I guess a good trader does a pretty good job of both. Mininmizing the damage on the bad entries and maximizing the profit on the good entries. Tough thing to do consistently but that encompasses why trading is a very difficult thing to do.
Prove to me that Technical Analysis Works.
- Thread starter TazTheLaz
- Start date
I guess a good trader does a pretty good job of both. Mininmizing the damage on the bad entries and maximizing the profit on the good entries. Tough thing to do consistently but that encompasses why trading is a very difficult thing to do.
I explained that already many times on ET. But most people do not understand that.
This confirms what I just posted above.
Both, entry and exit can minimize the damage. And both can maximize the profits.
Try to make a good entry and a good exit, and compare the result with what you posted. I am sure my way of doing will give better results.
Good entries are more important then good exits. Try to find out why. It has to do with size...
Size matters for a good performance.
In trading at least.
What does size have to do with entries vs exits????
Size is a function of "prudent" money managrment ,I.e determining how much capital to risk per trade,perhaps factoring volatility in order to set ones stop.
I think I know where you are going with this,but basing size based off of entries is madness
Size is a function of "prudent" money managrment ,I.e determining how much capital to risk per trade,perhaps factoring volatility in order to set ones stop.
I think I know where you are going with this,but basing size based off of entries is madness
This confirms what I just posted above.
Both, entry and exit can minimize the damage. And both can maximize the profits.
Try to make a good entry and a good exit, and compare the result with what you posted. I am sure my way of doing will give better results.
Good entries are more important then good exits. Try to find out why. It has to do with size...
Size matters for a good performance.
In trading at least.
I haven't read all of the replies, so apologies if this is already stated in one way or another, or off topic already, but wanted to give my take.
The main thing in your post is you're assuming that volatility and share price (or index price), including intrahour, intraday, intraweek, intramonth, etc. is moment to moment intimately tied to the "entirety of a company". That is simply not the case. This year is a perfect example where for the most part, the downside volatility has far exceeded reality of current or imminent changes (same could be said in reverse about the rally the last couple years.) Volatility is what's being exploited, not business models or changes in their actual or perceived success levels, especially since traders are intraday or shortterm traders
That said, I agree that most TA is garbage. Lines are crude and are better at attempting to explain the past than predict the future. There can be correlations, but that is not the same as causation, and much of what people see in TA are symptoms, and not the actual cause [imho]. However price analysis and movement over time is everything, not just TA but in how algorithms influence the markets. Personally I don't look at lines as much as I look at curves, which has to do with accel/decel, but that's neither here nor there. This is very much a volatility game and very little a business model game, and TA is one way of analyzing that and helping one to exploit potential patterns of movement over time that can be recurrent.
Good entries have a big impact on the expectancy. And that is the key to prudent risk management. And I found out that good entries have a very big impact on (lowering) risk, and lowering drawdowns. Which leaves room for bigger leverage.
They also enable you to use smaller stops. Add compounding and you will see the difference in returns even with your eyes closed.
So the logical, but not realistic, solution is:
Try to pick all the bottoms for each long and all tops for each short entry, which is impossible, and you would have almost no losing trades, or at least small losses.
So the logical, realistic aim is to get as close as possible to these optimal entry points.
Where do you think I am going?
If it is that easy, you must be very rich too.
In real life there are people who become billionaires in no time while others need many years or even a full lifetime. Using your logic all these billionaires are losers except the one who did it in no time.
You are posting on ET already 12 years. You past the 100mm mark too? Paper trading does not count.
Last edited: