If so many people are unsuccessful traders...

dollar cost averaging over the longterm in an INVESTMENT portfolio is proven and a good strategy for most people. it has ALWAYS offered a positive return in any 20 yr period, and superior to most asset classes in most of those periods

DAYTRADING is entirely different, and investment goals and methodology is different from daytrading
 
Quote from dtrader98:

My thoughts on this, are that it isn't the decision thats taking out the trader. It's the MMs and brokers watching the clients order flow. Once you enter real money, you become their target. Heck, they can even moniter your trading patterns and when you give in.

I've had trades, where i should have been 100% correct on direction. For instance, indexes were soaring, particularly SOX and i bough MRVL on takover rumor (reverse psychology). That day they tanked mrvl 6% for no reason on thin volume. The moment i cut my loss, then they turned it on a dime back up in tune with the market. I see a lot of that.


Am i the only one that sees this often?
More...

Alright, I know I'm probably one of the biggest noobs on this board, but every time except for once when I've made a day trade, that exact same thing happens.

Surely I can't be that important. I doubt the MMs are trying to wipe me out with my little $15k position...

But it seems to happen over and over, and when I see other people report the same thing, I'm like wtf?

It makes me want to trade from two accounts, one taking a position to influence the market, and then the other one to capture the "real" move. Of course I'm sure that would just exponentially complicate the problem.

So MMs try to wipe out daytraders. So is the correct decision not to do what is correct based on chart/price/volume, but to do the opposite of what you think the majority is doing?
 
Stop entering positions when everyone and their grandmothers are also entering. Also, try selling the next time you feel like buying and see what happens instead.
 
if you do the opposite of a losing strategy you may still lose, depends on whether you will do the opposite of everything. Trading has many facets like psychological - you will have to change that also and do the opposite then maybe you might win. Risk management also, every single facet you will have to do opposite, it si not just a matter of entry and exit. And remember if you make an opposite entry to what you normally would, then the exit will already be different and you what is the opposite of that? I am trading a few years and I make record all my trades with commentary on my blog, check it out when you have time http://lauristonletter.blogspot.com/
 
interesting article today on increasing edge of brokerage houses.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm/070129/5d3626dc318249a6abeabbd5171c3142.html

"Quant-investing BGI style requires a fluency in applied mathematics as well as access to the prodigious computing power needed to continuously crunch the numbers for 10,000 stocks and 2,500 debt issues and execute thousands of trades a day. With 2,640 employees ..."

There's lot's more, but you get the picture: You and me and the rest of America's Main Street investors are outgunned and outsmarted in this game. We can't even speak their language, and what they do is cloaked in secrecy. And the odds against us are getting worse every year! So thanks to the new behavioral finance quants, Wall Street is more powerful than ever!"

call it a loser meme if you like, but it's pretty obvious to me, the odds are getting stacked more and more in favor of the mms.

Even with sound position&exit strategies, they can analyze your exit patterns forcing you to tighten up stops. I.e. their commisions remain healthy, but your margins are diminished. You better be pretty well capatialized to survive to see a positive expectation.
 
Quote from dtrader98:

interesting article today on increasing edge of brokerage houses.

http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm/070129/5d3626dc318249a6abeabbd5171c3142.html

"Quant-investing BGI style requires a fluency in applied mathematics as well as access to the prodigious computing power needed to continuously crunch the numbers for 10,000 stocks and 2,500 debt issues and execute thousands of trades a day. With 2,640 employees ..."

There's lot's more, but you get the picture: You and me and the rest of America's Main Street investors are outgunned and outsmarted in this game. We can't even speak their language, and what they do is cloaked in secrecy. And the odds against us are getting worse every year! So thanks to the new behavioral finance quants, Wall Street is more powerful than ever!"

call it a loser meme if you like, but it's pretty obvious to me, the odds are getting stacked more and more in favor of the mms.

Even with sound position&exit strategies, they can analyze your exit patterns forcing you to tighten up stops. I.e. their commisions remain healthy, but your margins are diminished. You better be pretty well capatialized to survive to see a positive expectation.
More...

With understanding comes profitability.

Look to get from NY to SF by ship you gotta go around cape horn or through the panama canal. If you go through the canal you gotta pay a fee. capice?
 
it is a loser meme, and it is also factually incorrect

there have always been edges in the markets, and there always will be

it just amazes me that some people can't simply admit their faults and move on, and instead insist on blaming genius market makers and their lovely ability to take out every stop (here's a hint. if they ALWAYS take out your stop, then set your limit order to buy where your stop "should" be)

successful traders adapt, find edges, and manage risk

losers whine about quants and mm's
 
" blaming genius market makers"

market makers are not geniuses. If you or I had full access to order flow and clients accounts, we too would be geniuses. It's called an edge.

Granted a systematic style gives you better odds, but you better believe they have the edge. And back to the original thread, the point was "don't assume taking the other side gives you inverted outcome." My extra info was to support this thesis.

By the way, "mm's are required by contract to offer a fair bid and offer (in other words take both sides of the markets at ALL times)

do they do this perfectly all the time? no"
Thanks for supporting my original thesis on that. They don't do it perfectly, because whether or not they are required by contract, as you pointed out, they really don't have to create volume at all times, indicating such contracts aren't enforced, and giving them the leeway to pretty much sit on virtual zero volume for hours to support their personal objective.

Anyways, the threads are about analyzing experience and offering opinions, not so much about making loser meme and duh comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top