By the ways, I guess you were not really successful at the beginning, the same as many of us, including the super legend Jesse Livermore. Because at the beginning we were all using our innate talents to deal with the Market, and most of time fail. Then with time goes you learn, you had been taught, not by someone, but by the Market itself. However, this is a long and rocky road compare to if you have a teacher.
Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?
- Thread starter bitrend
- Start date
So many on this site can't write clearly and can't think clearly. "Steve46": don't start a new paragraph--less a new post--with an indefinite pronoun, as no one will know to what the hell the indefinite pronoun refers. Also, my post's and this thread's subject is whether trading can be taught; the thread's subject is not about the nature of reality. Then "Steve46" supports his view on reality with an anecdote from his own life; anecdotes prove nothing. Finally, learn to read: the argument that traders are born not made doesn't necessarily postulate that no traders be once current traders die; possibly, for example, new traders could be born.
"Jayford" needs to distinguish between market-making and position trading. GS doesn't teach its trainees to feel when small specs buy stops are getting blown out: GS teaches trading desk trainees to deal. Dealers have easily defined methods and easily quantifiable edges. For example, NYMEX option bid/offers now are 10-15 cents; dealers can teach trainees how to sell a 70 strike crude call and buy a 72 strike call and hedge with a short crude futures: often the spreads are so wide that crude options trade at the same price two strikes apart.
"Stevetvardek" didn't understand this thread's subject: the subject is teaching trading not "hunger and passion". If hunger and passion separates winners and losers, shouldn't trainees take "hunger and passion" classes and not trading classes? Perhaps those with hunger and passion for trading are those who already know that they can win.
"Jayford" needs to distinguish between market-making and position trading. GS doesn't teach its trainees to feel when small specs buy stops are getting blown out: GS teaches trading desk trainees to deal. Dealers have easily defined methods and easily quantifiable edges. For example, NYMEX option bid/offers now are 10-15 cents; dealers can teach trainees how to sell a 70 strike crude call and buy a 72 strike call and hedge with a short crude futures: often the spreads are so wide that crude options trade at the same price two strikes apart.
"Stevetvardek" didn't understand this thread's subject: the subject is teaching trading not "hunger and passion". If hunger and passion separates winners and losers, shouldn't trainees take "hunger and passion" classes and not trading classes? Perhaps those with hunger and passion for trading are those who already know that they can win.
Barring any significant emotional or cognitive difficulties, of course trading can be learned. As with any other vocation, it requires a certain amount of insight and skill. I think that part of the problem lies in the fact that most market participants want to be able to trade pretty much on the fly, with little or no preparation. Most other vocations are not approached in quite the same way, be it stenography, plumbing or neurosurgery. For some reason, many people with some savings seem to believe they can trade...just like that. Or they may read a few books or foolishly attend seminars and feel that they have the matter in hand. Or they might even spend a few years at it and decide it cannot be done.
Trading can be a difficult and stressful business at times. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort to become proficient at it for the majority of people. However, I suspect that this is not what the majority of people had in mind when they decided to play the markets. If the majority of people were as flippant in other occupations as most seem to be in trading, then I think that those other professions would also have much higher failure rates. A lot of folks complain that they have been trying "hard." I would be willing to bet that many of those people probably don't know what "hard" really is. A reality check with the demands of other high-potential occupations may be in order to make sure we're comparing apples with apples.
I had a friend some years ago who is far more intelligent than I am. His IQ (for those who care about such things) is in the 140s, and he is a professor of electrical engineering at a prestigious university. He has won numerous teaching awards and is known throughout the world for his expertise in the field of electromagnetics. Further, he is one of the most emotionally stable people I ever knew. At around the same time that I began taking an interest in trading and the markets, he became somewhat interested as well. He studied the markets for a while (over the course of a few months in his spare time) and tried his hand at it. He lost money. Then he lost some more. Not long after, he became discouraged. I have no doubt whatsoever that if he had continued in his efforts and not started trading prematurely, that he would have succeeded eventually. But he did not apply the dedication to trading that he applied to his occupation. He was looking for something relatively quick, in his spare time. Trading is a skill that can be learned, but it is not an easy skill to learn. Some learn better than others and some learn faster than others, just as in any field. Those who underestimate the challenge of their chosen field seldom do well.
The thing that pisses me off more than anything else is the BS assertion that traders are "born." Everyone alive today was born. I remember the time when I was an account management trainee in corporate banking in the 1980s at Canada's largest bank. Two assholes were in charge of my on-the-job training. They held the self-important view that, because of the myriad responsibilities of the account management position, account managers were born and not made. Well, in due course, one of these "naturals" was fired and the other was demoted. I think that once people start to view themselves that way, they should dust off their toboggan to get ready for the ride down. As history repeatedly shows, self-aggrandizement is a sure step on the road to oblivion.
In summary, barring any significant emotional or cognitive difficulties, trading is a skill that can be learned. Some learn better than others and some learn faster than others, just as in any field.
Trading can be a difficult and stressful business at times. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort to become proficient at it for the majority of people. However, I suspect that this is not what the majority of people had in mind when they decided to play the markets. If the majority of people were as flippant in other occupations as most seem to be in trading, then I think that those other professions would also have much higher failure rates. A lot of folks complain that they have been trying "hard." I would be willing to bet that many of those people probably don't know what "hard" really is. A reality check with the demands of other high-potential occupations may be in order to make sure we're comparing apples with apples.
I had a friend some years ago who is far more intelligent than I am. His IQ (for those who care about such things) is in the 140s, and he is a professor of electrical engineering at a prestigious university. He has won numerous teaching awards and is known throughout the world for his expertise in the field of electromagnetics. Further, he is one of the most emotionally stable people I ever knew. At around the same time that I began taking an interest in trading and the markets, he became somewhat interested as well. He studied the markets for a while (over the course of a few months in his spare time) and tried his hand at it. He lost money. Then he lost some more. Not long after, he became discouraged. I have no doubt whatsoever that if he had continued in his efforts and not started trading prematurely, that he would have succeeded eventually. But he did not apply the dedication to trading that he applied to his occupation. He was looking for something relatively quick, in his spare time. Trading is a skill that can be learned, but it is not an easy skill to learn. Some learn better than others and some learn faster than others, just as in any field. Those who underestimate the challenge of their chosen field seldom do well.
The thing that pisses me off more than anything else is the BS assertion that traders are "born." Everyone alive today was born. I remember the time when I was an account management trainee in corporate banking in the 1980s at Canada's largest bank. Two assholes were in charge of my on-the-job training. They held the self-important view that, because of the myriad responsibilities of the account management position, account managers were born and not made. Well, in due course, one of these "naturals" was fired and the other was demoted. I think that once people start to view themselves that way, they should dust off their toboggan to get ready for the ride down. As history repeatedly shows, self-aggrandizement is a sure step on the road to oblivion.
In summary, barring any significant emotional or cognitive difficulties, trading is a skill that can be learned. Some learn better than others and some learn faster than others, just as in any field.
imho, born talent is
an olympic sprinter born with more fast twitch muscles because of his DNA
a deaf person who can still create symphonies (Beethoven)
a pianist who has perfect pitch
a child with photographic memory
a singer who has never taken vocal lessons but has a five octave range
...
you will not be able to to do what these people do no matter who teaches you or how hard you try.
an olympic sprinter born with more fast twitch muscles because of his DNA
a deaf person who can still create symphonies (Beethoven)
a pianist who has perfect pitch
a child with photographic memory
a singer who has never taken vocal lessons but has a five octave range
...
you will not be able to to do what these people do no matter who teaches you or how hard you try.
I said in my post that I agreed with steve46 that trading CAN be taught, BUT you need other attributes to succeed as well. These come from within, your motivation, your desire to succeed, your passion for becoming a great trader. Not necessarily innate traits but characteristics that anyone can aquire. Sure, it may be harder for one person to motivate himself more than someone else, but its very possible.
It doesnt matter how well you are taught though, if you do not really "want it", you probably wont make it. It seems like that is the reality of trading.
It doesnt matter how well you are taught though, if you do not really "want it", you probably wont make it. It seems like that is the reality of trading.
Interesting, very happy to talk about that with you. If we compare the amount of $$$ is nothing due to time, inflation, country GDP, total money in Wall Street, etc. Even that I think Jesse Livermore had a higher percentage (his money / Wall Street money) than Mr. Buffet.
If we ask this question, who can really influence the Market? In 2000 when the Market crash, I'm sure if Jesse Livermore were there he will make a killing the same way as he did in 1929. While Mr. Buffet just say, "I don't trust technology stocks". The point is you don't need to trust or not but you need to know when to go long and when to go short. Jesse Livermore knew this kind of thing, not Mr. Buffet. You don't have to uniquely go long, or uniquely short, what you need is to go with the right side. As Larry Livingstone(JL) said There's only one side of the market, not the long side and not the short side but the right side.
Thanks you to pop up this subject.
If we ask this question, who can really influence the Market? In 2000 when the Market crash, I'm sure if Jesse Livermore were there he will make a killing the same way as he did in 1929. While Mr. Buffet just say, "I don't trust technology stocks". The point is you don't need to trust or not but you need to know when to go long and when to go short. Jesse Livermore knew this kind of thing, not Mr. Buffet. You don't have to uniquely go long, or uniquely short, what you need is to go with the right side. As Larry Livingstone(JL) said There's only one side of the market, not the long side and not the short side but the right side.
Thanks you to pop up this subject.
Point taken. However, does a person really need to be a "natural" in order to succeed at trading? Was it not Einstein who said that genius is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration? I think many people get hung up on one at the expense of the other.
If only the "naturals" could make their way in this world, then I suspect that the unemployment rate would be somewhat higher. Most of us plod our way to our destinations. Admittedly, it's not as glamorous or elegant as being a natural, but we have to play the cards we are dealt. Some just don't plod enough or properly, or decide after a time to plod elsewhere. (Of course, I'm assuming reasonable cognitive skills and emotional stability, as well as the necessary drive and commitment to follow through.)