Surf's Special Situation Journal

[R. Raskolnikov]

Well, you know what they say about the masses...

But, in retrospect, do you think this was unwarranted? Because it's 22 years since you started and you are still searching for consistent profitability. I'm not knocking you, this trading biz is very hard.

P.S. "Big bucks" is a relative term, my definition of big bucks is 10k/day. Of course, A-Rod makes like 50k per at bat so this definition obviously isn't universal

Quote from marketsurfer:

many disagreed with you-----, I was recruited and started getting paid the big bucks for my opinions---here's a blast from the past---- its way past my bedtime-- i'll continue tomorrow---

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Mystics of all stripes defend their assertations with the personal experience mantra. It holds no water--- and doubly so when stated by anonymous Internet personas using aliases.

Reality Surf, reality. I am anonymous for you, doesn't mean I am anonymous for everyone.

 

[cornix]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

All joking aside, it's ludicrous for the OP to continue to push this argument on those of us who are able to trade well. As if these "studies" will somehow resonate despite our own evidence to the contrary. I'm not really sure why he chooses to push this angle, it's quite puzzling.

Much easier to just admit that, of the studies tested, some or many do not provide a statistical edge but by no means are these studies exhaustive. It's common sense, for those who trade, that there is virtually an unlimited number of inputs, combination of inputs etc etc that can be used to view and trade the mkts with. I guess if one was a writer or marketer, this might not be obvious.

Absolutely agree. They could test a lot of stuff, but what makes them think they really tested what works and included all those inputs needed to make it work.

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

You seem to have an open mind, Cornex--- read voodoo science by Robert Parks and judgement under uncertainty:heuristics and biases by kahneman, slovic & tversky

You will understand the inherent logical issues in these pro objective TA claims. This is classic and well known material--- I'm surprised you don't see you have fallen into a trap.

Surf,

If I even fell into some trap, it led me to profitable trading. Now what do you suggest? Stop doing what I do and.... there always must be a reason to do something.

People sincerely ask and I sincerely answer: yes I mainly trade TA and consider it to be superior to most other kinds of analysis. Let me give you an example: two days ago EURUSD was falling like a rock with apparent absence of any significant news. The next day (yesterday) a bunch of EU economic data was released... all negative. TA gave this short bias way in advance, because TA shows everything including what the most informed market participants know even if they don't want to speak about it they simply can't hide it from TA trader.

Shortly: I like TA over all other kinds of analysis. Is it called falling in the trap?

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Not everything has been tested, you are correct. You are also correct that that what has been tested fails to create a statistical edge. But as Niederhoffer says, it all boils down to whether or not the trend is your friend. In the stock market, at least, testing has proven that the trend is not your friend.

I don't trade stocks, but intraday trends are probably the best friends of all traders including stock traders of course.

 

[cornix]

Quote from marketsurfer:

Thanks, old yella Remember, I have been doing this market thing for over 20 years-- makes me ancient in trader age--- I know if folks sincerely consider what I am saying, it makes perfect sense--- trade management is the key, when you are a noise trader ( someone without information) to convince yourself otherwise is the peak of delusion. surf

If you know it's so easy to make money in the markets, just manage random entries properly, why aren't you successful trader yourself? Why do you call trades in this journal which were... well, mostly not too good?

 

[Xspurt]

Quote from cornixforex:

If you know it's so easy to make money in the markets, just manage random entries properly, why aren't you successful trader yourself? Why do you call trades in this journal which were... well, mostly not too good?

It has been said many time that trading is where we face our personal demons and before we understand and conquer the markets we must first know and conquer ourselves. It's hard. It's humbling. For many it's just too much.

Some say the markets are a place of magnetic attraction where those, who by their psychological make up want to lose, hang out where winners take all.

While I wish surf well as a journalist, I see him as a market alcoholic who is in complete trading self-denial, with theories and performance that are worlds apart: always searching for evidence that supports his claims while ignoring anything that would shed light on his problems.

This is not meant to belittle surf, for as you know Cornix I have helped and mentored traders from a quant to a floor trading background and I am good at getting inside their heads and fixing trading problems they couldn't understand.

You also know good friends I have refused to train because they were beyond help. I see surf as a prime example of this group: unable to help himself and unable to receive help.

Remember the football Cornix!

 

[tobbe]

Quote from marketsurfer:

In the stock market, at least, testing has proven that the trend is not your friend.

Interesting. How do you define "trend"?

 

[cornix]

Quote from Xspurt:

It has been said many time that trading is where we face our personal demons and before we understand and conquer the markets we must first know and conquer ourselves. It's hard. It's humbling. For many it's just too much.

Some say the markets are a place of magnetic attraction where those, who by their psychological make up want to lose, hang out where winners take all.

While I wish surf well as a journalist, I see him as a market alcoholic who is in complete trading self-denial, with theories and performance that are worlds apart: always searching for evidence that supports his claims while ignoring anything that would shed light on his problems.

This is not meant to belittle surf, for as you know Cornix I have helped and mentored traders from a quant to a floor trading background and I am good at getting inside their heads and fixing trading problems they couldn't understand.

You also know good friends I have refused to train because they were beyond help. I see surf as a prime example of this group: unable to help himself and unable to receive help.

Remember the football Cornix!

Yes, the longer I trade the more I conclude that some personal traits simply exist or don't exist within some people. Hence the results are very different.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from R. Raskolnikov:

Well, you know what they say about the masses...

But, in retrospect, do you think this was unwarranted? Because it's 22 years since you started and you are still searching for consistent profitability. I'm not knocking you, this trading biz is very hard.

P.S. "Big bucks" is a relative term, my definition of big bucks is 10k/day. Of course, A-Rod makes like 50k per at bat so this definition obviously isn't universal

Everything is relative. For a backwoods hick from the countryside of Pittsburgh to a 7500 sq ft home full of art--- with lots of toys--- to being broke then back up again--- the real life of a trader, publisher and entrepreneur-- not the ET fantasy.

You seem Hell Bent on either proving your superiority or discrediting me-- ex wife's lawyer maybe, or someone who owes me money??

Seriously man, what's the obsession?

surf