zdo

It’s funny and, simultaneously, serious how you guys think I’m disagreeing with you… Yes, it is “ scientifically understood that deliberate practice … ” What I’m saying is the returns of deliberative practice, etc in ‘fear reactivity’ are miniscule compared to the returns of deliberative practice, etc in ‘flow’ In the way I’m conferring, ‘will’ is a key factor in creating the separation of the “good” from the “not so good”. The “great” - while they have and / or build the capacity to keep a solid, even superior, stored reserve of ‘will’ for when needed - rarely rely on ‘will’ at all...

It is as if you never left Typical “thinking type” reaction Be careful you don’t assume that everyone is operating at the same level you are on some scale like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Many are chronically ‘patching leaks’ at several need levels lower than you or even what you brought to trading in the first place. When we sum up what you (and the crowd that will be agreeing with you) conclude, we’ll find that you have confused what I’m saying as an indication that you should abandon something very central to yourself – your ‘detached control’ style. But if you are this 'type' / have this as a primary way of doing and if you do happen to know you need to change (obviously, Db, you know you don’t need to change) you should know you can ultimately retain ‘control’ as your primary mode of processing… but, to break fear reactivity you must risk going through a sort of dissolution and contact with emotions most control types will never dare – so they remain stuck!

Negoc8r I Like this. However, if I may take this a little bit deeper and broader “lack of preparation” “biased views” “inconsistent monitoring of markets” “indecision”. “ just can't help but take impulsive trades where you know you shouldn't” “ don't have rigid enough risk mechanisms in place to exit the trade” etc all are also ‘fear’ based… I’m broadening the usage of the word ‘fear’ here because this ‘fear’ is not necessarily accompanied real time by the direct conscious experience of physical sensations and peptides of fear. Those issues you listed are still all ‘caused’ by a chronic background steady state of, to put it bluntly, avoidance… most accurate term for it I’ve seen is chronic ‘fear reactivity’. Neurologically, one way of describing it is the amygdale are habitually oriented towards threat instead of opportunity at an effectively constant ‘baseline’ level which prevents consistent “preparation”, awareness of “biased views”, consistent “monitoring”, and leads to decision fatigue, susceptibility to “impulsive trades”, and incomplete acceptance of risk, etc… fear reactivity limits capacity as effectively as do physical brain lesions… can be imagined as brain lesions self induced by years of 'psychic surgery'. To will all those things – to “cognitively” will to prepare, to be consistent, to be decisive, to never be impulsive again, etc. are honorable and admirable but they will not get most traders the consistency they really need to get… In near constant fear reactivity it is literally impossible to "manage day-to-day trading objectives properly and thus evade potentially fearful situations in the first place. " ... guess I ended up disagreeing with you more than I originally thought I was going to ...

so you don't think like that... you just talk like that ? :razz: “…a daily close above 1652 may be enough to hit 1670 …” ie is it just a genre of cya industry speak? I would appreciate an explanation from anyone who understands the merits of this 'mode'... it just seemed that you were in touch with it Obsidian... thx

one axis for consideration re this thread Clive Thompson on the Power of Introversion | Wired Magazine | Wired.com

Obsidian, an offtopic request re “…bearish again, if 1626 does not hold, maybe 1620 next...” “…a daily close above 1652 may be enough to hit 1670 …” If you have time, could you please open a thread and explain this type of “if price goes to (or through) _____ levels, then it could possibly go (on) to ______ levels” thinking. I have been trading a long time and still have never seen even an ‘ok that makes sense’ explanation of this thinking. …and btw, one of the answers that don’t quite ‘make sense’ to me is – if that ‘support’ doesn’t hold then it will go test the next ‘support’, etc. These S/R based projections have never held up to a significant level in real life for me - so I’m asking about the ‘foundational’ construct behind this mode of looking at a market. This mode is everywhere you look. Examples from elsewhere... “A decisive close below 1.3000 is required to unlock the important multi-month reversal pattern into 1.2625… ” “Only a decisive confirmation above 83.40 and 84.18 will extend the… ” “...would need to see settlement back over 0.9222/0.9252 …would revive the recovery from 0.9002 exposing 0.9252 then the 0.9335... ” So, not calling you out at all on this individually … just asking if you can help by adequately explaining it. Thanks. zdo

Horace, Are you asking about composite international money flows? or are you just talking about 'heat maps' , etc?

Rande, how can you do ‘archetypal’ work with clients, trading or whatever, without taking them even more directly and deeply to the issues of the ‘dweller on the threshold’ ?

... just some thoughts - mostly mirroring and reinforcing some of the foregoing posts. Yep. “Victory destroys knowledge” DanJohn and re Yes, something is “not quite right about the picture” – There is a time to size up and a time to size down and to stay the same all the time does indicate something… neurosis? conservative caution? realism? reminds me of Joey Knish, the only one who really 'made it' in the movie Rounders. “… don't got the stones? You ignorant punk. I play for money. I owe rent. Child support. I play for money, not the f**kin' world series on ESPN.” However, a trader’s scale has ZERO bearing on the potential quality of education s/he could provide…so Getting back to the original question of the thread … The keys are not the quality, etc of the educator, nor the commitment, etc of the student. The key is the match between what is offered by the teacher and what is needed by the student. It is my experience that those who simply train in the ways of another do not have staying power / longevity because what they learn is really not in accord with the way that is really true to their own nature. There are thousands of arts and thousands of sciences for setting up the simple trading acts of buying and selling. Imo, it is far better to find your own way from among all those thousands of ways, then the teachers you need to hone your skills will literally just show up and what they have to pass on to you will not take long at all and even high rates for very short training sessions will be worth it. Far, far too many pay for what they don’t know what they’re going to get [messed up sentence ]. In their trading education Far, far too manyfirst try to apply normal rules of general education ... then hope to move to specialty training . But, all the while, every general construct about markets they assimilate from ‘out there’ fogs up developing their individually correct way to perceive and represent the market process. Turn it around(!) Out the gate(!)- Any reading, coursework, training a beginner does needs to have an overriding concern of finding one’s specialty - first! ie – how much would I pay ? if someone is going to be telling me what to do and how to do it, he needs to be paying me instead of me paying him.

I think that using the terminology of Destroyer, Creator and Bouncer as a way to bring these issues into the conscious mind so they can be "dealt with" is very silly ... few can really relate adequately ... but ... is there another way ???

It's my impression that more serious, committed retail traders are drawn to O&A - not necessarily more savvy and experienced traders. ... plus winners tend to cluster... I don't personally give them much business anymore since they lost leveraged PM's to regulation but... Their infinite sizing is definitely a plus. When needed in some systems, I use it to precisely size beyond the full and mini contracts placed with other brokers. Also, because of the infinite sizing, all the traders I mentor (except for the occasional completely a whore for volume ) go through a phase with a 'small' (for them) live O&A account... ::20 HELLO! .smilies.that.do.not.blow.up.in.your.face!:: For beginners, small size live at O&A is the perfect alternative to sim!!!!! ::20 more HELLO! .smilies.that.do.not.blow.up.in.your.face!::

We should probably credit Ken Wolff of MTTrader, and not DbPhoenix, for this article. Not to take anything away from DbPhoenix though – in my opinion, he is hands down the best trading poster ever ! …

This – The Day Austerity Died | ZeroHedge and This – Merkel both written by someone who doesn’t quite understand This - charles hugh smith-What Happens When All the Money Vanishes Into Thin Air? Makes you wonder how much is written by those who don't quite understand This - charles hugh smith-What Happens When All the Money Vanishes Into Thin Air?

.. to all 3 of you who look can you believe the following is still too complex for it to sink in for most ? :missy: charles hugh smith-What Happens When All the Money Vanishes Into Thin Air?

Why doesn't MultiCharts advertise here anymore? It's Not Just Another Release “…a symptom of a dysfunctional scientific climate,” as Dr. Fang put it “No one noticed” the patterns of corruption, tilted stats / lies, etc. – except stupid conspiracy theorists of course – because it was Science! and Scientific! – not to be questioned… cryptogon.com » Scientific Fraud: ‘Nobody Had Noticed the Whole Thing Was Rotten’

That certainly didn’t offended me. Thanks for a very refreshing post. These thoughts that follow are not intended to offend you either... re but the sim account isn’t ? Hm ??? No truer words have been spoken… it’s even ‘truer’ when you just see “you can see whatever you ‘want’” ie it takes a lot of practice, but the first thing you should notice when you look at a chart is your own previously unconscious biases It would definitely be easier to start a business if indeed that is more fun than “staring at the screen” … ie people who wouldn’t be 'lonely' for their charts would be better off finding something else to do brokers are not traders … and re superstition – facts can be known, mysteries can be understood… superstition comes from trying to 'know' mysteries and/or 'understand' facts… re Have you questioned that you may be gambling, not trading?:helloooo: Have you questioned that you may be trading with way way way way too much size ???????? :helloooo: Yes you have questioned that you may be trading with way way way way too much size my advice... NEVER ever sim again !!!!! … at least until you have matched your methods to your nature via real life trading … then deliberative practice for certain situations on sim is fine… Thanks again and have a great life cyberbob no matter what you end up doing

ya’ll correct me if I’m wrong but it seems that basically the posters are saying the systems don’t “lose value when Made Public” - they weren’t really objectively valuable to begin with… … and that. subjectively, their ‘value’ was largely in the anticipatory affect and that the reality of / when implementing them wipes the ‘value’ luster right off… Systems For Sale - a veritable warehouse

MMS have you ever asked CrashPlan to be a sponser ??? The unsustainable is unsustainable... charles hugh smith-The Future Is Unknown, But We Know the Unsustainable Will Implode

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. “ -Voltaire :helloooo: Mark Grant: "I Do Not Believe, Any Longer, That The Catastrophe Can Be Avoided" | ZeroHedge Double posted in Earth is Going to be Next thread - not... BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN

This is an old ‘legend’ that at one time actually had more basis than now. Way back when, there were few “hot” systems being sold at any given time and the public participation in their implementation could be literally seen as ‘fads’. In the brokerage business (pre–internet days), I’ve witnessed the orders come in bunches for the “hot” system. Much, much more dilution today… The systems themselves didn’t actually degrade. Adding some precision - the ‘rulership’ they were exploiting passed and another one took it’s place. Many, if not most, of these system themselves were still very good (some of them great!) – when applied in the correct ‘rulership’…ie not necessarily robust across ‘rulerships’ but still very good… … And of course, as the ‘edge’ faded, ‘professionals’ started to fade the orders coming in from those who had committed to the ‘through thick and thin, new equity highs and drawdowns’ way of trading a system. So, the legends have basis … but today much, much more dilution and variability in the implementation of publicly available systems … re It’s pretty safe to say that truly excellent systems are never made available to the public at any price. Compared to just trading it, marketing and supporting it is simply not worth the hassle ! ... It’s also pretty safe to (generally) say that the ‘robust’ systems – the ones that do continue to profit through multiple (but never all, btw) types of ‘rulerships’ are really not that ‘valuable’… ie they aren’t really innovative ie you don’t need to buy them. You can just roll your own and do well - provided you are ‘unadventurous’ and patient, etc. enough to stick with it… jmo based on extensive anecdotal experience on both ends of the systems for sale bs

but … but… :haha: All too often, when you’re looking at a chart to get in, it’s “trending”… as soon as you’re in, that same chart is suddenly just “ranging”. What just happened? and Not to nit pick the nit picking but to clarify for beginners… It might be more accurate to say each ‘rulership’ is different from the last instead of “Each cycle is different from the last one” (The alternation between rulerships is cyclical ... not as linear as we would like of course - but still ‘cyclical’) A ‘rulership’ is a weighted combination of distinct ‘crowds’ - with sufficient extremes in individual weighting to allow them to be Typed into a limited number of general categories. re There are many ways of coping with that “not as linear as we would like” issue. Many, if not most, traders note / observe / perceive this phenomenon (actually it’s these phenomena) to varying levels, but on the first few thousand attempts at understanding it, experience increasing, even more unpredictable, chaotic morass – and do not find the ”beauty” at all. :crap: So they settle, declare it unnecessary, and try to find methods that discount / go around / do not incorporate these ‘cycles’ at all…

DbPhoenix ... up from the ashes ? ... Where have you been? ... good to see you back. zdo

Db, May I quote you in another forum? thx. zdo

Who in their right mind would sponser this ? In light of the recent uptick in racial tensions… I’m thinking a bunch of the more activist / non complacent blacks are starting to realize that while he pays pretty good lip service to their agenda, Obama is really the epitome of the white man. The only thing they got electing him was black skin color – past the ‘black studies’ bullshit, he doesn’t think black, he literally can’t think black. Electing him hasn’t done one thing to change that the black masses were just shuttled from the “1%’s” plantations to the “1%’s” cities and then ‘forced into dependence’ only for their votes… tangent / related... http://www.blacklistednews.com/Of_Prophets%2C_Power%2C_and_the_Purpose_of_Intellectuals%3A_Class_War_and_the_College_Crisis/18939/0/0/0/Y/M.html

mohs, kudos! nice work. some thoughts… re “Anything fully experienced will soon vanish!” Deepest, wisest thing posted on this forum in years! “Anything fully experienced will soon vanish!” and, as I have been suggesting in my posts about flow, anything not fully experienced will NOT soon vanish! It will form an unnecessary armor, an energy block ‘out’ in your body that forever limits your neural functionality... One possible tweak…it is not necessary to place emphasis toward compassionate self nurturing with the mistakes, the thoughts, etc … with that part of the issue a more neutral, dispassionate simple observation is better. ie Definitely deal with 'mistakes' but ... No need to “embrace” your mistakes in the specific form of non judgementally working with “those negative thoughts”. It is only really necessary to ‘embrace’ the emotions behind and accompanying those thoughts… ‘embracing’ in the form of just being with them as they are without condition … truly completes your release of the 'event' into “Anything fully experienced will soon vanish!” All the best, zdo