jackb

Are you serious or just being facetious?

Right on the money Qiman, except I would add that OVER TIME current system probabilities can and will change permanently and if one is complacent and unwilling to adapt, they will end up trading a system that no longer has an edge. The rub, of course, is that there's no way to know if the system is just going through a temporary excursion or if it has permanently changed (system bust). What doesn't change, as you so eloquently stated, is the inescapable fact that losses will need to be endured even with a system that's firing on all cylinders.

I disagree with your disagreement. You're playing a semantic game. Everything you do in life is a gamble. It doesn't get any better than putting the odds in your favor. What more do you need or want?

"trading is nothing more than GAMBLING" That's only true to the extent a trader is clueless about whether or not he has an edge.

Laurus I'm not familiar with the "guy in Germany." Can you provide more details? Thanks.

This has been identified in real time and it played out exactly as expected: PowerCharting Joins TTM - Page 16 - Traders Laboratory Forums Gruesome...and he's still selling his "professional trading" services.

If you have only been trading 3 years, I suspect, unfortunately, you still have some tuition to pay.

But your comments show that you're the average one...(yes, I'm being generous).

Yep, I understand what you're getting at. My question was/is a bit rhetorical as well. Just trying to make the point that alluding to one's own trading prowess in a post is ridiculous. Since no one is going to believe (and nor should they) any claim of performance, alluding to it in a post is pointless. But, some people apparently can't help themselves and feel it somehow will lend that much needed "credibility" to their comments. Actually, it does the exact opposite. The bottom line is that it's 1) not worth making such reference to performance, 2) it adds nothing to the conversation and 3) it wreaks of desperation (imo).

I'll call shenanigans on the 2-5% daily (as in each and every day). And if it doesn't add to the conversation (which you're right, it doesn't), what possessed you to make the statement in the first place?

I suspect that you probably are completely unaware of the built-in bias embedded in your comments and that you didn't deliberately mean any offense, but you should know that night/day sessions are the equivalent of day/night sessions for non-US based traders. There are people on this board from all over the world and we now live in a global community. A US-centric mindset is so 1970s. And while this may sound harsh, a more expansive mindset might help you make more sense of the markets overall. Begin by trying your own comments on for size. Recount your observations but shift the time frame to treat the European or Asian session as the Day session and then relegate the US overnight session to a place and time where apparently "subtle tricks" are played out. Does that paint a clear enough picture? The European markets are as substantial as the US and it won't be long before the Asian markets out pace both. Then the shoe will be unequivocally on the other foot.

No, I was struggling with understanding the logic. Your apology is very gracious. Thanks much.

What about my post did you contort in your mind as being an insult? If you can't respond with a specific example, I'll be happy to oblige. And who are you to play judge as to "what we're here for"? While flailing around on your soapbox, you seem to have forgot to direct your comment to Tradewinds as he's the one that brought up subject. And why are you posing a question to me that isn't related to trading? Isn't this a violation of your own rule?

Your question is bit unruly and disjointed and therefore hard to respond to. But, here goes: 1. An exchange is a secondary market. As such, trades executed on an exchange don't have any direct impact with respect to "providing...capital for companies." 2. Does an increase in traders number make general share prices higher? One major factor not included in your question is volume. If 1000 traders are each interested in only buying 1 share and the average daily volume is thousands or millions of shares, it certainly won't matter. 3. Your question also appears to have a built in bias...a buy-side bias. Don't forget, new traders can also be sell-side (short sellers). 4. In order for a trade to take place, it requires both a buyer and a seller. Let's assume your 500 new traders are all buy-side and they are looking for sizeable volume. This additional demand may be exactly what a large, motivated seller has been waiting for and he may gobble it up so fast and furious that the end result is price goes nowhere (and even possibly down). 5. What are the profiles of the new traders? Are these informed traders? If they're ill-informed, even with volume, their impact is likely to be muted. Bottom line...it's impossible to know in advance the kind of impact any new set of traders might bring to a stock.

It will be interesting to see how Bitcoin does in this regard.