That is pretty hefty assumption...not about chomsky (he is a moron regardless) ....
Why market wizards are not day traders?
- Thread starter mr_byte31
- Start date
Actually it can happen beyond control through intraday halts, just less likely. Only control is non-correlation and diversification.
yes it can , that's why index preffered over stocks.... But it can be halted as well but not as often, and defenrtly not ad often as possible problems with overnight exposure.
Need the cliff notes version of this logorhhea
Hobo just blew-out and thus wants you to feel his pain. Trading since 2013 lol.
Arbitrary stop and trade management, confirming you're not
Last edited:
"Arbitrary stop and trade management"
whatever you want to label it, and i call it "rupturing the zero sum", it guarantees a net profit overall because of what it does to probability and the magnitude of wins vs losses
the trouble with you is you're up yourself - i am indeed one of the best mathematicians in the english speaking world and what i'm showing those here less arrogant than you is a serious pearl
if you use the same maths on a longterm structure it is much easier to show what a dramatic positive bias it puts on the magnitude of overall gains. meaning that the more you do it, the higher that bias, ie the more years you trade, the more that bias moves. of course crashes, fat tails, are as harmful to this method as any other, which is why i also attempt to 'properly hedge'.
nonetheless, you're an arse. with that maths you don't need to work again, but you'd rather stroke your ego and stress your body and be a loser. go ahead loser. be a loser.
to those who want to appreciate the maths just consider this
say you have a set of trades, a sequence, which ends up with a general 'zero sum' - where wins are 2 and losses are 4. i once backtested 10s of 1000s of forex trades in certain circs and found with that particular set of ema crossover triggers trading at a certain point every time with a stop of 4 and a limit of 2 came out with a totally reliable profit over time, always. so let's say you took that particular model but instead of closing at 2 you wait for 3 and then lock the 2 in and let the others run upwards, maybe choosing to stop all such trades at 10 or just to move them up systematically
the outcome is obvious - the zero sum's outcome (or in the 4-2 case the profitable outcome) is preserved, but a whole additional lot of profit is also added, from the necessarily non-zero number of trades where the profit runs way above that 2.
but self-adulating braindead bastards like you think you can teach ME maths
at this point none of your intelligence agencies has the same confidence as you do about which out of you and me is not an idiot
whatever you want to label it, and i call it "rupturing the zero sum", it guarantees a net profit overall because of what it does to probability and the magnitude of wins vs losses
the trouble with you is you're up yourself - i am indeed one of the best mathematicians in the english speaking world and what i'm showing those here less arrogant than you is a serious pearl
if you use the same maths on a longterm structure it is much easier to show what a dramatic positive bias it puts on the magnitude of overall gains. meaning that the more you do it, the higher that bias, ie the more years you trade, the more that bias moves. of course crashes, fat tails, are as harmful to this method as any other, which is why i also attempt to 'properly hedge'.
nonetheless, you're an arse. with that maths you don't need to work again, but you'd rather stroke your ego and stress your body and be a loser. go ahead loser. be a loser.
to those who want to appreciate the maths just consider this
say you have a set of trades, a sequence, which ends up with a general 'zero sum' - where wins are 2 and losses are 4. i once backtested 10s of 1000s of forex trades in certain circs and found with that particular set of ema crossover triggers trading at a certain point every time with a stop of 4 and a limit of 2 came out with a totally reliable profit over time, always. so let's say you took that particular model but instead of closing at 2 you wait for 3 and then lock the 2 in and let the others run upwards, maybe choosing to stop all such trades at 10 or just to move them up systematically
the outcome is obvious - the zero sum's outcome (or in the 4-2 case the profitable outcome) is preserved, but a whole additional lot of profit is also added, from the necessarily non-zero number of trades where the profit runs way above that 2.
but self-adulating braindead bastards like you think you can teach ME maths
at this point none of your intelligence agencies has the same confidence as you do about which out of you and me is not an idiot
anyway. if any of you can tell me that that particular day trading set of rules would ever fail, i'd be interested. if it's wrong, as a scientist, i'd like to know. what i have found when testing it live and backtesting it both is that it's not wrong. the mathematical premise seems to be true. it does rupture the zero sum.
76% of day traders lose, on mainstream sites, actually nearer to 90% and that's a fact. so that being what it is, the method i have shown you is hardly something to sneer at - since in the hands of all those people it'd change their fate from loss to win
you think that because you choose complicated triggers and rules and dress up your brawn in sophistry that you do something special or that a method with as basic triggers as mine is somehow primitive next to you 3 crossover 2 oscillator shove it up my stupid name blah blah blah technical bullshitting method, or because glaxo's buying ford and you guessed or whatever
but that's not what makes day trading work, it's JUST the brawn. it's JUST the management of stops
the ONLY way to trade correctly, long OR short term, is to exit correctly. that is the point. entering is easy. it's exiting which fucks you or enriches you.
anyway. i've given you that pearl. do what you want with it. apparently what you want to do with it is point at it and be solipsistic!
the point is that there are many clever ways to trade, but only one brawn-based way - and most of you ONLY know the brawn-based way. you have no access, mentally, to ANY of the clever ways. the brawn is not necessary, other than in day trading, in which case it IS the method, there is no other 'day trading method' - it is ALL brawn.
good day sir.
76% of day traders lose, on mainstream sites, actually nearer to 90% and that's a fact. so that being what it is, the method i have shown you is hardly something to sneer at - since in the hands of all those people it'd change their fate from loss to win
you think that because you choose complicated triggers and rules and dress up your brawn in sophistry that you do something special or that a method with as basic triggers as mine is somehow primitive next to you 3 crossover 2 oscillator shove it up my stupid name blah blah blah technical bullshitting method, or because glaxo's buying ford and you guessed or whatever
but that's not what makes day trading work, it's JUST the brawn. it's JUST the management of stops
the ONLY way to trade correctly, long OR short term, is to exit correctly. that is the point. entering is easy. it's exiting which fucks you or enriches you.
anyway. i've given you that pearl. do what you want with it. apparently what you want to do with it is point at it and be solipsistic!
the point is that there are many clever ways to trade, but only one brawn-based way - and most of you ONLY know the brawn-based way. you have no access, mentally, to ANY of the clever ways. the brawn is not necessary, other than in day trading, in which case it IS the method, there is no other 'day trading method' - it is ALL brawn.
good day sir.
while i can be arsed let me just tell you something about maths, though
as feynman has explained, maths is a reasoning, a way of thinking, you can't just translate human language in and out of maths, it needs to be understood separately, internally
traders like you aren't real mathematicians, you're just parrot learners of anything, your favourite pastimes are in fact watching glitzy movies and sports, you're good at one liners
you cannot understand anything people like me do
your best bet is to quit - people like ME own the trading world, it is our world not yours
talking the talk and walking the walk doesn't do it
to be bankster number one you have to be a truly autistic motherfucker
you, my friend, are mathematically illiterate, in the end, like all the other latin and greek students i've had to teach a thing or two about mathematical truth
at school people like you didn't generally try and overtly claim to know more than me because i'd be beating you in class every time
but once you're out of the reach of actual performance measurement, you love to believe you know it all
you do not. not one of you here is george soros, and that is a fact.
as feynman has explained, maths is a reasoning, a way of thinking, you can't just translate human language in and out of maths, it needs to be understood separately, internally
traders like you aren't real mathematicians, you're just parrot learners of anything, your favourite pastimes are in fact watching glitzy movies and sports, you're good at one liners
you cannot understand anything people like me do
your best bet is to quit - people like ME own the trading world, it is our world not yours
talking the talk and walking the walk doesn't do it
to be bankster number one you have to be a truly autistic motherfucker
you, my friend, are mathematically illiterate, in the end, like all the other latin and greek students i've had to teach a thing or two about mathematical truth
at school people like you didn't generally try and overtly claim to know more than me because i'd be beating you in class every time
but once you're out of the reach of actual performance measurement, you love to believe you know it all
you do not. not one of you here is george soros, and that is a fact.