Why do folks reveal Profitable Strategies, are they NUTS?

Quote from traderdragon2:


A scientific based belief system is exactly the opposite. Belief comes last, after things are proven.
:D
More...
that is if you believe the "scientific based" system can be trusted and believed.
 
Belief is beyond Positive Thinking.
Belief is the origin of all achievements.

http://thesecretstory.com/LarryKingLive.html

If you don't believe you can do it, even if someone gave you the "Holy Grail", it won't do you any good.

I would propose, if you believe in the "system", it will do you more good than say, to have a "system", but you don't believe it would work.
 
There is no holy grail. There is no strategy that would beat the markets every day. There is no perfect way to approach trading. That's a myth, the sooner you realize this the best off you'll be.

instead of wasting time looking for a holy grail... use your time working on your psychological weaknesses... get to know your fears and the enemies within... learn to adapt to ever changing market conditions, making creative strategies that you can adapt when the market adapts to your strategy... learn to develop tactics that will allow you to implement those strategies, learn to manage your risk so that you can survive while you're adapting to the markets... learn how to learn from the market... learn to be quiet as a mouse when entering the market [don't call for any unwanted attention...]... and learn to listen to what everyone else is doing.


the market will adapt to any holy grail you throw at it... any edge loses it's sharpness as time goes by...






ohh yeah, one more thing: above all... remember to have fun. :D
 
Quote from Tums:

Belief is beyond Positive Thinking.
Belief is the origin of all achievements.

http://thesecretstory.com/LarryKingLive.html

If you don't believe you can do it, even if someone gave you the "Holy Grail", it won't do you any good.

I would propose, if you believe in the "system", it will do you more good than say, to have a "system", but you don't believe it would work.
More...

You said it, here is an example for all of us: Alice Coachman

This was indeed an incredible person, she had a back problem, banned from training by her own country, endured humiliation by her piers and even had to make her own equipment to join her team in High School ! and on top of all that she wins the Gold Medal in 1948 Olympics, she was the only American to do it in that year, WAO !

That is a pure genuine example of BELIEF BEYOND POSITIVE THINKING. imho
 
<i>"A scientific based belief system is exactly the opposite. Belief comes last, after things are proven.

Belief first = irrational."</i>

In the not-too-distant past, existing science knew that the earth was flat. The same science knew that our sun and other planets revolved around the earth. It knew that breathing night air caused illness or death, and blood-letting was an effective cure-all for what ailed you.

How'd that all work out? Science is a relevant study... there are many scientists here who think they have all the answers, which closes their mind to a negative bent.

<i>"Tech analysis doesn't work, chart indicators don't work, day-trading doesn't work, info vendors are all scam artists, discretionary methods can't work,"</i> etc ad nauseam we read every day. Pretty much akin to the rulers of old who had people that dared offer a different verse of their "science" put to death.
 
why it makes no difference if you let a system out...

I don't understand why it's not possible to verify such a successful
futures trading system if it is based on objective rules. My own
attempts to automate the system have been frustrated at every turn by an
enormous problem that is apparently only resolvable by gut instinct:
when to let it ride. Jack gives instructions sometimes to get out at
congestion, but other times this congestion may really just be a
temporary jumble before the market continues its previous direction. Of
course, if we move to a higher fractal, this jumble won't look so much
like a jumble and we can ex post justify a decision not to sideline.
But I cannot figure out an objective system for determining ex ante
which fractal to make decisions on.


Jack apparently has great success in determining when to do this by
knowing the operating point of the futures market and having this
objectively linked to what time periods to use for his analysis. He
also persuasively describes how he does this. But in no systematic
application of his advice can I ever get the right results. In
simulation after simulation I have struggled to do everything he says,
every permutation of what he says, and I can never get the system to
offer up the results to which he says we should aspire (eg 30 points a
day on DJXX).


Please, Jack, you are trained in physics and engineering. You know that
if there is no mathematical solution that you should be able to use math
to prove this as well. Can you give an intution of how we might prove
your contention that "it is not possible to mathematically link the
applications?" Or could you clarify?


I have spent a great deal of time respectfully reading and thinking
about what you have written, but mostly what I feel now is frustration.
That is probably my own fault, a result of my own limited capacities,
but I thought I should express this since I am definitely not the only
one who has been enthusiastic about your posts and then hit a brick wall
once we tried to apply them in a rigorous way.


Sincerely,
James Fowler
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~jhfowler/
More...

http://groups.google.com/group/misc...s+author:fowler&rnum=4&hl=en#ad6210f80809669d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top