Ingot54

TradeRunner and Tams 1) Did you watch the 8 Videos? 2) I did not mention charts ... too late to edit my post now to try to legitimise your responses 3) A chart is a chart is a chart ... no brainer - doesn't bear mentioning ... obvious ... I expected more insight from traders of your standing. Perhaps I was not clear enough. The Vid series depicts the decline of the floor trader and the rise of the electronic trader. It clearly shows the temperament of floor traders who had real "grit-in-the-pit" but became like putty in the hands of the electronic traders. Clearly this is down to the requirement for a different set of technical skills today than say 10 - 15 years ago. Floor traders didn't even use charts. They read the tape, or simply had an intuitive grasp of their particular market ... cattle, hogs, beans, coffee ... whatever ... Forex is a different beast - Retail Forex is a newcomer. But I can see change in the way currencies behave now too. Gone are the longer trends; welcome to the volatile market. My comments had nothing to do with being a scalper, a position trader or anything in between, on any time-frame chart, so please try to pay attention to the post and the question put from watching the video series. What is going on in markets that is more competitive today, is that those with the software and computer horsepower are front-running, or creating artificial turnover/volume; this in turn shaves pips and ticks from traders who are not competing on equal footing. The game has changed in that the venue is now the office, or the computer trading room - and than might be the kitchen table, Starbucks or the on beach in Bali. The dog is still eating the dog, but there are bigger dogs now, and the competitive edge is being eroded. This may be the natural evolution of trading, but the question I ask myself is : "Do I want to be a part of where it is going?" I am not so sure. I am tired. I am not making money trading. I made more when I was trading CFD's, but that too is now subjected to electronic tricks that I can not match. And that's the problem. Charts will always be charts ... thanks boys ... but I am not a machine, and I am not a 20-something with time to spend burning my way into something that requires something that I ... apparently ...don't have: trading IQ. I am NOT a successful trader, despite the fact that I can "trade neutral" regarding profit-loss. So technically I am not affected by all the changes going on. Had I been really profitable at one time, but now finding it difficult, I could perhaps pin-point some reason or other, and address that. But what I have said above, is that I feel all the knowledge and practice of the past 7 years has gotten me nowhere, and the way things are going, there is nothing ahead to keep me in trading. I identify with the "has-beens" in the Vid series, even though I "have never-been." I take it you have read all of my post, watched all of the videos, and have given an informed ... and your best ... response. I don't have any answers either.

Count me in Mysticforex. I did very well in the first comp ... I think I can improve with age! Lessons from first comp: 1) Always check the trading account number when placing trades. 2) Never fool around ... even with demo accounts - treat every trade as if it is the real deal. 3) Never take a directional bias. Anyone else find the comp entertaining or enlightening? If not, then should we abandon the exercise? Have to say this though - after using the Oanda platform, compared to MT4 and IG Index (IG Markets in Australia) ... Oanda is the king when it comes to speed of execution and ... NO REQUOTES ... ever! In fact, if Oanda had a branch in Australia, I would be dealing with them - the rest are left for dead in their wake.

Before you add comments to this thread, a full prerequisite is that you have watched all 8 parts of the Video format of the Trading Movie: "Floored" found at this link: http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f18/floored-movie-8-parts-9843.html#post119723 About 75 minutes all up. I found after watching the series, that I had a personal mind-shift in the way I view markets and trading. But the biggest shock was that I am now asking myself some serious questions I found myself questioning whether I want to continue in my (so far) fruitless quest to ride the coat-tails of those whose money commitment moves the markets. Winning infrequently is not my idea of success. Nor is breaking even. Losing doesn't quite bring that happy smile either. And if I want to gamble outright, there are the slots, keno, lotto and the ponies and dish-lickers, where the outcome is decided in an afternoon, and you get to sleep decent hours. The floor or pit traders once plied their trade under the open-outcry method, where the skill was not so much getting your voice heard above the cacophony of the trading floor. No - the real skill was in fading your opponent, and getting to recognise and read the fear and greed of the market. One trader commented: "I love the markets, but I hate the people." Says it all. I admit to feeling depressed after watching Part 4 but soon realised that this was just a look at the casualties - many pit-traders had 30 years on the floor - nothing too depressing abut a successful career. What has really hit me is that I have been attempting - for 7 years - to learn skills that are being superceded every day, by innovative algorithms and changing markets. Had I been trading the markets in 2004 with the skills I have today, I might have had a different story to tell. Dunno ... I'd like to think so. Question is ... do I want to continue in this rat-race called trading? I do. Can I survive though? I am unsure about it. The traders in the Video Series all were successful participants until computer trading arrived. Those who learned to trade electronically were kings ... at first. But then ... even they found it was not so much the electronic advantage any more, but the time advantage. If you didn't keep up with the software - and trade in nanoseconds; or if you didn't have an algorithm with the "right" programming - and get in and out of the market at the optimum positions, then you were still being left in the wake of those that did. Do I have the temperament to continue to compete? Is there enough terrier in me to keep going despite the small successes? I have really hit a watershed in my thinking today. I am thinking my time can be better spent in activities that are far less stressful and more productive financially. And in activities that, in the spare time released, getting in touch emotionally at a better level, with those who care about me. And while I'm at it, I can find more time to watch movies and grab some exercise, play a little tennis and so on. The video series woke me to the fact that I am asleep at the wheel of my life - I thought I was an aspiring trader - but that is still not what my tax agent is putting on my taxation return. In many ways I feel like the guys and girls in the video series - always trying to compete, never catching up, and rarely getting to savour the kind of success that tells me the journey is going to end well. A bit negative ... but I think I am done with the glass-half-full approach - it is not going to comfort me in my advancing years. What about you? How do you feel about trading after watching the series? Does it change how you see yourself as a trader? In terms of the kinds of accelerating changes traders are faced with - eg in the series - do we really need to define ourselves as traders, speculators, gamblers or fools? Some of those guys made the cut - others were washed out and washed up by the change from open-outcry, to electronic trading. What is it that defines us as traders, in terms of constantly evolving markets?

Watching this series of videos is a prerequisite for participating in the thread "Defining Yourself as a Trader": http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f208/defining-yourself-trader-9844.html#post119724 About 75 minutes worth of sobering documentary. You can pretty much ignore part one after the first 2 minutes - it just repeats. But please do not judge the series on just one or two episodes - the whole series kept me going until I had seen all 8 parts. Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: Part 4: Part 5: Part 6: Part 7: Part 8:

Hi Ahimsa Thanks for the compliment. Some things come to mind that may help: 1) Make certain that the strategy you are trading is trust-worthy. You need to trust that your strategy is robust - capable of handling the conditions and is a consistent performer. Poor strategies make anxious traders. 2) Make certain that the amount of money you risk is no more than 2% of your account. Risking too much of your account will escalate your anxiety more than any other reason. 3) Check the higher time frame to determine the trend. If you trade the 15Min TF then you need be confident that the 1H TF is agreeing with your assessment of the trend. It will also work if you check the 4H TF if you trade the 15Min, only your trades may run for longer, with more volatility. To combat this, perhaps you might consider trading the 1H TF using the 4H TF to determine the trend. 4) Try to work out (at the time your make the entry) where you will need to be getting out of the trade. This can be: a) At a pre-determined support/resistance level or a strong Daily/Weekly Pivot Point b) At a semi-unknown level, determined by a trailing stop-loss order c) At your stop-loss level if you can not watch the trade d) At a level BEFORE your stop-loss is hit, that will tell you the trade is not working 5) You should know at all times the maximum money the trade will lose if it goes wrong and you need to be comfortable with such a loss if it occurs. If all these boxes are checked, then you should be able to trade with very low levels of anxiety. For me, the biggest single improvement was to stay within the 2% risk level. Some good traders use 1% because they do not feel the need to make BIG money; their goal is to simply be consistent. What is a large amount of money to some traders is small to others. Get the method right and the money takes care of itself ... it will follow. The above is what I have found to be true in trading. I do not always remain within these rules but every time I break the rule, I either become very anxious about the health of the trade and my money, or the trade simply doesn't work. I guess that one of the signals to a trader that he/she is getting into a poor trade, is that there is a temptation to break or bend the rules. When that happens, the trader would be wise to run away from the trade, and wait for a better setup. By the way - what do you trade? Do you trade Forex or Futures, Equities, Indices or Energy Metals or Commodities? Are you having much success? Cheers Ingot

Saw mention of Wile E. Coyote ... and triggered this memory! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRzcCbjQ_5I]YouTube - Wile E. Coyote finally gets the Road Runner[/ame]

Thanks Johnw I have decided to drop the subject now for 2 reasons:- it is not winning me any friends, and it makes me sound like a grumpy old man ... both are probably true. I think I'll go mainstream ... people don't want to be rocked out of their cosy little trances, and at the end of the day, traders I think just like to be gambling ... very few appreciate thinking differently. I feel people don't really know what to make of my posts sometimes, but that is probably my fault for getting too intense about the topic. Anyway - I have been giving psychologists a hard time - it's time to leave that and move on. They have a right to earn their living too, in the best way they know how. All I have tried to do is point out an alternative "self-help-for-traders" approach. I am happy to do my own thing now. Have appreciated your input, and that of the other people who contributed and got me to clarify a bit of stuff - but this is a great forum, and the differences of opinion never spill into anything personal . Thanks for your thoughtful stuff too mate - really makes me dig deep occasionally through reading .

So please enlighten me - I am very open to the truth - what exactly can a psychologist do that a trader could not do himself? All those years just to make no difference to the figures of traders who fail, despite the course, books webinars and seminars. Is it wrong to question whether a psychologist really has a rightful place in a traders armoury, or is that place a concocted one? When someone comes to me with a $3500 course, don't you think I have the right to know what I am going to get for the outlay? And isn't it right that I should expect to have some answers for that money? That should be set in stone from the outset: "Doctor ... can you help me?" "I'm not sure, but pay the $3500 and we'll surely find out, my son!" "Are you a real doctor?" "Well I usually treat horses, so we shall see." I am not too sure, but I suspect psychologists might be of more assistance in the grief-and-loss field, than in the trading world. Why? Because in grief and loss situations, the problem is not the fault of the client - it is things that happen in life that caused the grief, outside of the control of the client. In short, the client has no responsibility for the tragedy/loss. But in trading - the warnings are everywhere - disclaimers, forums, brokers - all are required to warn of the risks. So there is no excuse for traders NOT to take and accept full responsibility themselves for making a loss. There are many who attempt to warn and educate traders. And I think there are enough people in the so-called "support industry" who have nothing to offer the trader either. I think it is only fair to warn traders about that too, don't you? Particularly when these people can not demonstrate a very good track record, but still feel at ease charging thousands of dollars for their "expertise." It doesn't matter if a person did 20 years preparation for their vocation ... if it is not applicable to the situation, then there is still no place for it. You wouldn't expect a librarian with 30 years experience to practise neuro-surgery, despite having read all the books on the subject? I said before that I don't doubt that there may be situations where the input of a psychologist might be of some assistance, but it is certainly NOT a panacaea for failure. I am not a client of yours, yet you are engaging me at a personal level - a level which speaks of caring ... or at least curiosity. So no - not all psychologists are uncaring, or incurious obviously. But I can't see on this forum where a psychologist entered into dialogue to the degree you have, in an effort to dig out the substance of the issues, and then offered to provide some kind of solution to the issues. I'll take that tour - there certainly are a lot of threads on psychology of trading. I will make it my homework for the weekend to wade through and digest them. And if I find any of the "plenty of suggestions, tips, and information offered, some even by psychologists" then I can report back ... and even bring some pie with me. Humble pie can only be eaten alone. Since you mentioned Rande, then I feel that I can comment on his style and approach in this forum. Can I ask if you easily relate to his style of presentation? Do you find his dialogue impersonal? Do you relate well to his jargon of the science? I would hope so, but I doubt many traders relate to the gushing of expressions that are more at home in a conference of psychologists, and a little above a general trading forum level. That's just my opinion, of course. My own profession requires me to have an understanding of these things as well. But I found my work as a parent to four teenagers as they passed through my hands, was more thorough preparation for counseling than any course I could have done, that I know of. Unless we begin to bring in the work of people like Steve Biddulph. You would be only too well aware yourself, how dealing with children as they grow and develop, helps develop useful skills and insights that can't be acquired from a text-book. And these skills can then be taught to parents who are having problems with "difficult" children. The same goes for trading. You can't help a trader unless you have been involved in trading yourself. I think I challenged Rande somewhere to actually do a few trades - even demo trades - and see if he still sings from the same song-sheet! A few people on the forum have noted that you don't have to be a trader to be able to be a psychologist for traders. I disagree on that - and I think you would also have reservations about it, if you think about it. My answer to that is that the best person to teach you to fish, is another fisherman. Perhaps the psychologists are failing to sell exactly what it is that they offer the trader, and perhaps a little example or two would be in order. I would hope that we are over the "discipline" cliche, and there is something there with a little more depth. Discipline can be dealt with in 20 seconds ... what's next? FXGirl, you are an unusually gracious person - anyone else who copped the flack I have been slinging might have batted quite a bit back. I can accept I have been top-heavy in my approach to this issue. You are quite right in some of your wonderings. Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement. I think it would be more bad judgement for me to continue.

Should some people even be trading? I wonder whether even I should be, given that I am slowly pegging away at the bar just above break-even. Trading has not delivered the kind of transition I had hoped. In my professional career in I require full energy, alertness and physical fitness. Trading represents for me, a way to continue to provide for self/significant others who depend on me, in the fast-approaching times when my physical stamina and endurance are waning. I do not think my issues are anything psychology can assist with. And after 7 years at this, I have yet to meet a trader who can put up their hand and say truthfully: "I am now replacing my former salary, thanks to the intervention of Dr X in my trading approach." I don't doubt that there may be one hiding somewhere who can say: "the psychologist made the difference" but my point is that of the many hundreds of traders I believe are "doing ok" most of that would be down to their own diligence and hard work. I think a mentor would be a better choice if a trader has a few thousand dollars to dump someplace. The main - and glaring - issue here, is the hundreds of courses, books, webinars, seminars, all totalling many millions of dollars annually I suspect, that simply PERPETUATE the mythology. Do you think attendees and subscribers would say on exit: "I now have the tools to win at trading" ... and then 10 days later, have forgotten it all, or simply fallen back into bad trading habits? The presenter of the seminar/course etc of course, knows he has not solved anyone's problems. How does he know? Because if the attendee was now trading well, the guru's front door would be knocked down by frenzied traders with a fist-full of hundred dollar bills, begging for him/her to impart their secrets to them too. Good news travels fast too! And all this, "taught" by people who do not trade themselves. In a sentence - they can not even follow their own advice! The stuff is theory ... mythology ... but it sounds good, and the "example" looked good at the time. I would have to stand by that one - I believe many traders have "made it' without actually having picked up a book on psychology. This is one of those grey areas - how do you measure the influence of anything? I hope I am honest enough to post here if there is anything I can personally point to that I do, based on assistance gained from input from psychological sources. Have psychologists made any difference to those statistics ... or not? I still believe that deferring to a psychologist is a distraction ... it offers hope to the trader that "something can be done" to 'fix" their trading problems. Maybe it can ... it's just that I have never seen it. In the meantime, the trader could be using the time more constructively. I can point you to something that CAN make a difference ... it is free ... it is available and open to ALL traders ... and it is not based on psychology ... and I believe the application of it - by lazy traders - would make quite a large dent in those statistics: "95% of traders fail" http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/f18/fear-greed-9058.html ... refer to post #24 Would that make a difference? I wonder, if we did a poll, how many traders would admit to the fact that NOT following their plan, or by assuming larger risks in trading than they should, is responsible for their trading failure? In the past I would have to put my hand up as being guilty on both counts. And even today I have to watch myself that I don't "lash out" with big trades when I think I am correct! The impulse trade we spoke about earlier. I didn't need to have that professionally diagnosed and treated - that came naturally because I was keeping records and going over my trades for evidence of malpractice! That is why I think a coach would be of far more value - or a mentor. I hope to respond more fully shortly Ingot

So much theory ... so little substance! Try stepping back a little and try to visualise what is going on. The word "fear" is misused here, and in fact it suits some to call it fear. It makes the markets sound more formidable than they really are. That in turn gives the fear doctors a mandate to step in: "Fear not! Thy redeemer cometh!" ... and so begins the therapy to overcome the enemy ... fear! Hundreds ... thousands of dollars later, the dog comes back to bite! Unfortunately a bit more objectivity is required before swallowing what the book-sellers want us to believe - the myth that the markets are going to hurt us. The truth is the markets never hurt anyone - we place ourselves in positions where we are vulnerable outside our tolerance for risk. This does NOT give rise to the emotion called fear at all ... do not believe the gurus. The actual emotion is called "anxiety" ... heard of it before? Dealing with anxiety in trading does not require a deep analysis of the limbic system, the reptilian brain or the amygdala ... such things are a red herring ... a distraction. While anxiety and fear may exhibit overlapping characteristics - some may say that fear gives rise to anxiety - they are very different emotions, as the experts should know, and should really be more up-front about in a discussion like this. When looked at in the context of anxiety, the problems become a softer tone of red, and more assailable at least. But the bottom line here is knowledge of your edge, and trust that your strategy in applying that edge, has a positive expectation over time. It's hard to be confident and anxious at the same time, but a complete absence of anxiety is probably unhealthy too. The point at which that anxiety becomes pathological will be different for every trader. When that occurs, the trader needs to go back to the drawing board, examine the strategy and the edge, and re-test and understand its legitimacy - its place in his business. Then take responsibility for APPLYING that edge. It's a formula that works, and if it is not working, then go back. Which leg of the three-legged stool is rubbery ... broken? A friend of mine from a few years back on another forum, said that a little paranoia is healthy in trading. Anxiety is related to risk ... exposure. Traders who are risking only 2% should hardly be anxious, unless they are consistently failing to apply their proven edge. Other than that, then the trader may be risking very large chunks of the account, and is anxious - very anxious about it indeed! Cutting down on risk/exposure to a level that the emotions can easily accommodate, would be a logical first step. Learning to establish and trust the edge and the strategy would go hand-in-hand with this process. Stop being in a hurry! Then half the problems will disappear, leaving the mind free to deal with the remaining issues.

No problem with that, Qiman ... actually none whatsoever. My trading is done for the night - Aussie time so I'm on overtime rates now! But I think we are talking about apples and peaches here. Feel free to disagree that trading is different from athletics. To you it may be the same - to me they are vastly different fields. Trading is "you" against "the market" while an athlete strives against others. An athlete will get another day to compete - a trader gets just one shot. Regardless ... I think what you are on about is more aligned to coaching than psychology. Psychologists are more about resolution of fear, tranquility training, being relaxed and overcoming anxiety. I do not dispute there are things in common - goal visualisation, relaxation techniques - (music, mantra, meditation and so on) reconstruction and critique of the event - but none of these actually require a psychologist - traders can do this independently. All of these things the trader can fix himself ... or avoid in the first instance, through being prepared in ways I have outlined to the nth degree now in my posts ... but it's ok ... really ok ... if you don't think a trader can actually do these things without that crutch of a professional psychologist. My position is that you can ... it's fine if you need a psychologist - I do not. I am happy with my wiring, and I do not feel the need to have any of that meddled with or adjusted by someone who doesn't know me, doesn't care about me, and only sees me as another bum-on-seat in his client waiting room. They are obviously here to tout for clients - not one psychologist has stepped forum members through even ONE trade ... and that's because they DON'T trade. Why are psychologists coming onto trading forums? Because that's where the business is. Trading forums are fields rich for the pickings - 95% of traders are said to be failing or failed, and guess who can fix that! Well, after many years of Mark Douglas, Van K Tharp, and the Brett Steenbarger's of the world, those stats are still right up there!! Not a scratch ... not a dent ... not even the shine gone off that figure ... 95% still quoted as the bar to cross to be classed as a trading success. Now do you understand where I am coming from? Or maybe the 5% successful traders have all been to see a psychologist, who whispered the magic formula in their ears! And this to me, is proof that they are simply a yuppi accessory for the well-heeled and lazy traders, who are too challenged to discover a few things for themselves! How much "help" does any psychologist give to traders on this forum? Since when did a psychologist offer anything to forum members for free ... yet members are posting freely EVERY DAY, things that are classified as tips, helpful info, things that work and so on. Not so the psychologist - it's all take and no give. The dialogue is all designed to inform the forum how learned the psychologist is ... and nothing offered at the every-man's level where application of even ONE decent principle would boost their chances of securing a paid client! What I have been objecting to all along, is psychologists who have never traded an apple pie for a cream bun, setting up shop and offering for a minimum $3500 plus extras ... to help traders turn from losers to winners ... and all with no guarantees offered. My issues with this are obvious - where does the trader turn when it fails? How is he going to get some recompense for the $3500+ ? Why not ask actual traders for help - build rapport and seek genuine answers? Why not work with someone who walks the walk ... talk is cheap ... well not at $3500 it isn't! Are the trading problems psychologically based? Who said so? Who diagnosed that ... the trader ... other peers ... the touting psychologist? Could it be that the failing trader is simply too darned lazy to do some work himself and is happy to pay? What exactly does the psychologist intend to do? How will the psychologist make a difference to trading outcomes? Is the expectation of the trader aligned with reality ... or a misguided perception of progress for the time involved in trading? Is the trader looking for an answer to his trading problems, or help with getting his trading to fire? What is the psychologist going to do to assist the trader that is not already available to him? Dos the trader need psychological assistance ... or help defining an edge - something a non-trading psychologist can not offer? Who is it that places emphasis on the psychological aspects of trading? Traders? ... or psychologists with courses to sell? Who decides whether the issues the trader struggles with are psychological ones, or to do with strategy, edge, market, time-frame capitalisation, experience, environment etc? Does the trader require a psychologist to learn to trade, or does the mindset grow with experience? And who says so? Look Qiman, I could go on and on adding to this list. My contention in the post that drew your attention (above) is that a trader need simply to experience winning a few times, and to link that winning with his habitual approach to trading. An approach that includes ... focus on the strategy commitment to excellence in executing that strategy conviction that his strategy is matched correctly to his preferred style of trading conviction that his edge is proven and statistically robust and when these are executed cleanly, it can be spelled out in a word ... discipline. I have tried in the past on TL to expand on that word, to show traders that it is NOT some form of punishment, but a way of life for a trader. And it need not be a sad life - especialy when it leads to successful trades. In the above post I mentioned the work of Og Mandino - the key concept of which I felt was: "I will form good habits and become their slave." Now I am happy to be proven wrong, but where - in what I have posted here, above, or elsewhere on the forum - is there any room for a psychologist to make any difference to a trader's trades? Can a psychologist give a trader an edge, a strategy, experience, enough capital, patience, a technique, a suitable trading environment and so on? He can certainly point out that such things are needed, but he cannot provide them.. I can also point out that such things are needed, and I give the information to you for free. Want some trading music ... some zen ... a new strategy ... a new market to trade? ... we can talk. But I would be interested to hear what you have to say about why a psychologist is an essential part of the trader's collection! As far as "An understanding of how the mind actually works is key to so many fields including trading" I am a bit uncertain, and to be candid - I am sceptical about that. I wonder how many old school traders went to a psychologist and asked: "Dr. ... tell me how the mind actually works, so I can be a trading success." I wonder about that - I wonder if such traders need their mother's approval before they decide if it's the EURUSD tonight or the GBPCHF! Look - I have said before - unless traders do some darned hard work - and get serious about what they are doing, then all the psychologists in the world are are not going to get that light bulb changed. Just an opinion - it doesn't have to be yours.

Congrats! all ... Tams nailed it - a great and very special forum - no peers! Attached is a celebration gift for all members - Napoleon Hill's "Think and Grow Rich" Hope it's not too heavy on bandwidth. Napoleon Hill - Think and Grow Rich.pdf

How should we "re-wire" Rande? Who is going to "re-wire" us? What is going to re-wire us? What kind of new wiring will we have, that is different from the old wiring? A bit surreal, isn't it!! The new cliche ... "hard-wired" ... but I concede it does enable the concept of "it's not my fault" to be perpetuated. And it does let the marketers of the "Psychological Solution" get a foot in the door with their "re-wiring" of the nasty problem-brain courses and therapy. The devil will be wearing ice-skates before I let anyone fool around with my hard-wires ... :rofl: And I want to caution people that it is a very dangerous thing to allow anyone to dismantle and reconstruct things that have become part of the personality since early consciousness. They are things NOT to be meddled with. There is an entire industry dedicated to selling solutions to trading woes. I regard this industry as a parasite. Most of them have never traded more than an apple for a candy bar in their lives. But the truth about this industry needs to be out in the open - it is bleeding traders with false and tempting offers of a panacea for issues that are manufactured for marketing purposes. The rot set in when the concept of "market psychology" or "herd psychology" became the new reasoning under the guidance of people like Alexander Elder. The "psychology of the market" became the "psychology of the trader." You only have to trot out a few testimonials, and a few "me too's" and voila! you have an entire new industry feeding from the hapless trader. Changing the personality is not going to change the degree of success. A neurotic trader with good habits is going to out-perform a neurotic trader with bad habits every time ... and no psychologist is going to change that - regardless of any therapy undertaken for the neurosis! There is a role for therapists in psychological pathology, but to attempt to apply this to vocational pursuits is an abuse of trust in the profession - and I would say a mis-application of the intent of the profession. This is right off-topic now ... and has little to do with why people are attracted to trading. But it needs to be laid to rest. Traders can change their behaviour by making certain motivated choices. It is really NOT that hard to align the mind with successful trading traits. The hard bit, is making the decision to become that kind of trader, andactually apply those principles. This can take three weeks or three months: "Success is a habit." Perhaps reading Og Mandino's "The Greatest Salesman in the World" might lend a few clues ... "I will form good habits and become their slave." For things to change, YOU have to change. The old joke actually has a useful application: "How many Psychiatrists does it take to change a light-bulb .... one ... but the light bulb must W-A-N-T to change" Doing a course with no burning desire, or "want" will probably achieve nothing for a trader. The "answer" is within and the answer is in words like ... choice, responsibility, accountability and commitment applied to trading activity. The "I WILL ..." spoken with conviction and substance can accomplish more than any phooey hard-re-wiring rubbish. If you are finding that your emotion is overtaking your method, then take a break. Get back in touch with your strategy, and composure. Just be a person of your word. If you Google "Og Mandino's 10 Scrolls" you will find the complete book laid open on the Internet. It is short, and can be read in minutes. Contrast what Og Mandino says with what the peripheral and parasitic traders support industry is saying, and a credibility issue seems to arise. Hope that is cleared up and we can get back on topic.

Can happen to anyone ... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK42LZqO0wA&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Martin Solveig & Dragonette - Hello (Official Short Video Version HD)[/ame]

Great post, Siuya. How many of us attempt to minimalise our taxes past the point that we are entitled to? How many take home the workplace office stationery when we need a note-pad or a pen or pencil? How many run a red light sometimes, speed sometimes, take right-of-way off other vehicles sometimes, snatch a car parking bay before someone who was waiting before us, and so on. Does the degree of the event make it a crime, or is the crime in the attitude and the intent? We should think about that answer, and then go back and see if it matches what we thought about Rande's Ponzi-man. Is he more guilty because it was a large amount of funds, or is he equally guilty with the person who steals the office stationery ... "It's just a pencil"! Which "crime" had the most intent? The one with the biggest impact financially, which mushrooms into an unintended consequence ... or the one that involved thinking: "It's ok ... it's not of much value, it won't be missed" and probably continues to be perpetuated for years in the office. Personally I think I am just as guilty of wrong-doing when I take home a pencil that I KNOW does not belong to me, as a shop-lifter who walks out of the store wearing a $200 jacket he hopes to get away with.

Nice to see I am finally leading a competition, somewhere, somehow ... Closer scrutiny will reveal I am losing the least, after my first day trading the Oanda platform. :rofl: I hope my moment in the sun is not short-lived ... I am actually testing a new system this month, and feel quite good about it. I have to say it has been a couple of years since first road-testing the Oanda plat, and I forgot how smooth and fast it is. When compared to the MT4 platform I have been relying on for charting and demo trades for the past 6 years, the Oanda platform is a sports-car! No requotes. No delay. The trade is entered faster than you can blink! You get the price you clicked. How are you other guys going ... happy with your trades? Are you swing-trading, scalping, position trading? No need to give away secrets ... heh heh ... but today I just took the signals ... except for a bit of news scalping. I did make one huge error though. As I entered more trades, I did not notice that they dropped below the chart screen, and I forgot about them. By the time I noticed my a/c balance was severely in the red, and wondering where the losing pips were coming from, I had lost enough pips to not want to mention the number here! :crap: Anyway - big lesson, and there are many trading days ahead. Good luck to everyone.

If you are enthusiastic and want to see some true reports of the 26th December 2004 Tsunami, then is is worth 30 minutes. Well put together, and anecdotal accounts before and after have been woven into this to reconstruct the disaster. Real footage, real stories. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XKYKNvEvdI&feature=relmfu]YouTube - The Day the Wave Came - 30 min documentary[/ame]

Continuing with the theme of "The Most Important Video Series You'll Ever See" I think this one qualifies. You may not live in Honolulu, or even in the Hawaiian Islands, but if you are reading this, chances are you are living near the sea shore somewhere, or within 50 miles of the ocean somewhere on the planet, based statistically on demographics. This could happen at any time, to any shoreline: YouTube - Ultimate Tsunami - Honolulu Hawaii

Ok - problem solved. I upgraded to the new version of F'Fox a few days ago, and now it is blocking my Oanda pop-up/java platform I switched back to Internet Explorer just for the Oanda Platform, and Bob's your Uncle - working fine Now to work out how to circumvent the F'Fox security switch!! I missed an excellent short in USDCHF ... but might nail it if it pulls back

Unfortunately I am unable to log in to my Oanda account. I have emailed them for support. All that is coming up is a little window that says: "The OANDA FXGame Platform should appear in one or two minutes." But I have had time to consume a cut lunch, and have tried logging in a couple of times over the past 30 minutes ... dead as the proverbial dodo! I must be doing something wrong - would like to have these issues sorted out before opening a live Oanda account. Cheers

Hurting a tad are we? And the wonderful thing is ... I don't get to get ripped off by urgers touting for more dupes to attend illegal gambling sites, to make others wealthy. I understand why you don't wish this side of things to become well known! Terse statement Pat ... but you didn't answer any questions - nicely deflected. Insults towards a poster are not actually counted as legit answers.

Urma ... I trust you. How long will it take me to learn whether a flush beats a full? And how long will it take me to crack the 6 figure income mark? Urma I believe you. Which of the biggest online sites is credible? Where does the "hundreds of millions of dollars" come from? I am not in this to lose - I would be only playing to WIN. This is beginning to sound a little competitive ... I don't like the way this is heading. No, it was just a nasty rumour started by some sad loser. "Dozens" = plural = at least 24 people "making 6 figures and more." So how many people do you know that lose? And how many losers are there for these people to be making 6 figures (and more)? I am actually pleased, Urma. Because if a handful of layabouts can fleece the unskilled and unwary, then of course something has to be done to level-out the playing field. You might have noticed that the regulators have recently tightened the screws on Forex trading sites, advertisers, brokers, and the amount of leverage allowed and so on. I wonder why? And I wonder if you also resent that? Regulation of financial industries, or activities can only be a good thing, since we have witnessed what happens when regulation is absent. Tell me, what is your REAL problem with regulation? You keep asserting that the game is honest, the sites are to be trusted, but then you quote mates who are gleaning "6 figures and more". Sounds a little unbalanced somewhere. In fact, it sounds like there is an edge amongst the online elite that the rubes don't know about. Right? You want motives, Urma? Then why don't you begin by telling us why the online sites have been banned? I asked in my previous post, whether you had ever played in an illegal online poker site. I made an error. I should have asked if you had ever played in a legal one. To which I add, do you still play in legal/illegal rooms? Now if someone plays in an illegal online room, I have to question whether they would have the same scruples in dealing with other illegal activities. I can't say, because I don't know. But we already have your word for it that you know at least 24 people who make 6 figures and more, in some of these online rooms. Now to my way of thinking, all of this money had to be made in illegal online gaming rooms. If not, then you would surely have no hesitation in naming the rooms you play in that are NOT illegal ... right? This goes to the very heart of why the industry is regulated to begin with. Have you ever tried to get your winnings, or at the least, the balance of your account, back from an unregulated site? You see, it is hard enough to get money back when they ARE regulated. Your story is really pie-in-the-sky rubbish, but that's just as far as I am concerned - others can believe what they wish about this. Most of your posts mention the wonderful sums of money made by 24 mates, or some chick from somewhere who made a mil or two playing in some respected joint in an unregulated fairyland. How about you begin to show a bit of conscience, and balance the picture a little. What about the rubes who lose? What about the hundreds and thousands who are so green that they don't have a ghost of a chance? Some of these rubes don't know a spade from a heart - all they see is $$$. Yet following the wonderful stories posted on sites like TL, I wonder how many members from here have rushed out and joined some hitherto unknown site? How many have bought your book of "Poker 101 for the Unwary" because in just 5 short lessons they too will be making 6 figure sums? You see, Urma, or Pat, there is something amiss in all of this, and I think that as in war, one of the first casualties is ... er ... the truth. You didn't answer my question about algorithms.

No - he resigned the role of "head" but retained 433,000 company options, held in a "trust". Cheney Gets 'Deferred' Salary From Halliburton Democrats Question Cheney's Halliburton Payments Will Stolen Iraq Oil Funds and Deals For Cronies Force Cheney Impeachment? It was house-keeping ... symbolically a gesture to appease the politically correct ... tick all the boxes and she'll be apples, mate! Do you really think Cheney would give up his Halliburton game for the mere VP position, that would at best last only 8 years? This is a man who likes money and power, and the VP job was only a small step in the scheme of things. Ha ha. :rofl: :helloooo: Oh ... and he was also a very poor shot! Dick Cheney NRA Gun Photo - Cheney Photo Parody Click on the "Previous/Next" link to see them all! I am unsure about Greenspan being a Libertarian. For one thing, true Libertarians do not promote the accumulation of unmitigated debt as a policy. Fact! The closest thing the US political system has to a Libertarian, is Ron Paul, and you already know how they treat him! And don't Ron Paul's policies include making the US Gov't balance its books, to stop racking up debt, to practice fiscall competence and accountability and responsibility? Greenspan showed none of this. No, he was certainly NO Libertarian. The stage for the GFC was set before the 2000 tech boom/bust, when those who thought we were in for a never-ending bull market continued to borrow and create their way into insane derivative-driven debt. I remember the analysis of the 1987 stock-market collapse. The single most important cause identified, was the unbridled creation and use of derivatives in financial markets. Fast forward to the year 2000, and the lessons were all forgotten - "it's different this time" ... and even the 1998 collapse of the LTCM Hedge Fund didn't ring any alarm bells with the regulators. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bear Stearns, Lehman bros, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and so on all had their snouts in the derivatives trough. The first hint of trouble came, I remember very well, was when Bear Stearns was unable to sell some of their bundles CDO's. They asked for time. Credit Spreads widened, and suddenly the game was up. In July 2007 I think, BS held about 20 times leveraged CDO's and was unable to get a bid - liquidity had suddenly dried up. Bear was sold for $10/share later ... after indignantly saying the first offer, $2/share was outrageous. It was ... Bear was quoted in its heyday at $133/share ... less than a year earlier! Why had this occurred? because their mates at the Federal Reserve GUARANTEED their losses ... moral hazard again. But the screws are tightening. Firms like Standard and Poors, Fitch, Moodies ... all have one thing in common - they were responsible for rating the risk. They all failed. They - above ALL OTHERS should have been acutely aware of the risk - that is their job ... that is why they charge clients fees ... and they have the lessons of history more acutely in front of their eyes than any of the firms mentioned ... or should have, As soon as the "too big to fail" mantra became common, then the moral hazard genie was out of the bottle. And the biggest fish to date - Goldman Sachs themselves, have along with Warren Buffett, capitalised on this. They are abusing the knowledge that the US Fed Reserve would NOT allow the bigger companies to go down. The Fed guarantees the losses of these biggies. And why? Because per employee, GS might have more "inside men" involved in US Government departments that any other private company. Is this fair to the people who actually do have morality and are trying to do what is right? I have said before, and I say it once again - the Fed should have allowed the "too-big-to-fail" companies to go to the wall. Let the carnage happen. Then they could have spent just a fraction of the money they have, on cleaning up the disaster zone, without the likes of GS, MS, JPM, ML and Lehman etc. And the big three agencies, colluding to cover up the risk - S&P, Fitch and Moodies? The executives should have been, and still should be, gaoled. A total abrogation of fiscal responsibility and assessment, to protect the system. But hey! Disagree if you wish - it won't change anything. The system is corrupt ... there is no one - NO ONE - who will put up the hand and say: "The buck stops with ME." The public service is too top-heavy with vested interests, lobbyists, favors to be repaid, bribes to be settles, graft and corruption widespread. yet the people don't give a hoot. Where are the protest movements? Where are the activists? Where are the watch-dogs in American Society? Voters thought Obama would do it ... but he couldn't even close Gitmo. All Obama has achieved is QE1 and 2 which is only prolonging the timing and increasing the size of the coming collapse. He had a mandate to wind it all back, and to balance the budget, and to hold those responsible to account. Blew it! You see why the rich really get richer? Because they are all feeding at the same trough, and there is no one who is not corrupt to speak out against them. Am I wrong? I am not familiar with Ron Paul, or his policies, but it seems to me that he has been calling for a very long time now, for some kind of austerity and budgetary common sense in Washington. It seems to me that his calls have been for more than 10 years, consistently and fearlessly. But the system is too big now ... and people with true vision and integrity are easy to ignore when the press is echoing the noises from inside the halls of power, and not the small voices of reason from without. I wish we had such strength of accountability in my country, of the kind Ron Paul displays.

Tradewinds - the topic is "The Rich Really Get Richer" ..."The Poor Getting Poorer" is an introduced topic to the main one. This is an easy one - there is only ever going to be so much wealth produced. For anyone to improve their wealth, they have to add value to what they produce. The rich seem to have simply worked out a way to arrive at the destination without taking the journey! Originally in an agrarian society, wealth was created by producing more food and so on. The harder you worked, the more you were able to produce. You received the just rewards for your labour. And the whole community was the beneficiary - eg no one went hungry - the humane thing was to feed everyone - including the church organist and the undertaker, despite the fact that they didn't till the fields. They still served their useful role well. Today, the attitude is: "It's mine! I don't share!" And people accumulate for the sake of counting the numbers, while their brothers starve to death, or live in disease-ridden squalor, when they needn't. Is that good ... or evil? The solution is easy, but it has never been tried. Communism comes very close to it, but the worst Capitalists are the Communists! True Communism, like true Christianity, has never been practised. No one likes having any authority to have to answer to - to be responsible to, or to accept any guidance from. It's "My way or the highway" No one likes being told how to run their lives. No ... and that's the problem ... simple! Fixed in one. No one lives by the Golden Rule any more. And those who support the Kleptocracies in Africa for political and economic gain, are only locking in the African people to continuing oppression and poverty. Why? Abuse of power, that's all. The human being was not designed to handle power. He was designed to be a gregarious and a cohabiting entity, guided by a set of rules-for-living, established a few years back. Last time I looked, the rules were still working and valid. But people like me are a vanishing breed - we are ticked-off as "idealists" or "altruistic Polly-Anna-types" when the reality is there is no need for the mess we have made of the planet economically, socially, ecologically, and politically. Every single problem has come about by two things: i) Breaking the Rules ii) Not holding the rule-breaker to account Any more problems you want solved today? Then please refer to the above.

Zuckerberg has a lower profile (at the moment) but if you mention his name with Buffett and Gates, then I would have to lump him in with the seriously most evil capitalists of all time. Google obviously has heard of Zuckerberg though: Could 7-year-old emails halve Zuckerberg's Facebook stake? - Computerworld Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss: 'Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg owes us £310 million' - Telegraph Eduardo Saverin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Read the F "FaceBook entry) ... doesn't sound like a nice fella, does he! Don't collapse over that ... At some point all of these entrepreneurs had to make a moral decision. And it is here that they turn from the public interest (providing a service that made them wealthy) to perpetuating something that is selfish and is slowly bleeding the very public who helped establish them to begin with. Buffett: Don't know how he obtained his grub-stake, but his behaviour during the GFC has been nothing short of awful ... (this is a family show, so I can use the appropriate language to describe this fellow). He behaved like an opportunist parasite. You might like to point to how his "investment" in Goldman Sachs "saved" that institution from going down the road traveled by Lehman. What a shame he did that - I would crawl 400 yards over broken glass naked to see the collapse of GS! The firm that has more of the American taxpayers money in their vaults than even Halliburton. And they have arguably participated in more manipulation and evil activities in Washington to the detriment of the American people, than any other single company. Buffett also invested in Dow Chemical and General Electric under similar juicy terms. Warren Buffett’s Profit on GE Investment: $1.2 Billion - Deal Journal - WSJ Thanks Mr Buffett. That was just his GE profit! So what did Mr Buffet get for his GS "investment" of $5 billion? $3.7 billion profits ... 74%! Someone put it at $9.51 per second. Now under "normal" business arrangements, that would be great capitalist investing. After all, Buffett punted on GS being "too big to fail" (read: too many mates in Washington to fail) ... well-and-good, right? Er ... no. The problem is that GS got bailed out by their Washington mates, under a process known now as "privatising the profits, but socialising the debts." In other words, GS's bailout came from you, the taxpayer, but went to Buffett the investor. GS is now feeling the blow-torch to the belly as they are under investigation for selling real estate derivatives - CDO's, which they openly joked amongst themselves were "junk". While they were selling these, they were actually "short" on those same derivatives themselves!! Investors Need to See Mainstreet Anger in the Light of Goldman Sachs Derivatives Scandal And this is the company our much revered Warren Buffett desperately wanted to see survive. I want to vomit! Really. Now for our Philanthropic mate Mr Gates. Remember the anti-trust fight? Microsoft loses antitrust battle - IT News from V3.co.uk And that was just the stuff they could prove. But there were predictions that once George Bush became President, the rulings would be reversed ... they were correct: Microsoft Antitrust Ruling Reversed By U.S. Appeals Court Ask any free-source software engineer what they think of Mr Gates. Ask anyone who has had to pay for incessant Windows upgrades, anti-spy/mal/snoop/ad-ware what they think of Mr Gates. Ask anyone who has had to rebuild an entire software network because of hacking what they think of M Gates. Ask anyone who has ever had to deal with Computer viruses The 9 Types of Computer Viruses To Watch Out For & What They Do what they think of Mr Gates. Note: Trojans and worms are technically NOT viruses - similarly to how Adware/malware/spyware is not classes as virus software. Now - anyone still in denial? Then consider this, if there was no alternative, then Gates could be seen to be "clean"! Ask Linux and the many other virus-free software platforms available, whether MS could have done more to prevent this costly problem. Again ... "privatising the profits, but socialising the problem." Do you think the MS corporation is unhappy that virus software so easily pervades their Internet Explorer and Outlook Express software? Ha ha ha! :rofl: But I will let someone else have the last word on Gates: Bill Gates - a knol by David Blomstrom The problem is that the lines are blurred. On the one hand we love to applaud heroes who "made good" from scratch and we love to point to all the good that has come out of their activities. On the other hand, we like to turn a blind eye to the seriously criminal activities these foljks seem to have been involved in - not my words - I refer to the cases brought against them in the courts. We seem to be thinking of "the greater good" and not the truth, or what is truly good about their activities. We love to delude ourselves, because we secretly would love to have their story on our own CV. Siuya - I think you may have been a little liberal with the true figures, regarding wealth in this world. You might be right regarding "there are more people in the world who are wealthier than in the history of the world" but that really means nothing. Relative to what? Did you do the Global Rich List exercise? If you are really trying to say that the AVERAGE person's wealth in the world is better than at any time in history, I would disagree. If you have one person with $1 billion, and 99 people with one cent, then the average wealth approaches $10 million each. But if you then double the first man's wealth to $2 billion, the average wealth jumps to $20 million, yet the 99 others still only have one cent. That is what is really going on here. Most of the people in the world are NOT actually the beneficiaries of "increasing wealth." This is the privilege of a handful of entitled people, who have absolutely zero interest in the people they derive their billions and millions from. People are merely a commodity to be milked. The smartest wins. I would say the Somalian Pirates are getting wealthier, and I would largely lump in the people I spoke about earlier, as possibly sharing similar sentiments towards those they "serve." But what if you're not a Pirate? Read on ...