zdo

jtrader88 Welcome... hate to give you such a hard ass reply to your first post on TL ... but Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like 'Most 80 trades a day systems won't work in real trading' ? Maybe you gave up too quickly. If that is the op's nature then a "slower system looking for big moves" would ultimately Not work at all for him - even if it's profitable. If nothing else will do, the op can find a way...

Early in the thread someone asked me to concede that it is the edge work that comes first for beginners. No. The 'first' one is the one in awareness now. They are inseparable. Be careful of the assumption that the point in time each emergent trader first starts to work on edge is some sort of discrete startup point. If you think about it a huge amount of the inner work, in the form of decisions and belief formation and prioritizations, was made in the journey previous to starting all that long suffering edge work. Obviously for many these are seamless, unattended, even unconscious decisions; but nonetheless they are extremely important. Most trading books have some level of coverage regarding this area in the ‘sychology’ chapter(s) or, even better, threaded in throughout. Good examples of that are found in the works of Tom Demark, Chick Goslin, and Larry Williams, just to mention a couple… Recently Rande Howell has written extensively about the 'emotional intelligence' we bring at the beginning. the (conscious or not) beliefs we literally act on, and the hazards to development real time trading can reveal. This thread posits (whether by schedule or by what is in front of you at the completion of work on one side) that real time advancements on one side are optimally a call to make intentional advancements on the other side. It is hard work to relentlessly develop the habit of using any advancement in one side as requirement to ask and answer difficult questions about the other side. Great place to apply "D-I-S-C-I-P-L-I-N-E"*. Willfully stepping into the unknown - saying "I don't know what this belief work I've done this week means to my edge work. But I will ask the right questions and remain actively and consciously open to the implications and possibility this work will enable...". Ok that's starting to sound like some oprah guest or dr phil bullshit. Just use the first three crucial words, "I don't know" and you take it from there... (* Note to ingot54, et al. (see OP at http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f37/your-mama-doesnt-trade-so-wise-9278.html) - this a much better place to apply "D-I-S-I-P-L-I-N-E" than in day to day "enforcement" of a trading plan. "If you have to apply 'discipline' in your trading more than about once a month, something is terminally wrong with your match to your system(s)" zdo. Also from the OP over there, I didn’t want to make an argument with you in a great thread but - ‘yo inna mama’ is trading! :helloooo: )

robertm, I understand what you're getting at. After sales and giveaways a couple years back, I probably still have 400-500 ‘trading’ books on my shelves. Themes are all over the board – technical classics, how to trade books for a bunch of different styles and levels, MM and fund mgmt, trading ‘psychology’ books, investing books, and even a pretty good stack of out of print more esoteric trading books present and future generations will unfortunately never see. I could go through and pull out what to me are the top 50 and / or 100. But with each passing year I am decreasingly likely to want to build such a list for others – generally or for an individual. I do probably have a few more than 10 'trading' books on my 'gem- quality' list - but several of them made gem quality by the impact that sections, even paragraphs or single sentences, had on me. As I posted before, it's how we fill in the 'gaps', not the content itself, that makes a book significant. Skimming through this thread provides good examples of how the filling in the gaps widely varies btwn different 'types' of ppl. Each individual’s makeup - mind, structures, belief mapping, tendencies, etc. - is INSEPARABLE from his or her trading capacities and tendencies. Without his ‘conditions’, Jesse would not have lived, acted, traded the way he did. This inseparability is much more subtle for ‘normals’, but is still vitally important to fish out and integrate. I have been banging on about this for several months over at http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f37/edge-first-integration-first-both-first-8410.html

Time stamp precision is not needed in all systems. There are also ways (via ELC or other objects) to increase the time stamp precision if necessary. And even with the one minute restriction, on a one tick chart the data flow is serial ie the tick that just printed three ticks ago is not actually before the tick that printed four ticks ago - if that really matters. UB, With the systems you run, I understand your need for a higher level of precision (and have wondered why you're still with TS... ) Long ago I commited myself to accept less accuracy and honesty in the data stream - a tick and any aggregate of ticks is still only a symbolic representation of the actual 'auctions' occurring... I work to prepare to thrive in even more 'chaos' than we have now and in several orders lower of data completeness... I think I could be up and running in a day or so if I were dropped into any exchange traded market on the planet... large or small ...hey guys, in the TS forums this archeological dig has already been taken down to the level where you can just brush off the top dust to find the goodies ... still time consuming but better than waiting here in TL for it to show up piecemeal...hth

UB, thanks for informing him of the issue with sim fills vs real limit order fills. I just assumed everyone knew about that aspect of the high hit rate systems... feng, if you're staying with TS for this, one tech that has worked well for me with some systems is to run the system on a one tick chart (with setups signals coming in via ELC/ADE from your other 'time frame(s)') and go to mkt when price gets to or through where your limit would have been if you were still using limit orders. Doesn't work for all systems but is generally a good way to test the viability of these 'too good to be true' systems. Slight drop off for some systems, which we just have to figure out a way to claw back some other way... hth

Can't say it is always the case for everyone. But in every system I have ever tried that has similar properties to yours (fast timeframe, active, limit orders,etc), the results are different. Not necessarily big differences but always enough to make me look at my code some more... and the reasons are always strange and quircky Hint: Some of the best work on these discrepancies is now 7+ years old in the TS forums Have a great weekend all.

feng, good news and bad news It is not too good to be true AND TS live results have a snow drop's chance in hell of being close to sim results. Instead of drop dead going live, have you considered transitional going live? I've had good results in the past by first back testing to find if system has best times of day to trade and forward testing live for just those times and then gradually adding more live time, etc.

In my experience, for wkstations dedicated to trading only, it is better to get to know a few local hardware aficionados and work with one of them to design and build your trading computers. Using the specs and list of components and parts you have worked out with the tech, order the stuff yourself and take it to the tech for assembly and an OS install and setup . For the OS setup, emphasize having him minimize all the ‘services’ that would normally run by default. For the hardware, focus on selecting high quality components that are known to work well together – esp video. As Tams indicated, overclocking sb last resort. For ‘performance’, select widest bus architecture on the MB, loads of high quality fast RAM, and fast drives – build it for a 300,000 mile haul not a 500 mile race… Also, I try to not to be a tester for the very latest in processors. High end of one generation back has always worked well for me… If something does break and also in the beginning when you might need things re-configured, etc. more than once, you’ll be up and running again much faster working with a local guy than you will be shipping stuff back and forth or trying to do it over the phone with a far away custom trading system builder.

Re “Thanks for your recommendations on observing no. of times price exceed extreme reading before making actual revert and on stepping parameter values incrementally.” Just to make sure you understood me, I was talking about ‘incrementally’ increasing target size (and stop distance (and size possibly)) with each setup within same price swing, as one way of dealing with W/L dropping off unless wide stops, etc. Re; “I still have to convince myself that RSI works or not.” It doesn’t! razz! :rofl: Seriously though, for me indicators like RSI ‘work’ when I answer “when’ (to use) instead of ‘how’ (to apply) questions. Re: “When i add a parameter (such as stop-loss) I want to make sure that the improvement in the result is not attributable to the new parameter.” The result is not attributable to the new parameter. Result is attributable to the whole new combination of all the parameters. Again - the slightest change to any parameter of a system actually creates a whole new system. Pound that into your whole being. Be careful that you are using stats instead of them 'using' you. Re: “tweaking price patterns will further reduce no. of trades which i fear will not be representative of the "RSI effect" i'm after.” I was hinting tweak the price patterns (and other parameters) to increase the no. of trades – not to anything like HFT levels mind you, but to more setups. In my experience with coded trading, far too many cherry setups turn out to be mediocre trades and far too many mediocre setups turn out to be great trades… Good setups are not neat…they are messy. Good system development is not normal … it’s way out at the edge of reasonable. Re: “i have been trying to answer one question for so long but could not find the answer, so i settle with my preference… given 2 systems with their expected returns and risks, is there a way to optimally allocate capital between the 2?” Until I learned to vary allocations in a portfolio of systems via MarketTyping instead of trying to set allocations at optimal fixed levels, I stayed pretty frustrated with that too. Another approach for dealing with this that you might find helpful is the newer work of Ralph Vince, particularly The Handbook of Portfolio Mathematics; Formulas for Optimal Allocation and Leverage. Nauzer J. Balsara also has a less complex but acceptable ( in that he doesn't completely ignore risk of ruin ) allocation model based on Geometric Mean in his book Money Management Strategies For Futures Traders Re: Which markets do you trade in? My automated trading uses US index futures, US treasury futures, and high volume FX futures. Re: “I don't want to turn this post into a "rambling of a confused system trader" Most all automated trading posts are the ramblings of a confused system trader – including mine. When I'm no longer challenged and passionate about it, it will be time to move my interests to another field. Good talking with you Palm. When you have time, keep us posted. All the best, zdo

I liked the poll All the options are good and and few good options aren't even listed - such as "None of the above" Since I can't answer more than once though, I won't answer at all . ROSO is a story. True or false doesn't matter. What matters is how each reader's individual mind fills in the 'gaps'... What I learned reading it after trading for 7-8 years was vastly different from what I learned when I read it as beginner, because of the way I filled in the gaps differently each time... In fact, if I had a do over I would not have read the book as a beginner. The 'structure' is sort of VSA-like ( Tom style ) Jesse was in 'movement' more than most ppl ever are - then or now. He never learned to 'breathe' properly For me, ROSO is in the top 100 trading books - maybe even top 50. The book would be no where near the top of any top 10 recommended reading list I built generally or for any individual trader. It wouldn't even be on a list I built for someone DSM tagged with a bipolar disorder... likely the book would paradoxically help him stay blind to the 'trading' challenges he and Jesse share...

Re “80% win is unheard-of for me. To achieve that, you are using filters, right?” Backing up a little bit - my whole approach is sort of ‘filter’ first. I call it MarketTyping and it ‘types the auctions’ and conditionally gives fuzzy allocation weighting and sizes to each member of a portfolio of systems. This MarketTyping was consistent with my original visions of trading and after several frustrating regressions with the typical approaches, I made the ‘never go back’ choice. It’s completely bassackwards logic to the vast majority of system development… but it was the only way I personally could figure out how to both survive and thrive intraday and to automate trading. Re “Do you use a lot of filters (such as volume, volatility, etc...)” No. However, typical ‘volatility’ is a small aspect of the MarketTyping. Related to ‘volatility’ and more important in the typing is measures of pressure and pressure releases, etc. Re “or just a few but only trade on extreme values. (for example, use only volatility filter, but enter only at 3 standard deviation conditions.” The only system I run with a +80% hit rate is envelope based and its accuracy is a factor of the adaptive fit of the envelopes, not on exclusivity in setup conditions. Under the MarketTyping, its weighting is going to be extremely low at 3 sigma. Actually the only time I’m ever active at 3 sigma is at very short time frame discretionary intraday trading in certain conditions. Re “Also, with 80% rates, the number of trades will be quite low, right? “ On its own, the envelope system is very active… many setups. Maybe something more relevant to your system below... “Also, are MR systems you are talking about traded on relative values or outright directional. (Pair trading Vs buy on price retracement)” Outright directional. Not sure I fully understand the question... will say though, in my experience, (excepting fx pairs of course) spreads are best done based on seasonals not technicals. re “They are inversely correlated. This is the reason i try to develop MR systems. My current portfolio is packed with trend following/break-out systems. I only trade one market, so i have to make the most out of as many market conditions as possible.” Once you get these systems settled in, look for a system to include that has very low (neither + or - ) corre to either of them… Begin Intermission Just skimmed the thread again and am going off on a short rant on testing vs “personal preferences” (see post #3) here for the general readers and noobies. If there's one, there are 640,000 posts about how traders are applying stops, targets, allowable drawdowns, etc. because that's what they 'prefer'. Most don't know or try to find out what is optimal for the system(s) they are trading. While many of them may be 'passing' for now, they're certainly bringing down the "class average". Usually their whole process doesn't have the vibratory congruence required for staying power. Imo, any trader who insists on a 'preference' must also be willing to get the hammer, tongs, bellows, and fire and literally beat the system's properties to where its 'shape' / properties matches those 'preferences'. It requires the persistence to endure 1000 ++ failures and requires a lot of work and time. Otherwise go with close to the best testing parameters. End Intermission. I’m having a very similar conversation elsewhere regarding oscillator based 'MR' systems and the issue of target /risk ratio and hit rate so I thought I would share some of my thoughts here too. Palm, being that ‘the slightest change to any parameter of a system is actually creates a whole new system’ (paraphrasing my own experiences in testing, Mathemagician,etc), let me know if it’s high jacking your thread or too far off topic and I’ll butt out. Anyway, the significant drop off in W/L hit rate when target size is increased with an oscillator based MR system ( rsi in this case) arises from the rsi’s tendencies to ‘top out’ many more times in a move before price tops and really ‘reverts’. To reveal this tendency of the osc hooking 2,3,4,5,6,7… times before the ‘real’ price reversion takes, set the length parameter of an rsi to a radically short length and observe a bunch of moves and subsequent reversions. One approach I’ve used is to deal with this is to start with small targets (and in some cases smaller stops also) and increment them to a larger % of what meets your criteria for ‘reversion’ (ie the central tendency) with each trigger in a move. Unfortunately, this really complicates the code . Also, don’t be at all surprised or discouraged if your test results go off in the wrong direction at first. Persist with no guarantees - That is the only thing I can say here with certainty. “Great things are not done by impulse but by a series of small things brought together” Vincent Van Gogh. In this case tweaking the price aspects of the patterns may be enough. More likely other adjustments will be necessary. One or more additional relationship factors may need to be included with the ones stated so far by op. of “plain RSI with price starting to reverse” etc etc., Or, you may have to get creative with how you vary the targets (and stops), etc etc (As my sizing allocations come prior to this stage, I can’t really speak with any authority about it; but you could conceivably also increment size in these progressions. ) hth

fwiw, I'm pretty sure the OP's list origin was in the book The Way To Trade by John Piper Not the worst trading book ever written... hth someone...

Thanks. The whole point of this thread was to call attention to the option of using each progress be a trigger / stimulus to work on the other ‘side’ – an advancement in edge triggers (necessitates – in this model) compensatory attention to and work in the inner game and vice versa. It took me a long time to get this but with persistance they start to feed on each other – sorta like pushing a wheel barrow (with a little bit of theta thrown in )

palm, re: “when you said precision systems, you mean %win >60%?” My threshold for that term ‘precision’ would start at %win >80%. Without market typing to turn the implementation of such systems on and off, most of these way high hit rate systems tend to be near a wash when costs are included. re: “ I know this is a personal preference, but in your opinion, an MR system with win rate this low is going to fly?” One of my biggest trading ‘challenges’ to overcome was to learn to ignore my personal preferences and go close to the testing. The system’s expectancy, as mean R-multiple, is much more important than hit rate. Are your CON and MR systems correlated? All the best, zdo

The terms MR and CON alone are still too general to give specific answers to your questions. A precision MR system, (for example one with a high hit rate that is only implemented under certain market types and built around patterns ‘in’ a proprietary envelope) would use tight ‘volatility’ based stops, would have tight (% of ‘reversion’) targets, and most likely would test better with timed exits (and with restrictions on time allowed to elapse between trigger and entry/fill) The overall optimum for less ‘presise’ MR systems, like those built on over bought or sold ‘indicators’ , etc, etc. or high sigmas, etc etc. is harder to specify generally. Stop placements test all over the board and a few test best with seemingly ridiculous stop distances. Almost all MR systems test out best with targets. That is the closest we can come to making a generalized answer to any of your questions. For looser systems, time exits are generally not indicated… Exploring the nature of the ‘central tendency’ you are using is one way to ferret out answers to some of these questions. With CON, stops can test out all over the board. With CON targets, you generally want to stay in as long as possible. But we have to be careful with that generalization because certain CON systems test out better with ‘percent of margin’ targets… Hopefully this will give you some good ‘first guess’ starting places for your testing

One of my questions went to this too - "People come in many fuzzy types, gradients, and capacities. Will this protocol be useful to all ‘types’ across the board?". We're getting a little bit into which types of 'briggsy myerslies' [roughly] resonate with this and which with Kiev or Douglas or Steenbargar, etc. etc. I guess I'm encouraging a little bit more 'resistance to closure' for all 'types' - especially for beginning traders... kicking in some awareness that in ideal individuation a person is 'going to' his or her recessive type... etc Thanks. Prior to getting the book I had skimmed some of Rande Howell’s articles and posts, and had generally accepted that much of his content was promotional material for his big ticket items. In the book he also stops short in several spots from explaining important processes and refers the reader to one of his ‘guided’ products. Although this is a much deeper ‘trading psychology’ book than any of Mark Douglas’s publications, Douglas has set the standard collectively and I personally have never had the impression in any of his work that Mark was withholding and baiting for a bigger ticket purchase. Regarding what parts should be ‘guided’ and what parts are not, in the ideal every step of a person’s development would be ‘guided’ and supported; but paradoxically, all development is ultimately DIY. Therefore, all ‘psychological’ methods can be disclosed. The onus is on the ‘consumer’ to apply them. Also, for many individuals, some parts of the book where no ‘guidance’ is available are precisely the places where they need the most ‘coaching’. My point is I think he could have included the same excellent and full description of all parts of his program that he did for most parts. If a reader is wise enough to understand any of it, a reader is wise enough to understand all of it. Beware the ‘beyond the scope” phrase. Nothing relevant is ever really ‘beyond the scope’. I think he needs to pull the book until he completes a revision to add ~ 120 pages that 1. Completes the discussion of all the ‘archetypal’ work started, even if he has to just reference and regurge others' material. and 2 fully discloses all his procedures. A revision to completeness would imo really up the chances of the book going blockbuster in the trading community and that would incite far more requests for his coaching programs and products than do ‘baiting’ techniques. ie Mark Douglas does not have to solicit for his ‘big ticket’ annual seminars… This does not detract in the slightest from my wholehearted recommendation of the book. Tension resolution has different outcomes than does tension ‘management’, ‘avoidance’, etc. Particularly, new traders need to take advantage of the opportunity early on to establish patterns of tension resolution instead of developing and entrenching hard to break 'brain-habits' of tension avoidance. This book plants the seeds for acknowledging that in one’s real time experiences and offers the framework for a highly efficient, but not necessarily easy, protocol, for developing adaptive trading patterns.

For sourcing the book - Mindful Trading: Mastering Your Emotions and the Inner Game Author: Rande Howell

Since the forum structure allows multiple posts in reviews, I’ll piece this together across several posts – first entry follows… more in subsequent posts… hey, I never was very swooft at book reports and still haven’t figured out how to actually write a review .... As if I was somehow above the freakin fray , when reading this book the first time my intention was to assess its value for new and struggling traders for correctness and completeness. Big mistake! More about that mistake in later posts. Anyways, I persisted with first goal and this bunch of (ultimately inane?) questions piled up: > Will readers conclude from their first reading of the book that the author has extensive experience and a deep understanding of trading? > Did the author use all new ‘stuff’ to put this protocol together? > People come in many fuzzy types, gradients, and capacities. Will this protocol be useful to all ‘types’ across the board? > Did the author contain the usage of the concept / phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ within its typical meanings? > Was the listing of nine trading fears complete? > The (Ericsonian) developmental categories utilized - are they sufficiently inclusive of all the necessary developmental stages to consider in this context? > Did the author address all the ‘energy’ levels and dynamics in play for elevated performance trading? > Will a high percentage of readers have the ‘maturity’ to readily relate to and do serious work at the level of Jungian archetypes? Via DIY voice dialogue in an inner archetypal counsel? > Was adequate consideration given in the book to the feminine and the feminine archetypes in trading? …and to the ’non human and animal’ archetypes? > Backing up a little bit from the whole business of voice dialogue, and generally questioning ‘speech’s importance in changing pattern – is cognitive labeling / naming of emotions really crucial to / pivotal in effective inner work? > In this work, did the author explain and discuss all the parts of his model and protocol for trader improvement and development? > Will this protocol bring you to oneness and true spiritual joy? At this point in time, I personally answer either “don’t know yet” or “no” or “maybe” to all of the questions above. But to these questions below, I answer “yes! yes! yes! categorically! yes!” > For trading ‘psychology’ work, is this book ‘state of the art’? > Had I known how good this book is, would I have initially read it to apply to my own life? Will I be starting over on page 1? > Do I recommend the book to every TL member? Even to the ones who don’t have any ‘psychological’ issues and are totally satisfied with their trading?

it’s system(s) dependent … that's my broken record answer for 'every' question. Some types of systems must accept wider stop loss per entry, etc Some types of systems must tolerate deep(er) drawdowns than others, etc. The ‘mode’ for the universe of systems is clustered around 70% optimal-f. But it needs to be dialed in for each system because some types of systems can go much higher / closer to opt-f, etc. ie when testing 70% optimal f is a good place for your first ‘seed guess’ …

Position Changes: None. Still long Silver… Still Flat YM (since 7/26) Still mumbling “soon” on shorting the YM, but simply have had no signals or even hints of setups… a long silver, short dow spread trade is the subject of this thread after all... fwiw and not directly related to this trade… Comments: Have been hedging derivative AG and SI positions. Two successful entries to date - one shown somewhere in another thread. Starting to lift some hedges now…. and plan to add more longs below 24.75 SI and whatever price AU is if and when SI is at 24.75 Comment: Yen shorting campaign is still in limbo… doing ok in other pairs (esp EJ) but USDJPY has gone no where…would still prefer original plan of the avg price of whole allocation to end up below 80… we’ll see. ie not predicting anything Comments: re: from 11/05/10 ‘dad blamed bush’ is going to drive the price of oil up again” That was code. I may never short oil again in the rest of my trading career – just flat or long… In reality it’s not quite yet, but as a powerful idea / concept, peak oil setting into collective mind Comment: re: “ Also of note: For the first year since I can’t remember when, I will not be using strict rule seasonals strategies in agricultural,etc futures” All trend trading…so far so good… beyond b.e. :missy: Comment: Several other trades simply didn’t report at the time and now, since I don’t see much usefulness in after the fact reporting, I’ll just not mention at all… ie Snowboarding is more fun than posting… etc Comment: cryptogon.com » Unverified: Swiss Bank Finally Handed Over Client’s Physical Gold After a Month Delay and Legal Threats Wonder why the banks have no trouble taking delivery ?? Hey this code bs is fun…:helloooo:

If he read this thread, what would Taleb say ? Pullling us back on topic a little bit, I think it's worth repeating (for only a few maybe) It's better to see gambling as a form of trading than to see trading as a form of gambling...

The first thought that opened for me was some material from Kenneth Reid from years ago about the ‘genetic types’ of traders “Type One Traders have a 68% chance of being wiped out; Type Two Traders have a 27% chance of losing all their capital; and, Type Three Traders have only a 5% chance of washing out.” It doesn’t appear he is still using the ‘genetics’ word – maybe that lead too many into thinking the chances of change were limited... (Rande, sorry to introduce a ‘competitor’ Trading psychology - Coaching for traders so early in this topic, but I’d bet both you guys need to be referring a certain % of your clients to each other anyway… I’m not endorsing his ‘typing’ btw. Don’t even really understand the specifics – but I do know he is getting at individuals' susceptibilities to your term, the 'caveman'…) The second thought I had was how many Type Two and Type Three traders simply cannot even conceive of the tendencies and experiences of Type One traders. Forum readers generally have to infer the ‘typing’ of posters, and see through the flamings and more subtle denigrations, etc. It might be more accurate and helpful to even say how amazing it is that each of the types has challenges in conceiving of the tendencies and experiences of the other types - limited the chances of assistance from 'higher' types and also limiting the possibilties of lower types resonating with or benefitting directly from modeling from higher types. Their whole (nervous system , etc) will simply have no concept of what to 'do' internally... Finally, I thought about my own process with this uncertainty issue. Alas, my journey was one of self guided desensitization – helped along significantly by realizing and applying the importance of ‘staying power’ capitalization and proper sizing and then later in the process by learning ways to clear the ‘circuitry’/ programming between the various levels, plus gradually learning the quality of a trade isn't very dependent on the qualities and accumulation of 'confirmations' in trading systems, etc . I applaud and appreciate you for offering others ways of shortening the development curve.

gandalf33, Thanks. Good points. They are getting a little bit away from making specific behavior pattern changes and more to longer timelines - but are part of big picture type of 'knowing what you want'. Long ago in the beginning, I went on multiple grail searches - for which I have zero regrets. Later, I also spent years in the wilderness - more than once – and for those I do have some regrets. It finally sank in to return to and stay true to my original vision of how I wanted to trade and the trader I wanted to be. In my own case that meant returning to giving priority to Market Typing first then to finding condition specific systems, methods, techniques etc. and sticking with the very difficult tasks of developing accurate real time measures of MarketTyping that worked for me. That 'return' cleared up a bunch of background structural conflict and made the day to day work and 'changes' much more straightforward. Many think I'm being unreasonably extreme advising noobies not to train using another's system(s). But, in all but a few cases, I think it stunts both explicit and implicit learning ... and only really nets the developing trader a small portion of an hour in the his or her process of accumulating that old rule of thumb 10000 hours...

certenotti, Kaizen is a 'japanese' concept for continual improvement that is mostly applied to production (which trading is not). The '-ee' was just me trashing perfectly good language... Am seeing no Private Messages from you in my inbox... zdo

re OP topic - Consider a ‘flip’ Gambling / gaming is sort of like trading. The actually randomly generated situations of gambling/gaming surrogate for the (not truly random, but) “random like” situations of real trading, etc… re: attracting ‘luck’ contrast keeping your attention on preferred results and discovering and practicing where to fine tune your focus for each stage of a process. with sustaining a string of ‘positive’ thoughts and affirmations Which do you think will be more effective long term? also re luck. Keep in mind there are multiple ‘kinds’ of luck, all with varying levels of possible ‘influence’.