MP-TT

[ Yes, no doubt. That would be a game ender but I took it as a given that we were employing a legitimate trade size for each coin toss. e.g. no more than 2% of capital. That's why I didn't say that size was 'irrelevant' but just 'not as relevant' as you think. But your answer does raise the following questions: Is it the wiping out of the account that typically prevents the trader from taking just 3 or 4 consecutive losses in the market if he's only risking 2% max? If not, is it because of some deep-rooted, psychological issue? If so, then why is he not affected by this issue on the 3rd or 4th losing coin toss with the same level of paralysing fear? If it isn't due to his confidence in the long-term profitability of the coin-toss, then what is it? How many traders have you ever heard of who blew their accounts because they took small, consecutive losses? I don't know of any but I do know some who emptied their accounts on just one trade. I completely agree that the golf instructor doesn't have to be a Champion himself. That qualification has never been a pre-requisite for me. No, my concern is with the golf instructor who: 1. Has never played golf and therefore, has no experience to bring with them. 2. Has no intention of playing golf. 3. Has no records of how many people have taken his golf course. 4. Has no records of how many have failed to improve as a result of his coaching and has no desire to find out. Do you know of any champion golfers who have had such an instructor? On the subject of risk: Perhaps I misunderstood Steve46's post but I believe that there is a big difference between: 1. Defining what 'risk' is as it relates to trading. and 2. The physical and mental effects upon the trader of taking that risk. and 3. The choice of whether to hedge that risk or not. They are very different animals and should not be confused. Regarding 1: I would defer to Mark Douglas' Chapter on Risk in 'Trading in The Zone'. It's repetitive and hard work but probably the best dissertation on 'risk', as it applies to trading, that I've ever read - although I didn't realize it until the 3rd attempt to read it . Regarding 2: How a person experiences 'risk' is not the same thing as 'risk' itself. Risk is a constant and, for the same trade, will be identical for everyone. However, traders' reactions to that risk are variable. That's what causes so many different results because some traders increase the original risk rather than accept it. A trader will know when he has fully accepted 'risk' in trading when there are no adverse physical and/or mental effects. A state of almost total disinterest in the outcome of a trade is the real Holy Grail of trading IMO. If this is not the case, then survival is still possible but it'll be an uncomfortable survival because he still hasn't fully accepted risk. Many confuse just taking a risk as proof of accepting and understanding it fully. Regarding 3: It is not necessary for a trader to hedge and/or scale trades. Where hedging becomes unavoidable as a strategy is when very large positions or portfolios are held which may be difficult to liquidate in a hurry. Also, if you must have unmonitored positions open for days, then it's prudent to employ some insurance against Black Swan events beyond just Stops (particularly in thinly traded markets). Those tactics have nothing to do with 'risk' itself but are choices a trader makes to mitigate that risk as part of his method. I'm not saying it is either right or wrong to hedge or not hedge. Nor is it necessarily more or less profitable to simply trade full position Outrights and reverse fully when a switch point has been reached rather than scale in/out. Whichever makes a trader more comfortable - go with that. Personally, I prefer to say 'go long' or 'go short' but 'bets' is as good a term as any to describe Outrights - because, in fact, that's exactly what they are. That doesn't make them any less legitimate as a trading method and I don't believe that calling them 'bets' or choosing to trade that way has any bearing on whether a trader understands 'risk' or not. Understanding risk is more about elimination of emotional discomfort and fear by fully accepting and limiting it - not the trading method or nomenclature used.

It's a fair question but I'm not sure it's in the right thread. However, in an attempt to make it so......... Trying to impose any weekly target on the market is unrealistic and counter-productive. I believe that the goal of any trader should be to execute his plan flawlessly. While such perfection is impossible, it should be the overriding goal nonetheless. To continue the golfing comparison. The best Pros on the Tour only concentrate on the next shot - not how much they will make per week. They seek consistency in performance and know that it is that which produces commensurate consistency in the financial rewards. Placing financial goals too high in the trading process introduces a distraction from concentrating on what needs to be done and can lead to problems. Then, the danger of seeking an unproven pseudoscience to make up for that simple lack of focus increases - and can itself, create yet another distraction.

My mistake. The book I was referring to is called 'Trading as a Business' and is the one that you have. I agree that a full-time, experienced coach can be of great benefit - especially if present early in anyone's development. Like you, I've tried learning many things from books etc. - with mixed results. So I accept that 'coaching' can be a great aid to success - but not just any coaching. What I'm less convinced about is the efficacy of a coach who has never competed in the sport and then touts himself as a coach in that sport - providing only books and DVDs plus one hour a month talking over the phone. Maybe that's adequate for someone who's happy with a small improvement in their golf handicap but I don't know of anyone who has reached the top of their sport with such a part-time coaching regime. Do you? I see no reason why trading should be any different. Is it really likely that such paltry, part-time coaching will enable someone to enter the 10% who consistently and successfuly compete against those who have better technology, are better informed and better capitalized? I contend that anyone entering that elite group did not do so because of THAT kind of part-time coaching and was probably very close to reaching the goal anyway. Instead of doing what they knew needed to be done, they sought someone to hold their hand instead. On another note from your next post.. I don't think the amount is as relevant as you think. The problem here is actually the inability to accept sequential losses. That can often be the result of a lack of faith in the method being used. Lack of faith causes a trader to avoid taking trades after even a very short series of losses - as Steve46 mentioned. e.g. If I tossed a coin and paid you $2x every time you called the result correctly but you had to pay me $1x when you got it wrong, how much 'hurt' would you experience on the losses? Whatever your 'pain' threshold is ('x'), I bet you wouldn't feel anywhere near as much pain in the coin toss as you would in the market. The only difference is your faith in the methods' profitability over time. In the coin toss, you'd never NOT take a trade - even after 10 consecutive losses.

[ No - not 'that easy' but I would repeat that it is a 'simple' process ('simple' <> 'easy'). That doesn't mean that you can't make it very difficult if you want to - as I did). My mentor died soon after I started. I had some seeds of an idea but not the specifics. It's taken you 2 years to get here. It took me longer. So if there's something wrong with you, then my condition is/was worse. It's been very hard work for me - but then, I don't have a 'natural gift' for this. The strange thing is that the core idea that I use now is something that I noticed very early (about a year after I started). I did not pursue its development into a trading strategy. I don't know why. Perhaps it was because it was 'too' simple and I was looking for something complicated that I could program into a system to achieve an 'edge'. As a result, I looked at everything else - from Gann's square of nine through Elliott Wave. In fact, I did a Wyckoff course about 10 years ago that was offered out of Phoenix, Arizona. I still have all the workbooks and test results etc. Maybe others can cope with so many subjective and often conflicting indicators - I can't. Another important text for me was as Tradestation 4.0 user when Charlie Wright wrote a book called 'Trading for a Living'. The lasting memory of that book was that Charlie's research concluded that Trend following and 'always-in' reversal methods were the only two that could be proven to be successful. I, (and I believe most traders when starting) are always drawn to Support/Resistance reversal points - for which he was unable to find any proof of success. I don't wish to pass judgment on S/R as a method - if anyone is successful with it, then more power to them - but the book stopped me from pursuing it. In hindsight, noticing my core idea after staring at many charts was probably a subconscious reflection of how I wanted to trade and I should have given it more respect. I've always wanted a clear, unambiguous, totally objective instruction of the direction in which to trade: An exact price to enter; An exact price to exit if wrong and another if the market goes my way. All the other methods contained too many 'contextual' and subjective decisions for my brain to cope with at the very instant that I had to make a trade. So, why did I spend so much time and effort learning about methods that did not tick all those boxes? I have no idea. I think every trader needs to find a method that suits his personality. if you've been searching for 2 years already, the chances are that you've already found something that suits you in the volumes of text that you've read but, like me, you ignored it. I don't know what will 'float your boat' and what floated mine, might leave you cold - but you asked, so I'll answer. The start for me was when I read Larry Williams' study on the the probability of a bar continuing in the same direction as the previous bar. I don't remember the exact numbers but I believe he found that the first bar continues in the same direction as the previous bar approx. 52% of the time. Each subsequent bar does less well statistically. That's an 'edge'. Admittedly not a great one - but it's a start. Note: Las Vegas was built on small percentages - but it takes patience and enormous repetition. Also, markets are not 'normally' distributed. The fat tails are a trader's best friend. They ensure that, over time, you can win much more (not necessarily more often) than a 52% coin toss would return. Also, Larry Williams' study only looked solely at direction - not duration or distance. e.g. Even just plotting any Simple Moving Average reveals that more and wider 'up' bars are generally above the SMA while the equivalent 'down' bars are generally below it. Again, this edge is not great but it is significant Note: it doesn't matter how small 'edges' are, they all add up. IMO, It is also important to be aware that if you're not 'happy' with small edges that only bear lasting fruit with repetition, and despite many inevitable losses, then you are either being very unrealistic about what is possible as an independent trader or your mindset is not suitable for this business. But I digress. Therefore, once the market moves away from the SMA, on a per bar basis, the number of winning trades is more likely to be higher than the losers and, more importantly, the point gain/loss ratio is more likely to be greater too. This is just another way of saying "Stay with the trend" but seeing 'why' it makes sense from the perspective of the ratio of trades won/lossed and the amount of money won/lossed ratio, made it 'real' for me as opposed to it just being a trading cliche. I believe it is a 'can't lose' core strategy. I'm not sure if it matters whether it actually is. I believe it and and that belief helped to remove much of the fear. Much of the confidence comes from the fact that the method that I developed from the core strategy, works in any market and on any timeframe. Where a trader chooses to enter and exit within that strategy depends upon their preferred timeframe, capital and risk tolerance etc. but you could do a lot worse than first reversal bars off an SMA for entries and previous swing highs and lows and points where there is a confluence of traditional T/A indicators, for exits. There is much room for improvement from this core idea. e.g. once the market gets far away from the SMA, reversals can also start with large bars and so I take those signals. OTOH, the market will often just move sideways for hours until the SMA catches up but it is possible to make such a determination early, accept any losses that occurred trying for a reversal, and use that moment to quit for the session or do the things that trading was supposed to allow. Caveat: Even once a method was developed, I found that development difficulty paled in comparison to my difficulty in following it. That was a hurdle I never saw coming. I don't know it that's a universal truth or if it's just me but forewarned is, hopefully, forearmed.

You said bunch there. My mentor used to say that trading is simple but not easy and it's the hardest way to make an easy living. I don't believe anyone ever masters it - it's always a work-in-progress but I no longer have the problems that we're discussing here - but I will always remember them - Ouch! . The best analogy that I can give is that not smoking is equally very simple. e.g. Just don't put a cigarette in your mouth. But if you ever said that to a smoker seeking help, they'd probably roll their eyes and be underwhelmed by such sage advice. But it's a flawless instruction. Furthermore, if/when they eventually do quit, that's exactly what they'll do - no more, no less. Similarly, I rolled my eyes when I first asked my mentor how he decided whether to go long or short and he replied if the market is going up, I go long and if it goes down, I go short. I found that very annoying and frustrating but when I finally cracked through my blocks, that's exactly what I ended up doing - and what I still do. The point is that in both cases (assuming a method with positive expectancy), 'what' to do and 'when' to do it is not the problem - or at least it's one that is easily overcome with a little experience, application and testing. The problem is being unable to do it for some reason. I don't believe the causes/reasons are relevant and understanding them never played any part in my giving up smoking or breaking through my trading block.While I've discussed the subject with many trading colleagues (after all, it is an interesting subject for us traders) I don't know anyone for whom it played a part either. At some point (and this is going to sound trite), I just started doing what I knew I should have been doing all along, with a repetition that caused it to become a new good habit replacing the old bad ones. What was it that suddenly caused me to obey the instructions when I was unable to before? You know, I really haven't a clue and that cluelessness apllies to both trading and smoking. I had tried patches, gum, lower tar, menthol - heroin, crack (just kidding) whatever - but I was unable to stop putting cigarettes in my mouth. Trading had comparable efforts and failures. If I had to guess (and it would be a guess), I would subscribe to your 'I'd just had enough' theory and doing what I knew I should have been doing all along was all that was left after exhausting every other option. On those two habit transforming occasions only 'cold turkey' has worked for me. I realise that may not be much consolation for those still struggling but it does support the concept that it will HAVE to be YOU that does what you know you need to do. No matter how long it takes - your eventual breakthrough comes from 'Just Doing It'. I sincerely believe that looking for someone or something else to provide a 'key' only lengthened the process. So if it's going to take that to get it done eventually anyway, then why bother looking for someone or something to hold your hand? I should add that seeking psychological help is often a last resort. Does anyone start trading by engaging a trading psychologist? I don't think so. So, it's quite possible that we've reached the 'I've had enough' point precisely when we first consider contacting a trading psychologist. If so, perhaps we're right at the goal line only to impose a ten yard penalty upon ourselves.

It is no surprise to me that none of the points made were addressed. Opting to play the 'locked and entrenched belief' card and the tired references to Pogo is, at best, disingenuous. Especially as the author remains ignorant of committing exactly that which he is accusing anyone and everyone with the temerity to question unproven claims. And 'No', a couple of referrals does not constitute proof of efficacy any more than proof of a couple of bullseyes prove that I'm an expert archer. What about the misses? He can't provide details of those because, by his own admission, he doesn't keep records and has no idea how many students he’s had, let alone how many of those have been ‘misses’. There is no way for anyone to know whether the method is effective or just a law-of-averages numbers game to replace lost income from a previous career. Reading the response, must one must conclude that it is only traders who have to accept responsibility for their method and its failures. Most traders accept that truism. But it seems that anyone suggesting that psychologists might be as guilty of the same biased nature and ‘blame game’ are not greeted with the same level of acceptance but lazily labeled unreasonable cynics instead! ‘Cynic’ I take as a compliment – especially in this business - but I fail to see how pointing out the alarming lack of interest in keeping records of how many ‘students’ have taken the course (I guess any interest in how they are progressing is completely out of the question), could ever be considered an ‘unreasonable’ observation. Not keeping what should be important and useful records is a fact – not a belief. No increase in the number of successful traders - even as the number of ‘trading’ psychologists has mushroomed is also a fact – not a belief. However the following are only beliefs ….. How do you know where I am in my trading? What makes you think I need any luck with it or indeed, with my life? How do you know that it isn’t already prosperous? If I told you how much money I manage after 10 years of trading full-time I’m sure you wouldn’t believe how I do as a trader – responding to this thread is no indication of my trading ability - but that’s not the point. I’m merely trying to highlight your own entrenched, calcified beliefs and assumptions despite having no evidence on which to base them. How do you know that I haven’t already attended your webinars? How do you know that I haven’t ? If I haven’t, how could that talk ever be productive when you’ve refused cryptictrader’s request to discuss because How entrenched is that? So many unsubstantiated beliefs Rande - and baseless assumptions from one purporting to be able to cure others from making those mistakes. Do you listen to yourself? You seem very liberal with your preaching about ‘entrenched and calcified’ beliefs even as you’re THE most guilty of repeatedly making that mistake yet are unable to accept it within your own field - as everything you have written shows. Again, that is itself a belief that has no supporting evidence beyond anecdotal. Even if it was a fact (and FWIW, I share that belief – although the ‘heart’ bit is little unscientific for my tastes but I get the gist), the claim that YOUR method can do what needs to be done inside for most people is nothing more than YOUR belief. And I’m not entirely convinced that you actually believe it - judging by you having zero interest in knowing whether 100 or 200 people have taken your course (that’s quite a spread). So I offer demonstrably provable facts while it is you who wallows in the ether of entrenched and calcified beliefs. Rande, traders who seek psychological help aren’t seeking a speech on a psychologist’s beliefs. They are looking for a cure to their trading blocks. What they usually get instead is a never-ending discussion on causes, effects and (optionally) some breathing exercises, repeated ad nauseum on every media format known to man to justify a price. It isn’t because the repetition of the causes and effects is necessary for success but solely to justify that price. It’s no consolation seeing you get your nose out of joint because some people are wise to the practice of unnecessary repetition, filling and padding product and promising details to be covered more fully later in a book only for those details to not be covered except as an ‘up-sell’ to higher priced products. What, did you think that cheesy practice was psychologists’ little secret? Yet you expect them to just have faith in a complete stranger’s claim to be able to cure them. Someone who has no proof that the method will work for them and no interest in keeping records to provide any. The trader is then expected to take a financial risk that the psychologist may be full of hot air while the psychologist takes no risk whatsoever. If he is unable to ‘cure’ the trader, there is no guarantee, no commitment to see it through when his method fails. When asked about such failures, he can just say that he doesn’t keep records on how many have taken the course or how successful its been. And any questioning of the stranger’s unproven claims is dismissed as unreasonable cynicism. And you're OK with that - Really?

This has been a fascinating thread. If nothing else it has generated a lot of thoughts and I don't know where to begin - so I'll begin at the end where I found the answer to n00btrader's question "1. Exactly how many traders have taken your course" quite alarming: If a practitioner maintains such imprecise records of how many have enrolled into his course, how can he know how successful his method is/has been - beyond the initial 'warm glow' ? More importantly, why wouldn't a practitioner WANT to keep accurate records to know if his method produces 'lasting' results - particularly as he's acutely aware of seminar high? e.g. The cynic in me wonders if such a lack of record keeping and follow-up is itself a fear of discovering a lack of lasting effect in the method being sold? I knew a hypnotherapist once who proudly boasted of the joy his patients experienced as he discharged them from dieting, smoking, drinking habits etc. But he didn't have a clue how many of them were still free of the habit and, I believe, he didn't want to know. Perhaps the lesson here is that it isn't only traders who are guilty of living in denial and only believing what they want to believe about the efficacy of their method? Which leads me to the original thrust of the thread about who or what can turn around a losing trading record. Predictably, the question always results in volumes of text dealing with the 'causes' of those losses - as we've seen in this thread. I have concluded that while these theories about the causes may be valid, the ONLY subject that really matters is the CURE. However discussing, ad-nauseum, 'the causes' fills 99% of most books, courses and seminars. In short, and by example, listing, discussing, dissecting and understanding the multitude of reasons why people start smoking played no part in my stopping 14 years ago. If anything, they were a distraction from the real work that needed to be done. I think the same discussions reagrding trading ills, while interesting, do not help the cure phase and may be detrimental: A reason can too easily become blame. My father made me do it etc. So I'll not add anything to what Ingot54 has written about 'causes' in a far more comprehensive and eloquent way than I could ever hope to achieve - and with which I (almost) entirely agree. 'Almost entirely' until this: Aren't being sidetracked too easily and/or an inablilty to 'see the light' psychological issues? As are: not following a plan (even a successful one - even if it is written down); failure to pull the trigger; not honoring stops etc. etc. While I accept your question: I feel compelled to answer with a question: Why aren't/can't all those failures (and many more) be the result of "something psychological getting in the way"? Allow me to presume that your answer would be that they are not due to psychological problems but the result of an unprofitable method/system in which the trader (rightly) has no faith. I agree that is probably the most likely reason in the majoroty of cases - but as ScottB wrote: So, ScottB's method always had an edge but he wasn't comfortable with it and continually questioned it - until he didn't. 'No edge' doesn't always explain failures to execute a plan but belief/faith might explain the other instances. I'm not as certain as you are that the 'somewhere' isn't psychological in nature. Maybe it's a trader's chicken-and-egg situation. Does the ability to execute have to come before the edge or does the edge have to come first? I really don't know - but obviously, for ScottB, the edge coming first wasn't enough. If it isn't lack of edge, then what else could be causing the failure to execute if not a psychological block? Where you (Ingot54) and I meet again in agreement is whether trading psychologists are the 'cures' to remove the block or are they, at best, only people who point the way to what trading 'ISN'T' - thereby removing the unproductive paths leaving the trader the only one which leads to success - i.e. 'Wising up himself'. If so, then the trader could have reached that point on his own. Do psychologists provide a shortcut to that realization? Maybe - but providing a signpost and a set of instructions hardly warrants some of the fees and claims made. Then, throwing in some phone consultation seems to me more about justifying exorbitant fees rather than providing any proven (or provable) benefit of sparsely spaced, short-duration, impersonal, long-distance communication. Naturally, the trading psychologists will claim they are necessary for this transition to take place in a losing trader but I have my doubts. As you rightly pointed out: Now, compare that to any other 'repair' service. If the repairer just provides a set of instructions and then says "I have done all I can for you, now go and apply it", that kind of 'toolset' can usually be obtained free or for a nominal fee. Higher fees (usually) include a guarantee of repair - plus free additional labor, if necessary, until the problem is fixed or if there is a recurrence of the problem within a specified period. Also, payment is not made until AFTER the work has been successfully completed. How can most other services operate this way ? Because they have faith in THEIR method. I find it somewhat ironic that the very people who claim to be able to remove fear from, and enable belief in, our trading execution, don't have total faith in their own methods. This leads to a couple of worrying issues within the trading psychology community. 1. I think we all agree that not everyone is cut out to be a trader. However, a lack of 'skin-in-the-game' for the psychologist means that he gets paid regardless of someone's suitability. there is no incentive for the psychologist to screen the applicant beyond asking the trader some 'pat' questions about his commitment, the answers to which are predictable for all but a few. Unsuitability is probably the greatest problem - certainly greater than 'the few' that this limited screening produces. So, suitability is way down the list and not present at all for the most unscrupulous practitioners. 2. Every trading psychologist seems to be very quick to lay all responsibility for the lack of trading success at the feet of the trader himself. That is as it should be - and I concur with every cause and effect mentioned by Rande and FXGirl mentioned in this thread - but I also agree with Ingot54 that the trader will ultimately have to 'cure' himself and therefore he probably could have done so without 6 or 10 expensive one-hour sessions, once a month over the phone! I mean really, how is that ever likely to help people with deep-rooted, fear- based issues. It will be claimed that it helped some - who probably didn't need it anyway and of course, that becomes a numbers game. You only need a few of them and it provides a great marketing tool. Everyone it doesn't help? Well, you conveniently don't mention those numbers and dismiss them as 'incurables' - even though you didn't tell them they were unsuitable for trading at the time. The trading psychologists don't accept that the failures in their method(s) of repair are their responsibility and theirs alone. Is it only traders who have to take responsibility for their method's failures? Who gave Psychologists a free pass? Now, to be absolutely clear here, I'm not saying that it isn't the trader's responsibility to do what needs to be done to overcome his demons. It is - and his alone. I'm saying that as soon as a psychologist sets out a stall as one who can remove those demons with a glossy website, books, courses and DVDS, any failure of that method becomes entirely the vendor's responsibility. As an analogy: I was a software developer in a previous life. IMO, any problems a client had was their fault. It was their responsibility to get it corrected and, if necessary, to pay someone to do it - no excuses. But once I was contracted and I accepted to do the job, it became SOLELY my responsibility to achieve success - also no excuses. Had I ever been unable to fix a problem, or if I had underestimated the scope of the task, I would not expect to be paid and the extra time and work resulting from my underestimation would be on my dime. It never happened but that policy did instill into my clients' confidence in me and my claimed abilities. That trading psychologists never accept this level of responsibility is why they achieve so little trust and they are often seen as snake-oil salesmen. Many are and many are not. However, all share one thing in common in that they are ALL selling something in which not one of them has total faith to work in most, much less 'all' cases. Because if they did, the percentage of successful traders would have increased dramatically since the number of such services being offered has mushroomed. The volume of trades and traders in the markets (real volume - not the HFT mirage) would have increased. It hasn't - It has declined.