trade what you think, not what you see PART 1
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
And why is this supposed to be novel in any way? Of course, you trade what you expect to happen. You trade (you bet on) future and you make your profits in the said future and not now that is not when you 'see'. To me the whole thing is trivial, particularly when you realize that it is your exit that determines your profit or loss and not your entry. Apparently, this is still somewhat of a mystery to some, otherwise I cannot comprehend the point of this thread. You can do this even with a random entry (although this is not the best way to handle this) because as long as you get the market direction right you will make money with an appropriate stop loss.
I recommend this book to everybody since it is written for the mass litterate public and not for the experts in the field. It is at the frontier of Philosophy and Science but contrary to many books on the subject it is concrete, I mean you can find ideas to improve your learning process. I have always been interested by what I called meta-learning (how to learn to learn - double repetition not a typo error but intended 
) because I am rather heteroclit - I have made 3 schools in biological engineering, petroleum engineering, production and quality management, I have been quality and production engineer then software architect engineer and my interests are in Astrophysic, Neurobiology and Finance and economy - I have been obliged to learn new things so that I have now acquired a sort of framework of learning.
This is the book that makes me regret sometimes not to have chosen my first vocation: being a researcher in Astrophysic or in Neurobiology. But it was too risky not in the financial sense but in psychological sense : I thought that the probability was too low that Science could attack the mystery of conciousness but today Edelman shows that there is now a true possibility. I was frightened to be upset by a researcher career so I chose to be an engineer rather - globally I don't regret my choice an engineer is obliged to be pragmatic - once he gets some experiences because I have a rather bad opinions about engineering schools.
Nevertheless I didn't buy this book for the philosophical or scientific interest, I bought because I think I can find some ideas for applying them to a new trading system combined with my econometric model and I think that some could also find some ideas for that and if not they can have idea for improving their learning process.
) because I am rather heteroclit - I have made 3 schools in biological engineering, petroleum engineering, production and quality management, I have been quality and production engineer then software architect engineer and my interests are in Astrophysic, Neurobiology and Finance and economy - I have been obliged to learn new things so that I have now acquired a sort of framework of learning. This is the book that makes me regret sometimes not to have chosen my first vocation: being a researcher in Astrophysic or in Neurobiology. But it was too risky not in the financial sense but in psychological sense : I thought that the probability was too low that Science could attack the mystery of conciousness but today Edelman shows that there is now a true possibility. I was frightened to be upset by a researcher career so I chose to be an engineer rather - globally I don't regret my choice an engineer is obliged to be pragmatic - once he gets some experiences because I have a rather bad opinions about engineering schools
.Nevertheless I didn't buy this book for the philosophical or scientific interest, I bought because I think I can find some ideas for applying them to a new trading system combined with my econometric model and I think that some could also find some ideas for that and if not they can have idea for improving their learning process.
Quote from Threei:
"Every argument eventually becomes an argument about definitions" (don't remember who).
Seems to me it became pure sholastic: as soon as all agreed on definitions, the rest became non-issue
How about this, for argument sake: trade is entered and managed with no bias whatsoever, just because there is valid setup? You can say that setup itself was formed at earlier time on some research that leads to bias, i.e.: this type of breakout usually leads to upward movement. Right, but the imperative word is USUALLY, not ALWAYS, which means: this setup could work or not in ANY GIVEN case. Thus, knowing that in a long run trading this setup is going to make money for me, I don't know which trade on this setup is going to be a winner and which a loss. Hence, I simply react on valid signal and let the market to prove me right or wrong. No bias, pure trading what I see. No thinking involved. Eyes to finger. Robot-like.
I gotta agree with ya, Brother threei... in my view, there are probably no significant differences of opinion, just differences in how people are wording things i.e.
In polemics definition of terms is not only the problem but it is the center of problems. By studying history of scientific discoveries I now know that definition is not the beginning of the process thinking but the end of a process thinking because action precedes concept - that's even one of the introductive point of the book on conciousness I mentioned above that solves a paradox about the emergence of conciousness.
In history the apparent paradox of corpuscule against wave have been solved by the duality of the two. But it is the process that leads to that result that is interesting. So definition are somehow a continuous process and can even be implicit or a pure hypothesis as long as someone didn't find a true definition. Efficiency is a good example: at the moment efficiency definition is not clear and multiple. It is by trying to solve paradox that one could lead to my model for example. And it is rather general in progress of science and other things: by trying to solve paradox in details one can make progress.
So here the paradox could come from the fact that one doesn't distinguish two phases : the phase of static analysis and the phase of dynamic analysis. This is classical in Chess and in mechanics and it should be also obvious in trading. Depending on style of trading static or dynamic analysis would have more or less importance but the two should exist in equilibrium and if one has some difficulty with trading one should think about dividing the two: conquer by dividing is also a strategy in thinking process
.
In history the apparent paradox of corpuscule against wave have been solved by the duality of the two. But it is the process that leads to that result that is interesting. So definition are somehow a continuous process and can even be implicit or a pure hypothesis as long as someone didn't find a true definition. Efficiency is a good example: at the moment efficiency definition is not clear and multiple. It is by trying to solve paradox that one could lead to my model for example. And it is rather general in progress of science and other things: by trying to solve paradox in details one can make progress.
So here the paradox could come from the fact that one doesn't distinguish two phases : the phase of static analysis and the phase of dynamic analysis. This is classical in Chess and in mechanics and it should be also obvious in trading. Depending on style of trading static or dynamic analysis would have more or less importance but the two should exist in equilibrium and if one has some difficulty with trading one should think about dividing the two: conquer by dividing is also a strategy in thinking process
.Quote from plumlazy:
I thought that what I saw was what I thought, but now that I see what I thought I saw, it was not what I saw, but rather what I thought, see!
Hehe... nice one!!
The distinction between the two phases (static and dynamic analysis) is well described by the Grand Chessmaster Alexander Kotov in his book "Play Like a Grandmaster" see comments http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3649-3555003?v=glance&s=books#product-details
In this book he explains how he improved himself. It is by improving his process of analyzing combinations because he was tempted too much by making impulsive choice. To guard against impulsive play he must train himself on that particular process and after making a static analysis (evaluating the forces on the chessboard at time0) and chose his tactic (equivalent of trading plan) he must check after that as the game evolves that this game evolves according to his static analysis and this phase is the dynamic analysis phase.
In this book he explains how he improved himself. It is by improving his process of analyzing combinations because he was tempted too much by making impulsive choice. To guard against impulsive play he must train himself on that particular process and after making a static analysis (evaluating the forces on the chessboard at time0) and chose his tactic (equivalent of trading plan) he must check after that as the game evolves that this game evolves according to his static analysis and this phase is the dynamic analysis phase.
Quote from harrytrader:
So here the paradox could come from the fact that one doesn't distinguish two phases : the phase of static analysis and the phase of dynamic analysis. This is classical in Chess and in mechanics and it should be also obvious in trading. Depending on style of trading static or dynamic analysis would have more or less importance but the two should exist in equilibrium and if one has some difficulty with trading one should think about dividing the two: conquer by dividing is also a strategy in thinking process
I'm into "trade what you know".