Man, this is twisted thinking. Every successful trader can point to periods of incredible good luck as well as bad luck. Confusing work with luck is about as close to being deluded that is possible. Get help bro.
Why Do We Trade? For Real.
- Thread starter cornix
- Start date
Man, this is twisted thinking. Every successful trader can point to periods of incredible good luck as well as bad luck. Confusing work with luck is about as close to being deluded that is possible. Get help bro.
monoid, post: 4090142, member: 486535, said:
For Trader in ET evaluating other Traders
(A) I really don't understand why one independent traders needs to evaluate another Independent trader. Is it because for a trader to agree with another trader, one needs conformation that a trader is really a successful trader? Imagine the situation we would run into if a star NFL quarterback refuses to listen to his coach for the sole reason that the coach was not a successful NFL quarterback. Yet, this seem to reoccur again and again here.
(B) Or, is it because traders in ET are skeptical about other's success? If that is the case, then any amount of "supporting documents" is not enough. One can always, and for valid reason, ask for more confirmation. My question is (rhetorical of course), if one does not believe in a clam made by a trader, why not just ignore that trader and move on? Why all the rattling and finger pointing? If one is claiming success by lying, it is the liar's problem not the listener's, isn't it?
(C) In any account, returns of an independent trader are not meaningful to another independent trader. It seems to me that what another independent trader should be interested is in a trader's expectancy -- not the size but the direction: Is the independent trader having a positive or negative expectancy. Note: This expectancy can be defined only based on the trader's period 'cos that is what makes sense to that trader.
When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, most probably it is a duck. But the problem is one needs to be aware how a duck sounds, and how a duck walks before one can make the above inference. Maybe that is the problem here. Not very many people have seen ducks or are ducks themselves, so they have problems making the inference!
For Trader in ET evaluating other Traders
(A) I really don't understand why one independent traders needs to evaluate another Independent trader. Is it because for a trader to agree with another trader, one needs conformation that a trader is really a successful trader? Imagine the situation we would run into if a star NFL quarterback refuses to listen to his coach for the sole reason that the coach was not a successful NFL quarterback. Yet, this seem to reoccur again and again here.
(B) Or, is it because traders in ET are skeptical about other's success? If that is the case, then any amount of "supporting documents" is not enough. One can always, and for valid reason, ask for more confirmation. My question is (rhetorical of course), if one does not believe in a clam made by a trader, why not just ignore that trader and move on? Why all the rattling and finger pointing? If one is claiming success by lying, it is the liar's problem not the listener's, isn't it?
(C) In any account, returns of an independent trader are not meaningful to another independent trader. It seems to me that what another independent trader should be interested is in a trader's expectancy -- not the size but the direction: Is the independent trader having a positive or negative expectancy. Note: This expectancy can be defined only based on the trader's period 'cos that is what makes sense to that trader.
When it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, most probably it is a duck. But the problem is one needs to be aware how a duck sounds, and how a duck walks before one can make the above inference. Maybe that is the problem here. Not very many people have seen ducks or are ducks themselves, so they have problems making the inference!
As far as our limitations would allow.
True, this is a process with two-way feedback.
Of course. In my system of beliefs I found day trading too stressful and risky. For someone else it may well be very different.
Finding out that difference which makes the difference (contrast analysis) is the purpose of the thread.
It depends on the type of day trading which is attempted, I think.
For example, day trading in 2003 for me meant being trigger-happy with hot-key orders on breaks, usually at the market, and some trades lasting only a few minutes. That was a stressful roller-coaster I couldn't imagine myself doing unmodified for more than a few years.
Day trading for me now though, means planning out a high-probability scenario with an affordable stop which I write off, then executing the plan which may last several hours, out at the end of the day. I tried "semi-long" timeframes (i.e. 30-minute bars) but even though it brought a fun relaxed pace, it was stressful to me because of the overnight risk exposure which feels too much like a lottery for positions held only a handful of days (that's the timeframe where gaps are proportionally their largest, in stocks anyway).
Thus for me, being flat when a market is closed is more relaxing, as much as managing long-term positions. It's the in-between timeframe that would've given me ulcers.
(I'm shopping for 24-hour markets though, where 1-4 hour bars might make sense to me.)As for the risk aspect, I use equivalent risk so my intra-day positions are larger than my long-term ones, but they're much less exposed to unexpected news events on the other hand.
On luck, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3335275.stm by Professor Richard Wiseman, University of Hertfordshire:
Good answer. He has been having trouble since about 2000 largely because the insurance industry edge is beginning to reverse. I am very interested to see how he does over a full cycle when interest rates rise to 18% again. Will he be the top investor then over the whole cycle. He also started out with a huge stake in relative dollars and the right contacts in the industry.
I think he is using a good method and has high integrity as well.
I agree it would be interesting, but he probably will not live that long.
I began trading for money and for the challenge in the 80s. I never learned that it couldn't be done. I never learned about edges or indicators or methods. I learned about psychology and risk control and measurement.
Later on it was more for fun, learning, and challenge.
Still later on, IMO after emotion and thinking are removed one begins to see something much much deeper and trading is just one journey to the same place for us all. Now I trade to increase my personal growth and increase my non-financial wealth. Money and motivation become much less important. FWIW.
... and now the computers paint the tape (look at this reversal human) and take peoples money, the bums! Computers can't cheat us since they aren't legal persons. It is all just bad programming.
At a dinner party with a failed business man in the construction industry we spoke of luck and skill in business. He failed and felt bad, his brother (host of the party) succeeded and made 25 million dollars plus. My contention then as now is that Bill Gates couldn't repeat his performance in a different time period. The fellow felt better as a sudden downturn bankrupted his business.
Bill Gates et al were good- that is a given to remain in the game, yet few can repeatably deliver top flight results at different times and luck is much bigger factor that most realize IMO. Egos always claim bad luck versus their own wisdom. It took me over a decade to conclude that my trading results were not random to a certainty level that I was comfortable with (R test).
Every trade is some combination of luck and skill. Over the long run, the luck will cancel out leaving only the skill of the player.