There was a fellow here named FastTrader, but he is not trading any longer, that resembles your trading, illiquid. You might search his handle to see what he discovered, if anything.
Michael B.
Michael B.
Great entries, horrible exits
- Thread starter illiquid
- Start date
Illiqid,
This was a good read..thanks (and all this time, I think I have been trying to "disconnect" with the market
)
This was a good read..thanks (and all this time, I think I have been trying to "disconnect" with the market
)Quote from illiquid:
The pitfall is calling something "random" just because we don't or cannot possibly understand or comprehend something in it's entirety. A person unfamiliar with art history will look at a Pollack painting and call it "random" splashes of paint; someone listening to atonal impressionist music for the first time will say it just sounds like a random collection of notes. Similarly, traders confused as to why a market went up instead of down on apparently "good" news will cite randomness for that seemingly inexplicable move.
But the alternative way in looking at market movement is to say that it is actually completely and utterly non-random; unless there are people or institutions whose purpose in life is to buy and sell securities randomly while losing on commission and the spread on each transaction, I think it's valid to say that each and every "jiggle" up and down, in whatever time frame, has some reason behind it -- somebody is behind the button on every trade that comes across the tape. Just because it's impossible to know what all the reasons are, or conclude with any certainty what the overriding impetus behind any move is, does not mean we have to resign ourselves to the concept that the market is random.
Whether we condsider the market random or not doesn't change anything about the market, but it has everything to do with how we connect with it as traders. Many times a current move will completely baffle those who cannot find a good reason for it; only later, in retrospect, may the reasons (if ever) become clear, but by then the opportunity for profit has already passed -- it has already been discounted by those with superior information or forecasting ability who have collectively "created" that move. So perhaps "in effect", most of the time market movement might as well be random for those of us who cannot percieve any edge in holding a position, and thus remain flat. However, once a trade has been opened, that itself is a claim that one comprehends something the majority of the market has yet to realize and should subsequently discount with future purchases or sales, or in other words, that the current market is wrong, and needs to move this way or that. A trade in this sense is not exploiting some "pocket of predicitibility" that anyone can stumble upon, but an outright prediction that in the near future the majority of others will need to pull the same trigger you just did.
Looking at the market in this way is the polar opposite of viewing it as random, yet both are viable for trading. I think randomness is a concept that some traders choose to apply to the market because it makes it easier to psychologically accept the inconsistent (not in the derogatory sense) results of trading in general, much like how professional poker players continue to bet the percentages over the long run and are not discouraged by outcomes of individual hands -- how can one get mad at a random selection of cards? In contrast, some traders will prefer a more causal 'schema' of why a trade was entered and ultimately succeeded or failed; their satisfaction in trading, beyond profit, comes from (apparently) figuring out a piece of a puzzle before everyone else. Either way boils down to self-delusion in the end, but I think it's safe to say one can go on living happily with or without god -- it's just a matter of preference
"Recently, Citigroup fired it's entire Technical Analysis staff. I just wish that someone, for the sake of science, would step up and say, I look at lines on my screen and I make money consistantly and I am willing to prove it."
yadda yadda yadda.. Please step into my office
Regarding the original question: With exits stick to what made you enter. Suppose we're talking s/r's here. you entered on support, don't exit the market until resistance. but don't exit before resistance except when the market tells you it is not gonna break resistance. when it breaks resistance, use that previous resistance as a new point for stoploss and exit either at that point, or at new resistance. etc.
yadda yadda yadda.. Please step into my office
Regarding the original question: With exits stick to what made you enter. Suppose we're talking s/r's here. you entered on support, don't exit the market until resistance. but don't exit before resistance except when the market tells you it is not gonna break resistance. when it breaks resistance, use that previous resistance as a new point for stoploss and exit either at that point, or at new resistance. etc.
If you are serious, I am a willing agent in verifying your results. Let me know how we should proceed in proving that you make a living trading using solely technical analysis of the markets intra day.Quote from trade4succes:
...
yadda yadda yadda.. Please step into my office
...
Like I said, I wish someone would step up and settle this once and for all. All the studies I have seen are negative.
nitro
I have nothing to gain in such an endeavor.. i don't want to sell something. but i am sure there are other's out there willing to step up.
my "offer" was just a statement i wanted to make, i wasn't serious. and secondly, Dan Zanger's results got accounted for, and he trades with "TA" so why would you go and do the effort again?
sure we can arrange something if it's worth something to you, but i don't really see it..
edit. not to mention several "market wizards" who trade on nothing but "TA". I paraphrased TA, because there's so many kinds.
sure we can arrange something if it's worth something to you, but i don't really see it..
edit. not to mention several "market wizards" who trade on nothing but "TA". I paraphrased TA, because there's so many kinds.
So now you are quoting someone else's results, not yours. OK, I see where you are coming from now.
If Dan Zanger reads the post I made, and he wants to step up, he will. If he does not, he won't. But what does Dan Zager have to do with you? Why are you interested in making non serious statements about what others take seriously?
nitro
why not make it a big media-event. lock me up in a room with only esignal, no news.. I can only trade outrights, no spreading, only directional trading. if i outperform the s&p considerably after a year, i get a million. how about that?
now i have something to gain, and nothing to lose, because i know i could do it..
now i have something to gain, and nothing to lose, because i know i could do it..