but this post is even worse than your initial one in showing your ignorance about what it takes to be successful in trading.
You have a host of people here who took the time to post to let know it's a skill that takes much time and effort to learn - yet you ignored all that and then jumped to baseless conclusion that trading successfully isn't possible for anyone.
The truth is you have ultra unrealistic expectations about what it should take to learn about trading and you ignore advice from others that have put in much more time than you.
Trading is NOT a simple computer game where you can get quickly get familiar with the game patterns. You're not trading a sim, you're trading live action and people don't act like bots running through identical patterns over and over.
If you're such a "great" coder or game player, lets see how you stack up against champion e-sport game players that make their living by playing games. If games are so easy you should be able to also make a living by winning those champion gaming tournaments right? Better yet, write an algol AI that lets you play better than the top players.
You demand to see proof of others trading success but no one here owes you anything and their profitability won't be affected one bit whether you believe them or not.
If you had bothered to do your due diligence research before jumping headlong into trading, you wouldn't need to ask for a successful example of trading and would have discovered Renaissance Medallion fund - a quant fund that has earned double digit returns EVERY YEAR for DECADES. If the market is random, how are they achieving that? And no, they are NOT just making a 1% return like supposedly "everyone told you" was the case.
If you don't believe you can succeed in trading, then you can try something else. It's a difficult field to master and few achieve it. But it's the height of egoism/narcissism to think that just because you weren't able to figure it out in a pittance time of 2 years then it can't be done and that anyone that claims to be successful must be lying. Don't be one of those people who feel the need to try to project their failures onto others.
You completely contradicted yourself. You berate the reference to computer games but then make a 180 and talk about competitive e-sports....
Actually the reference to computer games is a valid one, imo. Equal to a computer game anyone can quickly get into trading. The entry barriers are lower than in any other profession. The rules of engagement are easily understood and the complexities are almost absent. But to consistently win at a high level against other highly competitive players in the game and market alike, it requires a specific DNA makeup to start with, years of practice and hard work. Most will never be able to compete on such levels. A majority will blow out time and again and die and retry. A few understand they can't compete in this game and just invest long term, which is similar to someone playing a game with the difficulty level set to easy.
And markets are near random, successful players understand this and found their edge and push that edge in the few times markets are inefficient. I think it does not take a beginner who gave up after 2 years to confirm that most on this site are not profitable traders and even many of those who claim they are, are not and never will be.
Actually the reference to computer games is a valid one, imo. Equal to a computer game anyone can quickly get into trading. The entry barriers are lower than in any other profession. The rules of engagement are easily understood and the complexities are almost absent. But to consistently win at a high level against other highly competitive players in the game and market alike, it requires a specific DNA makeup to start with, years of practice and hard work. Most will never be able to compete on such levels. A majority will blow out time and again and die and retry. A few understand they can't compete in this game and just invest long term, which is similar to someone playing a game with the difficulty level set to easy.
And markets are near random, successful players understand this and found their edge and push that edge in the few times markets are inefficient. I think it does not take a beginner who gave up after 2 years to confirm that most on this site are not profitable traders and even many of those who claim they are, are not and never will be.
Last edited:
What I said isn't a contradiction. He stated learning to trade wasn't the same level as difficulty in learning a language- and more like a computer game that is "easier" to learn and comprehend all the basics. There are indeed computer games where this is true. My statement is pointing out trading is NOT like one of these relatively simple computer games than can be mastered quickly by looking for the obvious patterns.
Then I referenced e-sports games to make it a more equivalent comparison to what trading is like. The fact is he is not likely to "master" an e-sport game to make money any easier than succeeding in trading.
Knowing the rules of trading and how to open trades is the same as learning the rules of any game. That was not what the OP was referring to. I disagree on there being little/minimum complexities. Of course there are massive complexities- that's what determines people who play for fun and people who play well enough to earn a living. The OP did not pay others to learn how to trade to learn about the "rules" - he wanted to get help on the complexities.
Knowing how to play well is the at the heart of mastering the complexities of the game. The OP is NOT saying trading is hard and not many will succeed. He's now saying it's just not possible for anyone. Using the OP's logic, if he isn't able to play a game at the level of e-sports champions, then no one is and they must be cheating or lying.
Incorrect. By mathematical definition, it's a 0/1 situation- either the market is random or it isn't. There is no such thing as "partial" or "near" random.
He is not saying "most". Re-read his latest post I responded to. He is now saying that trading successfully is impossible to ALL, and that anyone claiming otherwise MUST be lying, simply because he isn't able to do it and doesn't personally know anyone who can. Even if he spent 10 years coming to that conclusion he'd be wrong- to make such an illogical conclusion in just 2 years of part time research makes his assessment look that much worse.
Hi
I'm a coder and data scientist. I have been working on trading for over 2 years. Spent lots of money. Every trainer i have paid lies. Because, there's no profitable system. If there's, nobody will teach you what it's. Trading is a zero-sum game. Your odds are same in Vegas. There's no such profitable trading system.
For example:
ForexSignals - Andrew Lockwood
He claims he's trader but i have never seen his real account. He make money by selling products.
Warrior Trading - Ross Cameron
Ross claims he made $500 to $100K in 45 days or so. He has a new challenge and he claims he made 1 million but it took years. If he could make $500 - $100K, why not keep doing the same? If you can not trade with a lot of money, you can still trade with $500. All he teaches is how to trade flag breakouts.
Warrior Trading - Steve Dahl
Steve Dahl is a showman. He claims he's trading. He never shows his statements. He says something like it's against the rules. All he's doing is, marketing his product TAS Market profile. His stoploss is like 250 - 350. Not for every trader. He trades trades futures (!).
----
And here are some so called profitable strategies...
Order Flow Trading
There's no such thing. You can see supply and demand (support / resistance). However, price is never overbought or oversold. Price is always right. There are anomalies but they are not easy to see. There's 50% probability that S/R will be broken or bounce. You can never know if someone going to click on the market buy/sell button.
Price Action
Even my random chart generator does have price action. It's all random and there are trends...
High Probability Chart Patterns
Nope! HS, engulf, pin bar... All of them tested. Your chance is still less than 50%
Trading Algos
They are not fake and profitable until they become losers. Most of profitable algos risk 4 or more to get 1. One day, they will lose all the money
Backtesting #1
I have coded a random trade simulator. This script enters a trade randomly. 1:1 RRR and traded more than 10.000 (simulated). However, system never but never won more than 49%. (no spread or commissions calculated). You can say, if there's 50% probability, how come system can not win %50? Of course it can not win. We have stop-loss at the same range. Sometimes, market stops us and goes back to target.
Backtesting #2
I have created a simple moving average strategy and put the script in a loop to find the best matched values. After a few hours, i had enough data and plots. However, i strongly believe that, winning algos will lose by time. Everything changes. They worked in the past and it doesn't necessarily means that it's going to work in the future.
---
Market is always right. It goes, where it wants to. We can never know the future. Some says, we don't know or predict future. We see and trade "now". It's not true. "Now" is the future. All you see is the historical data. Our brain is used to perceive positive things. That's why it looks so easy. It's not!
There's no scientific study that proves trading is profitable. Come on guys. Really? Don't you think that there are profs trying to find some scientific evidence? Don't tell me about momentum. It's all luck... That's it.
---
Everyone says aim for 1%-2% return per month. Lol! How can you trade for living? Assuming that you need at least 3-4K per month. So you simply need 300-400K account to make 3-4K per month.
I know there are trainers here. Please stop stealing peoples dreams. Most of you claim that your course is not get rich quick scheme but it's. You are advertising like it's.
---
Nobody can have 50% win rate with 1:2 RRR consistently. I'm almost sure about that. Here's the simulations i have done.
Initial balance: 10K,
Risk 1%, win-rate: 50%, rrr: 2, simulated 500 trades (~2 per day)
Results: 114509.51, 77677.79, 92915.19, 241527.18 etc...
if Risk is 2% result is something like 2,513,901.02... x250 in a year!
Risk 1%, win-rate: 40%, rrr: 2, simulated 500 trades (~2 per day)
Results: 42756.02, 34693.05, 23534.11, 36827.51
If you have a system 1:2 rrr system and your win rate is 50%, you are lying or you are lying. Because we both know that you don't have such thing.
-----
Now why am i writing all these? Because i have started to find some patterns 2 years ago with hope. I was almost sure that i could do this. Hundreds of times, i tought i became millionaire. But there were always bug in the system. Failed tens of hundreds of times. Most of my trades stopped by a few ticks only or missed by a few ticks.
I'm working on this for 2 years and i have nothing left. It's like addiction. I know i will not be able to profitable but i'm still on it. Even if i can find a profitable strategy i will not be able to trade because no more balance left to trade. Actually I have found one. But it's all historical... It worked last 10 years and i doubt it will work tomorrow.
I know i know, most of you will call me loser and get mad at me. You are right. I'm a loser. I accept in advance and still love you. This is just my opinions. Like everyone says, these are not financial advice
Now i can go in peace...
Being a data scientist or a great coder does not make you a profitable trader. You either have to be a genius or lucky and requires lots of hard work to discover a system that's profitable. It's like lottery, you have to bet on it everyday (research) and someday, if you are lucky, you will hit the jackpot (found the system). The longer you try, the greater your chance of discovering the system.
If you are just average or above average intelligence, it's very very difficult to be profitable. If that's not the case, any average Joe could be profitable.
There's a reason why scientists, economists, academics, researchers, lecturers and PHDs are not rich and couldn't make money from the market. They usually think they are smart, but they are actually not.
I have gone through the phases that you have gone through. You should never give up. The key here is, start looking at other variables. Don't continue looking into something that you have found to have no edge.
I can assure you, there is a way to be consistently profitable, but I will not tell you. I hope this will at least keep you going.
You are kidding right? Trading is not easy to learn? There is up, down, sideways. Trending, mean-reverting. Continuous vs jumps. Dividends, interest rate math (7th grade level math), discounting future cash flow valuations. Sorry but anyone who does not comprehend that should probably work at Mac Donald's. Trading is as simple as a simple computer game. I always laugh when I hear some guys talk about the market as if there was anything complex to it. It's utterly ridiculous. Why do you think some of the stupidest people on earth are drawn to trading like flies to a pile of shit? It's because it's as simple as it gets. And because the barriers of entry are virtually absent. And the lure of money.
Trading is not about complexities or difficult environments. It's up down or sideways. Trading is all about patience at some time, and quick acting in the face of a loss at other times, it's all about mental capacity and the ability to tune out feelings. Stop attaching any complexities to this industry.
And you get again hung up on issues that are not there but you read into them due to his poor English. Obviously he cannot mean that NOBODY can be successful at trading. If he indeed meant that you should not even waste your precious time on him as he is clearly contradicted (not by anyone at ET, mind you).
It can only be completely random or not random at all? Says who? Link to reference please. Because in my many years as student of advanced measure theory and probabilistic concepts I have not come across such statement. But let me prove you wrong with a simple example: imagine a price function that is driven by a stochastic component and also a deterministic component. If you understand both terms just mentioned then you know already that your claim is bogus. And by the way, I did not even talk about whether markets are either completely random or not at all random. I stated that markets are most of the times following a highly random path and very few times are markets inefficient.
Trading is not about complexities or difficult environments. It's up down or sideways. Trading is all about patience at some time, and quick acting in the face of a loss at other times, it's all about mental capacity and the ability to tune out feelings. Stop attaching any complexities to this industry.
And you get again hung up on issues that are not there but you read into them due to his poor English. Obviously he cannot mean that NOBODY can be successful at trading. If he indeed meant that you should not even waste your precious time on him as he is clearly contradicted (not by anyone at ET, mind you).
It can only be completely random or not random at all? Says who? Link to reference please. Because in my many years as student of advanced measure theory and probabilistic concepts I have not come across such statement. But let me prove you wrong with a simple example: imagine a price function that is driven by a stochastic component and also a deterministic component. If you understand both terms just mentioned then you know already that your claim is bogus. And by the way, I did not even talk about whether markets are either completely random or not at all random. I stated that markets are most of the times following a highly random path and very few times are markets inefficient.
Last edited:
Lucky? Well, good luck trying.
Data scientists and economists and academics are rich in comparison to the money in the pocket of most here on this site (ny own estimate). This is not about luck or trying. This is about applying a rigorous set of mental discipline. That is all there is to it. But most will never get this simple truth in their life time.
Data scientists and economists and academics are rich in comparison to the money in the pocket of most here on this site (ny own estimate). This is not about luck or trying. This is about applying a rigorous set of mental discipline. That is all there is to it. But most will never get this simple truth in their life time.
Last edited:
please see my statement for yesterday's trading...in my journal "rewind back 15 years". it took me 12 years to understand to put it all together.
I never was training or studying to be profitable.....i dreamt and trained for 12 years, of being perfect, of being able to trade in any type of market conditions and still have a win rate of 100%.
yesterday i had one losing trade so i am still not there but i had a return of just over 100%.
ps decided to post my statement here
in a game, no one is trying to trick you, no one is feeding wrong and useless information.
if it is like a console game.... why are you not profitable.... why are you giving up