MightyMouse

I was referring to S&P. I should have been specific.

This is only a pull back. Not really apropos to call it bearish

Bob, It doesn't matter where it closes today (higher or lower) the trend is already down. For the time being, the reasons for the rise in the price of gold never materialized. Gold bugs have to wait for the next crisis to get a bull market in gold. For now it is a sloppy downward drift which will look bullish at times, but there are only hopeful bulls and hope doesn't belong in a trading strategy. MM

Did you get out when you should have stayed in? If so, then was it because of a lack of nerve or a misread of the market? Or, do you wish you had stayed in, but there was no reasonable and objective reason for you to stay in, given your methodology? Another question: given your behavior for the month, would you typically have done the same thing if you had 2 losses? In other words, do you quit trading when you have losses too or do you continue trading, but only stop trading when you have decent wins? You don't have to answer these questions publicly, but you do have to have decent answers to these questions.

A drunk who accumulates empty bottles will outpace someone who hoards dollars. Anything tangible will outpace fiat money in the long run. It doesn't have to be gold.

The change will change the near linear ascent of the S&P. It will create some big zig zags for us to take advantage of until they re-engage in QE again. I think it will continue higher, but it will go higher with a lot more volatility than we have been accustomed to experiencing. We have to learn to accept that QE is here to stay indefinitely. It is a new arrow in the fed quiver. We'll be in a low interest rate environment for a long, long time, provided we do not experience supply shocks the way we did in the 70's.

When did the old bull market end?

There will probably be a good buying opportunity in gold when people begin to react to y3k fears.

These "hints" might be self serving propaganda by the issuing companies. If you add a big fat bonus into the price, then the costs will certainly rise.

Mystic, you need to create an adjacent thread with trader predictions to compare to the random thread.

Ticks, I don't scalp es. In fact, at this point I am not scalping at all. I need a great deal of volatility to make it worth my while and over the last months and years, the volatility has been pathetic. I do take longer term trades and when I do trade es longer term, i generally use an 8 pt stop. Longer term means staying in for as long as a week or so. I am not implying that I can look at any market and trade it profitable. I can, however, look at a market and know if I should or shouldn't trade. There is a huge difference. MM

In your prior post you did imply you had a tool: " Now it helps to be able to have some experience or tools to predict the turning points (which I definitely do have) but even if you just traded it with the change in delta as you key to take the profit off you can make profits doing this" If n days are the number of days left of time decay and you are in for only 1 day then your time decay factor is 1/n. When you have taken that trade or similar trades enough times so that your days trading n days, then your time decay becomes similar to staying a trade for the n days; unless, again, the market is making a mistake. In short, in the long run, you will not escape the cost associated with time decay. I do use stops and I do make money, and in using stops I do take losses. In fact, most of my entries end up losing. I am not afraid to admit i am wrong when I am wrong. I am trading over 30 years and futures for over 5 years. Over the last 12 years i have had 2 losing years. Over the same period i have had what i call good luck- sometimes awesome- and bad luck- the type where you don't want to leave the room until everything is destroyed- and I am ahead by a handsome amount. The dream of taking a "paycheck" ended a long time ago as did the dream of 100% gains every year. Those years are awesome, and I have had them, but they do tend to eventually level out. I am not an instructor and do not seek anything from anyone.

If you are not taking advantage of mispricing, and if you know when the market is going to turn with your tools, then why not wait until the moment your tool is telling you that the market is going to turn and take a position in the direction of the turn, rather than take both sides of the market, pay two commissions, and possibly pay two premiums? Futures trade at both premiums and discounts to underlying. in some cases you are trading both sides with time as a cost.

The only way this strategy will work to your benefit is if you are entering positions when the instruments you are choosing are mis-priced; otherwise, you will always be better off waiting to enter only one leg of the trade at the extreme where you would take your first profit rather than entering both legs at the same time. When you take your first profit you are actually experiencing a loss. A return to your breakeven entry will also, generally, leave you with a loss to overcome. This is a very difficult game to play with in a retail trading environment with a limited ability and speed to calculate the premium or discount of the derivatives you are choosing to trade. You are free to believe anything you like about the strategy you are employing, but you are not free to escape the long term results that will be produced by employing such a strategy.

If money was everything I would agree. But, to me it isn't so I can't agree. I would rather be me than him any day.

We can't say what Bonds would have done without the juice since we only know what he did with the juice. He apparently was not confident enough to play without steroids, so my guess is that he too felt that he wouldn't have done as well. Same goes with SAC. If Steve Cohen could have done well without insider trading and breaking the law, then why bother? Again, he did it because he knew that he could not charge the fees he charged and remain as esteemed as he was without insider trading. As it turns out, Cohen is just another comedy act. Oh, and there are more acts to follow. Citadel is next in line.

Would you rather be a casino or a Blackjack player? The casino has an edge; it is good at what it does. The blackjack player has no edge and can only rely on luck. There aren't may long run black blackjack winners. If there are, they probably stopped playing.

If you are squeezing more from other traders than others are squeezing out of you, you are a good trader. It really doesn't matter how much. All in my opinion, of course.

If hoping you win lotto is how you plan on retiring before or after 50, then you best hope at the same time that the food stamp program continues. Lotto is a fool's game and attracts fools. It is you and those who think like you who benefit most form collectivism. Good luck with your dollar and your dream. I suppose you'll stick it to me when you win.

Poker and trading are very similar in that they are both zero (negative) sum games. Negative since there is either a commission or a rake to pay on each trade or hand. It is easier to assume that a poker game played at a casino is a fair game, but not as easy to assume that trading is as fair as it should be. The payment process is the same in both. The weak or unlucky players pay the strong or good players. In either venue a lucky and poor participant could take money from a good and unlucky participant. Foolishly, people claim that they would rather be lucky than good, but everyone gets their moment when the sun shines only on them but not everyone can be good. I would rather be good than lucky

Worst losses were shorting pharmaceuticals. Icos gave me a beating in 2003. My best gains were from shorting pharmaceuticals. I shorted rigl at $21.75 on 11/30/2005 at 3:50pm and covered it the next morning at 9:50am at $8.50. Best trade of my life. Pure luck. I was in the trade for 30 minutes of market time.

Maybe you need to redefine what a really good trader is.

This makes more sense to me than the popular folklore.

The bubble has burst; asset prices have gone down. Secondly, our debt in real terms, gets bigger and bigger instead of smaller and smaller the way it does with inflation. To the fed: Inflation is good. Deflation is bad. To anyone holding assets: Inflation is good. Deflation is bad. Not saying why or if it should, just offering why it might be battling deflation.

The problem the Fed, as gatekeeper of the financial universe, confronts is that it is faced with battling deflation. A dollar tomorrow is worth more than the same dollar today. Strategically, it makes more sense to not spend or invest and wait. It, the Fed, wishes it succeeded in creating inflation, but it has not.