If there was a trading technique that was 90-100% always positive, how much would you give to learn

[marketsurfer]

Jack Schwager interviewing Mark Weinstein:


Well, let's put it this way: What was your worst single trading month?

I haven't had any losing months.

You have made money in every single month since 1980!

Yes. Of course, I could have made a lot more money if I wasn't so cautious, but that is the way I trade.

Do you remember your worst losing week?

I haven't had any losing weeks during that time, but I have had some losing days.

That is an incredible statement. How can you be sure that you are not simply forgetting about a few weeks when you lost money trading?

The reason I am sure is that I remember all my losses. For example, I have had three losing days in the last two years. Out of the thousands of trades I made during that time, I had 17 losers, but nine of them were because my quote machine was down, and when that happens I just get out of my position.


This implies a 99% win rate.

Personally, not sure what to make of this.

LOL! Sounds like a bit of performance art to attract OPM. He sure talks a lot about losses for Having a 99% win rate:


Mark Weinstein was featured in Jack Schwager’s book “The Market Wizards”. The Wizards books series contained a great deal of wisdom from successful traders.

Mark shared some interesting insights into his trading when quoted in the Wizards books series.

Quoting him

“I don’t try to figure out where the market is going before the action; I let the market tell me where it is going.”

One of the public’s biggest misconception about the markets: people always expect the market to react to news.

People are always saying that the market is down because of profit taking. The fact is, the market goes down not only on profit taking, but on a lot of loss taking as well.

Trading rules:
– Always do your homework.
– Don’t be arrogant. The best traders are the most humble.
– Don’t trade until an opportunity presents itself.

Advice: you have to learn how to lose; it is more important than learning how to win. If you think you are always going to be a winner, when you lose, you will develop feelings of hostility and end up blaming the market instead of trying to learn why you lost. Limit losses quickly..

 

[londonkid]

Jack Schwager interviewing Mark Weinstein:


Well, let's put it this way: What was your worst single trading month?

I haven't had any losing months.

You have made money in every single month since 1980!

Yes. Of course, I could have made a lot more money if I wasn't so cautious, but that is the way I trade.

Do you remember your worst losing week?

I haven't had any losing weeks during that time, but I have had some losing days.

That is an incredible statement. How can you be sure that you are not simply forgetting about a few weeks when you lost money trading?

The reason I am sure is that I remember all my losses. For example, I have had three losing days in the last two years. Out of the thousands of trades I made during that time, I had 17 losers, but nine of them were because my quote machine was down, and when that happens I just get out of my position.


This implies a 99% win rate.

Personally, not sure what to make of this.

I believe this is def possible, certainly on the intra month profitability. You have to remember you are discussing this in the context of a trading forum, this sound really bad but the majority here have no clue what they are doing. I know for a fact though that there are members of ET who are up there and on top of the game, they don't post much though - as they have no need to.

I know of traders (prop spreaders) who have not had a losing month for over 5 years. Obviously these people are in the minority and it's not easy. Just looking at my stats I am green 76% of days over a substantial period with largest losing day less than half of my largest winning day. I average 6 trades a day.

It took me a long time to be not get hung up about having down days, I still get small down weeks and that bothers me. I have absolutely no interest in selling anything or mentoring. Maybe in the future, many years from now I could start a trading firm but I would pay them not the other way around.

GL.

 

[Scataphagos]

Are there systems that are limited by size, i.e. the big don't bother?

I don't know about "system" being limited by size, but we're all constrained by the depth of the market/issue.

 

[Scataphagos]

PS: Your wife confirmed that it is difficult to discuss with you. She told me you always want to be right, even if you are not.

Oops, you outed yourself. I know you're BS'n because it's the wife who is always right. Even when I'm right she never says, "I was wrong".

 

[londonkid]

I don't know about "system" being limited by size, but we're all constrained by the depth of the market/issue.

yes. I believe the deepest markets are fixed income and FX, of course the longer the timeframe the less liquidity restraints. In equities I guess the ES can handle a fair bit of volume.

 

[Scataphagos]

yes. I believe the deepest markets are fixed income and FX, of course the longer the timeframe the less liquidity restraints. In equities I guess the ES can handle a fair bit of volume.

In the ES you can usually trade $20-$30 Million... even up to $100 Million with the click of a mouse during the regular session with minimal or no slippage.

 

[londonkid]

In the ES you can usually trade $20-$30 Million... even up to $100 Million with the click of a mouse during the regular session with minimal or no slippage.

yes it's the macdaddy for depth in equities isn't it. I don't trade it, too schizo for me.

 

[Scataphagos]

I don't trade it, too schizo for me.

Lot of people say that. Tick-by-tick it's manic and noisy, so I don't see how scalpers would do well... but for any measure of "swing sized moves", it's OK.

When the electronic e-mini contracts started trading, the big S&P contract traded in the pit was doing the majority of the volume. Now the ES swamps the pit contract to the point the big contract should just be abandoned. The pit contract is $250/point last I checked, so it's 5X as big as a single ES. You have to pay more commission to trade 5 ES than 1 big contract, but you save a lot in avoiding the slippage of the big contract.

 

[JTrades]

I believe this is def possible, certainly on the intra month profitability. You have to remember you are discussing this in the context of a trading forum, this sound really bad but the majority here have no clue what they are doing. I know for a fact though that there are members of ET who are up there and on top of the game, they don't post much though - as they have no need to.

I know of traders (prop spreaders) who have not had a losing month for over 5 years. Obviously these people are in the minority and it's not easy. Just looking at my stats I am green 76% of days over a substantial period with largest losing day less than half of my largest winning day. I average 6 trades a day.

It took me a long time to be not get hung up about having down days, I still get small down weeks and that bothers me. I have absolutely no interest in selling anything or mentoring. Maybe in the future, many years from now I could start a trading firm but I would pay them not the other way around.

GL.

Good points, thanks. I agree with you.

Reliable (almost always positive) P&L on a monthly or weekly or daily basis is explained by positive expectancy and large enough N, where N required to be larger for lower win rates. A statistical thing.

But, it's this particular point which I had issue with:

Out of the thousands of trades I made during that time, I had 17 losers, ...

2000 trades, 17 losers, which is a 99.15% win rate. Regardless of how you weigh this up, it's at the extreme end.

He might have exaggerated, so it could be 800 trades and 27 losers, say, but this is still better than 95%.

 

[londonkid]

Good points, thanks. I agree with you.

Reliable (almost always positive) P&L on a monthly or weekly or daily basis is explained by positive expectancy and large enough N, where N required to be larger for lower win rates. A statistical thing.

But, it's this particular point which I had issue with:

Out of the thousands of trades I made during that time, I had 17 losers, ...

2000 trades, 17 losers, which is a 99.15% win rate. Regardless of how you weigh this up, it's at the extreme end.

He might have exaggerated, so it could be 800 trades and 27 losers, say, but this is still better than 95%.

Yes I agree. That specific point on the 17 losers is a mighty claim. Personally I do believe there are a few traders out there with 95%+ hit rates with sensible RR. They are very rare though.