So I have an idea....

Reminds me of a young father signing up for parenting classes. He said he'd been doing great so far by doing the opposite of what his father did, but he didn't trust that would last...
 
Kim Jong Un said:
I think the definition of a loser is someone who consistently losses? It's what I'm good at. I'm kind of like the villain in a child's movie. I can try to be a winner and fail at life, or just embrace who I am. If you're good at something, why change it? If I consistently try to win, I will lose. So, by keeping that going, I can still be a benefit. I can help others know what not to do.
More...
Tongue in cheek aside, your underlying thesis is a somewhat powerful idea that most people's brains aren't wired for. Of course in trading it's a bit tricky because often it's the transaction costs that cause the overall negative result and they're the same if you mirror the strategy. There are also a lot of "picking nickles up in front of a steamroller" strategies, like selling naked OTM calls or selling VIX that you could consistently be a "loser" at if you took the opposite strategy but just often enough a big move would wipe someone out who was taking following the original strategy. My challenge to you is to actually consistently lose over a long period of time without taking into account transaction costs and without occasionally having a big win. The is exactly as hard as the opposite, friendly little challenge that I bet you can't do it (hope that is paradoxically good for your self esteem?)
 
Sig said:
Tongue in cheek aside, your underlying thesis is a somewhat powerful idea that most people's brains aren't wired for. Of course in trading it's a bit tricky because often it's the transaction costs that cause the overall negative result and they're the same if you mirror the strategy. There are also a lot of "picking nickles up in front of a steamroller" strategies, like selling naked OTM calls or selling VIX that you could consistently be a "loser" at if you took the opposite strategy but just often enough a big move would wipe someone out who was taking following the original strategy. My challenge to you is to actually consistently lose over a long period of time without taking into account transaction costs and without occasionally having a big win. The is exactly as hard as the opposite, friendly little challenge that I bet you can't do it (hope that is paradoxically good for your self esteem?)
More...
I get what you're saying, and that's what I'm attempting to do. Consistently losing is just as good as consistently winning. I do have a 10 year record of accounts going pretty much one direction, down. So I just my have the true loser talent in me.
 
Kim Jong Un said:
That one actually hit target. I'm trying to lose today but I can't even do that.
More...

There is a contradiction in your posting.
You want to lose, but you put and hit a target to make a profit.

To be consequent you should have put a target above your entry price. And as prices are already more than 2 hours in the loss area for your short, you would have hit that target without any problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top