Huge majority of you here are losers? Agree?

The word "apparently" is highly subjective & without evidence.

Come on, a '98 veteran trader like you can make better judgement.

What a disappointment. :D

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

Exactly. The market doesn't lie but apparently "new" posters at ET do :D
More...
 
Quote from tangentShot:

Why would you even bother to join this thread if you think it's so dumb?

Clearly everyone on the thread is a lot smarter than you are.

Name calling & use of vulgarity simply show that you can't converse intelligently & it makes you look really stupid.

Now, go back to your mama. :)
More...

i want your heart i want to eat your children!praise be to Allah!

:D
 
Quote from xelite777:

Let's just say you have a LOT to learn.
More...

I admit that. But not from you because you have no connection to trading.

Quote from xelite777:

You will SILL lose in the long run even if your risk-reward is 1000 to 1, if you trade randomly, because the spread/commissions will kill you either way, slowly but surely.
More...

You are being silly. Commission and spread in ES is about 1/5 of a tick. It is not the commission that kills trading but the frequency of trading. If you trade once a week with 50% win rate and 2:1 reward:risk this is all you need to make a good profit. If you start trading too much too frequently you approach random. If the market is pure Brownian motion and your system makes Brownian trades with a drift (tries to trend follow), then this is how you are worse than random because you are introducing a drift where there is none.

I am sure you do not understand what I'm talking about. The funny thing about people like you is that you think you know everything. It was Masters, one of Aronson’ss co-authors, who first explained the idea of a system that is worse than random in a seminal paper about MC simulations. Maybe you do not belong in a trading forum. Most people here are nice and knowledgeable. You are an exception. You are in the wrong place.

Quote from xelite777:

Also, if you can consistently manage to make "worse" than random trades, then you can make a fortune just by trading the opposite.
More...

The opposite of worse than random is not profitability. When people talk about "worse than random" they mean deterministic systems (algorithms) with ensemble statistics worse than those of random systems. It is that simple you silly thing.
 
+1

Quote from xelite777:

Let's just say you have a LOT to learn.





Again, you are totally clueless. You will SILL lose in the long run even if your risk-reward is 1000 to 1, if you trade randomly, because the spread/commissions will kill you either way, slowly but surely.

It's like saying that you can make money in the long run playing the Lotto because you only risk a single dollar to make hundreds of millions.



I never said that the brokers were doing something illegal (at least the honest ones).

All I am saying is that the spread and the commissions will ALWAYS prevent a trader from making money with random trades, just like the 0 and the double zero at the roulette will prevent you from winning in the long run.

And again, the only way to win the trading game is to beat the spread and/or the commissions.

For that you need a trading system with a built-in mathematical edge.





No, no, no and NO! :mad:

Mathematically, it is IMPOSSIBLE to make WORSE than random trades, this is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

Try this: throw a normal quarter 1000 times. Now I triple dare you to obtain WORSE than random sequences of heads and tails, like 50 heads and 950 tails.

Also, if you can consistently manage to make "worse" than random trades, then you can make a fortune just by trading the opposite.
More...
 
Don't be angry, ok?

We can be friends, right?

I really don't mind being friends with the less intelligent species.

I can teach you math & you can clown around & make me laugh.

:D

Quote from ronblack:

What a retard he is!
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top