Does Probability exist?

[marketsurfer]

Surf,

if someone would tell you: the next hour (or the next 2 hours) you should stay short because we will not make a bottom.
And supposing these statements are correct for more than 75% of the time.
Can you then assign any probability to it or is it still random?
I think we would speak about probabilities watching the results as the odds are increased far over 50/50.


That is exactly what I do, I program strategies (scenario's), I am not interested in charts. So your statement confirms that probabilities exist.

Probabilities definitely exist. If you go about trading in a truly testable way, and not by being deluded by "just" lookng at charts in the manner of wyckoff heshey or whatever the current name dujour is-- sure you can be succesful. Until the market changes then u need to change. Adaptatation, just like in nature, is the key to long term success.

But with thst said, the fund i worked with had over 100 traders ( many from here) who make the same claims u just did-- and had the documentation to prove it-- through the doors. Guess what-- only one survived and his method was non replicatable and nothing to do with price action or even knowing what the current price was.

 

[i am nobody]

I am nobody, why talk about it, just display this 10 times in a row and we will be able to judge this based on stats. You see many posters just state that they can do this and that with high win rate, yet not anyone seems to be willing to display this ability publicly using real time or advance calls using stops. The ones that do post real time confirm that price oscillations can not be predicted with high accuracy with stops being used.

First of all: I posted some of these predictions already in PM's and even in postings. But I was never good enough, there were always remarks why it was not valid. Even if I would post 100 of them, it would never be accepted as proof, I was probably very very very lucky. I should do this 10 years....
Second: can you post your account over the last 10 years to proof what you say? Because if you don't it means you are just telling BS.

 

[marketsurfer]

In my country children go to school at the age of 6-7. In the first class they learn basic mathematics. They learn how to count from 1 to 10, to add and subtract. In the third year they learn to count till 100 and even higher. They also learn to multiply and divide.
Before students know very well the basics about math, they are already many years in school.

In trading the difficulty is rather exponentially bigger, so you need a lot of time to learn. But most people expect to be successful within a very short time. I meet people who found within 1-3 months a "good tradingsystem". None of them ever made real money. A learning curb is not necessary because they think they are (much) smarter than the average trader. On top of that trading looks very simple at first sight.
They have no idea how difficult it is to become a consistent profitable trader. That is already the first big problem: if you don't realize the difficulty of what you try to do, the results will be most of the time disappointing. On top of that most people over estimate their "trading capabilities". Many don't have even the required minimum abilities to achieve their goal. Because nobody is ever tested objectively they continu to think they are smart enough and that the problem lies somewhere else. Or, better for their ego: it is impossible ( so it is not me!).

Second remark:
When you finished school, did you never asked yourself: why was it so difficult years ago to do math will the same math looks now very easy?
The same can happen in trading: If you become successful you will say: how was it possible that I struggled for years even to be just above break even? The answer is very simple: because over the years you gathered the needed knowledge you did not have at the start.

Difficult things can become easy, not understandable things can become understandable, unpredictable things can be come predictable.
But I write very clearly CAN, so I don't say WILL.

I would counter you by saying if you become succeful after years of trading as a loser it has nothing to do with you--- the market merely changed into a regime favorable to what you are doing. And it will change back. Thats why many traders start out making a killing then start to lose and eventually lose it all. Its bcause the market morphs.

The opposite of this are traders who take years to learn a single or multiple tactics then all of a suddn start to win. after years of losing.

 

[i am nobody]

Probabilities definitely exist. If you go about trading in a truly testable way, and not by being deluded by "just" lookng at charts in the manner of wyckoff heshey or whatever the current name dujour is-- sure you can be succesful.

But with thst said, the fund i worked with had over 100 traders ( many from here) who make the same claims u just did-- and had the documentation to prove it-- through the doors. Guess what-- only one survived and his method was non replicatable and nothing to do with price action or even knowing what the current price was.

I understand your point of view and agree that I probably am one of the exceptions. But if I can, it proves it can be done. That is the point.
To me looking at charts cannot work, I use math because if the rule is "value should be 2", then it is objective, clear and easy to follow: it is 2 or it is not. It can not look like 2 and be 1.

But I am open minded so maybe charts can work, but for me it does not at all. I have not enough knowledge to judge about charting.

 

[romik]

First of all: I posted some of these predictions already in PM's and even in postings. But I was never good enough, there were always remarks why it was not valid. Even if I would post 100 of them, it would never be accepted as proof, I was probably very very very lucky. I should do this 10 years....
Second: can you post your account over the last 10 years to proof what you say? Because if you don't it means you are just telling BS.

I am not asking for any statements or prolonged stats period. Profitable traders that I know display very similar win/loss ratio, around 50/50.

 

[i am nobody]

I would counter you by saying if you become succeful after years of trading as a loser it has nothing to do with you

Don't agree, I started to win because my knowledge improved. I am profitable for over 10 years now. Markets did not stay the same during this period.
If it has nothing to do with me, it would mean that the market gave me over 10 years of profit now????? In most cases the markets TAKE profits from traders and present them losses.

 

[i am nobody]

I am not asking for any statements or prolonged stats period. Profitable traders that I know display very similar win/loss ratio, around 50/50.

Nonsense,
Virtue has a win loss ratio of about 90/10, and John Henry had a win loss ratio of about 35/65. Both were or still are profitable. Profit/loss ratio should be know too.

 

[marketsurfer]

Don't agree, I started to win because my knowledge improved. I am profitable for over 10 years now. Markets did not stay the same during this period.
If it has nothing to do with me, it would mean that the market gave me over 10 years of profit now????? In most cases the markets TAKE profits from traders and present them losses.

Mr.N Destroys your premise here as u claim uou do this by directional daytrading. http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/day-traders.292059/page-2

Why do you "winners" only exist anonymously on the internet?

 

[Ghost_of_Blotto]

But if I can, it proves it can be done. That is the point.

 

[heypa]

I was not going to comment but changed my mind and will do so. The world/country/company/governments/people change.The crooks and misleaders are always in the background and are always there.The market indices are miscalculated.They are heavily weighted towards high cap stocks. They imply that a change in price automatically implies the same price change of all shares.regardless of the total number of shares in the company let alone the number of shares available for trading.They use numbers not percent price change so that the size affect of high price and low price stocks misleads. In all popular indexes very large cap stocks dominate the index and distort results. The fact that we have always done it this way and doesn't make it right any more than the incorrect plotting of moving averages because the financial idiots have always done it so makes it correct.I'm tempted to not insert this rant but what the hell here goes.