Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?

[Ed48]

What if the obvious pre-requisite was "experience?"

Only saying that because it does seem like it could be something obvious... and is something if said, most people would just say, 'Oh, ok.'

It could be but I don't think so.

If your approach/thinking is intrinsically flawed, then no amount of experience (repetition and refinement) will make you successful.

I know a guy who plugged away at it for years. He gained loads of experience but had no money to show for it.

 

[Pelt]

It could be but I don't think so.

If your approach/thinking is intrinsically flawed, then no amount of experience (repetition and refinement) will make you successful.

I know a guy who plugged away at it for years. He had lots of experience but no money to show for it.

I agree, I dont think that is it either.

But it makes me think of the comment in many different iterations by the OP and others in the know, "that if told most would dismiss it out right."

I.e., it must be something that sounds unremarkable.

Also, again I do not think 'experience' is the answer, but I do not think knowing the obvious, or the pre-requisite guarantees profit, as has also been said, that one has to 'do something.' VO mentioned a while back that he still had trouble doing what was necessary.

I.e., I guess I'm saying that even if one has the required obvious or prereq, does not guarantee profit, so i'm not sure an idea of what those things may be can be dismissed bc one person does not see profit from it?

 

[Vindago]

OK, so what could that pre-requisite be?

a) Knowing how the market operates. It's just a market of buyers and sellers, right? With market makers, and the like, acting as intermediaries.

b) Knowing what causes price to go up and down. It's just supply and demand, right? Price rises when the combined $value of all the buy orders exceeds the $value of all the sell orders. And vice versa for price falls.

c) Knowing about the market participants. Large institutions probably account for most of the volume, and most of the price movement, right? Retail traders are probably tiny in comparison, and barely even register on the chart.

d) Knowing what prompts the large players (market movers) to buy and sell. Sometimes it could be an obvious news event. Other times they may be portfolio rebalancing. Or who knows?

Maybe there are telltale signs (clues) on the chart when large players are accumulating or offloading. You can't frontrun them but maybe you could ride their coattails?

All of the above may be useful but it is not necessary to understand all the intricacies of how the markets are structured, I believe that all you need to know is on the chart.

 

[Vindago]

What if the obvious pre-requisite was "experience?"

Only saying that because it does seem like it could be something obvious... and is something if said, most people would just say, 'Oh, ok.'

Experience is a pre-requisite, obviously, it is necessary but it is not enough.

Thing is most traders lose the more money when they start trading as they do not yet have the experience and after a couple of wins think that making money is easy (which it is, indeed) and take risks that they should not take. With time and experience they should realize that while making money is easy, keeping it is way harder

 

[Onra]

I found it a truly odd sensation. I had been fighting the market and myself for quite a while. When it finally began to click I was quite troubled and used to sit at my desk thinking 'That can't be it. It's too simple.' I imagine it was akin in some miniscule way to what Einstein must have felt when he discovered that the mind bending concept of mass-energy equivalence could be boiled down to simply E=mc².

The answers are hidden in plain sight. You just have to ask yourself the right questions to find them. I am not being a sanctimonious twat here. I genuinely believe that working the answers out for yourself will help you accept them as truth and hence trade them profitably.

These days I find that I struggle to get my head around the fact that not everybody can see what is now obvious to me. It is like Edgar Rubin's famous vase/face optical illusion. When you first look at it you can see only a vase. Once you see the faces then you wonder why you couldn't see them before.

I'm still unsure if it's a pre-requisite or just something visual...

 

[odlareg]

"However, knowing what is required, and knowing how to do it correctly, are not one in the same (that is actually a hint if read correctly)."

As stated by nysestocks in the early days of this tread.

GO

 

[Ed48]

"However, knowing what is required, and knowing how to do it correctly, are not one in the same (that is actually a hint if read correctly)."

As stated by nysestocks in the early days of this tread.

GO

He/she also said:

"There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path"

So, the obvious pre-requisite is the path.

If you set off on the right path, and follow it correctly, you stand a chance of making good money.

There are so many approaches (paths) you can take in trading and, as we know, most lead down blind alleys. And, because trading is non-deterministic, it can take a long time (years even!) to realise you're not on the right path.

Just need to figure out what the right path is.

 

[Laissez Faire]

I'm curious...was there ever any proof or suggestion that the riddle-makers in this thread actually knew the answers themselves?

I think I read through the first 200-300 pages of this thread a few years back and I did find it interesting. I also noticed that there were a few posters who claimed that they now 'got it', but shortly after apparently didn't get it after all.

 

[odlareg]

"There is a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path"

So, the obvious pre-requisite is the path.

No, it is the difference between "knowing" and "walking". Very obvious.

GO

 

[Onra]

odlareg,

I've seen a variety of charts on this thread; with single lines, multiple levels, "hooks" etc.
Do they all make sense to you?