Superior trader, a born talent or can be taught?

[novel20]

I bet he made much more than you trading.


"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."

 

[Pekelo]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Barring any significant emotional or cognitive difficulties, of course trading can be learned.

But that part (the emotional and cognitive difficulties) is such a big part of trading, that my answer is no.

So you are saying, that most randomly choosen people (not preselected) can learn pretty much any system? Again, famous traders disagree with you, 3 out of 4 said (see again Market Wizzards books) they couldn't teach their systems for one reason or other. One of them even said, that he could publish his trading rules in the WSJ, and he is sure that most people wouldn't be able to follow them.

Here is another evidence:

Years ago I was on a list where the guru was teaching most of his system for free. He had a paying version too, but he gave away most of the info for free. I tested his system and used it too, it was profitable. Nevertheless people kept signing up for his paid service and even after 3-4 months when the system should have been learnt, kept asking basic questions and didn't dare to make the trades and so on. It was perfect for the guru, because they stayed on the paying service indefiniatelly....

But of course gurus are not going to tell people that MOST people can not learn trading, because then where would they get the income??

If anyone has evidence or statistics to the contrary, I am interested in it. Steve's one personal example (hey, I was able to learn trading) is not statistics.

By the way Steve. Hate to say goodbye to you, but you have to hit my garbage can. Bitching about grammar is one thing, not providing an argument is another. You are on ignore from now on...

 

[mschey]

Quote from Pekelo:

But that part (the emotional and cognitive difficulties) is such a big part of trading, that my answer is no.

So you are saying, that most randomly choosen people (not preselected) can learn pretty much any system? Again, famous traders disagree with you, 3 out of 4 said (see again Market Wizzards books) they couldn't teach their systems for one reason or other. One of them even said, that he could publish his trading rules in the WSJ, and he is sure that most people wouldn't be able to follow them.

Here is another evidence:

Years ago I was on a list where the guru was teaching most of his system for free. He had a paying version too, but he gave away most of the info for free. I tested his system and used it too, it was profitable. Nevertheless people kept signing up for his paid service and even after 3-4 months when the system should have been learnt, kept asking basic questions and didn't dare to make the trades and so on. It was perfect for the guru, because they stayed on the paying service indefiniatelly....

But of course gurus are not going to tell people that MOST people can not learn trading, because then where would they get the income??

If anyone has evidence or statistics to the contrary, I am interested in it. Steve's one personal example (hey, I was able to learn trading) is not statistics.

By the way Steve. Hate to say goodbye to you, but you have to hit my garbage can. Bitching about grammar is one thing, not providing an argument is another. You are on ignore from now on...

Not a very strong case, IMO. By your own admission, the guru taught a strategy that made money. Just because a few don't learn it does not support your case that trading can't be taught.

To trade successfully, you need to have some capital, a plan, a few strategies, be willing to work hard, strive to constantly improve, and the ability to take action.

Seriously, ANYONE can learn to do it successfully.

How does one go about it, well that's a different argument. Some say learn yourself, others say find a mentor. I say a good coach can provide valuable insight into what works, significantly shorten the learning curve, teach some of the necessary skill sets in terms of trade execution, research, and evalutaion.

 

[Steve Tvardek]

A good mentor is invaluable. Mine will most likely end up running a huge hedge fund down the road, he's that good. Not bad to have a guy like that to help you through tough times.

Quote from mschey:


How does one go about it, well that's a different argument. Some say learn yourself, others say find a mentor. I say a good coach can provide valuable insight into what works, significantly shorten the learning curve, teach some of the necessary skill sets in terms of trade execution, research, and evalutaion.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Pekelo:

But that part (the emotional and cognitive difficulties) is such a big part of trading, that my answer is no.

So you are saying, that most randomly choosen people (not preselected) can learn pretty much any system? Again, famous traders disagree with you, 3 out of 4 said (see again Market Wizzards books) they couldn't teach their systems for one reason or other. One of them even said, that he could publish his trading rules in the WSJ, and he is sure that most people wouldn't be able to follow them.

Here is another evidence:

Years ago I was on a list where the guru was teaching most of his system for free. He had a paying version too, but he gave away most of the info for free. I tested his system and used it too, it was profitable. Nevertheless people kept signing up for his paid service and even after 3-4 months when the system should have been learnt, kept asking basic questions and didn't dare to make the trades and so on. It was perfect for the guru, because they stayed on the paying service indefiniatelly....

But of course gurus are not going to tell people that MOST people can not learn trading, because then where would they get the income??

If anyone has evidence or statistics to the contrary, I am interested in it. Steve's one personal example (hey, I was able to learn trading) is not statistics.

By the way Steve. Hate to say goodbye to you, but you have to hit my garbage can. Bitching about grammar is one thing, not providing an argument is another. You are on ignore from now on...

Cognitive ability and modicum of emotional stability is a requisite to performing most tasks of any significance. It is not limited to trading. Therefore, successful trading is not necessarily limited to just a few people. In my opinion, more such people don't do well at it for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

Also, I don't really believe that professional trading means learning or using someone else's system. At best, that is a starting point rather than an end point. You get out what you put in. True professionals seldom pay others to do their own work for them. And by that, I don't mean tangential support services in connection with your craft, but the integral element of it. If you are paying someone else to provide you with a system that is the basis for your trading, then all you are is a customer.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[bitrend]

I heard some people saying that now it's harder to make money in this business compare to 10 years ago. And some people that succeeded to make money before can't make anymore. It seems that it has nothing to do with the number of participants increased in the last decade, neither with the number of participants having innate talents increased, how can we be sure that we have more those talented in Wall Street?

Perhaps it's related to the Internet that allow people to access more trading materials, get educated and as well they are indirectly trained by the available online information. Then they became more sophisticated?

 

[RunTrade]

Quote from Bitstream:

people need to be intuitive to be succesfull in trading, discretionary or technical...u cannot cultivate intuition, it is a quality born with in your self..it is either present or not, just like magus.

agreed. Although I believe there are ways to enchance the attributes you are born with such as intuition.

 

[jficquette]

Quote from bitrend:

I don't know. But I have some doubt that it can be taught.

It has been discussed long time ago on this subject between William Eckhardt and Richard Dennis. And many had agreed that Richard Dennis was right supporting an argument that successful trading can be taught over an argument that it has something to do with trader born talent. However, I have some doubt, if it can be taught it mean anybody with an average intelligence can be successful after getting a good training. The following reasons:

1. To form a Turtles group, why need the interviews to select candidates since any one can be taught then just pick by random.
2. Why not all the Turtles are successful since they got the same training and used the same winning system.

Would like to here your opinion?

It depends where in the process the person starts. I think people with zero trading experience and no market knowledge and taught only one or two set ups have the most potential to be successful.


John

 

[martys]

Quote from Steve Tvardek:

I agree with you Steve, you can be taught to trade but you must be hungry, passionate and resilient to make it through the beginning stages. Once you have established consistency, even if its only $100 a day, you can certainly build from there, as long as you remain diligent and flexible.

IMHO, you need to be fully dedicated and goal focused to make sure you see your efforts through, otherwise, it seems very easy to lose focus and confidence. Once that is lost, it becomes a very rocky road. I have seen it in the faces of some of our struggling junior traders.

Hi Steve,

Can you expand on the "build-up" process? What is being built? Are you talking about confidence, position size, etc? I mean what are the goals, direction and destination? And how do you know if you are off the course besides the P/L?

Thank you for your help.

Regards,
William

 

[timmyz]

i think you misunderstood me. i was hoping someone would give an example of the "born talent" that's required for trading that's comparable to the examples i gave.

Quote from Thunderdog:

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.)