Quote from kut2k2:
In order to be a winner, you have to think like a winner. Deliberately thinking like a loser and then trying to "reverse" it to come up with a winning system strikes me as a waste of time at best.
Architects don't come up with prize-winning houses by dreaming up the worst houses imaginable and then "reversing" everything. This thread is wacko.
my loosing trades during the time were consistant. that is to say 30% of them were loses (with a negative balance after fees ).
If I took a subset of the trades, say the first 25% of the trades. the number was still 30% loosing (with a negative balance after fees) the same for the other quarters.
This is consistency what many hope for over $ earned (as long as the result is positive.
Doing the opposite should only yield the opposite and it should be just as consistent. That is to say, it is as hard to loose as it is to win.(putting aside fees)
The thread is great and if people come out and can show consistency in loses during a stage where the same technique was used something can be learned.
maybe people at that phase all do the same thing and buying the perceived breakout is where others take advantage of the beginner?
Or it just may be that we are wired to avoid lose and to let our profits run to the point that they become losses.
Or maybe there is ANOTHER element at play ?
Some say that paper trading results and real trading result vary, for me i changed strategies (stupidly) when I made the switch.
The thread is so great that I will try to keep my posts to a max of 10 paragraphs each with a max of 3 lines so as not to scare off people form it.If only I could space out my posts. How consistent are your loses ?? <-important
