This is the first time I've seen this thread. What's going on here?))))To be honest, I'm allergic to this thread. Obviously, if you know what the "obvious" is, you wouldn't be saying it. But that in itself is part of the discovery process (or so I'm led to believe).
Be that as it may, think of it this way. Why are traders so addicted to looking for the not-so-obvious? I say stick to what you know best.
Why Is The Obvious Not So Obvious?
- Thread starter nysestocks
- Start date
To me "Obvious"means "easily recognisable"To be honest, I'm allergic to this thread. Obviously, if you know what the "obvious" is, you wouldn't be saying it. But that in itself is part of the discovery process (or so I'm led to believe).
Be that as it may, think of it this way. Why are traders so addicted to looking for the not-so-obvious? I say stick to what you know best.
and therefore known in the public domain...
Every setup in the public domain seems to give you 50/50,
or maybe up to a 60/40(?) edge...
So, are you suggesting that our "Obvious" is not an hidden principle?
To be honest, I'm allergic to this thread. Obviously, if you know what the "obvious" is, you wouldn't be saying it. But that in itself is part of the discovery process (or so I'm led to believe).
Be that as it may, think of it this way. Why are traders so addicted to looking for the not-so-obvious? I say stick to what you know best.
Sorry, I was not asking for the obvious. I meant how was it performing in reality, given it has been more than 10 years now, probably enough time for someone to master it (the entries and exits). Technically, it should still be working as long as the majority of the traders are still following the usual stuff and losing.
Obviously, it should be your first time since it is your first day on this forum
. There are some other obvious-but-not-so-obvious facts in this thread that you have to figure out.
Not my obvious but @schizo's obvious is probably more important if your trading is like "taking candies from a child".
Last edited:
I think that one of the major plus of this thread is that it leads you to think outside of the mainstream (mind) box (Technical Analysis and similar stuff found in books, seminars, etc.).
It has often been pushed by the various OP to think for yourself and find your own way, although I think some followers have been way too focused on deciphering the Obvious as a form of holy grail and so got lost into the details instead of capturing the great picture.
I also think that outside of the super cryptical stuff often found in this thread (that may or may not be of use) there are some very useful suggestions by the OPs that may help to move in the right direction.
It has often been pushed by the various OP to think for yourself and find your own way, although I think some followers have been way too focused on deciphering the Obvious as a form of holy grail and so got lost into the details instead of capturing the great picture.
I also think that outside of the super cryptical stuff often found in this thread (that may or may not be of use) there are some very useful suggestions by the OPs that may help to move in the right direction.
The following chart was posted elsewhere by another poster. For me, its underlying premise is "obvious". It just clicks for me. But I imagine there will be some who will be scratching their heads and some who, even if they understand, will question its validity (for whatever reason). So what is it? You don't see the obvious or you refuse to see the obvious? (It's a rhetorical question. No need to turn on the piss-o-meter.
)Out of curiosity (and boredom), I went back to the beginning and dug up these ancient posts from their grave. And I happen to ran into this quote. I believe this might be as close as you will ever get to the obvious.
But since this thread is categorized under "Risk Management", I would think what @nysestocks implied was a risk-less entry.
I agree with the first part, however, I thought he was ok with small losses, he mentioned that a couple of times. But I may be wrong, I did not read the whole thread yet. I thought the pre-requisite was to have good risk-reward and high-probability (win) entries
1. Why would you do that!
2. It is not their own money!
3. You should not have any angle but to make a small loss and a profit that is bigger than that loss!
4. You need to leave your balls alone and concentrate on what you need to know, and do
Low risk entry = Good risk-reward and high-probability win.
Don't you think? But then again, just what does "low risk entry" mean exactly? Perhaps that's where the obvious lies. Maybe it's so obvious that nobody cares to even look there. (This is giving me head cramps already
)