Why not share your winning strategy?

cooldude · Feb 19, 2006

Quote from capamando:

Hello,

I do appreciate all of the comments regarding my unofficial poll on altruism and forex trading. Darth Vader would be proud of you.

I didn't expect anything different. I can add a lot more but frankly I don't see the need. Thanks for your unbridled opinions and I will continue to extract as much as possible from your "secret winning formulas" and hopefully find my own.

At the very least, nobody can say that you are a slow learner.

ElectricSavant · Feb 19, 2006

Don't even try to reverse-engineer mine or I will have to kill you

secret winning formulas

stocon · Feb 19, 2006

Find a trend and buy a flag BO
Find some chops and sell two tops or buy two bottoms

I hope she's attractive

andw

emkr

holx my fav

Matt8200 · Feb 19, 2006

Quote from trend_guy:

these threads crack me up... people always looking for the short cut to success. After reading over 50 trading books, some 10 times over and practicing with real money for 7 years plus why would I turn around and share all my secrets to a zero sum game?

I don't agree that it is a zero sums game. Stocks certainly aren't because corporations make a profit and then pay them out in dividends. Commodities and currencies are closer to a zero sums game but you have hedgers who are most likely net losers using them as issuance.

bitrend · Feb 19, 2006

Quote from Matt8200:
I don't agree that it is a zero sums game. Stocks certainly aren't because corporations make a profit and then pay them out in dividends. Commodities and currencies are closer to a zero sums game but you have hedgers who are most likely net losers using them as issuance.

Yes, it's a zero-sum game. It couldn't be a zero-sum game with one condition if the total dividends that corporate pays back or buy the shares back exceed the IPO value. How many successful companies, like Microsoft, IBM, Google and so on are able to do that. Here we're not considering an unsuccessful companies, there are many, if we consider them as well we see clearly that it's a zero-sum since they never able to give money back to their investors. Those moneys are just moving from one trader to another trader.

88888accountant · Feb 19, 2006

Quote from capamando:

Hello,

I have been spending several hours everyday reading everything related to Forex trading and one thing that puzzles me is this secrecy concerning people's winning strategies. What is the problem with sharing and helping other people out? I am just starting in Forex and would appreciate someone sharing a basic system of trading that can generate 20-30 pips a week. I guarantee you that if I was successful at it, I would not hesitate to share it. Now, wait a minute, I realized that one can not exactly duplicate anyone's results. And it is for this reason and the fact that we are talking about a gazillion$$$ market with millions and millions of traders that I don't understand the reluctance to share a successful systems. I do want to thank all of you that take the time to inform and educate the members of this forum. Especially a knucklehead newbie like me.

Thanks

Very simple. Lets say you have a winning strategy. You pass it on to 3 people. they pass it on to 3 people, who also pass it on to 3 people etc. Technical indicators become self fulfilling prophecies. traders take advantage by making the currency hit trigger points, strategy becomes less profitable while more traders trade wining strategy. strategy eventually becomes unprofitable for all. strategies life cycle becomes seriously diminished. This happens so quickly that the trader who created the original strategy cannot adapt. the result, a 3 year investment of ones time only pays off for a year instead of the rest of ones life.

In short, it is very easy to look at bill gates and say "If I had that much money, I would share it with someone like me" But until you actually have it, nobody will believe you.

If you're just starting out, I would suggest asking other new traders to work with you and share ideas, instead of asking more seasoned traders to work for you for free. And maybe when you've paid your dues and have something of value, they'll be kicking themselves for not taking you up on your offer sooner.

88888s

Matt8200 · Feb 19, 2006

Quote from bitrend:

Yes, it's a zero-sum game. It couldn't be a zero-sum game with one condition if the total dividends that corporate pays back or buy the shares back exceed the IPO value. How many successful companies, like Microsoft, IBM, Google and so on are able to do that. Here we're not considering an unsuccessful companies, there are many, if we consider them as well we see clearly that it's a zero-sum since they never able to give money back to their investors. Those moneys are just moving from one trader to another trader.

You don't think Microsoft has paid back more dividends than money it raised in its IPO? Anyone who thinks the stock market is a zero sums game shouldn't be trading. In 2004 Microsoft paid a $32.6 billion one-time dividend, the S&P 500 paid a total of $213.6 billion in dividends during 2004.

Deptrai · Feb 20, 2006

Capamando, I wasn't joking about using the force. Hopefully, someday you will know what I am talking about. Welcome to forex. 99% of all forex traders will eventually fail. May the force be with you.

bitrend · Feb 20, 2006

Quote from Matt8200:
You don't think Microsoft has paid back more dividends than money it raised in its IPO? Anyone who thinks the stock market is a zero sums game shouldn't be trading. In 2004 Microsoft paid a $32.6 billion one-time dividend, the S&P 500 paid a total of $213.6 billion in dividends during 2004.

I guess your main priority is not about dividends it's about price appreciation. Are you concentrating to trade uniquely on the companies in S&P500 or on other thousand companies outside S&P500 that couldn't pay dividends?

gbos · Feb 20, 2006

Quote from bitrend:

Yes, it's a zero-sum game. It couldn't be a zero-sum game with one condition if the total dividends that corporate pays back or buy the shares back exceed the IPO value. How many successful companies, like Microsoft, IBM, Google and so on are able to do that. Here we're not considering an unsuccessful companies, there are many, if we consider them as well we see clearly that it's a zero-sum since they never able to give money back to their investors. Those moneys are just moving from one trader to another trader.

I think the ET community had many times in the past this discussion. My view is this:

If you take the whole market as one entity and you add some time lag, the stock market game is very close to a zero sum game.

First of all the stock market as a whole grows no more than 4 â 5% a year on average (that is if you are lucky enough to invest in a growing economy like the US stock market in the past century).

If you compensate for inflation â transaction costs â companies that closed etc. the real growth is even less.

So for the average participant in a stock market, the only way to achieve a return more than this is to take a bigger part of this limited pie in the expense and by outsmarting another investor.

There will be times that temporarily many will have above average profits and the market will give the impression that it is not a zero sum game but this is only temporarily. The market has a memory (time lag) and it will rebalance these profits making in the long run the game very close to a zero sum one.

Some that follows the strict academic definition of the zero sum game will disagree with the above.