Sure would be nice if this was all black and white, but if it were then I guess everyone would be doing it perfectly and there would be no market
Magna, I agree trading is not black & white, it is probabilistic. This game is all about probabilities. My point is too many people look at the psychology aspect thinking that if they are losing they did something wrong, or if they are winning they did something right. Trading is not about wrong or right, it is about probability and degree.
As for my trading methodology, it is well grounded in statistical probabilities. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is non-optimized backtesting over a 20 year period a guarantee that future results will be the same? Of course not. Is out-of-sample forward testing a guarantee that the trading approach will work? Of course not. Is paper trading a guarantee of successful real-time trading? No.
But what would you rather have, a trading approach that you have rigorously tested on historical data, walk-forward out-of-sample test, and paper traded all with successful results... or anything less?
I recognize that not all trading methodologies can be fully tested properly, which is why it is even more important for those who trade such methodologies (e.g. discretionary) to question their methods first, not their psychology. That is why I have been asking Stockk specific questions regarding his methodology. Too many traders accept various "trading myths" without looking at the facts for themselves. Separate truth from dogma and you will find valuable & practical trading ideas.
Magna, I agree trading is not black & white, it is probabilistic. This game is all about probabilities. My point is too many people look at the psychology aspect thinking that if they are losing they did something wrong, or if they are winning they did something right. Trading is not about wrong or right, it is about probability and degree.
As for my trading methodology, it is well grounded in statistical probabilities. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is non-optimized backtesting over a 20 year period a guarantee that future results will be the same? Of course not. Is out-of-sample forward testing a guarantee that the trading approach will work? Of course not. Is paper trading a guarantee of successful real-time trading? No.
But what would you rather have, a trading approach that you have rigorously tested on historical data, walk-forward out-of-sample test, and paper traded all with successful results... or anything less?
I recognize that not all trading methodologies can be fully tested properly, which is why it is even more important for those who trade such methodologies (e.g. discretionary) to question their methods first, not their psychology. That is why I have been asking Stockk specific questions regarding his methodology. Too many traders accept various "trading myths" without looking at the facts for themselves. Separate truth from dogma and you will find valuable & practical trading ideas.