Seriously?
Surfer Alerts
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
- Status
Seriously?
Large wins are simply not possible without the corresponding risk.
Quote from cornix:
Not if you cut losses, but ride winners.
OMG-- you really have me concerned because it looks like you bought the false "wisdom" hook, line and sinker. You need realize what you are saying is only observible in hindsight--- it sounds good, but othewise doesn't make sense.
You scoff at a consistent 20% return year after year. I say the evidence proves its improbable-- to even achieve this consistently- here's an experiment for you--
At 20% annual compound returns and starting with $5000--- how long will it take you to get to $1 million?
Have to disagree with you on this one Surf. I spend a huge amount of time on honing Trade Management so that my wins are significantly larger than my losses. That includes adding to winners, letting them ride, and cutting losers real fast.
For directional trading, 2:1 R:R is unattractive to me. I expect more as a swing trader and not getting that simply means I have to improve and adjust to current market conditions.
Coming to terms with lower R:R in option spreads is a bit of a tussle for me.
Thanks. I don't claim to know everything-- just what I have seen/experienced.
Do you also consider 20% consistent annual returns poor trading as Cornix stated?
I would expect to do better most years, but losing periods would drag down the average so I wouldn't turn my nose up at 20%. Let's just say it would be at the lower end of my expectations.
If I were day trading I would of course expect much better for my efforts. Unfortunately I can't day trade.
For a good, active daytrader, yes 20% is a poor annual return.
Surf, you've thrown my phrase out of context. Yes I consider 20% return a poor trading, when someone day trades for a living.
As I said in that thread (where you didn't reply, but preferred to put this question up again here), you will NEVER get to $1 million using the same strategy in the same instrument. Let alone billions.
Liquidity matters. I am adding 10 more contracts in NQ around the next week and wonder when I push the limits of this future, but am pretty sure it will happen sooner than later and I will have to move to ES.
How can a market professional like you not understand such a simple concept: what's doable in small size is absolutely impossible on the large size.
Soros has to risk much, because:
a) he's so big that he can't move in and out of positions quickly and...
b) his speculative ideas are long-term and very well planned and analyzed.
Now, why you trade 10 YM contracts the same way Soros does instead of trading for a much better returns while your size affords is really beyond my understanding with the only exception if maybe you admit that you just don't know how to do that.
The converse also holds, what's impossible for the large fund is easy for the retail trader.
In the PTJ video, he interrupts a large buy order to sell 1,000 so that his intentions are disguised and price does not move against him too much. Retail traders do not face this problem.
We all get enamoured with the big trades that the funds talk about and Schwager writes about. I'm sure those are not the only trades the funds make, there would be dozens of others that are the bread and butter of the business and pay the rent and salaries and keep the investors in the fund.
You wouldn't sell too many books if you wrote about those.
In the PTJ video, he interrupts a large buy order to sell 1,000 so that his intentions are disguised and price does not move against him too much. Retail traders do not face this problem.
We all get enamoured with the big trades that the funds talk about and Schwager writes about. I'm sure those are not the only trades the funds make, there would be dozens of others that are the bread and butter of the business and pay the rent and salaries and keep the investors in the fund.
You wouldn't sell too many books if you wrote about those.
- Status