Loosing from the initial capital vs. loosing from made profits?

Quote from dbphoenix:



Hey, I'm loose all the time. :p


Me to. I'm moving up in my posts to suggesting the opening trend too. Did you see my post on that yesterday.??? The one for the open today?????

Stay loose. We got point 3 now as you see too.
 
Quote from Hun:

Hi Everybody!
I'm interested are there any psychological differences between loosing from your initial trading capital (capital you start with) and loosing from the profits you made?
How you individually feel taking a loss and also during loosing times? Would it be easier to loose from the profits?

I understand that the profit you make becomes your money, but still it was other people’s money, not your hard earned cash (please don't say, you should risk only money you can afford to loose, I know that). And I also know that the losses are part of the game.

Thanks!
Regards, Hun

how is there a difference?
 
For sure. There should be a thread dedicated to money management if you ask me. But I guess that is just not "sexy" enough for most traders.

great idea
 
limitdown

There is a difference, is depend how you got the money for the initial capital, but you big traders probably don’t remember anymore, because you passed that stage.
OK, if you got the money from your father to play with, maybe it isn’t, but if you had to save it up from your full time job (if you not a full time trader) I think it would make a difference.
I agree that the profit is hard earned cash, but in regards to making $1,000 with $10,000 or $10,000 with $100,000 is pretty much a same effort.
Think it as if you would go to a casino with a $500 and come home with only $200 or nothing (probably the latest) or win another $500, but on the end lose back $300, so you end up with $700. Would it make a difference how would you feel???

hun
 
Quote from Hun:

limitdown

There is a difference, is depend how you got the money for the initial capital, but you big traders probably don’t remember anymore, because you passed that stage.
OK, if you got the money from your father to play with, maybe it isn’t, but if you had to save it up from your full time job (if you not a full time trader) I think it would make a difference.
I agree that the profit is hard earned cash, but in regards to making $1,000 with $10,000 or $10,000 with $100,000 is pretty much a same effort.
Think it as if you would go to a casino with a $500 and come home with only $200 or nothing (probably the latest) or win another $500, but on the end lose back $300, so you end up with $700. Would it make a difference how would you feel???

hun

Yes, you're right there is a significant difference.

I studied under a money manager who achieved some pretty good success, and he had a mantra that he would teach his classes: "your profits are not the house money, but your's, you earned it". He would convey this concept with such force that you actually did get his point, when you make profits, you are not playing with house money, as if somehow its not real or not hard earned.

That subtle difference in perspective is what starts a trader on the path to winning and keeping his/her earnings instead of constantly staying at the crap tables throwing back what was earned beyond the initial investment.

Cheers
 
What if they were given 1 million each :D All that kind of questions are classical studies about utility concept and risk aversion. It is no use in trading (it is more useful for economists for the nation investment). The importing thing in trading is capital preservation at least when you trade your own money that's why one must be always reluctant to give its capital to others to trade because I already talked about the difference between classical alpha and beta risk in statistical inference which corresponds to the distinction between real loss and opportunity loss and that is something which is rational and not only psychological: when you trade with your own money you will privilege alpha risk whereas those who trades OPM (Others people money) will privilige beta risk since the real risk is not for them but for their clients. So the bulls manias since they risk nothing. Of course there will be honest guys that will care about your money as if it was theirs but statistically speaking the average behavior will be to privilege beta risk because it is their interests : you can't erase the predominant interests of a whole group.

Quote from gms:

I read about an experiment where a group was given $30 each. Then they were asked whether they wanted to take a gamble. About 70% of the group said yes. Another group was not given money and also asked if they wanted to take the same gamble. About 30% said yes.

Apparantly, people are more likely to take a chance with "found "money, even though the value of that money, "found" or not, is the same.

People don't seem to mind giving up gains, but they mind giving up principal, although both can have equivalent value. I suppose the principal has more emotional ties to it. Nevertheless, insofar as you're concerned, it's a moot point. Money is always money, all the time.
 
As an Englishman I find it very amusing when Americans try to correct spelling incorrectly.

English is the language of England, not the American version.

The English reference book is the Oxford English Dictionary where

Lose is a loss or deficit

Loose (American Version) is slack, not tight

If you want to pick up on English spelling mistakes do not refer to it as English, refer to the American hybrid as the reference unless it is incorrect in accordance with the Oxford Dictionary.
 
Back
Top