"Verified profitable" badge

[007Arb]

Thanks lotto - I think. I tell traders not to buy either book because they were written long ago. The haters will say "you write books for a living". Yeah right. The first book I gave up all rights to in 98 for $2000. In hindsight a big mistake. The second book my royalty income the past few years has only been around $100 per annum. I never can figure that out as it seems to still be selling on Amazon. Since that last book was published my trading income has far exceeded what it was prior to publication, primarily due to the compound effect. What I do now would appeal to no one on ET. Since mid December 2008 I have primarily traded junk corporate and junk muni funds. That's because of their trend persistency combined with lack of volatility. With those attributes I can be 100% invested and not worry about waking up some day and finding myself losing several per cent in a day. In fact, I use real tight mental stops of 1% sometimes 1.25%. These funds are so trend persistent you can use such small stops. For instance, as I mentioned previously, on a total return basis, EIHYX is up over 16% YTD yet has not as so much had 0.75% decline intra year. I recall in 2012, PONDX beat out a similar rhythm of never declining 1% intra year as it rose over 20%.

 

[lotto]

Provided the above--- doesn't it stand to reason that random entries are as successful as any other kind if there is no edge?

Your trading is about as random as it can get - how's that working out for you?

 

[bone]

Provided the above--- doesn't it stand to reason that random entries are as successful as any other kind if there is no edge?

My perspective and 2 cents: What stands to reason is that random trade management is far more destructive to your trading account than random trade entries.

 

[007Arb]

>>>Provided the above--- doesn't it stand to reason that random entries are as successful as any other kind if there is no edge?<<<<

Actually yes, and that was a big topic back in the days. The most famous article was how you could use coke bottles for your entries (don't ask) It's the exiting of trades that separate the losers from the winners. I would have to look that one up as I can't recall who wrote about it.

I don't enter randomly. I trade tight rising channels and I mean tight with little to no volatility. As my taxable and IRA accounts have compounded over the years I have gravatated to various bonds funds. It's not the % return I care about anymore, but the dollar return. My best year dollar wise was 2009. But my % return that year (around 40%) was far less than back in the days when I had a smaller account. This year I am only up in the low teens but it will be my second best year dollar wise and could surpass 2009 if I get another 4% or so. Again, that's because of the compound effect.

 

[lotto]

<snip>Thanks lotto - I think. I tell traders not to buy either book because they were written long ago<snip>

It was meant genuinely on my part. Yes, they were written a long time ago, and some things have changed, some having changed a great deal. But your strategy in each remains generally very sound. So you may tell traders not to buy the books, I still recommend it to people with whom I am personally acquainted. I wouldn't recommend them to people on ET, as you are so far from the conventional views of what is and is not desirable in trading that most would dismiss you before getting more than a chapter or two deep (for heaven's sake, you don't even use charts! Not even to day trade!) Whether you recommend them or not, you should be proud of them - good work on both.

 

[marketsurfer]

My perspective and 2 cents: What stands to reason is that random trade management is far more destructive to your trading account than random trade entries.

I agree 100%. But it does depend on your goals--- if your account is planned to take big risks, big profits are possible. As long as you are aware you can lose all the funds in the account.

If you are trying to make a living trading and only have one account , then for sure trade management is critical.

 

[marketsurfer]

>>>Provided the above--- doesn't it stand to reason that random entries are as successful as any other kind if there is no edge?<<<<

Actually yes, and that was a big topic back in the days. The most famous article was how you could use coke bottles for your entries (don't ask) It's the exiting of trades that separate the losers from the winners. I would have to look that one up as I can't recall who wrote about it.

I don't enter randomly. I trade tight rising channels and I mean tight with little to no volatility. As my taxable and IRA accounts have compounded over the years I have gravatated to various bonds funds. It's not the % return I care about anymore, but the dollar return. My best year dollar wise was 2009. But my % return that year (around 40%) was far less than back in the days when I had a smaller account. This year I am only up in the low teens but it will be my second best year dollar wise and could surpass 2009 if I get another 4% or so. Again, that's because of the compound effect.

Thanks for the background.

Nice trading!

 

[marketsurfer]

Your trading is about as random as it can get - how's that working out for you?

It isn't random--- and the account is designed to take big risks.

 

[bone]

So, to the OP's credit, this is indeed a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Having said that, I am still stuck on my prejudiced opinion that just because a member is "certified as profitable", does not at all mean that he or she will post quality materials on trading that provokes thoughtful exchange with others and elevates the quality of the forum. For that matter, a member "certified as profitable" can be a flaming asshole of a troll with an agenda who thinks that the only way to trade is his way and everyone else is either a con-artist or a liar. And Baron's right - "certified profitable" will certainly be questioned and slandered no matter how they get crowned because quite frankly, some human beings are transformed into viscous psychopathic narcissists once they sit behind a keyboard. Even if someone is "certified", if there is a common agenda against him there will be relentless demands to publicly post his trading statements and tax returns in order to prove that his "certification" is not a fraud because it's just so easy to slander and bully with a keyboard. And even if the bullied target should post his redacted trading statements and tax returns in public - they will surely be called false fabrications. Trolls and flaming assholes cannot, by definition, be satisfied. Control freaks and bullies do what they do in order to regulate their own anxieties and self-doubts. They never quite get that the only person they can control is themselves. The best predictor of human behavior is past history, and I'm afraid that "crowning" members will not stop the complete lack of civil discourse and courtesy we now have on ET.

Civil discourse collapses, and even "certified profitable" members once again choose to avoid the cesspool entirely. Which means, I'm afraid, we're back to square one.

 

[dbphoenix]

Actually yes, and that was a big topic back in the days. The most famous article was how you could use coke bottles for your entries (don't ask) It's the exiting of trades that separate the losers from the winners. I would have to look that one up as I can't recall who wrote about it.

John Magee