Actively Day Trading One Single Market VS Day Trading a Handful of Markets?

[Tams 20]

Thales, do you realize that this board has been overrun by people like SDG and Urma. The funny thing is that there are a few real self-managed traders here but between the grandiose and the disaffected losers the board has become rather disappointing.

 

If you think of somewhere better let me know.

 

you sound disappointed, even bitter, about something that bothers you deeply.

[Kiwi 16]

At least I don't live in Geelong; that would make me suicidal.

 

 

.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Kiwi
a better option :)

[Tams 20]

looking for quality posts?

you can always start with yourself...

[natedredd10 10]

I couldn't agree more. The ES is a very difficult market to trade and unless you are pushing 100 ct's at a time, why force it on a market that is so hard to trade?

 

I will say that I've seen a shift in forums recently where there is more discussion on markets other than the ES; whereas at one point you'd only find discussions on the ES.

 

People at the mean are just dumb and lazy...The older I get the harder it becomes to see things otherwise...

Even though I think candlestick stuff is ancient nonsense I respect you Browns as a sick price action and order flow trader who uses candles to filter out bad trades...

What do you consider to be the best instrument to trade?

I just quit my coffee monkey job on Citi's EUR/USD FX option desk and feel like a kid in a candy store being able to trade more than fucking slow long term SPY positions because of compliance...

I'm all about N225 right now..just the right amount of arb and nice tick size...with a nice old school lunch break for douchebags.

Being around EUR/USD for awhile the EUR/S&P arbs are the masters of the universe...zero interest in ever being on the other side of their trade. No idea what they are doing.

[wolfrank 10]

Trading like anything can be taught, its just that some people will be ok at it which usually means break even after commissions, some will make a reasonable living, and a very small few will really succeed.

As has been mentioned that you need to fit your personality and style, I am sure that not every market or style suits someone, and hence there will always be some wrong turns in the journey.

There are always too many preconceived notions that first need to be eliminated as has been pointed out. There are plenty of trained lawyers out there who are not practicing law and I reckon a few of them found out that its largely a pencil pushing job rather than the high flying court room dramas they initially believe.

(Electronic local - I have loosely followed your blog, and one great point you make is about consistent profitability for day trading....lots of people miss this in many teachings. I also think that stops should not really be called "stop losses" but 'stop account crippling drawdowns" or "stop blowups".)

 

I always wondered about the 95% statistic....where does it come from?

At a guess I think that if its based on closed accounts, then there must be a lot of traders in there who either;

1, are undercapitalised, and hence close an account

2, get bored, loose interest, become too frustrated to continue

3, close a few accounts, and yet ultimately become profitable with one account

4, dont like their broker and hence close an account.

5, change their trading styles over time and either it does not work or they disappear through boredom.

 

Interesting observations you have there. Who wins?

 

Also, I did some light web research into the mythical Johnson report and I admire your conclusions as they are pretty much what I uncovered.

 

In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king.

[brownsfan019 17]

People at the mean are just dumb and lazy...The older I get the harder it becomes to see things otherwise...

Even though I think candlestick stuff is ancient nonsense I respect you Browns as a sick price action and order flow trader who uses candles to filter out bad trades...

What do you consider to be the best instrument to trade?

I just quit my coffee monkey job on Citi's EUR/USD FX option desk and feel like a kid in a candy store being able to trade more than fucking slow long term SPY positions because of compliance...

I'm all about N225 right now..just the right amount of arb and nice tick size...with a nice old school lunch break for douchebags.

Being around EUR/USD for awhile the EUR/S&P arbs are the masters of the universe...zero interest in ever being on the other side of their trade. No idea what they are doing.

 

100% of my trading is in oil currently.

 

Reason is that it's providing movements that just work for me and I can shut it down by 12pm EST and do more than stare at charts.

 

As for candles, I've said it before - they are a part of a plan and as time goes on, they become less important to me.

[brownsfan019 17]

Thales, do you realize that this board has been overrun by people like SDG and Urma. The funny thing is that there are a few real self-managed traders here but between the grandiose and the disaffected losers the board has become rather disappointing.

 

If you think of somewhere better let me know.

 

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

 

Likewise, Kiwi, is you find somewhere better, let me know as well.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

If you guys take off, please drop me a PM where I can find you so we can continue to have discussions that are not taken off track by a couple. Only takes 1 or 2 to ruin a board quickly.

[MightyMouse 12]

If you guys take off, please drop me a PM where I can find you so we can continue to have discussions that are not taken off track by a couple. Only takes 1 or 2 to ruin a board quickly.

 

I am curious. What is it that ruins a board in your opinion?

 

Is it that some might offer a different opinion than the status quo?

 

Isn't a forum for open discussions?

 

Is an unruined board one that we all applaud at how great the Emperor looks as he walks by naked?

[thalestrader 14]

I am curious. What is it that ruins a board in your opinion?

...Isn't a forum for open discussions?

 

I'm not Brownie, but in my opinion, what goes a long way toward ruining a board is noted in the following post from me:

 

What is disappointing is that ... vulgarity and ... mean-spiritedness are now tolerated here at TL.

 

Certainly a forum is for open discussion, MM. But re-read JDSG's posts, and then make the case here that his posts are meant to foster open discussion rather than to cut such discussion off and be the last word on the subject.

 

There have been a number of times in various threads here at TL where you have taken essentially the same position as JDSG as to what is and is not possible with respect to trading profits. The difference has been that in those cases, a true back and forth discusion or debate was able to ensue. JDSG's approach is to curse, beat his chest, and use ad hominem arguments to try and shut the other side up.

 

Mean spiritedness, vulgarity, close-mindedness, and board-bullying - if just one participant exhibits just one of those traits, that alone is enough to turn folks off from a forum, wouldn't you agree? And in this thread alone we have two examples, JDSG being one, and UB's constant stalking of Brownie being the other. I have no objections to Urmablume's technical posts, though I do think his constant attacks on Brownie should be halted, preferably by a voluntary cease-fire on his part, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should be banned, as his type of assaults do nothing but cheapen the forum overall.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

Edited July 31, 2010 by thalestrader
spelling

[MightyMouse 12]

I'm not Brownie, but in my opinion, what goes a long way toward ruining a board is noted in the following post from me:

 

 

 

Certainly a forum is for open discussion, MM. But re-read JDSG's posts, and then make the case here that his posts are meant to foster open discussion rather than to cut such discussion off and be the last word on the subject.

 

There have been a number of times in various threads here at TL where you have taken essentially the same position as JDSG as to what is and is not possible with respect to trading profits. The difference has been that in those cases, a true back and forth discusion or debate was able to ensue. JDSG's approach is to curse, beat his chest, and use ad hominem arguments to try and shut the other side up.

 

Mean spiritedness, vulgarity, close-mindedness, and board-bullying - if just one participant exhibits just one of those traits, that alone is enough to turn folks off from a forum, wouldn't you agree? And in this thread alone we have two examples, JDSG being one, and UB's constant stalking of Brownie being the other. I have no objections to Urmablume's technical posts, though I do think his constant attacks on Brownie should be halted, preferably by a voluntary cease-fire on his part, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should be banned, as his type of assaults do nothing but cheapen the forum overall.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

I could not agree more.

[JohnnySDG 10]

I apologize for my vulgarity. I would like to point out a few things about my trading beliefs that may clarify anything I said.

 

1. I trade options. I don't trade contracts. Its my style and it works. If anyone is to be successful they need to find their own style - even if others make more doing something different.

 

2. I know that there are other successful traders - futures, stocks, etc.

 

3. 10% per week is not realistic on a CONSISTANT basis. Sure you can make big scores here and there but that kind of return is pie in the sky. My anger started when people started speaking with qualitative certainty about quantitative fantasy.

 

4. Most people cannot make money trading. We all know the 95% stat and its not going to change. And, they don't always lose because they don't have the right knowledge or tools, they lose because they are not cut out for it. You need a certain attitude and mindset.

 

5. The idea of trading is to make a rate of return. Again, a realistic one. If you want to trade full time, for your sole source of income, you need to have an account large enough for the return to equal a comfortable wage.

 

6. Scalping the ES or ER is extremely difficult and you chance of success is slim to none and slim has a plane ticket in his hand.

 

7. Commissions are a real cost and need to be considered along with slippage, bad fills, etc. (another reason for #6.)

 

Johnny

[thalestrader 14]

...I would like to point out a few things about my trading beliefs that may clarify anything I said.

 

1. I trade options. I don't trade contracts. Its my style and it works. If anyone is to be successful they need to find their own style - even if others make more doing something different.

 

I agee.

 

2. I know that there are other successful traders - futures, stocks, etc

 

There sure are! And plenty of failures too!

 

3. 10% per week is not realistic on a CONSISTENT basis. Sure you can make big scores here and there but that kind of return is pie in the sky. My anger started when people started speaking with qualitative certainty about quantitative fantasy.

 

If you were to re-conceive the 10% as units of risk, where a unit of risk is equal to a % of equity, you then be able to see where many would find your "qualitative" vs. "quantitative" distinction a chimera. If instead of 10%, one were to say 5R, whereby an "R"-multiple was equal to the amount risked/trade, and then, if one were to trade an edge whereby average winning trade was 2R (i.e. 2*initial $risk), and the average loss was 1/2R, and if the average winning percentage was 33% of all trades, and if one's chosen market(s) and time frame yielded an average of 16 trades/week, then 5R/week on average is certainly possible. Is it easy? No. Will most fail? Yes. So what? I'm not here to protect the masses from themselves. Will one still have losing days? Absolutely! Losing weeks? Most certainly! Losing months? Such would be likely ony if one suffers a breakdown of the discipline that brought them to their market, timeframe, and approach/system/method.

 

4. Most people cannot make money trading. We all know the 95% stat and its not going to change. And, they don't always lose because they don't have the right knowledge or tools, they lose because they are not cut out for it. You need a certain attitude and mindset.

 

Anyone who has read my posts here at TL knows that I would generally agree. While the "95% failure" statistic that so many are quick to "cite" (I've yet to see the "citation") is probably high. I would guess that in actuality at least 20% of market participants are long term net profitable. I do not mean that 20% are turning out huge profits on a regular basis, but look at it this way - my grandmother died with a seven figure portfolio that had, as near as we've been able to determine, a low five figure cost basis. If she could do it, so can a lot of folks!

 

5. The idea of trading is to make a rate of return. Again, a realistic one. If you want to trade full time, for your sole source of income, you need to have an account large enough for the return to equal a comfortable wage.

 

No, no, no ... Your idea of trading is to make a "rate of return". My idea of trading has been best characterized by Leonardo as trading for infinite yield. The end of such an account (as in its goal or purpose) is not to seek an income, but to generate a substantial profit. I would here again refer you to the chapter of Gerald Loeb's book, The Battle for Investment Survival entitled "Speculation vs. Investment." I would also recommend you continue to the following chapter entitled "Sound Accounting for Investors." I would agree with Loeb's sentiment in that "I don't believe that any acount can be run properly if income is a prime requisite." This is not to say that such an account cannot be run, for a time at least, and perhaps an extended time, profitably. However, it will not be run as well or as properly if it is seeking what you call "a reasonable rate of return" rather than seeking, for example, to double itself within a short period of time (Loeb suggests a year). I would suggest you actually read those chapters before you dismiss the proposed goal as unsound).

 

6. Scalping the ES or ER is extremely difficult and you chance of success is slim to none and slim has a plane ticket in his hand.

 

7. Commissions are a real cost and need to be considered along with slippage, bad fills, etc. (another reason for #6.)

 

All trading is extremely difficult if done without an intelligent plan. The effect of slippage, bad fills, and commissions on an account traded according to an intelligent plan and seeking infinite yield will be negligible.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

[MightyMouse 12]

I agee.

 

 

 

There sure are! And plenty of failures too!

 

 

 

If you were to re-conceive the 10% as units of risk, where a unit of risk is equal to a % of equity, you then be able to see where many would find your "qualitative" vs. "quantitative" distinction a chimera. If instead of 10%, one were to say 5R, whereby an "R"-multiple was equal to the amount risked/trade, and then, if one were to trade an edge whereby average winning trade was 2R (i.e. 2*initial $risk), and the average loss was 1/2R, and if the average winning percentage was 33% of all trades, and if one's chosen market(s) and time frame yielded an average of 16 trades/week, then 5R/week on average is certainly possible. Is it easy? No. Will most fail? Yes. So what? I'm not here to protect the masses from themselves. Will one still have losing days? Absolutely! Losing weeks? Most certainly! Losing months? Such would be likely ony if one suffers a breakdown of the discipline that brought them to their market, timeframe, and approach/system/method.

 

 

 

Anyone who has read my posts here at TL knows that I would generally agree. While the "95% failure" statistic that so many are quick to "cite" (I've yet to see the "citation") is probably high. I would guess that in actuality at least 20% of market participants are long term net profitable. I do not mean that 20% are turning out huge profits on a regular basis, but look at it this way - my grandmother died with a seven figure portfolio that had, as near as we've been able to determine, a low five figure cost basis. If she could do it, so can a lot of folks!

 

 

 

No, no, no ... Your idea of trading is to make a "rate of return". My idea of trading has been best characterized by Leonardo as trading for infinite yield. The end of such an account (as in its goal or purpose) is not to seek an income, but to generate a substantial profit. I would here again refer you to the chapter of Gerald Loeb's book, The Battle for Investment Survival entitled "Speculation vs. Investment." I would also recommend you continue to the following chapter entitled "Sound Accounting for Investors." I would agree with Loeb's sentiment in that "I don't believe that any acount can be run properly if income is a prime requisite." This is not to say that such an account cannot be run, for a time at least, and perhaps an extended time, profitably. However, it will not be run as well or as properly if it is seeking what you call "a reasonable rate of return" rather than seeking, for example, to double itself within a short period of time (Loeb suggests a year). I would suggest you actually read those chapters before you dismiss the proposed goal as unsound).

 

 

 

All trading is extremely difficult if done without an intelligent plan. The effect of slippage, bad fills, and commissions on an account traded according to an intelligent plan and seeking infinite yield will be negligible.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

Thales,

 

Are you really doing this or are you simply countering the slow and steady approach to trading with the theoretical testosterone version?

[brownsfan019 17]

I am curious. What is it that ruins a board in your opinion?

 

Is it that some might offer a different opinion than the status quo?

 

Isn't a forum for open discussions?

 

Is an unruined board one that we all applaud at how great the Emperor looks as he walks by naked?

 

MM - Easier to just let thales explain as he is much more eloquent with words than I....

 

I'm not Brownie, but in my opinion, what goes a long way toward ruining a board is noted in the following post from me:

 

 

 

Certainly a forum is for open discussion, MM. But re-read JDSG's posts, and then make the case here that his posts are meant to foster open discussion rather than to cut such discussion off and be the last word on the subject.

 

There have been a number of times in various threads here at TL where you have taken essentially the same position as JDSG as to what is and is not possible with respect to trading profits. The difference has been that in those cases, a true back and forth discusion or debate was able to ensue. JDSG's approach is to curse, beat his chest, and use ad hominem arguments to try and shut the other side up.

 

Mean spiritedness, vulgarity, close-mindedness, and board-bullying - if just one participant exhibits just one of those traits, that alone is enough to turn folks off from a forum, wouldn't you agree? And in this thread alone we have two examples, JDSG being one, and UB's constant stalking of Brownie being the other. I have no objections to Urmablume's technical posts, though I do think his constant attacks on Brownie should be halted, preferably by a voluntary cease-fire on his part, and if that is not forthcoming, then he should be banned, as his type of assaults do nothing but cheapen the forum overall.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

What is ironic is that Pat was banned from ET, but allowed to persist here. Think about what it takes to get banned from ET...

 

With that said, I think a blog makes a ton of sense for you Thales - you can moderate the vulgarity out and if it gets popular you can monetize it for yourself.

[brownsfan019 17]

actually I live in Mentor OH.

 

Great, let's meet up then and maybe we can bury the hatchet.

 

PS

Can you say STALKER...

 

You really need to drop your man crush of me Tams.

:doh:

[JohnnySDG 10]

.......All trading is extremely difficult if done without an intelligent plan. The effect of slippage, bad fills, and commissions on an account traded according to an intelligent plan and seeking infinite yield will be negligible.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

 

Trading is difficult even IF done with an intelligent plan because most people don't have the personality to execute properly.

 

Your theory of trading for an infinite yield is a great way to take math out of the equation. How can you manage slippage, commission, etc when you have no target yield to speak of?

 

I'm not saying that a target yield is a limit, but you need realistic goals and expectations.

 

Johnny

[TMBTC 10]

Your theory of trading for an infinite yield is a great way to take math out of the equation.

 

IMHO, the "math" you keep speaking of is minor details...any monkey can run the numbers...come up with hypothetical examples/scenarios for this and that with Excel...

 

How can you manage slippage, commission, etc when you have no target yield to speak of?

 

How does having a specific target yield in any way affect slippage, commission, etc.?

 

I'm not saying that a target yield is a limit

 

Then why have it? What purpose does it serve other than as a potential limit (whether intentional or not)?

[JohnnySDG 10]

IMHO, the "math" you keep speaking of is minor details...any monkey can run the numbers...come up with hypothetical examples/scenarios for this and that with Excel...

 

 

 

How does having a specific target yield in any way affect slippage, commission, etc.?

 

 

 

Then why have it? What purpose does it serve other than as a potential limit (whether intentional or not)?

 

Any monkey can run the numbers but the numbers have to have a basis in fact.

A target yield affects those items because you need to know your break even point. Business 101

 

There is never a limit, but of course there are realistic expectations.

 

Trading, speculating, investing, whatever you want to call it is based upon probability. The idea being to have a positive expectancy. Positive expectancy time frequency of opportunity is the yield. You need to realistic about PE and frequency of opportunity.

 

Johnny

[TMBTC 10]

Any monkey can run the numbers but the numbers have to have a basis in fact.

A target yield affects those items because you need to know your break even point. Business 101

 

There is never a limit, but of course there are realistic expectations.

 

Trading, speculating, investing, whatever you want to call it is based upon probability. The idea being to have a positive expectancy. Positive expectancy time frequency of opportunity is the yield. You need to realistic about PE and frequency of opportunity.

 

Johnny

 

Business 101 would probably be way over my head, because I'm still not convinced.

 

What's "fact," what's "realistic," what's "possible," etc. is (normally) all relative. This conversation could go on forever, which is why I'm decidedly "tapping out." What's true for one person may not be true for another...however, often the attitude is "if it's true for me, then it's true for everyone...and I must convince everyone that my truth should in fact be their truth...and if I have a hard time at it, I will get angry/emotional..." The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

[JohnnySDG 10]

Business 101 would probably be way over my head, because I'm still not convinced.

 

What's "fact," what's "realistic," what's "possible," etc. is (normally) all relative. This conversation could go on forever, which is why I'm decidedly "tapping out." What's true for one person may not be true for another...however, often the attitude is "if it's true for me, then it's true for everyone...and I must convince everyone that my truth should in fact be their truth...and if I have a hard time at it, I will get angry/emotional..." The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

 

Most people lose - that is an undisputed truth. So are the stats showing that trading ER & ES with extreme daytrading margins is not going to work.

 

The casino knows the "Truth" that the odds are people will lose at the tables. Yet, there are still people that go there seeking infinite yield!

 

Johnny

[Kiwi 16]

Johnny,

 

There is a reason that even your Mother doesn't like you.

 

You clearly don't understand the infinite yield reference and you assume that the good folk here are ignorant of the basic stuff you think you are slapping people around with. Ignorance and Arrogance is a bad combination really. At least you are not adding grandiosity to the equation.

[macdfx 10]

actually I live in Mentor OH.

And you were also BARRED from the US Securities industry by FINRA too... :rofl:

Edited August 2, 2010 by macdfx
The FINRA report uses the word "BARRED" not "BANNED"

[JohnnySDG 10]

Johnny,

 

There is a reason that even your Mother doesn't like you.

 

You clearly don't understand the infinite yield reference and you assume that the good folk here are ignorant of the basic stuff you think you are slapping people around with. Ignorance and Arrogance is a bad combination really. At least you are not adding grandiosity to the equation.

 

I understand it. I just think its BS.

 

Johnny

[thalestrader 14]

Any monkey can run the numbers but the numbers have to have a basis in fact.

 

But one should be able to say that "based on these facts, these are my conclusions," whereas you seem to be saying "these are the conclusions on which I base my facts."

 

A target yield affects those items because you need to know your break even point. Business 101

 

In addition to trading, I run a real, bricks and mortar, trucks and equipment, doing trade belly to belly business. I do not manage my business for a "rate of return." I run it for maximum profitability. I do not know one business owner who manages his or her business in the manner you suggest as "Business 101." Sure, we each know our cost of doing business, costs of goods sold, our "breakeven points," etc. and so on. But that affects my pricing (i.e. what I charge my customers) and gross margins, and has nothing to do with a target annual rate of return or return on equity. The goal for me is always to maximize those numbers, not to be bound by them. I trade the same way. And truthfully, other than bucket shop trades, slippage and commissions have been of little impact on my trading. In fact, I wish I could get the gross margins in my business that I get from trading.

 

Unless you are willing to read and study those who think differently than you, you will never really be able to decide whether you are right or wrong in your current worldview. You may think you have chosen, but you really haven't, because you feel the "choice is between you view and wild-eyed cowboy rodeo clown trading, rather than a choice between trading for an income versus trading for speculative gain and maximum profit. You have not even allowed yourself truly to grasp the outlines of the view I propose.

 

I have been urging both you and MM to open your minds to another way of approaching the problem of making it (and what "making it") in trading means. You both seem to infer from what I have posted here and elsewhere at TL that I set an unreasonably high bar, or that I imply that this trading activity is easier than it is. I have several times suggested that a better place to explore the view that I espouse is Gerald Loeb's The Battle for Investment Survival. Loeb, far better than I, makes the case that your view actually sets one up for failure, or at least unsatisfactory results. I agree with nearly everything he says in his excellent book, including his opening statement:

 

"Nothing is more difficult , I truly believe, than consistently and fairly profiting in Wall Street. I know of nothing harder to learn."

 

Amen, brother, and I think that both you and MM would agree with Loeb's sentiment. But I, following Loeb, use that as my starting point, whereas you and MM and others who share your view of the limits of possible success take that as your end.

 

Loeb continues: "Any way one looks at it, nothing is more difficult than succeeding in Wall Street, yet nothing is attempted by such poorly equipped people or is considered as easy." I am sure that both you and MM would agree. So do I. But you view the difficulty as an inherent and insurmountable limit, whereas I, following Loeb view it not only as an obstacle that can be overcome, but as one which must be overcome if one's market operations are to be at all worth the effort and risk. Loeb continues, perhaps reading your mind, and asks that "This being the case, what can we do about it? What is the bright side, if such a gloomy picture has a bright side? What are the virtues of Wall Street? Is the subject worth studying at all?"

 

You seem to have recognized the difficulty and the questions, but your response is a rather gloomy judgement that "the best one can hope for is to make a "reasonable return on investment on an annulaize basis, and by reasonable I mean 10-30% tops." Loeb's answer (to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, is that such a goal as you formulate it ultimately must fail, because either your eventual (and certain) losses will consume much of your profit, or you will have earned an amount insufficient to both preserve your capital's current spending power as well as increasing it for future use.

 

You can keep reiterating you opinions concerning the limits of trading success, but until you are at least willing to learn and understand the counter position, we will simply be speaking at one another, rather than with one another. Again, Gerald Loeb's work is an inexpensive way to introduce oneself to what he calls the necessary "speculative attitude," an attitude that I prescribe, and which you proscribe.

 

Johnny...You clearly don't understand the infinite yield reference and you assume that the good folk here are ignorant of the basic stuff you think you are slapping people around with.

 

I understand it. I just think its BS.

 

No, you do not. The below statement shows how little clarity you possess concerning the issue at hand:

 

Trading, speculating, investing, whatever you want to call it ...

 

Trading is a general term that whereby one thing of value is exchanged for another thing of value. Trade is, to put it in terms you would understand, "Economics 101." Again, following Loeb, I suggest that one understand that "Investing" and "speculating," while each a form of "trade" or "trading", differ from one another fundamentally, as folows (again, quoting directly from Loeb):

 

Investment is fundamentally an effort to obtain, in addition, a rental from others for the temporary use of capital.

 

Speculation means using capital in such a manner that its spening power is not only preserved but also increased, through the realization of profits in the form of dividends, capital gains, or both.

 

You, as do 95% of those who try this game, conflate Trading, Investment, and Speculation - but you cannot grasp what it means to "trade for infinite yield," much less see its fundamental soundness as an approach, if you do not understand the difference between investment and speculation as set out above.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales

[thalestrader 14]

Thales,

 

Are you really doing this or are you simply countering the slow and steady approach to trading with the theoretical testosterone version?

 

You are confusing what you call the "theoretical testosterone version," or what I have call "crazy rodeo clown cowboy" trading, with what I will here refer to as either "the speculative attitude" or "trading for infinite yield." I am not the only one here at TL, MM, who has advised you that you yourself are limiting that of which you yourself are capable. I know that Blowfish has suggested this to you, though I canot find the post. Interestingly, I did come across this post from BF -

 

I cant help wondering if it is difficult to learn things because of limiting beliefs. I am looking forward to reading the Carol Dwek book... From what I understand her main premise is that fixed mindsets (akin to limiting beliefs I guess) is what holds us back and that ...err...I think she calls them 'growth mindsets' allow great things. Forgive me I haven't read it yet.

 

I don't buy the "growth mindset" stuff. I do believe that the "fixed mindset" concept is a useful term (though prejudice, close-mindedness, unquestioning belief" do just as well if not better than the new-fangled phrase. The point is the same in any case - if you think you already know the answers, you'll start ridiculing those who keep asking the questions, even when there continued questioning takes them beyond what your answers tell you is possible.

 

You can do it, MM, but only if you let yourself.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Thales