zdo

Chris, Have you ever talked with him directly ? zdo

Chris, Sorry to have corrupted your thread. Will say a couple more things for the benefit of all and move on … seeking the ‘testimony’ of TL members - who may or may not be lying - to use as a factor in deciding whether or not to buy? The stack of ‘testimonials’ on his site are not enough? Wouldn’t contacting him directly requesting 3 current ‘references’ be more effective? ( Take it (or not) from someone who has 'used' testimonials in that fashion a couple of times.)... The most important point is - How someone else does in a trading training program has no significant relevance to how you will do. Any great ‘plusses’ salient to them will likely not have much or any importance to you at all. Combinatorial individual differences in tradingDNA - inclinations, aptitudes, “engrammed” biases, etc are that large and significant - enough to render ‘testimonials’ virtually worthless. ( :haha: Take it (or not) from someone who in the late 80’s spent more than 100,000 USD + mucho other costs on trading education and coaching. I don't think there has been that much price inflation of the ‘curriculum’ since then - the 5k courses are still 5k, etc… but the travel, lodging , and etc costs in todays’ dollars - whoosh! If I hadn’t had testimonials from friends who spent more than that in half the time on cocaine and etc. I would really think I was an idiot  ) ie Buyer beware! ... but not because the vendor is bad! Buyer beware because the odds of finding a good match for your real needs are less than miniscule ! all the best ... really hope it all works out for you. zdo

Chris, Fwiw, MM was not being sarcastic. He was coming from a completely valid viewpoint (the viewpoint of a ‘normal’) and he was attempting to be truthful and helpful… My thoughts: Horst is barking up multiple trees. I think many of them are appropriate trees. … and, btw, not trees that most ‘tudors’ will be barking up. However, that says nothing about your compatibilities to work with him, in his models, successfully. Trading ‘students’ need to realize they need to already have a way of perceiving and acting on mkt information (charts, maps, stories, numbers, whatever ) discovered, established, and conscious - then find someone who can help them deepen the effectiveness of their own ‘market DNA’. Trading students need to realize they can’t just have an off-the-cuff interest in a method, go to an expert in that method and expect to learn to be able to perceive and act the same way as the teacher. ie a large percentage of the salient things the teacher has 'condensed' and mastered, you will forever remain essentially 'blind' to / ineffective / inconsistent at. Example: With just a glance, I think the most important thing he teaches re actual trading is how to switch btwn "pivot" and "trend" trading (to him, trend is not (nec) your friend, etc, etc)... but what if you have absolutely NO aptitudes for his way of switching ??? Opinion: In order for you to get anywhere close to your money’s worth of your total costs (~$5000 & _ & _ & _ … ?) , you need to basically be an indigo child already… and if that’s the case, or even near the case, your trading career will be short-lived anyways… a phase of 'intuitive trading' will not even be a good life ‘stepping stone’ long term for you... Some questions - Do you understand that most of his ‘programming’ only opens ways to access and rush to the ‘opposite’ polarities…to the “Positive”, etc etc. ? … that they do not neutralize those polarities / really put you at choice ? Do you operationally already believe ie embody “thought precedes matter.”? Might not such an assumption / uncon. blf be as erroneous as the currently consensus belief that “matter precedes thought.”? Might not he be trying to teach that to convince himself and once ‘convinced’ / worked through he will not be coaching anymore? Are you a deep EFT ‘responder’ ? ie is it an effective modality for you? ? ? ? ie here questions asked and answered for yourself would be better than ours... … not saying you are not a match for this program… not saying you are not a perfect match… however like MM I’m trying to be truthful with you… While MM's saying it's crap, I'm saying the odds of you being even a marginal match for this program are extremely low… that’s just the reality of the trading coach / player game hth

the 'perceptual blurs' that the 'voice of trading' traders have btwn real traders, and the agencies and brokers that spring up to exploit them, may be much more extant than I imagine or am in touch with. But I'm still trying to figure out why you would bring this stuff into this conversation/topic. “it is all talking sub-sets that confuses the issue.” SUIYA. I asked myself "what does this remind me of?” and a memory from long ago about the subgroup who consciously believe they aren't trying to screw you but really are unconsciously trying to screw you from a robert ringer book popped up... if you insist on continuing with this aspect, please make some clear distinctions for us around business and commerce and how various ways of trading fits in to that... and then tie it somehow back to the topic, how all that is coachable. ….trying to get back on topic .... sht, SU, I don't know if you read me correctly or not Let me rehash Re: “Neurological studies show that financial losses are more than twice as painful emotionally as the same size gain is ‘pleasurable’” [the ‘single quotes’ around “pleasurable” are mine] There is a (cyclically new again annual rehash) thread nearby that brings up the old “95% lose” question - again. My 'stats' have it closer to 80% but the point here is of whatever percentage the industry measures as 'losers', a large portion of those do not really 'lose' as in blow out... 30 + %, of traders I've met over the years that turned out to be losers were really promising (... guys who I could tell just by looking at them and listening to them that they had what it takes to 'select' good trades...) and their PL statements didn't turn out to be red on the bottom line. Instead, they turned out to be 'faders away' from the game.... and most of them NEVER realized that's what happened to them. In my current level of understanding, I'm saying that at a structural level, they were never able to fully acknowledge and accommodate to “financial losses are more than twice as painful emotionally as the same size gain”. In my own trading, the only way I was able to stay in the game was to reach for and attain a higher hit rate and smaller stop size than any crowd meme in the 'voice of trading' of trading forums will allow the possibility of . So, again, in that 78% who don't make it, a large percentage do blow out. But a large percentage doesn't blow out – they fade out because of the bound flow they bring to the game to start with... bound flow that is not acknowledged by the gurus of the voice of trading. The 'voice of trading' won't hear of it, but dealing with this is far more important - ultimately - than learning wackoff or any other of many wonderful methods... … so to the coaching part of the topic Find us a coach on this planet who truly demands raising acknowledgement of “Neurological studies show that financial losses are more than twice as painful emotionally as the same size gain is pleasurable” and who knows how and will really work with that structurally instead of behaviorally … show us a coach who really understands ( the largely unacknowledged) impact of pain throughout any and all performance work. Remember this audience is largely those trying to pass out of the group below 78% to above 78%. They do not really realize qualitatively how 'winning is hard'. Where's the adequate coaching for that? ... so while for those already firmly away from the 'cusp' of winners / losers, “a coach might help when in a slump” ie even for them , the available 'coaching' on this planet is statistically not worth a try. re: “how's the writing?” It is not 'safe' for me to write freely herein about it. :missy: “My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” Adlai Stevenson

SIUYA, I’m getting a whiff of the associations you just made… and as usual I will trash or ignore them… what’s new, right? (hey you do it too ) You know (don’t you?) that with that link you just argued with the bottom of your OP … and more importantly, you shifted the conversation from with those around the cusp of ‘profitable’ / ie those trying to enter or stay in the 78 to 97% ‘surviving pareto’ to those at or past the cusp of the top 3% Hey jack! That is verboten on TL … it is an unspoken rule (that they rarely even break on ET). You must stay with the ‘voice’ of trading that is by and for those clustered around and attempting to break cleanly out of the bottom 78% ‘loosers’ into the ‘surfivers’ ‘pareto’ that make up the ‘middle’ ~ 19% of traders… There is only a tiny audience for those who attempt to post for those at or near the top cusp… or for the weensy teensy group that will actually attempt to authentically jump the ‘turtles’ (as in the top illustration in your link) to the third tiny top tier of the trading equivalent of ‘monopoly profits’ (… and, btw, posts for those at or near the top cusp will quickly get corrupted by posts from the mindset of the ‘voice of trading’…) … Back on topic to your first link in the OP… what is the most salient phrase or point in that article? To me, it is the part about “Neurological [* ] studies show that financial losses are more than twice as painful emotionally as the same size gain is ‘pleasurable’” [the ‘single quotes’ around “pleasurable” are mine] I have yet to see a trading coach (in here or anywhere else) conspicuously acknowledge and confront that (… and relate it to its parallels in sympathetic and parasympathetic ‘burnout’ …or to its parallels in Basedowoid and Addisinoid overtraining,… etc.). They never address Why - for most traders at that ‘voice of trading’ cusp or level discussed above - what is statistically ‘good’ performance at, for instance, a 60% hit rate with well controlled losses will NEVER be ‘enough’ subjectively - no matter how many or what kind of freakin ‘coaches’ they have. I know for dam sure it was not enough for me - which is why long ago I went 'innovative' full bore for 5 years demanding 80% ++ hit rates from all but a few systems in my portfolio of systems. Jmo’s SUIYA… but, all in all, the content of that first link is dated rehashing of bullshit hypnosis. The “large guys” are NOT discovering / “stumbling across” ‘coaching performance (back) up’. ‘Coachy’ approaches are faddish, sparodic, and attractive to only a small sample of managers. … and the academic shills paid by the scientific ‘dictatorship’ run by pharmaceutical corporations, etc. to prefix “neuro” in front of everything* and ‘study’ things like “find correlations between, for example, a steady heart rate and astute investment decisions” [from link in OP] . OMG! a steady heart rate is NOT where it’s at! Rapid recovery from elevated ‘heart rate’, etc IS closing on where it’s at! … and btw I have also yet to see a trading coach who would throttle back emphasis on ‘mental fixes’ and ‘progress’ to preserve ‘flow’ - which is really where it IS at! (… and OMG! “investment decisions” from somewhere in OP link are NOT “trading decisions”… ) … and jmo there is “ ‘smart money’ out there looking to screw you “ - they are the top 3 % ‘pareto’ who strive to ‘monopolize’ ( that term taken from the article linked to in your most recent post... that is actually about businesses, not individual performance workers …) :helloooo: Sorry I don’t have time to be ‘sweet’ and ‘supportive’ right now… We now return you to your regularly scheduled ‘disorderly dismount’ zdo *bannabl offnsz “Neuro-______ seems to provide not only a desperate ultimate attempt at being original in science where everything has been said and done, but, morover [sic], a guaranty of attracting attention and simulating importance.” The Neurocritic: The use and abuse of the prefix neuro- in the decades of the BRAIN ( The Neurocritic: NeuroPsychoEconomics! Neurocoaching? | Melancholia and The Infinite Neurocritic The Neurocritic: Journomarketing of Neurobollocks )

Hi SUIYA and all, ...at the risk of getting banned, here is something peripherally related to the 'coachiness' of trading... it's also somewhat related to the social ewave of participation rates in trading (and in forums, etc) I've discussed elsewhere http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/spurioustail.pdf

... the "Laws" of Wyc... were they based in pre-Newtonian assumptions? ... then transferred over to a midbrain people thang ? Question yourself above all others... and regarding others “Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.” – Andre Gide

… also you might want to check Vervoort modifications of atr trailingstops

md2324, fact-toid: Ordinary HA has the ‘result equivalent’ of an EMA stat-toid: Given their apparent attributes, applying an ATR might have saved your position in that particular situation but, across a large sample, chandelier (and other close neighbor atr type) trailing stop strats perform worse than expected … Ie it ‘looks like’ atr methods should achieve the proper results - but they really don’t To make (automated) risk management approach much more dynamic, I combined 1) trailing stop algorithms based on price action and interbar ‘lap size’ (instead of bar size) and (only a minor component) actual range (instead of ATR),etc. with 2) increasing and decreasing the ‘aggressiveness’ of the approach of the trailing stop based on counts of waves (not ewave counts btw)… for the effect of stop staying away from price the first swings/waves (and / or congestions - like in your case) of an FX trend then progressively ‘diving in’ closer to the price action in later swings of a move… (*btw, different 'dynamics' and parameters applied to trailing stops for index and ag trading... etc) hth

We have the political, purely pretentious ‘war against women’ and we have the real, truly global, war against women. The real war against women can only be won by women and men with guns. It was not a paid guard, it was not a patrol officer, it was not a swat team, it certainly was not Reichssicherheitshauptamt (aka dhs.. or one of its sub agenturen - like the fbi). Rather, it was just a man with a gun who stopped the Oklahoma beheader from beheading another woman. If a man with a gun had not been there and had not shot him, Nolen would have finished his attack on a second female victim. And after that, who knows how many people he would have killed before some heimwehr workers arrived to ‘exterminate’ him, cordon off the area, and take care of the paperwork and coverups. Yes, this is just one case… a case MSM and our gun grabbers are required to ignore or downplay (and secretly wish had gone wrong for the man with a gun). But using one case is ok. It was one case - a case more about debauched psychiatry than about unsuccessful gun control - what got this thread started long ago. btw …the fake 'lies is truth' war against women and where it leads ultimately may have to be dealt with by women with guns too… :missy: we now return you to your regularly scheduled bid monkey hft-ing

Frane, Admirable questions. In case you haven't 'settled this yet, I’ll add more. We’ll show “"One idiot can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer."” how it’s done. :rofl: Seriously, it was a good idea for ARTjoMS to challenge your underlying assumptions, constructs, paradigms, models…There are no other objective tests / easy places to look that will substitute for sustained self exploration to discover the salient operational characteristics of your ‘marketDNA’. Questions questions questions… Like.. Have you really looked to see if the two categories - technical and fundamental - provide an adequate categorization framework for you? For example: Fundamental and technical traders seek truth. Between/around them are hoards of traders and algos who will accept, even seek, the current STORY/lie for their information… and there are multiple categories within those hoards…Anyways, in pure form, fundamental traders seek to discover true value regardless of the string of stories that emerges. In pure form, technical traders also seek to exclude the story from their choice making. They really want their decisions made sans the Story’s influence. Truthseekers don’t deny the story (ie exclusion is not the same as denial). They just seek an information system that doesn’t rely on the content of the current story. NO ONE can avoid patterns. Each trader’s marketDNA predisposes what patterns s/he can readily include and which ones will be ignored or excluded - sometimes even to the point of opposing (except on trading forums of course - where no one has ever discounted / trashed someone else’s marketDNA or slammed stochastics or…). Some deny they utilize patterns… not realizing their brains are just using patterns that have been anointed as NOT Patterns. And briefly… … every hft algo attempts to replicate what the marketDNA of its progenitors would do at their best. … …to the “volume” questions... “market movers.” … Will it work for you to see certain groups or categories and percentages as what ‘moves’ the market? Would knowing the aggregate percentages really be useful to/in your marketDNA? Even if you knew the absolute tendencies of those percentages you ask about, is the variance in those percentages across a session, a week, a season, an epoch extremely high? … …10000 shares this second is not the same as 10000 shares in the same or next second. ‘Volume’, even HUGE volume, that accepts the bid or ask does not move the market. Influxes of volume willing to buy above the bid (or sell below the ask) is what moves the market. … Re: “…enough people are trading according to some indicator, it would be possible to develop a system exploiting this. Why is this not so common? Is it because technical trading is so rare that it has no impact on the stock price, or is it because so many different systems are used that it averages out or becomes random noise, or is there some other reason?” Those were perfect questions for traders from ~ 1979 to ~ 1995. Then, “a system exploiting this” really was ‘common’ . During that time groups of floor and near floor traders knew what technical traders were looking for and more importantly they knew what limited subset of timeframes their ‘patterns ‘ were being found on. Ie way back when, a portion of floor traders had the marketDNA to know what patterns were being watched by the outside and which time frames were being utilized. (the term ‘timeframes’ being used here much the same way as James Dalton used it) AND they could engineer sufficient influxes of volume willing to buy above the bid (or sell below the ask) to fade a “technical” pattern PLUS they were privy to timely information about whether the ‘campaign’ was working or not and could quickly bail if not… now that’s an Edge  No more. A geometric explosion in the quantity of possible timeframes made it to “like a drop in the ocean indeed” and has largely eliminated theEdge available in fading the ‘technical’ patterns of that day. So, the old technical patterns multiplied themselves out of usefulness - except for a few with exceptional marketDNA for it. But are the same ‘fading games’ still being run on the Story of the day - like they used to run on the ‘technical of the day’? Do far more have marketDNA for running these fadegames on the Story of the day than ever had the marketDNA to ‘exploit’/fade ‘technicals”. Has fadegame on the Story subsided at all? … Not that we’re running low on idiot questions - but here’s another one… Have you studied ‘old-school’ VSA? (the ‘story’ part - not the ‘volume pattern’ part) … btw in case I didn’t say it before - You are asking excellent questions. … I don’t have time to continue… or fill in the ...'s ... would love to post some references … but alas, they are not allowed in here. (especially if they challenge Story/lie in any way) … TL has become a perfect example of what happens to exchange in an over-regulated environment. hth

> Question the best… ignore the rest. “Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows for a room; It is the holes which make it useful. Therefore benefit comes from what is there; Usefulness from what is not there. ” - Lao Tzu > “preconditions are not the same as precipitants.” - Robert David Steele “There are no "setups" in Wyckoff, at least insofar as we commonly use the term.” - DBP The ‘straight lines’ etc.eg.pg15 are actually the addition of one thing Wyckoff methods never provided - setups! … members should be able to click Thanks 10,000 times per post instead of just once per post. > “...supply and demand and the law thereof...” “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” - Werner Heisenberg “…out of fuel…” regardless of the degrees of stochastic dominance present, ‘(varying) stochasticness is commonly viewed as a self-correcting process in which a deviation in one direction induces a deviation in the opposite direction to restore the equilibrium. In fact, deviations are not “corrected” as a variable stochasticlike process unfolds, they are merely diluted.’ - zdo ( completely twistfkn up a line from Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman) What a great week to be a trader 

Hey guys, haven’t been around much. Not worth my time to watch everything I say in light of what one other human thinks may make for good business policy… Anyways I drop in every few weeks to see the independent discoveries (that were independently discovered and posted 3 years ago and 3 years before that and 3 years before that and… ) This time I perused DBP’s SLA-AMT pdf and it occurred to me to take the risk of being banned or censored and log on and share some thoughts for those who might need it - whether they are beginners, “damaged” or whatever. As usual, I went to the last page and worked my way back. As often happens, it was worth it My thoughts: Appendix E can be the starting place, the very center, the core - instead of the final section appended to the ‘book’! It can be the focus - even over price action. It can be placed at the beginning of trading (self) education and operational development instead of near ‘graduation’. As the core, it can make all those “useless” ‘indicators, bands, whatnot’ that are not part of pure “trade price” exceptionally useful ! … especially in automation!!!! An Appendix E as the core and fully implemented practically is as close to “the continuous nature of the market, the continuity of price, the continuity of transactions, the continuity of the trading activity that results in those transactions.” as one can get. In my own journey, I was making ‘passing grades’ in the typical trader development curriculum. I was, of course, very committed… I can’t say how typical this part is, but I was one of the participants who was never ever going to grasp “Supply and Demand” the way you are was ‘supposed’ to be able to understand and trade “the Law thereof”. … Then some ideas intruded! --- ‘get out ta crowd’ ideas! What if I ‘typed’ the auction even before looking at the price action - or applying any other trading technique or whatever? What if I leveraged emerging technology and did it ‘quantitatively’ via computer instead developing a practiced ‘feel’ skill for it (this was late 80's)? What if I always kept it ‘in the moment’, granular / short time frame? I committed YES to all three of those questions about MarketTyping - and, btw, endured several years of failing forward to discover what data to collect, how to package ‘patterns’ in auction participation, and finding the sweet spot for the complexity of the ‘categorization’ algorithms. It was the best decision (and leap of faith) of my trading life. By making it the beginning instead of the ‘graduate level’ appendix, it allowed me to progress to making trade sizing my very next stage. And to make the next stage after that, inclusive ‘portfolios of systems’… systems that individually didn’t have to be adaptive / ‘robust’… At the application level, By keeping it ‘micro’ / granular, it averted the typical ‘dropping through timeframes’ on charts for “context”, etc. It also allowed me to easily come off ‘straight lines’. It allowed me to return to projecting curvilinear “envelopes and bands”, etc. and as I mentioned above, to use indicators … btw, non addictively / selectively / non continuously … This might be a good place to insert that this post should in no way be interpreted by anyone - the author or by avid or casual ‘studiers’ of SLA-AMT - as a slam on the material in the pdf. Like in any curriculum you will be always be ‘taking more than one course at a time’ anyways… and if ” trade price” fits your talents and inclinations, then by all means dig in. Nor should these comments be seen as a cut on DBP - he remains in my eyes the greatest trading forum poster ( / trading educator) EVER! Ie as with most my posts, this post is not anti normal… it is pro bassackwards for those who need it…. so just Step back and see if there is a way for you to see Appendix E “characterization” that puts it at the beginning instead of the end. If so, it may be the true way for you. If not… still wishing you all the best. Hope this finds my few friends herein (and everyone else too) doing well… Gone again, zdo

You're welcome.

... congratulations ......

Why should "anyone?" bother to post since it’s obvious from the way you’ve managed this thread you can’t conceive how anyone could even be a bear alive? or since you've repeatedly refused to clarify your intentions of whether the thread really is about Dow =100000 or just about new highs with the Target title serving as sham promotion... and, acording to policy, shouldn't you be posting (new highs) news and any other news in the news section ? "is EU fixn to QE ??" = must long links removed ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last pre-crimed by tradingwizzard; 11-06-2014 at 03:18PM.

wmck6167, As I commented to mits in my last post, most of the content herein about his methods, etc . is not quite ‘Beyond’ (in a mits or any other sense of the word…imo ) … most of these posts belong over at link denied Anyways, Thank you for opening some previously unconsidered ‘Beyonds’ for us. zdo PS… I just noticed your location. Reminded me of a snippet - Long ago, I once knew a ‘girl’ studying neurosurgery who told me "I want to marry a guy who has to wear a tie to work and I want to live in sugarland." And she did! I didn’t pay much attn to it at the time but sometimes I dreamed of a great great niece (with Gann genes) and to stay right there in lufkin with her. But I didn’t… I married 'european' and live in four different (all non longhorn) places. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last pre-crime-d by tradingwizzard; 11-06-2014 at 03:18PM.

1 Bitcoin going to parity with 1 oz Gold ? Sell your gold. Buy bitcoins. ?? not me. On many levels, bitcoins are far more dependent on environmental conditions than even paper... I will just continue to 'sell' gold and 'buy' silver...

The diagonal. You can apply these methods across any market and any time frame. There are two major types of Elliott wave structures -- motive and corrective. Within these two categories, motive waves include impulse waves and ending diagonals. Zigzags, flats and triangles are all corrective wave patterns. An ending diagonal is an easily discernible wave pattern because it looks like a rising (or falling) wedge. Specifically, it is a five-wave overlapping pattern wherein each wave subdivides into three smaller waves. Also, trendlines connecting the extremes of waves one and three, and two and four, often converge. Ending diagonals can form only in the fifth wave position of an impulse wave or the wave C position of an A-B-C formation. Price behavior following an ending diagonal is quite impressive because it tends to be swift, retracing the entire length of the pattern. The guideline covering the resolution of an ending diagonal tells us that it will be more than fully retraced in one-third to one-half the time it takes the pattern to form... Because no links / references are allowed on TL, this content was blatantly plagiarized from some hard working Elliott Wave worker

Hey mits. Zup? I haven’t been bangin in this thread because at this juncture the only ‘Beyond Livermore’ to me is avoiding his blowups and huge drawdowns… for me, the “greatness and skill/greatness and luck” discussions and insights into his acumen are not in the Beyond Livermore topic. They belong in a plain vanilla Livermore thread. I don’t know how they affected him intrapersonally… from what I’ve read in this thread you could comment more accurately about how his blowups and huge drawdowns impacted him subjectively than anyone. ... and his early death (which posters continue to obsess on) was also plain Livermore or even ‘Pre Livermore – not Beyond. So, anyways, when I realized that his blowups and huge drawdowns didn’t seem to significantly degrade his rather well ‘served’ lifestyle, there wasn’t much Beyond left for me to explore. Going Beyond would only be an exercise in my imagination... for which there are better uses right now... Last edited by tradingwizzard; 11-01-2014 at 03:39 PM.

Having a bit of trouble making sense of your post. For one, most likely if a friend has to tell you that you’re pissing all over yourself and an accountant has to tell you that you’re bleeding money too fast, then most likely your 'choices' are also always going to be limited as to what you can do about it ...and if a friend has to tell you you’re pissing on this thread... Easiest thing to do would be to throw your predicted post onto the examples pile of “just about all the posts that are outright anti-psychology or those simply taking the ‘you don’t need psychology’ / ‘develop an edge and system and then if you have issues, deal with them ‘ position are ultimately be you own ‘therapist/ psychologist / coach’ positions/posts…”. Basically it seems your comments about ‘responsibility’ do that exactly… I’ll add a few comments just to keep it ET up in here… like… If you’re arguing that if one has character they don’t need ‘psychology’… great deal of truth to that… but this is not the thread for that conversation. On a case by case basis though it’s quite possible to have quality character and still need work in widening individual and specific mental, emotional, etc. tolerances and resilience. Improving ‘ability to respond’ (responsibility) AND ‘ability to project’ (anticibility ) in performance work is precisely the purpose of the first post. So, while I can agree with you that "I think far too much is made of trading psychology” (heck I don’t really even know what ‘trading psychology’ is and don’t really relish what I do ‘know’ anymore, and I have implored them to change the sub forum name to Trader Development … or anything but Trading Psychology … yet through all that I still do know enough to be able to recommend that you re-check your own constructs of what ‘trading psychology’ is ) … anyways… the reality remains that because of individual differences, some people really do need professional help / help from others with certain and varying ASPECTS and STAGES of their development as traders. (and, btw, for various conditions, other modalities are far more appropriate than ‘psychology’... but that too is off topic ) A few won’t ever need any help at all… some can do it via ‘be your own‘ self help… some only need a little help… and some need a lot…etc... jpennybags, this thread is to assist those who may be able to do it via ‘be your own‘ self help … not about whether ‘trading psychology’ is useless bullsht or not…

Be your own client? For snicks, let’s flip it. Trading forums have piles and piles of ‘be your own trading therapist/ psychologist / coach” threads and posts PLUS just about all the posts that are outright anti-psychology or those simply taking the ‘you don’t need psychology’ / ‘develop an edge and system and then if you have issues, deal with them ‘ position are ultimately be you own ‘therapist/ psychologist / coach’ positions… Being your own client presupposes some excellence at being your own therapist/ psychologist / coach… (at the risk of being permanently banned) here is a link The Mindful Therapist Siegal, Daniel J. WW Norton 2010 ISBN: 978-0-393-70645-1 Notes: 1) The material referenced is but another model. It is not necessarily truth… ie I’m making no assertions that it is a truthful or accurate model 2) If you get past the first chapter and start wondering how the material is applicable to you if you’re just sitting there alone at your tradestacion – just remember, those ‘sponge’, ‘spindle’, insula cells, etc etc. are plenty active at simulating whether you are relating directly to an other or not… etc etc… and the ‘density’ of these and other specialized 'relational' regions has a lot to do with your personal forays into trading to begin with… Be your own...

Thank you TW. and, as a 'big boy now, I will draw the conclusion' that you don't give a shit.

guys if you stick around long enough, you will find that ~ 78% are LOSERS period ~ 19% have "method with positive expectancy" but usually still don't find a way to do much more than just tread water and ~ 3% thrive

one more time - with the essence of the question Twiz, Just curious, is this the kind of conversation you were really seeking when you opened a Dow Jones = 100,000 Target thread based on a LINK from Glenn Neely? If so, all my macro posts (and anyone else's), are off topic. (if so ) It is just a thread to discuss local SR etc etc... Please let us know. Thanks. zdo