Kudos to MMs

I am trying to decide whether NAZ at 5000 or Gold here is a bigger pile of shit. Nah, Pets.com was infinitely worse, I think.

Just think, you can either pile your money into this shiny yellow bling, I mean metal, or into a commodity without which the world would stop cold in it's track. Yep, logic wins again.
 
Nitro, please don't take this the wrong way but when I see traders start commenting on fundamentals when they are in a losing position the next step is usually a blowout. It's just a bad omen.

On a side note, what's worrisome is that there appears to be no provisions in this system for deciding when you are wrong. The entries appear to be straightforward albeit discretionary but where are the exists? At what point do you cry uncle? At what point is your system wrong? I think these are all fair questions.
 
Quote from Maverick74:
Nitro, please don't take this the wrong way but when I see traders start commenting on fundamentals when they are in a losing position the next step is usually a blowout. It's just a bad omen.
More...
Depends whether the trader is a macro or micro trader. Many quantitative funds "trade" on exactly these numbers.

On a side note, what's worrisome is that there appears to be no provisions in this system for deciding when you are wrong. The entries appear to be straightforward albeit discretionary but where are the exists? At what point do you cry uncle? At what point is your system wrong? I think these are all fair questions.
More...
The provision for the day trades is simple, out EOD win or lose, although if I had a profit target I would be doing 3x better since the market [has been] friggin rallying relentlessly into the close like clockwork on down days, and it has cost me easily 50 handles. Inspite of that the daytrades are up slightly, although not after today if this continues. The entries and exits are 100% systemic. Only yesterday did I decide that it may have been best to lay low, which cost.

If you are talking about the NFV system, there is no exit there. Convergence or not.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Why would you say that? Nitro wasn't wrong at all... the market was!

So you need to put the blame where it belongs: If the market had only done what it was 'supposed to do', this trade would have made a ton of money.
More...

nitro started out with a "1 lot" around 1089 I believe which has mushroomed into in excess of a 400 HUNDRED HANDLE LOSS.

NICE..... Just the kind of trader I would put money behind.
 
There is a chapter in market wizards I forget where, a new trader is taken down to the pits and made to get out on a short stop over and over again, I think the idea was to create a sort of automatic/muscle memory aversion to loss. Its too bad that everyone who trades doesn't get this training, I know I didn't. Anyone who has been around long enough knows that getting out when you are wrong is the key to long term survival. Nitro is actually doing the board a favor by showing how bad it can hurt when you are on the wrong side of a trend.
 
Quote from nitro:

Depends whether the trader is a macro or micro trader. Many quantitative funds "trade" on exactly these numbers.


The provision for the day trades is simple, out EOD win or lose, although if I had a profit target I would be doing 3x better since the market [has been] friggin rallying relentlessly into the close lie clockwork on down days, and it has cost me easily 50 handles. Inspite of that the daytrades are up slightly. The entries and exits are 100% systemic. Only yesterday did I decide that it may have been best to lay low, which cost.

If you are talking about the NFV system, there is no exit there. Convergence or not.
More...

Yeah I know many quantitative funds look at macro stuff but this is a technical system that does not trade fundamentals. All I am saying is that I have noticed over the last 10 years is when a trader starts commenting frequently on fundamentals "while they are in a losing trade" it's usually because the system has failed them and now they are turning to religion (fundamentals) so to speak.

I know many traders that will comment on fundamentals when they are in a "winning" trade. Usually this is done to keep them in the trade and extend their winners because we all have a tendency to cut our winners short.

I assume by your comment about the NFV system since there is no stop, you would never seriously put "your money" in that type of system. Obviously it would lead to ruin. So I have to assume it's merely an academic exercise which is fine.
 
Quote from Maverick74:
Yeah I know many quantitative funds look at macro stuff but this is a technical system that does not trade fundamentals. All I am saying is that I have noticed over the last 10 years is when a trader starts commenting frequently on fundamentals "while they are in a losing trade" it's usually because the system has failed them and now they are turning to religion (fundamentals) so to speak.

I know many traders that will comment on fundamentals when they are in a "winning" trade. Usually this is done to keep them in the trade and extend their winners because we all have a tendency to cut our winners short.
More...
I do not deny your experience. I do know that many large funds trade strictly on these numbers.

I assume by your comment about the NFV system since there is no stop, you would never seriously put "your money" in that type of system. Obviously it would lead to ruin. So I have to assume it's merely an academic exercise which is fine.
More...
Why? That would be false if the parameters are explained. Look, study Paulson's trade. Or look at Chanos typical shorts - these guys take it up the ass regularly. It is all about not over leveraging the position so that you are forced out the way LTCM was. The key is not the absolute size of the draw-down, it is whether it is within your parameters to be able to withstand this sort of move.

Say I am down 500 handles on one contract, average. That is $25,000. If were trading a million dollars that would be a joke to me.
 
Quote from nitro:

I do not deny your experience. I do know that many large funds trade strictly on these numbers.


Why? That would be false if the parameters are explained. Look, study Paulson's trade. Or look at Chanos typical shorts - these guys take it up the ass regularly. It is all about not over leveraging the position so that you are forced out the way LTCM was. The key is not the draw-down, it is whether it is within your parameters to be able to withstand this sort of move.
More...

Again I agree with you on large funds. My point is, large funds that commit to technicals do not "suddenly" start introducing fundamentals into the discussion while they are in a trade. This is usually decided upon from the beginning. You never commented on fundamentals before. But now that you are taking heat fading a one way freight train, you seem to comment on every piece of news as though it is ridiculous for the market going higher based on it.

I'm just saying when guys get desperate they start yelling at the rain. There are no shortage of threads on ET where guys are trying to defend their short positions in this bull market with fundamental commentary. It's just an observation, that's all.

And your Paulson and Chanos examples are bad. They "are" fundamental traders. Therefore they stay in trades as long as the fundamentals justify their trades. You are a technical trader trading a model and that model has inputs that create values for you to trade on. At some point those values are invalidated and action must be taken. You can't create a model that trades on data and suddenly use fundamentals to justify losses. There has to be a consistency there. As a programmer I know you understand this. There has to be consistent logic with the code.
 
Quote from Maverick74:

Again I agree with you on large funds. My point is, large funds that commit to technicals do not "suddenly" start introducing fundamentals into the discussion while they are in a trade. This is usually decided upon from the beginning. You never commented on fundamentals before. But now that you are taking heat fading a one way freight train, you seem to comment on every piece of news as though it is ridiculous for the market going higher based on it.

I'm just saying when guys get desperate they start yelling at the rain. There are no shortage of threads on ET where guys are trying to defend their short positions in this bull market with fundamental commentary. It's just an observation, that's all.

And your Paulson and Chanos examples are bad. They "are" fundamental traders. Therefore they stay in trades as long as the fundamentals justify their trades. You are a technical trader trading a model and that model has inputs that create values for you to trade on. At some point those values are invalidated and action must be taken. You can't create a model that trades on data and suddenly use fundamentals to justify losses. There has to be a consistency there. As a programmer I know you understand this. There has to be consistent logic with the code.
More...
Who says my model is not based on fundamentals? Where on this thread on NFV do you see a chart?
 
Quote from nitro:



Say I am down 500 handles on one contract, average. That is $25,000. If were trading a million dollars that would be a joke to me.
More...

OK, but then let me ask you why would you be putting on a one lot trade in a million dollar account. To earn .000001% on your money a year? The math is not adding up Nitro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top