Can completely discretionary traders every succeed?

[Boy Plunger]

What matters most is the fact that i can turn profit in more then one type of market condition. When i started to make consistent gains it proved that all of the knowledge that i had applied was working to my favor. Survival and trading up my capital is proof that my ways are working well for me. Never assume that a trader who uses mathematical systems solely to trade is any worse or better off. They have a different approach and business. I give scalpers a hard time in jest but my business is different then theirs, not better, but different. There is a place for us all in the center of the universe which is the market.

Spend a few weeks fishing the Penobscot waters but not the St. John's as the fishes there are small and few. The question of discretionary will fade into the mist that sits atop the murmuring waters. Better yet do 40 miles in the backcountry then ask yourself the very same question and laugh at it.

Upon your return you will have fresh ideas and turn heavy profit.

 

[darkhorse]

Quote from jorgeamado88:


I'm not able to put forward "evidence" but then again, neither does this Steenbarger guy. He doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

In trading I'd say it's not how you get there, but the fact that you're profitable that matters. Completely opposite to other walks in life where it's "the way you do it" that matters most.

Guess I spoke too soon... here comes the inevitable degradation of the thread.

You're right, Steenbarger has 'no evidence' except the fact that he is clinically trained, has written dozens of articles that stand on their own merits of experience / observation, and has been working with and observing professional traders, a number of them seven figure earners, for some time now.

In my opinion, this is why the people with the most insight and the most to contribute end up giving up on ET or staying away in the first place. Trying to maintain a great conversation is all too often like getting swarmed by tsetse flies.

Ever notice how the contributors with the greatest volume of knowledge and experience also tend to be the most civil, whereas the hacks tend to be the ones who drop casual insult bombs into the conversation like "he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about?"

No effort to maintain a friendly dialogue and no recognition of quality. Just a baseless knocking down of everything that's been said--"you guys don't know what you're talking about any more than I do" etc--followed by a trivial / banal assertion that adds little to the thread.

"It's not how you get there, but the fact that you're profitable that matters." Does a blatant cliche like that have any cognitive value at all? And "psychological comfort is for wimps"? Does that even make sense?

Ignorance + Arrogance + Banality = Thread Killer. imho this combo should be flagged and shunned whenever it reveals itself.

 

[jorgeamado88]

I apologise if I did degrade the thread, it certainly was not my intention.

However, it is definitely the premise for the thread (not the threadstarter, of course) that was a strong opinion - as it questioned whether it was possible at all to succeed as a discretionary trader.

I think that question sounds very inexperienced, and from my experience (which of course is limited to my own experiences from the market over the last eight years) it's actually way off. I may be wrong of course, and would welcome any numbers. Not to be proven wrong, but just to know - it'd be interesting.

I can understand the need to vent agains thread degrading, as it is so frequent here. In general I agree with you, but think it's somewhat misdirected this time. It should be fair in a discussion to say "he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about". He can still be the smartest guy on earth for what I know.

version77: You moved this very off topic, but here's what "believe" means:

believe
verb 1 accept that (something) is true or (someone) is telling the truth. 2 (believe in) have faith in the truth or existence of. 3 have religious faith. 4 think or suppose.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/believe?view=uk

Notice number 2 and 4, as they are both applicable to my use of the word. And check your facts before flaming next time.

 

[Boy Plunger]

Very good exchange here.

It's apparent that this thread will not survive the original question and premise because it is arrogant, ignorant, and is a setup to probe for discovery in order to eliminate targets.

Does anyone really benefit from knowing the answer to this inconclusive question?

Many people respect and listen to Bob Costas and his discoveries about athletes. However, athletes do not depend on him for their athletic ability nor do they seek knowledge from him regarding anything other than media centric needs. You want to respect him as an individual go ahead but he is worthless to athletic performance. Same goes for this article writer and director of a large prop shop. Worthless to the people he studies but some may enjoy his analysis on traders he has studied in this large prop shop in chicago. Sounds almost credible if you say it fast three times. Large prop shop in chicago.

 

[version77]

Quote from jorgeamado88:


version77: You moved this very off topic, but here's what "believe" means:

believe
verb 1 accept that (something) is true or (someone) is telling the truth. 2 (believe in) have faith in the truth or existence of. 3 have religious faith. 4 think or suppose.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/believe?view=uk

Notice number 2 and 4, as they are both applicable to my use of the word. And check your facts before flaming next time.

jorgeamado88

I did not intend my post to be a "flame". I was just pointing out
what the word "belief" actually means when a person has one.

Ask any qualified pyschiatrist what "belief" actually is deep down
and you will get the same response I gave to the word.

And if you "believe" the essence of a word is wholly described by
what a dictionary says then so be it. Funny how people like to
pull out the ol' dictionary thinking it is the end all of describing a word!

As far as moving this thread off-topic? Let me see if I can tie "belief"
and "discretionary trading" together so you will not see this as
"moving this very off topic"...

Discretionary traders "believe" they can trade successfully. Only
because they "want" to "believe" it...

Then again, if you didn't "believe" you can be a completely
discretionary trader I guess you wouldn't even try in the first place.

 

[darkhorse]

Quote from jorgeamado88:


I can understand the need to vent agains thread degrading, as it is so frequent here. In general I agree with you, but think it's somewhat misdirected this time. It should be fair in a discussion to say "he doesn't seem to know what he's talking about". He can still be the smartest guy on earth for what I know.

Fair enough, I might have jumped the gun a little there... my apologies.

 

[jorgeamado88]

OK then, water under the bridge everyone

 

[version77]

Quote from jorgeamado88:

OK then, water under the bridge everyone

I agree. Water under the bridge. Now back to tradiing...

 

[hcour]

"No amount of psychology will help a momentum trader from 1999 suddenly make the transition to selling strength in 2001, buying weakness in 2003, and then fading all momentum in 2005. It is like asking a devout Christian to become a Buddhist, then a Muslim, and then an atheist. The human mind does not shift its worldviews so readily—a fact that makes happy evolutionary success, but creates untold grief in trading."

My God, the inanity of this statement. Spoken by someone who obviously has no clue as to what short-term trading is all about or how such traders operate. The absurdity of the religous "devotion" metaphor is so deeply ignorant and meaningless that it exist solely as a red-herring by someone too lazy or too stupid to research or understand his subject.

A real trader plays both sides, short and long, w/o issue. "Worldviews"? Guffaw! I haven't read this thread, but this utter foolishness begat all this blah blah blah? What have you guys been arguing about?

H

 

[nononsense]

Quote from cooldude:

jmho

Discretionary traders are human computer traders.
...

jmho,

You're getting close. Successful trading IS ALWAYS DISCRETIONARY. Only styles differ. Some will implement their 'discretionary' brain children into written rules for later reference; some might cast these into computer code.

'Non-discretionary' knowledge accessible to the many doesn't exist. Only losers spend lots of time looking for it.

Thx for shining some light on this mess.