hmm.no edges in the markets

[austinp]

100+ pages of gibberish and bullshit... no end in sight.

Trading is simple. You find market behaviors (patterns) that repeat themselves with measured, statistical probability of outcome and you methodically trade those situations while ignoring all else.

While ignoring all else, you sit, watch and wait for your defined situations (edge) to appear on the chart of your chosen symbol(s). When said edge appears, you trade it with detached emotions.

**

The TF sequence charted above was traded live in front of real people in a real-time HotComm room off live streaming charts with trade entries appearing in real time.

Trade #1? -1 point TF loss

Trade #2? -1 point TF loss

Trade #3? +7.2 points TF win

Trading an edge. Each single instance is a random coin toss. But three or thirty or three hundred similar, patterned sequences is an edge.

Simple as that. Then you get up, walk out of the office and go enjoy life in the summer sunshine. Trading an edge. Very simple

 

[NoDoji]

Quote from wrbtrader:

I can go on and probably list dozen more reasons but I think you now understand.

I can understand if someone based their decision to trade a system on a computer-based backtest, because we ran bunches of those, all wildly profitable, and in real-time simulation couldn't do better than break even.

I ended up doing all my backtesting manually, bar by bar, and the results had to be stellar before I truly trusted the system because I knew there was no way I'd be able to trade every setup that presented.

I don't believe winning systems are that difficult to come up with; winning traders of such systems are extremely rare.

 

[NoDoji]

Quote from austinp:

I'm a legs man myself... what do you look like in shortie shorts? I need to see recent pictures before we go any further

Back off, Austin, he's mine

 

[austinp]

Quote from NoDoji:

Back off, Austin, he's mine

He'd pick you waaaay before me... you are far prettier, and a much more doggedly determined CL trader.

My sequences today went -16 cents long, -12 cents short and then +61 cents short to end the day at +33 cents. Same real-time trading in front of real live people in a Hotcomm room where everything is visible live and streaming.

Loss, Loss, Win. Done. The subsequent signals past those that worked for >+50 cents along with others that chopped stops were there for anyone's taking. But I was done for this day, successfully

 

[wrbtrader]

Quote from NoDoji:

I can understand if someone based their decision to trade a system on a computer-based backtest, because we ran bunches of those, all wildly profitable, and in real-time simulation couldn't do better than break even.

I ended up doing all my backtesting manually, bar by bar, and the results had to be stellar before I truly trusted the system because I knew there was no way I'd be able to trade every setup that presented.

I don't believe winning systems are that difficult to come up with; winning traders of such systems are extremely rare.

I'm not sure why you're replying to me with this information considering I didn't comment about your trading nor did I make any statements about how difficult or simple it is to design a trading system.

Anyways, Elitetrader.com has many threads where someone said they had a profitable system that when backtested had a positive expectancy. Yet, as soon as they went live (real money) trading, it didn't work. If you have questions about such, you may want to probe them about it if you don't understand why someone would trade a losing system.

Simple answer - They "thought" it was a profitable system.

 

[bighog]

Formula1 and America's Cup are probably the last true sports left on the planet that are still about competition, technology, engineering, safety. Could that be the reason they are also the MOST expensive?

Surely Larry Ellison only relies on "ADS" plastered on the sails to cover all the costs. YA THINK!!

wdbdgger (or whatever his handle is) needs to bone up on facts before claiming pepsi and some old foggy boner blue pill covers all costs.

F1 and America's Cup racing is for real men and top flight ladies to enjoy...........rednecks have nascar and pocket pull.

PS: Enough semantics about "EDGE". How about some ways to win instead of losing. Lets hear about some WORKABLE TACTICS and Why they work instead of always why they do not work....

2003 costs to put teams on the grid....... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070809201919AAu0V2d

PS: it has been well understood that to be a top notch F1 team, be ready to shell out $500 million each and every year......

HONDA is coming back to F1, next year we will have V6 engines, used to be V12's. Watch, the V6 will go just as fast. HA!!(it is about costs, as always)

 

[wrbtrader]

Quote from bighog:

...wdbdgger (or whatever his handle is) needs to bone up on facts before claiming pepsi and some old foggy boner blue pill covers all costs.

F1 and America's Cup racing is for real men and top flight ladies to enjoy...........rednecks have nascar and pocket pull...

Hey hog,

I don't know anything about a Pepsi, foggy boner blue pill or America's Cup. I think you've been out in the sun too long if you can't remember the handle.

Go get something to drink (preferably water or something with minerals), sit under some shade and relax. Enjoy your day because you seem to need some r&r time.

 

[NoDoji]

Quote from wrbtrader:

I'm not sure why you're replying to me with this information considering I didn't comment about your trading nor did I make any statements about how difficult or simple it is to design a trading system.

Anyways, Elitetrader.com has many threads where someone said they had a profitable system that when backtested had a positive expectancy. Yet, as soon as they went live (real money) trading, it didn't work. If you have questions about such, you may want to probe them about it if you don't understand why someone would trade a losing system.

Simple answer - They "thought" it was a profitable system.

I was replying to your comment, that's all. 1a2b mentioned that people trade a losing system and to me a system is an objective method. I didn't understand (and still don't) why someone would trade a losing system with live money. After a successful backtest, I assumed the trader would then trade it in a real-time sim account to see how the results compared to the backtest.

I think a system is either a winning system, a break-even system, or a losing system, and if a large enough sample size was included in real-time testing of the system (large enough to encompass varying market conditions), the main reason why a winning system would suddenly be a losing system is the result of a faulty mindset.

This is all just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

 

[stock777]

if austins really that good he must have a mental problem.

1) why isnt he a billionaire yet

2) why is he here talking to vermin

 

[wrbtrader]

Quote from NoDoji:

...I didn't understand (and still don't) why someone would trade a losing system with live money...

I give up.

Quote from wrbtrader:

... For example, there was a journal here at ET where the guy had backtested his trade method that showed a positive expectancy. He then traded the method with real money and started consistently losing money. Someone reviewed the backtesting procedure and then pointed out his errors. Simply, he had been trading a losing system that he had in error thought it was a profitable system. In another journal the method had a positive expectancy on the Hang Seng futures. Someone else that's not too bright decided to apply the method to U.S. stocks and proceeded to lose a lot of money and then oddly couldn't figure out why the method didn't work on U.S. stocks.

A common reason, method really is about breakeven but the trader has exceptional trading skills...resulting in consistent profits. Another trader uses the same method and thinks he/she can achieve similar like results. Instead, that trader loses a lot of money primarily because of poor trading skills. Therefore, in this particular example, the trader is the key...not the method. The profitable trader underestimated his/her exceptional trading skills and the losing trader realized such too late by thinking the method could overcome or fix his/her poor trading skills...