Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?
- Thread starter bitrend
- Start date
Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?
Perhaps the answer would be either Neither or Both.
Q
"What is the secret of your success in trading?"
"Two words: Right decisions."
"Then how do you make Right decisions?"
"One word: Experience."
"So how do you get Experience?"
"Two Words!"
"What are these two Words, please?"
"Wrong decisions."
UQ
Perhaps the answer would be either Neither or Both.
Q
"What is the secret of your success in trading?"
"Two words: Right decisions."
"Then how do you make Right decisions?"
"One word: Experience."
"So how do you get Experience?"
"Two Words!"
"What are these two Words, please?"
"Wrong decisions."
UQ
It is not meant as a secret word or anything like that. I use it to mean approximately what it means in Quantum Mechanics- that an object can be entangled with something else - e.g., the Einstein Podolsky Rosen experiment.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
What this means is that for example a stock (or even a future) can entangle itself with another stock, or certainly with it's sector, or even with a Hedge Fund! So this state is not just trending or just mean reversion, or arbitrage, it is some combination of the three at once.
In fact I believe that it is the high dimensionality of the entanglement that makes predictive trading so difficult for most (that are not doing mindless "trading" like arbitrage). People try to reduce trading to rules, but imo it is a "feel" (probably even subconcious!) for this high dimensional entaglement that makes a great trader or not, and in particular a feel for "phase transitions". Soros's currency trade was of this order.
Then you need the other piece of the puzzle while honing this skill:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1012892#post1012892
nitro
You make an interesting point and, to an extent, I suppose I agree with you. But yours is a fairly esoteric argument, and I'm not sure to what extent it is supported by the facts to the exclusion of other possibilities. Consider your example of Soros. There is no question that he has made many brilliant trades in his career, but he has no lack of poor ones either. If I am not mistaken, some time after he made the celebrated British Pound trade that made over $1 billion, he lost about $300 million on a Japanese Yen trade. So, is it necessarily a "feel" for the entanglement as you propose, or is it possibly that his "rules" are simply better than most? And to make it even more confounding, perhaps he has a better feel for devising the rules that should be followed. Further, if Soros relies solely on the "feel" that you propose, then evidently this feel does not always work. Not unlike rules, whatever they may be.
P.S. I present this argument because the market has rarely allowed me to cop a "feel" and get away with it.
I suppose I play the game at a lower level.===============
[#1]Drills are more helpful than books;
however if one is able to read[many are not], able to comprehend what you read, would not minimize the valuable top trader books like Jack Schwager,Dr Van Tharp........
=========================================
===========================
[1.3], see #1 again
[#2]Actually agree with that also;
that certain point is when you quit, no antidote for that.
[#3]What drills means to me is a well researched plan executed; on paper ,
repeat it,executed on paper [papertrading] True ,that monopoly money/papertrading isn't the same as real time money.
Also true, paper trading, which involves more senses than reading a book;
helped me a lot, especially over time.
Paper trading ,as helpful as it was, and is/ helpful present tense,;
is no substitute for proper position size.
Prefer to be somewhat selective in paper trading also;
even advertising pens are worth something, so dont waste ink on just any papertrade, even with free paper
The doing is more work than knowing, papertrading is part of my realtime trading, not all of it but still a part.
the reason why this person is here is not that he ever wanted to teach anything to anyone. the only reason he uses the internet is that he wants to fight his deep frustration about his own life. he is most likely somebody who lived a rather miserable life with not much accomplished in whatever field. now he is old and embittered (which he proves with almost every post he makes) and probably rather poor and he seeks for some way of distraction.
he claims he is rich - he claims he is successful - he claims he made money in the markets for about 50 years - he just claims. if anyone comes up with some serious questions about him or his methods of trading, etc. (which is more than legitimate - considering the way he behaves) - what is the reaction? he will attack you - call you names - ridicule you ... what you will NEVER get is simple facts that could help you to understand it. of course not - because he himself does not understand the words he types - he has no competence about trading and the markets. he claims he has written about 30 books - but not one of them can be found anywhere.
how many very successful people have you ever seen or met in person, behaving like this - even more if they are old and can look back to a long and happy and fulfilled life? i'd say none - probably not one single successful settled person would ever behave like this. people who had great success in a performance discipline are nice and calm and can describe with clear words how they do what they do. he on the other hand thinks that just by applying a "special" style of writing he puts himself in a superiour position and just because almost nobody is able to understand what he wants to express he thinks he is better than the rest. the opposite is true - but he is not able to understand this. this is a proven fact - incompetence is covered up by complexity - here we have one example.
talking about "his" "methods". the first is "his" equities trading method - yes it seems to work - but where is one single proof that he is the inventor of this method? i've seen none. maybe he found it somewhere and tried it out - or whatever. he probably tried trading with real money - but he obviously never had any success. that's just one reason for his bitterness.
and what about his "sct"-trading for futures? well - if you have some market knowledge and some years of experience you know how valid it is. being in the market all the time - no stops - and making 3 times the range EVERY day - ... if he had just one percent of the success as a trader as he claims he had - he would most likely be one of the richest men in the us - and he wouldn't waste so much time (obviously several hours per day) to lurk through dozens of internet forums and spread his mantras to an ongoing stream of newbies who fall prey to his stuff. i wait for the day when somebody starts a journal and trades "his" method for futures and makes the expected results (or at least 10 pts. per day - consistently). he himself did not and will not do it - because he cannot trade.
but after all - he's a redneck and he grew up very poor so that he probably even just had one grandpa and one grandma. i feel sorry for this man - it's not his fault.
he claims he is rich - he claims he is successful - he claims he made money in the markets for about 50 years - he just claims. if anyone comes up with some serious questions about him or his methods of trading, etc. (which is more than legitimate - considering the way he behaves) - what is the reaction? he will attack you - call you names - ridicule you ... what you will NEVER get is simple facts that could help you to understand it. of course not - because he himself does not understand the words he types - he has no competence about trading and the markets. he claims he has written about 30 books - but not one of them can be found anywhere.
how many very successful people have you ever seen or met in person, behaving like this - even more if they are old and can look back to a long and happy and fulfilled life? i'd say none - probably not one single successful settled person would ever behave like this. people who had great success in a performance discipline are nice and calm and can describe with clear words how they do what they do. he on the other hand thinks that just by applying a "special" style of writing he puts himself in a superiour position and just because almost nobody is able to understand what he wants to express he thinks he is better than the rest. the opposite is true - but he is not able to understand this. this is a proven fact - incompetence is covered up by complexity - here we have one example.
talking about "his" "methods". the first is "his" equities trading method - yes it seems to work - but where is one single proof that he is the inventor of this method? i've seen none. maybe he found it somewhere and tried it out - or whatever. he probably tried trading with real money - but he obviously never had any success. that's just one reason for his bitterness.
and what about his "sct"-trading for futures? well - if you have some market knowledge and some years of experience you know how valid it is. being in the market all the time - no stops - and making 3 times the range EVERY day - ... if he had just one percent of the success as a trader as he claims he had - he would most likely be one of the richest men in the us - and he wouldn't waste so much time (obviously several hours per day) to lurk through dozens of internet forums and spread his mantras to an ongoing stream of newbies who fall prey to his stuff. i wait for the day when somebody starts a journal and trades "his" method for futures and makes the expected results (or at least 10 pts. per day - consistently). he himself did not and will not do it - because he cannot trade.
but after all - he's a redneck and he grew up very poor so that he probably even just had one grandpa and one grandma. i feel sorry for this man - it's not his fault.
Judging from the efforts you have been making on this topic, you are correct.
To make money a person has to only do what he knows how to do and only do it when the risk level is very low for him, personally.
the risk inherent in the differing market operating points should not be a concern for anyone who is still in a place where personal risk dominates.
]
Personal risk considerations come first for people in your shoes. Never loose sight of these two types of risk.
Personal performance is fraught with risk when a person is oriented as you are.
I am not particularly religious like wearing stuff on my sleeve but the parable of the sower as applied to temporal things (which it was not designed for) is where you have an opportunity to deal.
why go to all the trouble to explain over and over what does not work in a parable? You are the reader not the author of parables.i am not an author either; I just surface stuff for consideration.
It is very tough to discuss stuff with persons who can't do their thing. And I can't put myself in their place either.
Chugging along for fifty years learning how markets work is a very illuminating place to be. It is like a gap builds between myself and others who are where they happen to be. I certainly haven't been to the places my critics have as they speak of how they cogently marshed a diverse set of formal intellectual fields. All I have done is written books in many fileds, all a consequence of being in the field and addressing problems those disciplines are designed to conquer. It is a way of life for me and I love the nuts and bolts of getting the job done by working.
Those outside of the superior intellectual spaces and outside of the practicum world I love, do not stand a chance of getting to work with knowledge to acquire skills.
You missed the point of the four progressions completely. You are at great personal risk at all times when you operate in markets and it is not a market operating point risk that is on the table. People who cannot determine when they are not learning correctly or when they are making mistakes are at serious disadvantage.
All beginners must focus, only on low risk market operating points. they may not trade in any place where there is risk. Why? Simply because they are learning "repeated failure" if they make this kind of mistake.
I don't know what most people are doing. I find out when I throw one liners out as bait. My modus is well known to most. I know in three or four rounds with a person sort of where he is by what he doesn't say. We all do that kind of thing.
The turtles history is very informative as much by what it doesn't say as compared to where it operated and played.
Delving into nuture and natural is important to see the synergism they have when they are not curtailed by any impediments.
People who don't make it are usually those who get stuck along the way since trading is just a pragmatic way of extracting capital from an available resourse that operates by market rules and a transparent data supply.
Someone is going to design an approach to make 100 million.
I glance at it and see 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1.5, .75, .4, .2, .1, 50K, 25K. 12k, 6k, 3k, 1.5k, $750, $400
I started with 300 bucks and my best single day so far is 1.7 million net. So I am finished with thinking about 100 million except to see that it is only 18 doublings and takes a lot of different trading strategies to get there. I also noticed that there is a point when taking money out of the market account is the dominant theme.
My main focus is to figure out how transference works for making it possible for any kind of person to trade successfully so that he principal method of building wealth is trading part time.
So far I have found out that nature and nurture work together.
Teaching doesn't work.
Learning is a process that is best helped by having support and resources available at the exact place where the person is interested in learning.
Any body of resources has to be accessable from any facet.
The relationships of the facets have to be available.
All resources have to have the pitfalls removed so they are idiot proof.
Learning can be converted from linear to exponential by using support tools that accommodate just how the brain works
The lizard syndrome must be avoided at all times and this is done by following the path of least personal risk and least market risk. This, in effect, builds on success.
So I am modelling this using webs, meetings, drills, constructing a residential training and polishing area (Hawaii) in a no cost context where two caveats exist: it is understood that the real learning occur when it is passed forward and it is always possible to share profits with others in your community that are less fortunate.
As you see all of this makes for a hostile environment in ET. And the descriptors (the talk) applied to what , how, why and so on are largely the opposite of what is going on. So I get to have a good laugh every day of the week.
If I play the paper, scissors and rock game it is to cut and paste (electronically) paper (electronic files like camtasia files (try to post one in ET..lol) and i really rock with teams of like mindes people who are really loving making money avery day of the week in real markets in real time with real money.
We are resptive ot others and we respond in the manner in which they request. the cheapest airline tickets to tucson are Southwest......
You make me laugh........
No question that it is a somewhat esoteric. I also agree that there are other explanations. But that there is validity to the argument I have zero doubt about it. Doesn't mean there aren't other explanations or routes to success - but one wonders when one analyses a traders success it comes down to subtle influences that he has internilized and is not even aware of? For example, someone will show me a chart and it is clear as day that the technical analysis is correct. You put on that trade and the trade works. You do this repeatedly and you are right 8 out of 10 times. So the conclusion reached is often that technical analysis works. At this point, being a scientist and a programmer, you decide that you will code this pattern that has been successful for you. It is rather straight forward and you wonder why you didn't code it earlier and just let the machine trade while you sip chi-chi's on a blue-green ocean beach in the middle of the Atlantic.
But a strange thing happens. You lose consistantly on the pattern now. You check and recheck the code, and nope - nothing wrong with it. You see if it is getting bad fills - nope - you check if the datafeed is lagging - nope - you start getting paranoid that the market has discovered your strategy and it has optimized it out. You are dishartened. So you go back to trading the pattern on feel again, and you are back to eight out ten winners!!! HUH????
After much reflection, you realize that you are somehow, unconciously, filtering out the bad plays, and in fact it may not even be the pattern that is profitable, but the decision to make the trade for some unobvious reason. There is a "rule" there for sure, but the reason you want the rule is that your mind requires "proof" in liquistic terms. Making money on it is not enough - you don't trust that.
I believe you are making a categorical mistake in this argument. It is possible to do everything "right", and still lose!!!!!!!!
See above story line - I have lived it and come to these conclusions through experience.
Of course that is true - but you must be misintrepreting something I said. There are rules, but the rules may not be linquistic rules at all, but are stored in the body, yes the body not just the mind, somehow.
Don't take this the wrong way, but your modesty is the correct answer about yourself.P.S. I present this argument because the market has rarely allowed me to cop a "feel" and get away with it.
nitro
Not in the context of your "feel" argument. If your "feelings" didn't make the right call, then your take on the "entanglement" you previously described was wrong. Are you changing the logic of your own argument? This observation does not diminish your "feelings" argument, but merely your above quoted comment.
And are you possessed of these corporal rules? If so, and unless you are a truly exceptional trader, then I suspect that you have just not taken the time or trouble to properly articulate them. As for your coding argument, I'm not completely convinced. Even a lowly pedestrian trader such as myself uses a home made set of rules that cannot be adequately computer coded (at least not by anyone I know). And I don't even walk among the gods.
Whereas I bathe in the glow of your majesty.
That is simply not correct. Entanglement just means combination in feedback of one or more things "tied" together by some means. It is a mixture of (non-)linear interacting parts that somehow are more than their partial sums. The more dimensions, the more complicated the causal effects will be and the more likely that you can miss a dimensional effect in your "feel". Sometimes the interactions are so complex that no analysis, even in "principle" is possible mathematically. The reference you want to google is the three body problem.
I do not see my argument as logical or illogical. I only try to convey experience as I have lived it. In fact, logic while a guiding principle in all my market studies, is where I begin, not where I end. Again, you are trapped in the linguistic need to understand what your brain/body may already understand intuitively, but that part of your psyche is not in control, and it is certainly not the one that posts on ET.
How do I articulate that my stomach is telling me that the trade I am in sucks? What question would I even pose? More linquistic jail. Read Wittgenstein.
The Gods? Programming is a very trivial skill. Most children pick it up like a duck to water. I do not deny your experience with your own rules, but since you are not a programmer, how are you able to pass judgement on whether they can be coded or not?
I was just agreeing with you!
nitro