Yes. All this philosophy makes it seem too mystic to me.
It's all very confusing because there are so many different
types of traders.
Some guys, just GAMBLE over and over and over until
they start getting a feel for it, and start recognizing patterns
subconciously until they are profitable. VERY expensive way
to learn.
Others crunch the numbers until they find an edge.
Its very objective, and if they can follow the rules they will
make money. Lots of psychology involved because they never
got the practice that the gambler did. So they can lose,
even with an edge because they can't follow their own rules.
But your absolutely right. In it's simplest form, it's 1 or 2.
peace
axeman
It's all very confusing because there are so many different
types of traders.
Some guys, just GAMBLE over and over and over until
they start getting a feel for it, and start recognizing patterns
subconciously until they are profitable. VERY expensive way
to learn.
Others crunch the numbers until they find an edge.
Its very objective, and if they can follow the rules they will
make money. Lots of psychology involved because they never
got the practice that the gambler did. So they can lose,
even with an edge because they can't follow their own rules.
But your absolutely right. In it's simplest form, it's 1 or 2.
peace
axeman
Quote from Corso482:
You guys talk about trading like it's an Eastern philosophy akin to finding your chi or something.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't profitable trading ultimately boil down to 1) either you do/don't have a positive expectancy strategy and 2) either you do/don't follow that strategy.
If someone isn't making money, isn't it 1 or 2? Where does all of this introspective philosophy come in the picture???

