Giving Up Trading!

Quote from pairsarb:

I agree. I have read both books. And, Guess what, neither makes trading or let's say learning to trade better. You still have to adapt new habits. I have not mastered the habits yet, although I make money. Some days I put on what I call my "black hat" and don't plan trades, don't manage the overall picture that well. I don't like when I do that, but it's still a part of my overall trading behavior.

I seem to make most of my money in the first few hours. My objective is to figure out how to just stop trading for the day when I hit that point. My issue is, that I don't stop, and frequently trade away good gains.

This is my largest problem when I do it: overtrading. Does anyone have any suggestions for me? Things you have tried, thought of, or know that someone else has done to reduce the amount of overtrading.

I have known this for years, but have not been able to apply this one thing. I have not tracked it, however I do know that the profit(loss) I make after the first three hours is generally negligible when you figure in commissions, extra trading, opportunity costs, etc. So, I am open to any and all suggestions.
I think it's possible someone has been through this successfully and can lend some advice.

Thank you in advance.
More...



Just walk away. Go play golf or fish or run. If you can't do that then take a low % of your daily profit and make it your max risk for the rest of the day. My winning % too is highest on trades before 12 est. Some on here have mentioned that they switch to sim trading for the rest of the day once they hit a target.
 
Ok, I quit. Add my name to that "quitter list". All out to cash.

Screw it, I'll pay the short term taxes on ALL of the profit.

Step right up, EVERYBODY is a WINNER here!

Even I know what has to come next...
 
Quote from volente_00:

Just walk away. Go play golf or fish or run. If you can't do that then take a low % of your daily profit and make it your max risk for the rest of the day. My winning % too is highest on trades before 12 est. Some on here have mentioned that they switch to sim trading for the rest of the day once they hit a target.
More...

Thank you Volente. I will listen and work until I do I every time.
 
Ok Spectra,

I completly disagree with your thesis.

1) If there are crooks out there they try to go for as much as money as possible. Not loisy 100 bucks. Think of this as risk and reward. Will I risk thousands for hundreds??????

2) Markets are zero sum game. Markets are competitive. Thus, if there is competition then there will be back stabing. I will screw you over so, I can take your money and the money of a newbie as well. Think of it as OPEC, they state we will cut production, we will not sell more oil than this amount. When the price goes up, hmmmmm.....excuse my language, 'fuck this guy, I need to buy weapons for fighting whoever.' So, I will sell more oil for higher prices. Nice, eh?

3) No offense but one of the statement is just ridiculous b/c I will give you 500 for 6 backs. COme on.

You make valuable points, and you are right in some areas but, there is a cluster.

Good read although.
 
Quote from rateesquad:

I completly disagree with your thesis.

1) If there are crooks out there they try to go for as much as money as possible. Not loisy 100 bucks. Think of this as risk and reward. Will I risk thousands for hundreds??????
More...

I thought the same thing: why would the "big boys" conspire to put 200 billion dollars on the line to sqeese the one-lot traders out for lousy $120? It doesn't make sense. However, I put some numbers on paper, and here is what I came up with:

Suppose that 1 million ES contracts traded on a given day. Furthermore, assume that 80% of the volume was attributed to the aforementioned big boys, while the remainder was traded by small fish and the other entities who tried to fade the gap (using the scenario in the OP post). So, I figured, the "faders" probably traded about 200,000 contracts, and lost $120 per contract, for a total loss of $24 million.

As the OP noted, it probably took the big boys $200 billion dollars to fade the faders, and they made $24 million. What does it give us?

Daily return = 100 * (24 mil / 200 bil) = 0.12%,

or about 30% annualized. As also noted by the OP, this is nearly risk-free, since the action was controlled by the guys whose trading was 80% of the volume. Not bad.

It doesn't prove, of course, that this is what's going on. It does suggest, however, that it would be possible and profitable, even on a risk-adjusted basis, to manipulate the market in a way suggested by the OP.

I should also say that some of my numerical assumptions may be completely off base, although I believe that they are reasonable.
 
Nonlinear,

You have a point there and I respect the fact that you did the calculations on there. These calculations make your point more clearler.

Although, if you read the second point, which emphasizes on my thought.

You have to watch your back against the others. Because if I have the opportunity. I, myself can reap you off for billion. If I would allocate more cash into a different position.

OPEC case simplifies my opinion.
 
Quote from rateesquad:

Although, if you read the second point, which emphasizes on my thought. You have to watch your back against the others. Because if I have the opportunity. I, myself can reap you off for billion. If I would allocate more cash into a different position. OPEC case simplifies my opinion.
More...

I agree, and I am sceptical, too, about this alleged conspiracy. I mean, it almost sounds comical: I set up a conference call, and say something like this: "Today we gonna fade the faders. Jim, it's gonna cost you 75 bil, and Peter and I will put up another 125 bil. Start selling at 1429.75, and we buy back at 1425. Got it?"
 
I agree with alex completely. I've traded with guys who think like this (a few come to mind now) way too often. I may worry when I start trading 100 contracts
 
Quote from nonlinear5:

I thought the same thing: why would the "big boys" conspire to put 200 billion dollars on the line to sqeese the one-lot traders out for lousy $120? It doesn't make sense. However, I put some numbers on paper, and here is what I came up with:

Suppose that 1 million ES contracts traded on a given day. Furthermore, assume that 80% of the volume was attributed to the aforementioned big boys, while the remainder was traded by small fish and the other entities who tried to fade the gap (using the scenario in the OP post). So, I figured, the "faders" probably traded about 200,000 contracts, and lost $120 per contract, for a total loss of $24 million.

As the OP noted, it probably took the big boys $200 billion dollars to fade the faders, and they made $24 million. What does it give us?

Daily return = 100 * (24 mil / 200 bil) = 0.12%,

or about 30% annualized. As also noted by the OP, this is nearly risk-free, since the action was controlled by the guys whose trading was 80% of the volume. Not bad.

It doesn't prove, of course, that this is what's going on. It does suggest, however, that it would be possible and profitable, even on a risk-adjusted basis, to manipulate the market in a way suggested by the OP.

I should also say that some of my numerical assumptions may be completely off base, although I believe that they are reasonable.
More...

But this activity completely ignore arbitrage; E.g. what's happening in the stock market? This is where future prices are derived, and in order to supress futures then you'd also need to surpress equities and I think one can say with almost certainty that the staggering size of that market (total cap of the US markets alone is what? 15, 20 trillion?) means conspiracy scenarios are beyond improbable. This is not how international capital works. Imagine how risky and suboptimal this game would be when the players move into the hundreds to thousands needed to sustain this effort. Opec has trouble getting 11 players onside...
 
Here's the problem with the guys who lose. They never want to take responsibility for their losing trade. They always want to blame it on someone/something else. That is why most people continue to lose.

Until you can think critically of an incorrect trade, you can't change it for the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top