Quote from Shagi:
There is no such mystical thing some call an edge. This is a business of mathematical probabilities and human psychology
***Quote from kiwi_trader:
That assumes that all edges significantly increase the efficiency of the markets. Fortunately they don't.![]()
Quote from yip1997:
You have an edge when there is a statistical confidence that you will beat the market.
Edge = A + B + C + ....
A, B or C is not an edge. A+B+C is not an edge. The proper combination of all the ingredients create an edge for yourself.
When a trader finds out that he can consistently beat the market, he will think he has found the edge. He will mention his edge as A, B or C. He has an edge, but he doesn't know all the ingredients. That is the reason why trading is hard to teach.
"A" might be part of your edge, but "NOT A" might be part of my edge. There is no "THE" edge. Edge is not unique. There are many ways of creating an edge.
Example:
Average down is usually described as bad, but some traders find average down works for them.
constant position sizing works for some, but pyramiding (or average up) works for others.
TA works for some, but random entry/exit works for others.
That's pretty hardcore man ... I love it!Quote from Bitstream:
yours is the only correct definition.
having an edge it's to have a known advantage over your competitors; can be just a little something yet what's enough to be amongst predators, confident in the long run to dominate. you have an edge when you posses or have developed a skill or a skill set that is allowing you to beat the competition.
Quote from empee:
I have done many tests on the S&P going back to 1996 with random entry and exit (long only). Here were the rules:
A) On a given day, randomize a number 1 through 10, if its 5 buy. If not a buy, go to next day. We invest 100% of equity in each trade.
B) If in a position (from A), randomize a number 1 through 10. If its a 5 sell. (Only do this if we're in already in a position from A).
I ran 1000 versions of this test. About 1/2 of 1% (.5%) resulted in a negative outcome (I ran several times and got similar results). (No commission or slippage included). This on on the DAILY S&P.
I used no STOPS (since we are randomly entering and exiting we should get some fraction of the return of the overall index).
How does this simple system beat (meaning MAKES money 99.5% of the samples) versus most people who ACTIVELY , EFFORTFULLY, and PURPOSELY are trying to make money? (Since most ppl lose). Could it be that ACTIVELY trying to beat the market actually has a NEGATIVE EXPECTANCY? (Or vary position size at the wrong time makes positive expectancy negative?)
You could argue that I am curve-fitting since I knew the market went up since 1996, and you'd be right; but one of the truism (though I don't agree with) is that long-term the market always goes up.
If a system had a long-term flat expectancy, but went thru periods of winning and losing, how long would a trader trade this "edge"?
(One of the things I find so entertaining is when traders are so certain that THEIR edge is truly an EDGE, in reality no one knows FOR SURE what the FUTURE results will be).
Such a simple system outperforming most partipcants, unbelievable. Fascinating stuff!
Actually the game is only about good trading. The money comes as a result of it.Quote from fearless9:
I hate to be the one to burst this lovely bubble, but "have an edge" is dreamland fantasy talk.
Either your monthly brokerage statement is positive and growing or it is not.
This game is only about money; the rest is just words.
regards
f9