Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?

[illiquid]

Quote from nitro:

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Are you saying that, when some guesses, based on "feel" or otherwise, that sometimes they are wrong? That is tautologous. Look at the original post. I said that I would be right 8 out of 10 times. That means that I am wrong 20% of the time!!!
nitro

But isn't it true that the 80/20 is just the statistical result, and that you actually feel "right" 100% of the time in doing that trade -- that you would "take" that trade every time you're given the opportunity? I would believe traders who work with statistics, backtesting, rinse and repeat setups think in terms of probabilities, of playing the percentages; for them "right" and "wrong" are determined before the trade is even opened, no matter the outcome. They feel "right" in doing the trade, and would feel right again if given the exact same setup the next time around despite the losses.

Other traders (and perhaps this is whom thunderdog is referring to) would have the perspective that there are certain patterns (in the most general sense) which might repeat themselves (not necessarily actually) and may form the main impetus for opening a trade, but that ultimately the criteria for right or wrong are unique to each trade; a loss would prove that you were wrong somehow, whether in timing, a lack or misinterpretation of information, etc. But the reasons would all come in retrospect, or perhaps never at all; a losing trade is just proof you were missing something, whatever that may be, for that unique trade.

Different perspectives, but both are just what's necessary to continue to trade in either vein with confidence.

 

[nitro]

Part of the problem, as usual on ET, is that "great trader" can mean so many things and we get back to definition problems. People will read books like Schawgers and point to those people as being great traders. Look, is someone that has mounds of money, works for a firm and arbitrages NY vs Chicago a "great trader" ? Not by my definition. But those people might make it into Schawgers books, because maybe they make tons of money. But there is nothing great about their trading! IMO. People on ET shoul want to emulate Soros, not someone that has 500 computers at a datacenter arbing the DAX vs ES! Not because it is not "great trading", but because it is outside the realm of most of us here, or even more accurately, you are not a great trader if it is your computer that does the trading.

Great trading to me means predictive trading by a human being making decisions, where you put a position on, and you repair it, you manipulate other traders, you take a stop loss, you take partial profits, you decide on the bet size. Etc. I am defining it in those terms not because it is a perfect definition by any means, but because that is what 99.1% of anyone that comes into ET will be forced into doing.

With that in mind, I think that I am not coming accross in the way that I planned.

What I am trying to say is that when doing predictive trading, no amount of rule based computation ala modern computers will help you become a great trader. Further, I claim that any set of static rules is worthless. People trying to turn themselves into a computer is a bad thing. But what I am arguing is deeper. People believe it is their rules that make them good traders. I claim it is something more than this (TA or whatever set of static rules) that they are not even aware of.

The reason that many "great" traders tape read is because it gets thet brain working and learning and to engage it on it's own terms, particularly the rigth side of your brain. This may take years, but after a while, you watch C or ES or whatever and you begin to see it like you would a person, with it's own personality, its own set of lies, its own insecurities, it's own tantrums, etc etc etc. The key is to continue learning because the dimensionality of what affects C today may not be the same tomorrow. I can watch the tape on ES and say to myself - something goofy about the way it is trading. That is the right side of my brain telling my left side to uttter that in words. Believe me, it is not the left side of the brain that can capture that knowledge, nor could any computer algorithm that I am aware of.

But just like when you think you know a person, and you marry them, doesn't mean that even though you have dated 10, 000 times and are an expert on women, that you won't get divorced! Human traders making decisions will do "everything right" and still lose.

The point is you guys can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ad infinitum. What I am saying is not that complicated. But I understand the reason why [some] people fail to grasp its simple message - it is the left side of the brain that comes to ET. This is all right brain stuff - the one that listens and enjoys music and upon hearing a great piece of music, understands and enjoys it on a level that has nothing to do with words.

I am not suggesting that you turn off the left side of your brain when trading, but that should also be true of the right side.

nitro

Quote from illiquid:

But isn't it true that the 80/20 is just the statistical result, and that you actually feel "right" 100% of the time in doing that trade -- that you would "take" that trade every time you're given the opportunity? I would believe traders who work with statistics, backtesting, rinse and repeat setups think in terms of probabilities, of playing the percentages; for them "right" and "wrong" are determined before the trade is even opened, no matter the outcome. They feel "right" in doing the trade, and would feel right again if given the exact same setup the next time around despite the losses.

Other traders (and perhaps this is whom thunderdog is referring to) would have the perspective that there are certain patterns (in the most general sense) which might repeat themselves (not necessarily actually) and may form the main impetus for opening a trade, but that ultimately the criteria for right or wrong are unique to each trade; a loss would prove that you were wrong somehow, whether in timing, a lack or misinterpretation of information, etc. But the reasons would all come in retrospect, or perhaps never at all; a losing trade is just proof you were missing something, whatever that may be, for that unique trade.

Different perspectives, but both are just what's necessary to continue to trade in either vein with confidence.

 

[Grob109]

Quote from illiquid:

But isn't it true that the 80/20 is just the statistical result, and that you actually feel "right" 100% of the time in doing that trade -- that you would "take" that trade every time you're given the opportunity? I would believe traders who work with statistics, backtesting, rinse and repeat setups think in terms of probabilities, of playing the percentages; for them "right" and "wrong" are determined before the trade is even opened, no matter the outcome. They feel "right" in doing the trade, and would feel right again if given the exact same setup the next time around despite the losses.

Other traders (and perhaps this is whom thunderdog is referring to) would have the perspective that there are certain patterns (in the most general sense) which might repeat themselves (not necessarily actually) and may form the main impetus for opening a trade, but that ultimately the criteria for right or wrong are unique to each trade; a loss would prove that you were wrong somehow, whether in timing, a lack or misinterpretation of information, etc. But the reasons would all come in retrospect, or perhaps never at all; a losing trade is just proof you were missing something, whatever that may be, for that unique trade.

Different perspectives, but both are just what's necessary to continue to trade in either vein with confidence.

Nitro is explaining that he "feels" out his trades. Most do including the 90% who fail, those who draw wrong conclusions from what they believe they know and those who are teaching themselves repeated failure.

Most beginning traders will be greatly impacted in other endeavors after they quit trading, primarily as a matter of running out of funds, because of what they have taught themselves.

The "feeling" statements being made also demonstrate another aspect of how orderly the trader is in his behavior. Especially focus on the feeling attribute with respect to actions, decision making and analysis. Then compare the feeling attribute with respect to auditory, visual and kinesthetic sensory processes. Feeling is only associated with the sensory list.

The quality and skill of a trader is dependant on timely action, proper decisions and analyzing the situation and not on how he feels as he senses. This is debated my many.

Associating trading actions with "feelings" is a mistake because feelings are associated with what a person is sensing and not how the person processes the data set he chose to sense. Processing information does not involve feelings. Processing includes analysis, decsions from analysis and acting from decisions made. None of these thought processes are coupled to feelings.

When you hear a trader talk about trading as a reaction; this is a comment couched in feelings and a direct result of sensory perception followed, often by action.

Anyone who uses sensory "feelings" to build knowledge and have corresponding robotic (conditioned) reactions is going to miss the boat.

Reacting to an image or sound is a momentary event that is not based upon a near past history of a train of events that could have been analyzed, decided upon and used to take a timely action. All as you have pointed out, above.

It will be interesting to see if the spectrum of "feelings" is presented and to learn how that spectrum is used in a conditioned way to make money.

It seems to me that all actions from "feelings" must be considered right at the time and associated only with what was monitored; later, the following feelings, when the trade is busted, must be a consideration of looking at the print values instead of the market operation. These linked sets of experiences must build an impressive volume of knowledge. To what end? Frustration?

 

[Cheese]

Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?

This is a question which like so many on ET, ends up as debate about semantics and definitions.

A superior person, if meaning possessing relevant gifts and abilities above the general run, can ipso facto mean there should be superior traders born. Are there very bright traders who seem to have been born to it? It would seem there are at least a few.

Can successful trading be taught to a high standard to a person of reasonable intelligence and motivation? The answer has to be 'Yes'.

A superior trader in my definition is not necessarily superior in anything other than the relevant problem solving to master the market. Lets go deeper. The human animal is a problem solver par excellence making him far superior to any other animals. It appears that male humans have slightly better problem solving brains than females on average. Among humans some or a few have far far better problem solving capacities than others.

So who is the superior trader? He is the problem solver who solves the apparent puzzle of the market, applies the answers and then is bright and determined enough to execute and keep practising the solution. There appear to very few who make it to the completed and executed outcome of high success but they, the few, can and do make it through to millions and even beyond to billions (that is in todays hugely reduced real value dollars).

This success is of a higher order than merely being taught or trained to apply the method or rules of a comprehensive solution.

 

[Thunderdog]

Although Grob and I seem to disagree on many things, he may have a point here, if I understand him correctly. Nitro spoke of "entanglement" and elaborated on what he meant by that term on page 24 of this thread. It would follow that, if you incorporate "feel" into your trading as a primary decision criterion, then you are adding yet another dimension to the "entanglement." That additional dimension is your mental and/or physical general state of being. For most people, the same outside stimulus will have a different effect on them depending on how they generally feel apart from that particular stimulus. If you're feeling good, then you are more likely to be optimistic, all else being equal. If you are feeling anxious, edgy or depressed, you are somewhat likely to see the world through more pessimistic lenses. While you cannot eliminate all feelings in your trading, nor should you, I think that relying on them principally is a mistake for all but the most naturally gifted among us. And therein lies the problem. I suspect that more people think they are naturally superior traders than the number of people who actually are. So, while Nitro may think he is naturally superior (and he may well be), I think I will go with the safe bet as a matter of course.

The "feeling" and "entanglement" arguments are interesting notions and fine conversation topics. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it tends to complicate comprehension rather than simplify. And in business school, we were taught to break problems down into their most simplest components. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Whereas the "feeling" premise seems to suggest one big swallow. And I'm not necessarily saying it cannot be done by anyone under any circumstances. What I am saying is, how many of us are genetic lottery winners with such prodigious acumen?

 

[nitro]

LMAO!!!!

Your left brain simply refuses to allow the right brain to make any decisions in the "household" that is inside your skull. You simply do not trust it. You do not see that most of your learning is western. That you need to analyse instead of synthesize. That you are a product of your times and that all knowledge that you trust comes from reductionism. There are no emergent proterties in your dictionary. Intuition may have meaning for you, but it doesn't wear the pants in the final decision making.

Don't take me as an example though! Take Soros! He talks about "back pain" when in bad trades!!!!

FWIW, the model that I am trying to follow for some of my own trading is best described by the title of an X-Files episode - "Super Soilders." I am trying to fuse the best of what makes me a creative human being, with the power of a computer to search and present information. I am taking Computer Assisted Trading to the next level. Allowing the computer and it's finite rules an initial say using it's computational power, which is what it does best, but combining that with talents that currently are not exhibited by computers. I am hopeful that this fusion is emergent and greater than the sum of it's parts. So far so good

nitro

Quote from Thunderdog:

Although Grob and I seem to disagree on many things, he may have a point here, if I understand him correctly. Nitro spoke of "entanglement" and elaborated on what he meant by that term on page 24 of this thread. It would follow that, if you incorporate "feel" into your trading as a primary decision criterion, then you are adding yet another dimension to the "entanglement." That additional dimension is your mental and/or physical general state of being. For most people, the same outside stimulus will have a different effect on them depending on how they generally feel apart from that particular stimulus. If you're feeling good, then you are more likely to be optimistic, all else being equal. If you are feeling anxious, edgy or depressed, you are somewhat likely to see the world through more pessimistic lenses. While you cannot eliminate all feelings in your trading, nor should you, I think that relying on them principally is a mistake for all but the most naturally gifted among us. And therein lies the problem. I suspect that more people think they are naturally superior traders than the number of people who actually are. So, while Nitro may think he is naturally superior (and he may well be), I think I will go with the safe bet as a matter of course.

The "feeling" and "entanglement" arguments are interesting notions and fine conversation topics. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it tends to complicate comprehension rather than simplify. And in business school, we were taught to break problems down into their most simplest components. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Whereas the "feeling" premise seems to suggest one big swallow. And I'm not necessarily saying it cannot be done by anyone under any circumstances. What I am saying is, how many of us are genetic lottery winners with such acumen?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from nitro:

LMAO!!!!

Your left brain simply refuses to allow the right brain to make any decisions in the "household" that is inside your skull. You simply do not trust it. You do not see that most of your learning is western. That it needs to analyse instead of synthesize. That you are a product of your times and that all knowledge that you trust comes from reductionism. There are no emergent proterties in your dictionary. Intuition may have meaning for you, but it doesn't wear the pants in the final decision making.

Don't take me as an example though! Take Soros! He talks about "back pain" when in bad trades!!!!

FWIW, the model that I am trying to follow for my own trading is best described by the title of an X-File episode - "Super Soilders." I am trying to fuse the best of what makes me a creative human being, with the power of a computer to search and present information. I am taking Computer Assisted Trading to the next level. Allowing the computer and it's finite rules for what it does best, but combining that with talents that currently are not exhibited by computers.

nitro

Actually, I am just using my brain in the best way that I know how. I suppose that you are doing the same.

Don't take you as an example, take Soros? Are you taking everything he says literally? OK. Are you putting yourself on par with him and his particular quirks? OK.

I do not dispute your claim that computers cannot do everything that the human mind can. This is obvious. However, the "talents that currently are not exhibited by computers," as you put it, are not necessarily limited to "feelings." My exchange with you began, and ends here, on the matter of using "feelings" as a principal decision making criterion. (You may wish to revisit your post on page 24 of this thread.)

"LMAO?" As an aside, your arrogance is becoming legendary. I hope it serves you well.

 

[easyguru]

We live in an optimist culture where people are made to believe that anything is possible and everything can be learned if you put in enough effort or get the right teacher/guru/mentor you will learn anything.

Its almost sacrilege to say some people are born gifted or have inborn talent for something. Trading is one such profession along with many others.

There is an X-factor that superior traders have which is very difficult to explain but you know when you see it. That is why most attempts at teaching to trade fail.

The teachers/mentors/gurus would not like to admit this as it is fundamentally against their world views, business interest and their over powering need to have followers.

Superior traders have a world view about markets they trade and life in general which is different from those of ordinary traders and it has nothing to do with whether their style is quantitative based or qualitative based.

Even if you were to be taught by a superior trader you may not get his world view unless you are gifted. Given a same market situation or quantitative data the Superior trader interprets it differently than the ordinary trader.

Sooner or later most trader realise it in their heart, but many may not want to accept it. Till then the illusion is very mesmerizing.

 

[Bearbelly]

Quote from gerry875:

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.

.

I admit to a certain curiosity about some of Mr Hersheys claims and the inability of anyone to copy his method but I dont understand your vitriolic post. What has he done to you?

 

[nitro]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Actually, I am just using my brain in the best way that I know how....

Yes, the best way you know how - but not to your full potential.

You don't even realize it, but one can see the brain dichotomy that is your blindfold in your posts. All [trading ?] knowledge for you has to pass through your left brain. It must be filtered by it. For you, understanding [trading ?] knowledge not grasped by rules and words is like asking what is north of the north pole.

I am actually sure you don't live your life this way, just your trading life. Trading has been forced into this form because you simply cannot afford to lose money while pursuing a form of trading that cannot be scientifically replicated from day to day. I understand...

nitro