What is the obvious,Jack?
Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?
- Thread starter nysestocks
- Start date
Here is my guess:
Because we don't know what is/are the "Obvious"!
To find out or discuss "Why is the Obvious not so Obvious", we would need to know first "What is/are the Obvious"!
Just 2 cents.
There isn't an answer. The OP was trolling.
This is not about the "obvious", but maybe more about what the OP calls "real secret" as in this post :
So :
I guess the concerned individuals don't visit here anymore but I thought I would still put it here in case they do so, or that it rings something to some people and that they may tell a bit more about it.
We never know.
030985
P.S: I have my guess about what input could replace the '24'.
So :
I guess the concerned individuals don't visit here anymore but I thought I would still put it here in case they do so, or that it rings something to some people and that they may tell a bit more about it.
We never know.
030985
P.S: I have my guess about what input could replace the '24'.
Last edited:
This is not about the "obvious", but maybe more about what the OP calls "real secret" as in this post :
So :
I guess the concerned individuals don't visit here anymore but I thought I would still put it here in case they do so, or that it rings something to some people and that they may tell a bit more about it.
We never know.
030985
P.S: I have my guess about what input could replace the '24'.
I have my guess too. Not 24. "The answer is 42!"
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)
42 (forty-two) is the natural number immediately following 41 and directly preceding 43. The number has received considerable attention in popular culture as a result of its central appearance in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as the "Answer to The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".
...
...
...
"
This is an excerpt from the book suggested by OverDriven some pages ago "Everything is obvious (*once you know the answer) : How common sense fails us". I took a look quickly and this excerpt retained my attention as there is some good analogy about cutting losses and pressing winners, maybe :
"Of all the prognosticators, forecasters, and fortune-tellers, few are at once more confident and yet less accountable than those in the business of predicting [...] trends.
[...]That these predictions are almost never checked for accuracy, that so many trends arrive unforeseen, and that the explanations given for them are only possible in hindsight, seems to have little effect on the breezy air of self-assurance that the arbiters [...] so often exude.
[...]Rather than trying to anticipate what shoppers will buy next season, Zara effectively acknowledges that it has no idea. Instead, it adopts what we might call a measure-and-react strategy.
First, it sends out agents to scour shopping malls, town centers, and other gathering places to observe what people are already wearing, thereby generating lots of ideas about what might work.
Second, drawing on these and other sources of inspiration, it produces an extraordinarily large portfolio of styles, fabrics, and colors—where each combination is initially made in only a small batch—and sends them out to stores, where it can then measure directly what is selling and what isn’t. And finally, it has a very flexible manufacturing and distribution operation that can react quickly to the information that is coming directly from stores, dropping those styles that aren’t selling (with relatively little left-over inventory) and scaling up those that are.
[...]traditional strategic planning invariably requires planners to make predictions about the future, leaving them vulnerable to inevitable errors—Mintzberg recommended that planners should rely less on making predictions about long-term strategic trends and more on reacting quickly to changes on the ground. Rather than attempting to anticipate correctly what will work in the future, that is, they should instead improve their ability to learn about what is working right now. Then, like Zara, they should react to it as rapidly as possible, dropping alternatives that are not working—no matter how promising they might have seemed in advance and diverting resources to those that are succeeding, or even developing new alternatives on the fly."
030985
"Of all the prognosticators, forecasters, and fortune-tellers, few are at once more confident and yet less accountable than those in the business of predicting [...] trends.
[...]That these predictions are almost never checked for accuracy, that so many trends arrive unforeseen, and that the explanations given for them are only possible in hindsight, seems to have little effect on the breezy air of self-assurance that the arbiters [...] so often exude.
[...]Rather than trying to anticipate what shoppers will buy next season, Zara effectively acknowledges that it has no idea. Instead, it adopts what we might call a measure-and-react strategy.
First, it sends out agents to scour shopping malls, town centers, and other gathering places to observe what people are already wearing, thereby generating lots of ideas about what might work.
Second, drawing on these and other sources of inspiration, it produces an extraordinarily large portfolio of styles, fabrics, and colors—where each combination is initially made in only a small batch—and sends them out to stores, where it can then measure directly what is selling and what isn’t. And finally, it has a very flexible manufacturing and distribution operation that can react quickly to the information that is coming directly from stores, dropping those styles that aren’t selling (with relatively little left-over inventory) and scaling up those that are.
[...]traditional strategic planning invariably requires planners to make predictions about the future, leaving them vulnerable to inevitable errors—Mintzberg recommended that planners should rely less on making predictions about long-term strategic trends and more on reacting quickly to changes on the ground. Rather than attempting to anticipate correctly what will work in the future, that is, they should instead improve their ability to learn about what is working right now. Then, like Zara, they should react to it as rapidly as possible, dropping alternatives that are not working—no matter how promising they might have seemed in advance and diverting resources to those that are succeeding, or even developing new alternatives on the fly."
030985
Just putting in parallel what OverDriven said in his post few pages ago with what TE (The Expert) said in his thread "if you want to fail as a trader, study TA".
My guess is that they are probably talking of the same levels ? Or at least there is similarity in the reasonning.
030985
My guess is that they are probably talking of the same levels ? Or at least there is similarity in the reasonning.
http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...-trader-study-ta.197367/page-125#post-2893330The Expert said:Are we looking at the same thing that everyone else is looking at?
Do we really want to look at what everyone else sees?
How do we look and come up with different numbers to most?
Who else is looking at the numbers we are looking at?
How do we confirm that they are looking at those numbers?
There is a lot MORE to S&R lines than meets the eye
TE
030985
A stock is going up.
You are a trend trader. Buy on a pullback with a stop at support and a target of 2:1... or just trail it.
You are a reversal trader. Short on a reversal signal with a stop at resistance and a target of 2:1... or just trail it.
The timeframe is irrelevant.
Over the long run doing two completely opposite things will make money i.e. the entry is nowhere near as important as how you manage things after the entry.
Indicatoritis is a disease. Get over the disease by taking a pill called TRADE MANAGEMENT.
Why is the obvious not so obvious?
You are a trend trader. Buy on a pullback with a stop at support and a target of 2:1... or just trail it.
You are a reversal trader. Short on a reversal signal with a stop at resistance and a target of 2:1... or just trail it.
The timeframe is irrelevant.
Over the long run doing two completely opposite things will make money i.e. the entry is nowhere near as important as how you manage things after the entry.
Indicatoritis is a disease. Get over the disease by taking a pill called TRADE MANAGEMENT.
Why is the obvious not so obvious?
So its been a good 2 years since reading this thread. I participated in all the research the op mentioned. I shifted perspective, i asked questions i found answers. Were they the right or wrong answers,,, well your bank account will tell you this.
A big hint, The OP mentions that he was shown this. He was taught by someone else. Now there are many ways to skin a cat, many ways to trade. Some better than others, some will make more $ some less $. Whats important is to find a way that suits you. You got to get through all the crap thats out there though. Do your research and find someone who is making trading work for them, someone who is making $$$. Not many so called teachers and course sellers actually show you their bank account or what car they drive or what type of house they live in. Find someone who is a professional and ask them/pay them to mentor you.
It's easier to be taught and shown the way, it saves time and you learn from their years of experience. Don't just ask anyone. If i were you i would read Market wizards and ask one of the traders in those books to mentor you. Or if you find someone who you like their style, ask them. But make sure they are legit. I have been working with a mentor for almost 8 months now and i have seen why the obvious is not so obvious. He manages a 80 million dollar money management fund and has also introduced me to all his contacts. I design semi automated uncorrelated trading systems for the NYSE, AMEZ and NASDAQ. I would not be where i am today if i didnt find someone who is doing what i want to do and earning the type of money i want to earn AND ASKED them to help me.
Whats in it for him,,, He's passing it forward. I will do the same when I believe i am capable.
Just my 2 cents.
A big hint, The OP mentions that he was shown this. He was taught by someone else. Now there are many ways to skin a cat, many ways to trade. Some better than others, some will make more $ some less $. Whats important is to find a way that suits you. You got to get through all the crap thats out there though. Do your research and find someone who is making trading work for them, someone who is making $$$. Not many so called teachers and course sellers actually show you their bank account or what car they drive or what type of house they live in. Find someone who is a professional and ask them/pay them to mentor you.
It's easier to be taught and shown the way, it saves time and you learn from their years of experience. Don't just ask anyone. If i were you i would read Market wizards and ask one of the traders in those books to mentor you. Or if you find someone who you like their style, ask them. But make sure they are legit. I have been working with a mentor for almost 8 months now and i have seen why the obvious is not so obvious. He manages a 80 million dollar money management fund and has also introduced me to all his contacts. I design semi automated uncorrelated trading systems for the NYSE, AMEZ and NASDAQ. I would not be where i am today if i didnt find someone who is doing what i want to do and earning the type of money i want to earn AND ASKED them to help me.
Whats in it for him,,, He's passing it forward. I will do the same when I believe i am capable.
Just my 2 cents.