thalestrader

A very good point, MM, that is too rarely acknowledged here and elsewhere. Best Wishes, Thales

For someone who landed at TL at basically the same time as the "new team," it might seem to some as though you are disproportionately disenchanted. Best Wishes, Thales

As I have been going back through this thread while simultaneously re-reading the writings of some of my favorite traders, I have had the pleasant experience of finding that I do not know nearly as much as I thought I did about what I do. For example, I remember balking at Midk's repeated insistence above that that there was something over and above the mechanical principles I was outlining here. I more than once asserted that this should be easy to learn, implying of course, that trading should be easy to teach. While I still firmly believe it can be taught, I have come to see that it is probably not so easily learned. Of course, I knew, and have repeatedly made mention of how long it took for things to finally click for me, but I always felt the reason for that was my own inability to learn it quickly. That is still part of it, no doubt. But re-reading Darvas and Watts and Baruch and Livermore and Loeb and O'Neil over the last few weeks, as well as combing trough the many fine contributions to this thread by MidK and others has allowed me to gain a better perspective on this activity we in general call trading, and which I prefer, the more I ponder it, to call "speculating," (I don't mean to leave you others out, its just Midk's post was the catalyst for my present line of thought). At any rate, I feel like I've gone back to grad school and I'm experiencing the joy of discovering new insights as well as re-discovering or re-thinking some new ones. Its rejuvenation, and I could almost convince myself that I have somehow found the fountain of youth. But alas, I am still no longer in my twenties, though I certainly feel as though I am. Best Wishes, Thales

Hi Folks, So here is my plan: Sometime between now and the first full week of September, I will start a Reading Charts 2 thread here at TL. I hope to be able to resume my more regular day trading activities by then, and that thread should be something similar to this original thread. In the first post to that thread, I will put links back to some of the more important posts here. Also, I signed up for one of those free google blogs at blogspot, and you can find it here: The Speculator King You can read the rest of my plan in detail there, but the reader's digest version has already been posted in this thread in this post: As I have thought about this project over the last few weeks, it occurred to me that what I did for my daughter was essentially to repeat her the same process I went through, only for her, I was able to cull the useless and distracting material from the good and beneficial material. So, for the blog, I am essentially going to try to work through the material in the order in which its importance became apparent to me. This is not necessarily the order in which I actually read it. For example, the very first investing book I ever read was O'Neils's How to Make Money in Stocks. It became a very important book for me, but not until much later (and I do mean much later) after having reading Darvas and Livermore caused me to make connections that took me back to O'Neil. That being said, I have to credit a couple of cranks here at TL for helping me to get a surprising clarity and direction for this project. Without them, I may not have realized myself how important Loeb's"speculative attitude" has been to my own development. So, since I will be able to edit and delete hostile comments and those that contain profanity at the blog, I have to say that "Cranks are welcome." I will have the ability to neutralize any harm they may seek to do, and you never know when one may spark an idea or direction that leads to pleasant, and, for me, at any rate, nostalgic surprises. I'm not sure if posting the blog address here violates the TL TOS. If so, I apologize. I have added the blog address to my contact info in my TL profile, which is allowed. I hope you all help make the blog and the Reading Charts 2 thread as memorable and as enjoyable as this thread here has been! Best Wishes, Thales

This may be the best new thread at TL in many many moons - Good work, daedalus. If I may interject a few of my own thoughts in response to the discussion thus far (and I have not yet read every line of every post, so if I make a redundant point, I apologize in advance to he who beat me to it). At any rate, here it goes: I too went through a period of "if I can only get a couple two three ticks yada yada yada ..." I cannot say it can't be done, but I can say that for me, it was beyond difficult - I cannot trade well for those objectives, and it was a losing proposition for me. I have found that whether I am day trading or swing trading, I am at my best when I am trading for a significant movement that is sustained in terms of extent (but not always in terms of time). As I get older, whatever the time frame, I find myself always trying to trade less but to take more when I do trade. Again, that's me, and you should continue your own exploration, and I will be interested to read what you and Midk find. I conceive of RR in terms of where S/R is in relation to my entry. Yes, MidK, S/R is history, but markets, like humans, have memory, and quite often (more often than not) that history has meaning and relevance to the present. Does the market always swing neatly from S/R and back again? No, and that my friend, is what a stop loss is for. While I am no scalper, I have often said that for me, every trade starts as a scalp. That simply means that if price does not soon confirm my trade, I'm out. But I am always trading for something larger than a few ticks, though often that is all I get. As far as expectancy goes, it seems to me that it would be easier to develop a system, method, approach etc. that has positive expectancy if you do so in connection with considerations of R/R. Ignore RR considerations at your peril. I hardly think they are as immaterial as Midk believes them to be, and in fact, I have found them to be quite useful when day trading. A good start to a good thread, daedalus. I hope you keep it going. Best Wishes, Thales

For crying out loud, are we now going to start whining if someone gets paid 40 cents on an affiliate link? Brownie used to have these in his signature as well and the money went to the Lymphoma Society as I recall. I'm as anti-vendor as the next guy when we're talking about pseudo-gurus selling false dreams for ridiculous sums to those of us afflicted with high hopes, but for the love of God, man, let's not let a well-founded, specific, and shared dislike of Gurus-for-hire turn into a general bashing of all forms of capitalism! That being said, Brownie's launch on Tams is not all that different from a typical Urmablum attack on Brownie, so in the future, Brownie, it may not be a bad idea to count to 10 before you post, and ask yourself if it is worth the blight that comes with it. You know what "they" say, "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." Best Wishes, Thales

Funny you should say that, Marko, as I just posted the folowing on another thread a few minutes ago: I have read and studied hundred (sad to say and even sadder to admit) trading books, trading course, webinars, seminars, etc. and so on. But the handful of books and authors I repeatedly cite are all I found is necessary, and they all have some very important common elements running through them. Once of the goals I have for the blog is to idenitfy and make plain as many of these connections as we can find. At any rate, thank you for the great charts you've been sharing lately. I have been enjoying them immensely. Best Wishes, Thales

I like you MM. I think you are not a Crank (though you are a bit cranky, which can lead to full-blown Crank). I think you are a smart human creature who has merely to replace his Jim Cramer-like definitions and understanding with that of an experienced and successful trader to break through to a level of success that is currently beyond your reach. Just for fun, who is the imprudent one (and conversely, who the conservative one) - he who deploys his all for a 20% gain, or he who deploys 10% of his all for a 200% gain? You need to move away from the common hoard's understanding of "speculation" as meaning "too risky", or "too much leverage," or as referring to those "evil speculators." I have done all I can to make the correct understanding accessible to you, you have only to read and think and withhold judgment until you understand what it is you have read. William O'Neil turned his first 5K account into 200K in 18 months on three trades. He used 2-1 margin (a very tame level of margin by even a "conservative" futures trader's standard). His stop loss was 7% of his cost basis. Too risky? Too much leverage? An evil speculator? Hardly! Rather, it was a very sound approach to growing his capital. Is every 18 month period so good? Far from it - such periods are few and far between, which is why you must have a plan that allows you to capitalize on those situations while keeping you in the game, "ready to take the field" while waiting out those less opportune times. This is true for the day trader, the short-term swing trader, and the long-term, long pull position trader alike - keeps risks small relative to your gains, protect your capital during unfavorable conditions, but have a method that gets you in at the earliest possible moment when the right conditions are potentially materializing. What is the 1-2-3 trade, after all, if not a method that allows one to attempt to get into the market just as a potentially out-sized swing is possibly getting underway? What is Darvas's box method other than a method that allows one to attempt to get into the market just as a potentially out-sized swing is possibly getting underway? What is William O'Neils's CANSLIM other than a method that allows one to attempt to get into the market just as a potentially out-sized swing is possibly getting underway? What is Loeb advising other than that one find and employ a method that allows one to attempt to get into the market just as a potentially out-sized swing is possibly getting underway? And what makes each of these speculative, in the sense I am here trying to get folks to see, is that each of these traders sought to make gains that dwarfed their initial risk, while keeping that initial risk as a reasonably small, reasonably well-controlled level. MM - read Loeb's book, and then let's resume the discussion. Right now there can be no progress between us for while I understand your perspective (I shared it once upon a time many many moons ago), you do not understand mine. It would seem that you think you do; but I assure you that you do not. You have in mind the crazy rodeo clown-like trading associated with The Race, which is not at all what I am talking about here and elsewhere at TL. What I am saying, which no one seems to want to hear, is that you can trade in such a way as to take small, relatively controlled risks in order to capture extraordinarily out-sized profits. Not on every trade, of course. Losses are inevitable. But over the course of a series of trades related by time frame and with a sufficient frequency, you can make much more at this game than you presently believe possible. And if you do not believe it is possible (other than for the stray "fortunate" windfall), then you will find that for you, it is impossible. As James Baldwin said, "Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it." You can keep on saying it can't be done, and I (and many others) will keep right on doing it anyway. If you want to do it also, or if you would at least like to learn of what it is I am speaking, then read Loeb's book, and we can begin. Another way to look at it is this: Let us suppose that 95% of all folks who put money in the market lose. Personally, I think that overstates the magnitude of failure, but Cranks love to trot that line out, so let us grant the Cranks assumption to be true. So, 95% of those who deploy capital for capital gain lose some or all of their capital. Well, then, presumably they are losing it to the 5% who do succeed. The Cranks must concede that if we grant them as true the statement that 95% lose, then they must concede that 5% must be wildly successful, after all, the Cranks are fond of telling us, trading is a zero-sum game (or nearly so) after adjusting for commissions and fees and taxes, etc. So, who do you want to be MM? One of the 95% who give, or one of the 5% who take? Why is it that the Cranks want to foist failure on everyone,as though they will not be happy unless and until the failure rate reaches 100%?! No sir, 95% is enough! If 95% lose, then you can be one of the 5% who beat them, or one of the drones who join them. It is a choice, however, and do not let yourself fall prey to the belief that it is not a choice, but fate, something beyond your control. It is a choice, though a choice, to be sure, that leads to agonizingly hard work, painful reflection and introspection, and a tortuous path toward self-knowledge (Recall Plato's allegory of the Cave, and the pain felt by those who were turned from the shadowy walls to the true light of the sun). We human creatures are magnificent creatures. We are capable of far more greatness than 95% of us believe to be possible. Best Wishes, Thales

Good to see you back, Marko! Best Wishes, Thales

Folks of intelligence and experience would argue that your post fully illuminates the degree of your self-imposed ignorance concerning business and trading. It also shows that you are unwilling and thus currently incapable of moving beyond your current (lack of) understanding. Thales

MM, you'll do yourself a big favor if you would get a hold of a copy of Loeb's Battle and give it an honest and thoughtful reading. For what it's worth, Loeb believes that it is prudent to aim for a yearly double of your money while playing for a 6% or 10% annual return is a recipe for failure. Aren't you the slightest bit curious as to how he reaches that conclusion? Best Wishes, Thales

You are confusing what you call the "theoretical testosterone version," or what I have call "crazy rodeo clown cowboy" trading, with what I will here refer to as either "the speculative attitude" or "trading for infinite yield." I am not the only one here at TL, MM, who has advised you that you yourself are limiting that of which you yourself are capable. I know that Blowfish has suggested this to you, though I canot find the post. Interestingly, I did come across this post from BF - I don't buy the "growth mindset" stuff. I do believe that the "fixed mindset" concept is a useful term (though prejudice, close-mindedness, unquestioning belief" do just as well if not better than the new-fangled phrase. The point is the same in any case - if you think you already know the answers, you'll start ridiculing those who keep asking the questions, even when there continued questioning takes them beyond what your answers tell you is possible. You can do it, MM, but only if you let yourself. Best Wishes, Thales

But one should be able to say that "based on these facts, these are my conclusions," whereas you seem to be saying "these are the conclusions on which I base my facts." In addition to trading, I run a real, bricks and mortar, trucks and equipment, doing trade belly to belly business. I do not manage my business for a "rate of return." I run it for maximum profitability. I do not know one business owner who manages his or her business in the manner you suggest as "Business 101." Sure, we each know our cost of doing business, costs of goods sold, our "breakeven points," etc. and so on. But that affects my pricing (i.e. what I charge my customers) and gross margins, and has nothing to do with a target annual rate of return or return on equity. The goal for me is always to maximize those numbers, not to be bound by them. I trade the same way. And truthfully, other than bucket shop trades, slippage and commissions have been of little impact on my trading. In fact, I wish I could get the gross margins in my business that I get from trading. Unless you are willing to read and study those who think differently than you, you will never really be able to decide whether you are right or wrong in your current worldview. You may think you have chosen, but you really haven't, because you feel the "choice is between you view and wild-eyed cowboy rodeo clown trading, rather than a choice between trading for an income versus trading for speculative gain and maximum profit. You have not even allowed yourself truly to grasp the outlines of the view I propose. I have been urging both you and MM to open your minds to another way of approaching the problem of making it (and what "making it") in trading means. You both seem to infer from what I have posted here and elsewhere at TL that I set an unreasonably high bar, or that I imply that this trading activity is easier than it is. I have several times suggested that a better place to explore the view that I espouse is Gerald Loeb's The Battle for Investment Survival. Loeb, far better than I, makes the case that your view actually sets one up for failure, or at least unsatisfactory results. I agree with nearly everything he says in his excellent book, including his opening statement: "Nothing is more difficult , I truly believe, than consistently and fairly profiting in Wall Street. I know of nothing harder to learn." Amen, brother, and I think that both you and MM would agree with Loeb's sentiment. But I, following Loeb, use that as my starting point, whereas you and MM and others who share your view of the limits of possible success take that as your end. Loeb continues: "Any way one looks at it, nothing is more difficult than succeeding in Wall Street, yet nothing is attempted by such poorly equipped people or is considered as easy." I am sure that both you and MM would agree. So do I. But you view the difficulty as an inherent and insurmountable limit, whereas I, following Loeb view it not only as an obstacle that can be overcome, but as one which must be overcome if one's market operations are to be at all worth the effort and risk. Loeb continues, perhaps reading your mind, and asks that "This being the case, what can we do about it? What is the bright side, if such a gloomy picture has a bright side? What are the virtues of Wall Street? Is the subject worth studying at all?" You seem to have recognized the difficulty and the questions, but your response is a rather gloomy judgement that "the best one can hope for is to make a "reasonable return on investment on an annulaize basis, and by reasonable I mean 10-30% tops." Loeb's answer (to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, is that such a goal as you formulate it ultimately must fail, because either your eventual (and certain) losses will consume much of your profit, or you will have earned an amount insufficient to both preserve your capital's current spending power as well as increasing it for future use. You can keep reiterating you opinions concerning the limits of trading success, but until you are at least willing to learn and understand the counter position, we will simply be speaking at one another, rather than with one another. Again, Gerald Loeb's work is an inexpensive way to introduce oneself to what he calls the necessary "speculative attitude," an attitude that I prescribe, and which you proscribe. No, you do not. The below statement shows how little clarity you possess concerning the issue at hand: Trading is a general term that whereby one thing of value is exchanged for another thing of value. Trade is, to put it in terms you would understand, "Economics 101." Again, following Loeb, I suggest that one understand that "Investing" and "speculating," while each a form of "trade" or "trading", differ from one another fundamentally, as folows (again, quoting directly from Loeb): Investment is fundamentally an effort to obtain, in addition, a rental from others for the temporary use of capital. Speculation means using capital in such a manner that its spening power is not only preserved but also increased, through the realization of profits in the form of dividends, capital gains, or both. You, as do 95% of those who try this game, conflate Trading, Investment, and Speculation - but you cannot grasp what it means to "trade for infinite yield," much less see its fundamental soundness as an approach, if you do not understand the difference between investment and speculation as set out above. Best Wishes, Thales

Hi Folks, I've been going through the Reading Charts in Real Time thread, from which the above snip'd post was culled. The thread itself is quite a bit thicker and denser than I had realized. Rather than trying to cut and paste everything from from there to a new thread, I think I will go ahead and start a blog where I can bring up the topics I think important in a logical order and then rely on a very liberal use of links back to relevant posts in the original thread. My thought for the blog is for it to repeat the process I used to introduce my daughter to trading that is more or less outlined in the above quoted post. I'll move through one book at a time, and anyone interested can share his or here thoughts, ask questions, discuss the books, etc. through blog comments. As far as actual trading goes, I'd probably use daily stock charts initially and perhaps track a "William O'Neil-like" or "Gerald Loeb-like"starter account (basically a 5K[O'Neil] to 10K[Loeb] account where commitments are limited to one stock/5k or 10k unit of capital, and any one commitment must be closed out at either a profit or a loss before a new commitment is opened). After we move through a few of the first books, perhaps I'd introduce a small forex account that would trade more frequently, or, if my other time constraints loosen, I'll go back to calling futures day trades trades in a new Real Time thread, and then just do a nightly or weekly re-cap in the blog. At any rate, that is what I am thinking of doing, and anyone interested is welcome to participate once I get started. I would ask though that cranks refrain from joining in. Opinions and approaches contrary to my own will be most welcome to the discussion, so long as they are offered in a spirit of high-mindedness rather than meanness. I'm hoping to get started in the coming weeks, and I'll be starting with Darvas's How I Made 2,000,000 in the Stock Market. It's a quick but important read, and while we should be able to move through it in a week or two, I think it does a fair job of laying the foundation of how I trade. I will try to give a week or two "heads-up" as to what the next book will be so that everyone can have a chance to get a hold of a copy of they do not already have it. I hope to see some of our familiar "faces" join in, and look forward to meeting some new ones as well. Best Wishes, Thales

I agee. There sure are! And plenty of failures too! If you were to re-conceive the 10% as units of risk, where a unit of risk is equal to a % of equity, you then be able to see where many would find your "qualitative" vs. "quantitative" distinction a chimera. If instead of 10%, one were to say 5R, whereby an "R"-multiple was equal to the amount risked/trade, and then, if one were to trade an edge whereby average winning trade was 2R (i.e. 2*initial $risk), and the average loss was 1/2R, and if the average winning percentage was 33% of all trades, and if one's chosen market(s) and time frame yielded an average of 16 trades/week, then 5R/week on average is certainly possible. Is it easy? No. Will most fail? Yes. So what? I'm not here to protect the masses from themselves. Will one still have losing days? Absolutely! Losing weeks? Most certainly! Losing months? Such would be likely ony if one suffers a breakdown of the discipline that brought them to their market, timeframe, and approach/system/method. Anyone who has read my posts here at TL knows that I would generally agree. While the "95% failure" statistic that so many are quick to "cite" (I've yet to see the "citation") is probably high. I would guess that in actuality at least 20% of market participants are long term net profitable. I do not mean that 20% are turning out huge profits on a regular basis, but look at it this way - my grandmother died with a seven figure portfolio that had, as near as we've been able to determine, a low five figure cost basis. If she could do it, so can a lot of folks! No, no, no ... Your idea of trading is to make a "rate of return". My idea of trading has been best characterized by Leonardo as trading for infinite yield. The end of such an account (as in its goal or purpose) is not to seek an income, but to generate a substantial profit. I would here again refer you to the chapter of Gerald Loeb's book, The Battle for Investment Survival entitled "Speculation vs. Investment." I would also recommend you continue to the following chapter entitled "Sound Accounting for Investors." I would agree with Loeb's sentiment in that "I don't believe that any acount can be run properly if income is a prime requisite." This is not to say that such an account cannot be run, for a time at least, and perhaps an extended time, profitably. However, it will not be run as well or as properly if it is seeking what you call "a reasonable rate of return" rather than seeking, for example, to double itself within a short period of time (Loeb suggests a year). I would suggest you actually read those chapters before you dismiss the proposed goal as unsound). All trading is extremely difficult if done without an intelligent plan. The effect of slippage, bad fills, and commissions on an account traded according to an intelligent plan and seeking infinite yield will be negligible. Best Wishes, Thales

You saw a double top a few days back, but with the new low slightly undercutting the prior pullback low, I see a potential double bottom base forming. I am hoping to see an upside breakout this week! Best Wishes, Thales

I'm not Brownie, but in my opinion, what goes a long way toward ruining a board is noted in the following post from me: Certainly a forum is for open discussion, MM. But re-read JDSG's posts, and then make the case here that his posts are meant to foster open discussion rather than to cut such discussion off and be the last word on the subject. There have been a number of times in various threads here at TL where you have taken essentially the same position as JDSG as to what is and is not possible with respect to trading profits. The difference has been that in those cases, a true back and forth discusion or debate was able to ensue. JDSG's approach is to curse, beat his chest, and use ad hominem arguments to try and shut the other side up. Mean spiritedness, vulgarity, close-mindedness, and board-bullying - if just one participant exhibits just one of those traits, that alone is enough to turn folks off from a forum, wouldn't you agree? And in this thread alone we have two examples, JDSG being one, and UB's constant stalking of Brownie being the other. I have no objections to Urmablume's technical posts, though I do think his constant attacks on Brownie should be halted, preferably by a voluntary cease-fire on his part, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should be banned, as his type of assaults do nothing but cheapen the forum overall. Best Wishes, Thales

Funny enough, I've been actively pondering a solution to that very situation myself. I've even considered going off to some obscure corner of the 'net and blogging. I assume the cranks would let me be, and if not, I could "moderate" their comments, as I cannot abide either meanness or vulgarity. Likewise, Kiwi, is you find somewhere better, let me know as well. Best Wishes, Thales

What is disappointing is that your vulgarity and your mean-spiritedness are now tolerated here at TL. I'll respond no more to you, so go ahead have the last word. Best Wishes, Thales

There is no irony there, just as there is no possibility, based on your beliefs, of fruitful discussion. You will just keep saying "X is not possible," while I will keep saying, "Nothing is impossible, though some things are far more difficult, and thus less likely, than others." The irony to which I referred was that you characterize Cory as a "kool-aid" drinker, while you yourself fail to see that you have drank some potent brew yourself. Best Wishes, Thales

The irony ... Both you and Mighty Mouse are convinced that the best one might hope for is an annual return comparable to a high performing mutual fund (20-30%). The possibilities available to the lone wolf trader with a much more limited capital is exponentially greater than the best performing mutual fund. Of course, such possibilities are dismissed out of hand by trotting out the "at that rate of return one would own all the money in the world in less than a year" argument. I know the perspective from which both of you are the problem. The discussion, however, always has and always will break down (witness the ongoing back and forth with MM over the last many months) is that neither of you have a mind open enough even to try to understand the other perspective. Following Gerald Loeb, I understand the problem as an unwillingness or inability properly to distinguish investing from speculating. Those who seek to trade for a living are seeking to profit via speculation, while others, such as MM and JSDG, are seeking merely to preserve the purchasing power of their capital by generating a return in excess of inflation. Cory and TMBTC are speaking form a perspective that acknowledges and understands the difference between the investor mentality and the speculator's mentality. JSDG and MM speak only from the investor mentality and as such dismisses the speculator out of hand. This discussion is a dead end in its current form. A better way to continue it would be for anyone interested in it to read chapter 6 of Geral Loeb's The Battle for Investment Survival, and discuss the plan there proposed by Loeb. Best Wishes, Thales

Breakout followed by pullback ... nothing to do but wait and let the stop loss and take profit orders do their job. Best Wishes, Thales

And some would belabor the point while others would move the discussion in a direction that might help a few of the many succeed. Very few children playing little league will grow up to enjoy major league careers, but we shouldn't want to discourage the kids each from participating in the sport as far as his or her talents would allow. Why should trading be any different, especially when the odds of succeeding as a trader are much higher than the odds of a child growing into a professional athlete? Best Wishes, Thales

One of the best essays I ever read having to do with the real basis of the question at hand can be found at Rod Roth's blog, which I shared at the reading charts thread some time ago, and can be found here: Trader's Page He gets to the heart of the matter when he tells us that for a long while "I understood everything about trading but I could not be profitable until I gained emotional discipline. The ability to execute a trading plan consistently is the biggest challenge in trading because it is principally a psychological problem." He then burrows into the heart of the matter when he confesses that "There are things in trading I cannot do. It matters not that these things are efficacious and that others execute them flawlessly and make lots of money. I can’t do them because the emotional part of my brain wants no part of them. Like it or not, the emotional part of my brain heavy-handedly makes most of my decisions in a trade." emphasis added It was not until he admitted to himself that "I’m a trader and ...I don’t like being in the market," that he was able to settle down and identify an approach that would enable him to trade for his livelihood. You see, the original question posed by the OP is tangential to the question for which he is really seeking an answer - "What kind of trader am I, and given that, what market should I trade and how should I trade it?" And the answer to this will depend upon his ability to "know thyself." You must know your own limitiations, emotionally and psychologically, in order to identify a trading program that plays to your emotional strengths while protecting you (and your capital) from you human, all too human weaknesses. Rod Roth would not make it if he were trying to be a Curtis Faith type trend follower. At the same time, I would bet that Curtis Faith would go nuts if he were made to sit in front of a monitor shooting for less than a handful of ticks 5-10 times each day. Yet each can "make a living" trading. How so? Well, I imagine that we'd all agree that what we mean by "making a living" is simply generating sufficient current income to cover current living expenses while producing a sufficient excess current income to that can be saved in such a way as to prserve current buying power for use toward future emergencies, desires, and ultimately, a period of diminished or absent income known as "retirement." The markets can provide this in many ways, some of which are hardly "full-time." I know a trader who has generated a fabulous income for 24 years as a seller of options. Most would say he is thus a "full-time" trader. However, other than options expiration day, he spends very few "whole days" trading. I aquainted with a number of traders who successfully generate solid incomes from being glued to their screens day after day playing for anything from a few ticks per turn to trend day swings. Is "trading for a living" possible? Of course it is! Is it difficult? Absolutely! But its difficulty is the human element with which each of us must contend, and we each must do so in our own way, for while we are all human, we each have our own set of emotional and psychological strengths and weaknesses particular to each individual. "Full-time trading" is guruspeak. The goal is not to trade full-time, the goal is to replace income from labor with profit from speculation. The time demands such speculation requires ultimately is a function of what kind of trader you are because that wil dictate whether you are better suited to scalping, intra-day swing trading, days to weeks swing trading, or intermediate term swing (i.e. position) trading. Gurus speak to us in terms of the working man, and they sell us a dream by having us think f trading as we do our day jobs - you need so much per hour or per week and your goal should be to do it ":full-time." Non-sense. The goal is to make sufficient profit from speculation to cover current expenses and future needs and to do so with whatever time commitment is necessary to speculate successfully in the manner suited to you. Best Wishes, Thales

Long 113.50, stop and reverse 112.70, add to longs at 114.50 ... Best Wishes, Thales