Almost everyone is lying. Because there's no such...

This is your problem.

You are trying to use the skils you learnt outside of trading to "resolve" trading as if it were a math problem.

Before doing this - your first step should have been to validate if that was a sane approach. Your 2 years work was based on the assumption that trading is mathematical in nature right?

Now - I know the results of trading can be expressed numerically. That means that the EFFECT of trading can be charted and mapped and analyzed to infinite degrees. Trouble is - no amount of analyzing effect will give you cause.

Take this week - any basic model built on charts will have not taken into account the driver of volatility which was the China trade news.

Your assumption that "price is always right" is 100% wrong. When big news hits a market - it can move up or down all day. It takes time for price to move from one place to another. The idea that price is always right (the efficient market hypothesis) flies in the face of sell-offs and other big news driven moves.

Perhaps trading isn't a science. Perhaps it's a skill. If you try to fit trading to what you knew before trading - you will likely fail. Pilots, engineers are notorious for it.
For 4 months we had no news, market kept rising steadily, no news whatsoever, just boring tv announcers saying everynight "we have no news, other than Trump has got lockjaw".
index(4).png
 
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.

The reason nothing worked for you is everything you tried was too simplistic.
 
It is very hard work discovering a profitable simple trading system.

I would rather say a difficult work. Because it is difficult it can take a lot of time and need hard work, but if you are lucky and find a good edge by accident it is not hard work at all.
Difficult is not always the same as hard.

Difficult work or hard work are two completely different things.
 
Discovering/constructing a trading system is both difficult and hard for a beginner.
The big problem, many believe the answer is found in complexity.
You'll often see it when noobs explain their theories in a journal, total gibberish and to convince the audience, throw in techno jargon.
But after climbing many obstacles and arrving with a profitable system, then comes the journey of simplifying everything.
You'll hear it here many times, "KISS".
But arriving at KISS is usually a very big effort initially.
 
Discovering/constructing a trading system is both difficult and hard for a beginner.
The big problem, many believe the answer is found in complexity.
You'll often see it when noobs explain their theories in a journal, total gibberish and to convince the audience, throw in techno jargon.
But after climbing many obstacles and arrving with a profitable system, then comes the journey of simplifying everything.
You'll hear it here many times, "KISS".
But arriving at KISS is usually a very big effort initially.

My personal experience is that KISS does not work as good as a more complex system like I use.
To know what is best you should have the performance records of both systems. I compared them and the difference was really big. The problems to create a more performant system were really big too.
 
This is your problem.

You are trying to use the skils you learnt outside of trading to "resolve" trading as if it were a math problem.

Before doing this - your first step should have been to validate if that was a sane approach. Your 2 years work was based on the assumption that trading is mathematical in nature right?

Now - I know the results of trading can be expressed numerically. That means that the EFFECT of trading can be charted and mapped and analyzed to infinite degrees. Trouble is - no amount of analyzing effect will give you cause.

Take this week - any basic model built on charts will have not taken into account the driver of volatility which was the China trade news.

Your assumption that "price is always right" is 100% wrong. When big news hits a market - it can move up or down all day. It takes time for price to move from one place to another. The idea that price is always right (the efficient market hypothesis) flies in the face of sell-offs and other big news driven moves.

Perhaps trading isn't a science. Perhaps it's a skill. If you try to fit trading to what you knew before trading - you will likely fail. Pilots, engineers are notorious for it.

Agree and Disagree. Ultimately everything is a math problem and there is nothing that a human trader does that is magic that can't also be done by an algorithm. Difficult yes, but not impossible.

It's true that engineers often fail in markets. But many of the best traders are also engineers. The early failures come because they attempt to apply the classical mathematical tools and techniques that they learned in school, e.g. simple linear regression, which tend to not be suitable for the insanely high noise:signal ratio that exists in markets. The ultimate solution to this problem is to discover appropriate techniques, not to throw up one's hands and say "oh well, it must be more of an art than a science".
 
Back
Top