Your Mama Doesn't Trade ... So Wise Up to Yourself!

[Rande Howell 10]

As traders and analysts, we are interested in the facts, numbers, and end results. We would love to see this information, and talk to these traders.

 

1. Exactly how many traders have taken your full course?

 

2. How many went from being unprofitable to profitable as a result?

 

3. Where can we find these traders to talk to them? Are there any that are well known on this forum or other trading forums who would speak up to share their success stories with your coaching?

 

I am simply an interested client, and I am sure anyone else in my position is looking for the same.

 

n00btrader

 

These are fair questions. 1. I don't keep numbers, but my best guess is somewhere between 100-200. Other workshops, many more. 2. Many. I use winning percentage and the ratio of winners to losers as the guage. I know of only 3 who did not produce success over the course. Two of those I developed close friendships with and faced really significant challenges. They have become very different people on many levels beyond trading. And they are closing in on profitability. I also know of some others that didn't keep to the rigor of keeping their psychological ship in order. Managing your psychology is much like managing your methodology, you gotta do the maintainace work up or problems start slipping into your decision making. 3. I'm not going to subject people who are doing me a favor to some of the stuff that happens on this forum. If someone were to truly interested, engage in the free stuff I offer, and actually explore this as an option, I would be delighted to offer them referrals. I would be willing to give you the names of the two guys who did not produce success during the course.

 

Rande Howell

[Simple 10]

Interesting response to the request for statistics.

 

An important point to note is that in real testing of a new therapy the question is asked "how many patients were better X months, years etc after the therapy." The warm glow of therapy tends to result in positive reports that are not sustained over time.

[zdo 20]

An important point to note is that in real testing of a new therapy the question is asked "how many patients were better X months, years etc after the therapy." The warm glow of therapy tends to result in positive reports that are not sustained over time.

 

Simple, a few thoughts about your thoughts…

 

Re: “new therapy” It is not a new therapy. Have you read the book?

 

Re: “warm glow” Good point. Put a hundred traders in ‘trading’ therapy and odds are only 3 have any sustained benefit from it, and lord knows how many are actually damaged. But let’s take something else from that statement - If you are a therapand, beware any warm glow at the beginning, middle, or end of the therapeutic process. If you get a warm glow, your patient’s’ testing’ of the protocol (see below) should be over immediately… sure sign of wasted money and ultimate failure.

 

Re: “…in real testing….” The ‘real’ testing of therapies in the APA industry is BS. The surveys make causative assumptions yielding seriously incomplete statistics which are then published as truth only to be discredited in a couple of years when it finally dawns on the testing community that wrong questions were asked and tallied…. Sufficient controls in real life are impossible, so to make attributions from stats like how many patients were better X months later is nonsense. For the psychological protocols, when the testing’s absurdities are realized, usually the protocol just simply fades away. Another good example of how the ‘real testing’ also usually consists of a pile of wrong questions are the AMA style drug trials - but instead of fading away, juicy class action lawsuits follow…

 

It is more productive to turn it around and see it as each ‘patient’ testing the protocol ; not to see if it is an effective therapy generally for a whole population, but to see if it is a fit for a single individual in their current time, space, ... The patient is a better tester than are the proponents of the system. And then outcomes cannot be ‘statistically’ evaluated because each patient will generate a unique, non uniform, questionnaire and answers…

 

Have you read Rande’s book?

[Rande Howell 10]

Interesting response to the request for statistics.

 

An important point to note is that in real testing of a new therapy the question is asked "how many patients were better X months, years etc after the therapy." The warm glow of therapy tends to result in positive reports that are not sustained over time.

 

 

Keagan, a research psychologist from Havard, did a study to determine the most effective form of therapy (modalities). What he discovered was that the modality was not the determining factor in different therapuetic positions. Rather it was the empathy that the therapist had toward the client was what produced change. This is what I call compassion. Unless compassion is the creator of the state of mind, the old self limiting pattern may go into remission, but will reappear as new pattern substitutions become degraded over time. And the client who is doing the changing has to remain rigorous with his new beliefs.

 

Of course, you can stay in the belief pattern of holding that self development of the mind is ineffective -- and certainly you will find all the evidence in the world to continue believing and living in that reality. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. Change is also.

 

Rande Howell

[MP-TT 10]

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:

 

These are fair questions. 1. I don't keep numbers, but my best guess is somewhere between 100-200. Rande Howell

 

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.

They come away from workshops and courses with a seminar high that lasts for a few days to a few weeks. Then the pattern is back again. It erodes the new learning bit by bit until you are back where you start.

 

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:

 

Traders are sidetracked too easily - the best indicator, the best market, the best coach, the best system and so on ... until out of frustration, they "see the light" and suddenly it is all about psychology. My contention is that it is NOT.

 

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:

Why does it have to be "something psychological" getting in the way? Why isn't it the failure of the trader to take responsibility for lack of focus, lack of commitment, lack of consistency, failure to write out the rules, failure to follow the rules.

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:

I continually saw setups work that I didn't take because... fill in the blank. (followed by) ....... as I became more comfortable with my edge, I questioned it less and I became more successful.

 

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:

On my list, (trading) Psychologists rank about the same - they never actually treat the acutely unwell, they don't actually have a cure, and they are not bothered by their clients after hours. That may seem a little unkind, but it was not meant to be personally directed at anyone.

But the facts speak for themselves. Without the fronting up of many thousands of dollars for courses, books, one-on-one sessions, assignments, more "homework" and so on, you won't get a Psychologist to help you. And there is no guarantee you CAN be helped in this way to begin with. When you fail to reach a positive outcome, does the Psychologist refund your money ... or does he just say "I have given you the tools, I have done all I can for you, now just go and apply it."

 

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.

Edited March 3, 2011 by MP-TT

[Rande Howell 10]

MP-TT

 

People live in their beliefs. Stay where you are and you will continue to find ammunition to support your biases. Locked into a particular perceptual map of the world, good luck with your trading and your life -- may it be prosperous. In the comic strip Pogo, Pogo is sitting around a campfire with his comic strip friends deep into a conversation. The possum looks out at his friends and declares, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us!" Same applies here. For our growth as traders or as human beings, we are own worst enemy. Changing a calcified cynical belief about the world (or me for that matter) can not be done from the outside -- it has to be done from the inside at the level of one's heart. The invitation is always present. Come to a webinar -- they are free. If it makes sense, talk with me - that's free. Then with a healthy sense of skepticism ask for referrals - that's free. So challenging your biases costs you nothing. Who knows, you might be right. Who knows, a new ways of understanding how you go about creating your world might show up. It's your management of your perception that is at stake. Staying in cynicism is another option. It just depends on what world you volutionally intent to create. Peace be with you.

 

Rande Howell

[cryptictrader 10]

MP-TT

 

People live in their beliefs. Stay where you are and you will continue to find ammunition to support your biases. Locked into a particular perceptual map of the world, good luck with your trading and your life -- may it be prosperous. In the comic strip Pogo, Pogo is sitting around a campfire with his comic strip friends deep into a conversation. The possum looks out at his friends and declares, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us!" Same applies here. For our growth as traders or as human beings, we are own worst enemy. Changing a calcified cynical belief about the world (or me for that matter) can not be done from the outside -- it has to be done from the inside at the level of one's heart. The invitation is always present. Come to a webinar -- they are free. If it makes sense, talk with me - that's free. Then with a healthy sense of skepticism ask for referrals - that's free. So challenging your biases costs you nothing. Who knows, you might be right. Who knows, a new ways of understanding how you go about creating your world might show up. It's your management of your perception that is at stake. Staying in cynicism is another option. It just depends on what world you volutionally intent to create. Peace be with you.

 

Rande Howell

 

Not too sure that this goes any way towards answering the points made by MP-TT. I reckon there's much to be said about what he's saying. Could you elaborate on some of the issues he highlights about trading psychologists? The fact that some of your materials are free in terms of direct cost to the wallet does not make them 'free'. In time, effort and

perhaps even belief systems, they still 'cost'. I would lastly add that cynicism is healthy for traders. If we were all open to everything, we'd have loads of services we'd paid for and no account to trade!!

[Rande Howell 10]

Not too sure that this goes any way towards answering the points made by MP-TT. I reckon there's much to be said about what he's saying. Could you elaborate on some of the issues he highlights about trading psychologists? The fact that some of your materials are free in terms of direct cost to the wallet does not make them 'free'. In time, effort and

perhaps even belief systems, they still 'cost'. I would lastly add that cynicism is healthy for traders. If we were all open to everything, we'd have loads of services we'd paid for and no account to trade!!

 

Trying to reason with an entrenched belief, I have found, is simply not productive. There is a cost to everything. I try to provide a path for people so they can form assessments and explore them. Pain is ultimately the best teacher. When the trader has experienced enough, they will move beyond their entrenched beliefs and explore new ways of creating their futures. Otherwise, its like getting conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats to come to agreement. That is called gridlock.

 

Rande Howell

[Ingot54 13]

MP-TT

 

Thank you for that well-thought-out post.

 

I readily accept the challenge you issued in disagreeing with some of my points

and will re-read your post a couple of times to ponder it. I may not respond because

it is not necessary to cross every 't' and dot every 'i' in order to enjoy a discussion.

 

Similarly I have enjoyed the responses of Rande, although it has been hard for me

to discover some common ground with his contentions.

 

At the end of the day I have found that I carry much baggage from a very 'fortunate' life

with the word 'fortunate' having a meaning peculiar to my own interpretations on this occasion!

 

But at the same time I have found that I can allow such baggage to be pathological

and constraining, or I can allow it to be stimulating and enabling, as some latent 'something'

drives (all of) us to climb to the higher levels of Maslow's Pyramid.

 

http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Maslows_Hierarchy.html

 

Thus my use of the words "fortunate life."

 

I note that to the original 5 steps, 3 more have been added, and I think that has been

advantageous in explaining to any lay person why it is that we set goals and are

driven to achieve - whatever those goals and achievement might be for each of us.

 

My point in throwing Maslow into the mix at this late stage of the discussion is to

illustrate that all of us have a common need for both the basic necessities and the

'higher' cognitive, appreciative and enabling-of-others skills. The 'enabling-of-others

skill' is actually a need we either have innately, or may/might develop as our other

needs are met/achieved.

 

How that relates to trading is this:

 

Just as we 'achieve' other standard milestones in life , so we can in trading.

 

Trading is not hard stuff - once you 'master it' - just ask someone who is there

already. But there are principles to be observed, rules to be obeyed, preparation

to be done, and procedures to be followed.

 

YOU can do this if you truly wish to.

 

But you have to make it an 'inner need' in much the same way as the need to eat

or the need to keep warm is an inner need.

 

One of the later additions to Maslow's hierarchy, has been that of 'Transcendence'

or the enabling/teaching of others. Not everyone will have the 'need' to be teaching

what they have learned to others. But the existence of this quality, or need would go

a long way towards explaining the success of forums world-wide - not just trading

forums.

 

And indeed, it would explain why some are so strongly motivated by this, that they

make it a vocation. This explains the springing up of the support industry for traders.

Some are involved out of a need for satisfying the need to teach, and others are in

there for purely altruistic reasons based on the same needs. Still others are in it

for their own reasons.

 

One thing is certain: For he teacher, there is nothing more satisfying than the

success of the student, and indeed, the surpassing of the teacher!

 

I would say this to traders who are struggling:

 

Relax ... don't give up ... keep going ... be methodical ... remain thoughtful about

what you are doing ... enjoy every part of the journey towards fruitful trading.

 

Don't accept that "everyone else can do this, but I can't." YOU CAN.

It is a process just as everything else you have achieved to this point has been

a process. In this case, you have taken on a very big process, but in this you

will also reap rewards that those who do not undertake the journey will NEVER see.

 

Cheers

Edited March 3, 2011 by Ingot54
Completion of content

[zdo 20]

I've posted this in various forms several times - it bears repeating (as a general observation about the present conversation .)

 

Traders can be roughly grouped into 3 categories

1 those who experience no limbic system disturbances from or in their trading activites, and no coincident cognitive imbalances

2 those who experience limited limbic system disturbances from or in their trading activites, and limited coincident cognitive imbalances

3 those who experience severe limbic system disturbances from or in their trading activites, and serious coincident cognitive imbalances.

 

If you're in group 3 you want to move, to group 2 at least. And you need help. The vast preponderance of this help is in the form of self help, but at certain points in the process the 'being present' with you that a therapist can bring is pivotal. For some, serious but temporary regressions are part of the process - and those are definitely best done with an experienced quide. At other points in the process 'guided structured practices' can be pivotal.

 

Then you have those who are on the face of it in level 1 who rattle on about sticking to a plan using disipline, etc etc - when that actually will not help IN THE SLIGHEST BIT (screaming in caps) in the 'groups' below the level of about 2.3.

Some possible insights into why level 1s do this:

Perfect example of the apex effect - to them such phenomena and experiences never even freaking existed!!!! (I know it happens bcse In a recent converstation I caught myself slipping into this place...)

Also sometimes a perfect example of those who 'get into' group 1 by settling for performance and returns far below their potential to avoid the purgs and hell of of group 2 and 3. (I've used this 'way' to avoid fear and pain too,..)

Others inately and/or by learning have such a huge emphasis on the rational that just about any hint of anything involving the irrational triggers their patterns. (No guilty of that one [why Kiwi called me insane. Ban him again :rofl: ] Anyways I do value trying to bring a healthy balance of the irrational and the rational. )

The outcomes of this lack of awareness include long posts rationalizing it away, discounting, even denigrating, those who are least trying to help others in groups 1 and 2

It's really kinda sad - they think they are helping when really they are delaying progress by insisting on a focus that only those in group 1 are really ready for....

... and I do sometimes end up wondering who they are trying to convince...

... maybe some of them are at level 2 wannabe level 1

[jeremymullins79 10]

Keagan, a research psychologist from Havard, did a study to determine the most effective form of therapy (modalities). What he discovered was that the modality was not the determining factor in different therapuetic positions. Rather it was the empathy that the therapist had toward the client was what produced change. This is what I call compassion. Unless compassion is the creator of the state of mind, the old self limiting pattern may go into remission, but will reappear as new pattern substitutions become degraded over time. And the client who is doing the changing has to remain rigorous with his new beliefs.

 

Of course, you can stay in the belief pattern of holding that self development of the mind is ineffective -- and certainly you will find all the evidence in the world to continue believing and living in that reality. The truth is in the eye of the beholder. Change is also.

 

Rande Howell

 

Great post and I totally agree with you. Compassion is the best way to alter one's state of mind toward the better. Reality often kicks in the wrong gear and we all need to feel like we need to share our downs with someone, which is the basic role of compassion.

[MP-TT 10]

Not too sure that this goes any way towards answering the points made by MP-TT. I reckon there's much to be said about what he's saying. Could you elaborate on some of the issues he highlights about trading psychologists? The fact that some of your materials are free in terms of direct cost to the wallet does not make them 'free'. In time, effort and perhaps even belief systems, they still 'cost'. I would lastly add that cynicism is healthy for traders. If we were all open to everything, we'd have loads of services we'd paid for and no account to trade!!

 

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 …..

 

Stay where you are and you will continue to find ammunition to support your biases. Locked into a particular perceptual map of the world, good luck with your trading and your life -- may it be prosperous. Rande Howell

 

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.

 

Come to a webinar

 

How do you know that I haven’t already attended your webinars?

 

If it makes sense, talk with me

 

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

“Trying to reason with an entrenched belief, I have found, is simply not productive.”

 

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.

 

“Changing a calcified cynical belief about the world (or me for that matter) can not be done from the outside -- it has to be done from the inside at the level of one's heart.”

 

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?

[MP-TT 10]

Trading is not hard stuff - once you 'master it' - just ask someone who is there

already. But there are principles to be observed, rules to be obeyed, preparation

to be done, and procedures to be followed.

 

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.

[todds 10]

 

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.

 

MP-TT and other veteran traders who have made it to consistent profits over time:

 

I really mean this with the utmost respect because it seems that you and others have a lot of experience and insight that can be helpful to us who are still trying to find our way to consistent profits. I have seen the above said by so many veteran traders so many times that I feel like I'm the last trader on earth who is still struggling with "what to do and when to do it".

 

Assuming a method with positive expectancy seems to me to be the biggest assumption of them all. Is there something wrong with me that after two years of full time trading I still haven't been able to solidify a trading method that I know has positive expectancy? Is it really that easy?

 

I am getting close, and sites like TL have helped a lot, but it took almost two years just to find TL! In the mean time I was doing research where ever I could find it: books, seminars, trading rooms, the usual suspects. Call me dumb, incurious, intellectually lazy, whatever but it is not for lack of trying that I have not yet devise that illusive trading plan with positive expectancy.

 

The problem as I see it for most traders is that they are trying to learn something that is very difficult essentially on their own, unless they are fortunate enough to have Linda Raschke as their aunt or some such situation. It's a bit like trying to be a surgeon without going to medical school, only probably a lot easier. You have to cobble together your own research material, evaluate it for its validity, devise your own training plan, and test your systems all while having no clue what you are doing. How many people would die on operating tables if this was how surgeons learned their profession? How long would it take to be a competent surgeon? In a perfect world there would be two year vocational schools taught by successful traders where the students were put through a rigorous training program. Sure, some would still fail but I would wager the success rate would be multiples higher.

 

What would be most helpful to most traders would be for successful traders to offer some insight as to where one might find this "simple trading plan". Or, better yet, share their simple trading plan so we can all get past that stage and start working on what is really important. I am finding threads like Reading Charts in Real Time and the Wycoff Forum here at TL to be most helpful, but I wouldn't say the methods taught there make solving the problem of what to do and when to do it a foregone conclusion. Is there an easier way?

[n00btrader 10]

MP-TT, thank you so much for a fantastic and eye opening post....this is one of the best discussions on trading I have ever read, in my short 3 years of experience.

 

For anyone interested, Rande has a webinar beginning shortly at 5pm est:

 

http://www.tradersstateofmind.com/webinardates.html

[n00btrader 10]

Also there is another webinar tonight at 9pm EST by Norman Hallett, of the The Disciplined Trader program.

 

https://thedisciplinedtrader.omnovia.com/registration/pid=74551298939081

 

I met both of these speakers at the NYC Traders Expo last week, and they both interested me, since obviously I am in that phase where I have been trading for quite some time and have yet to overcome my discipline issues. Both of these webinars are the same presentations they gave at the Expo.

 

Norman's presentation gave simple, easy to apply, practical advice, that did seem like it could help. But he also offers an expensive mentoring program, and I read somewhere that 1500 traders have gone through his program.

 

Rande's presentation was quite complex, gave a lot of background knowledge and information on the causes and effects, and seemed more scientific. But it resonated with me, that this information is well founded and these methods could work.

 

BTW, both Rande and Norman offer a "money back guarantee". I am not sure of the conditions of this guarantee, or time limit, or who decides the success or failure of the program, but would love for Rande to expand on it.

[Moyyim 10]

.... Norman Hallett, of the The Disciplined Trader program.

.

 

Firstly... Great thread and I agree with much of what Ingot and MP-TT have said.

 

This is just an aside about Norman Hallett...I once attended one of the free tele-conference Norman does to generate interest prior to launching his "Disciplined Trader" programs.

 

Anyway, on the telecon, Norman asked his wife, Tisha?, to welcome onto the call a prior student who was going to talk about how his trading had improved.

 

Unfortunately her opening line was..."Welcome "name" and thanks for your income.....' :doh:

 

Seems some of the "truth" may be bit too ingrained in her subconscious ..:rofl:

 

Cheers

[JEHs 10]

MP-TT and other veteran traders who have made it to consistent profits over time:

 

I really mean this with the utmost respect because it seems that you and others have a lot of experience and insight that can be helpful to us who are still trying to find our way to consistent profits. I have seen the above said by so many veteran traders so many times that I feel like I'm the last trader on earth who is still struggling with "what to do and when to do it".

 

Assuming a method with positive expectancy seems to me to be the biggest assumption of them all. Is there something wrong with me that after two years of full time trading I still haven't been able to solidify a trading method that I know has positive expectancy? Is it really that easy?

 

I am getting close, and sites like TL have helped a lot, but it took almost two years just to find TL! In the mean time I was doing research where ever I could find it: books, seminars, trading rooms, the usual suspects. Call me dumb, incurious, intellectually lazy, whatever but it is not for lack of trying that I have not yet devise that illusive trading plan with positive expectancy.

 

The problem as I see it for most traders is that they are trying to learn something that is very difficult essentially on their own, unless they are fortunate enough to have Linda Raschke as their aunt or some such situation. It's a bit like trying to be a surgeon without going to medical school, only probably a lot easier. You have to cobble together your own research material, evaluate it for its validity, devise your own training plan, and test your systems all while having no clue what you are doing. How many people would die on operating tables if this was how surgeons learned their profession? How long would it take to be a competent surgeon? In a perfect world there would be two year vocational schools taught by successful traders where the students were put through a rigorous training program. Sure, some would still fail but I would wager the success rate would be multiples higher.

 

What would be most helpful to most traders would be for successful traders to offer some insight as to where one might find this "simple trading plan". Or, better yet, share their simple trading plan so we can all get past that stage and start working on what is really important. I am finding threads like Reading Charts in Real Time and the Wycoff Forum here at TL to be most helpful, but I wouldn't say the methods taught there make solving the problem of what to do and when to do it a foregone conclusion. Is there an easier way?

 

This, I think is HUGE. We are all talking here as if we have that system or plan and all our problems are just in the execution. "Just follow your rules", it's as simple as that, but most people go for years before they even get a grasp of what a plan even is and then they have to try to construct one. It is at best a tedious and practically futile process. Frustrating to no end.

 

So, for most of us, this whole thing about if we need a psychiatrist or not is a moot point. We aren't anywhere near there yet.

 

I don't have any answers but, my own feeling on this, for what it's worth, is to just watch charts and forget about a system or plan. Just watch the charts and look them over again at night. Turn off all indicators and forget about them. Just look at the price action. I know everyone has heard this before, but how many of us actually do it. For years. And keep at it. For more years. And then some more. Eventually you will see things... and it will take a long time.

 

Some coaching or mentoring would be great but, lets face it, for most of us, we are just on our own. There are so few worthwhile posts on these forums, it is best to just turn off this crap. (That said, this is one of the few threads in my many many years of reading these forums that might actually help somebody. We should all go back to the beginning and read it over).

 

...and there you have yet some more useless advice from a less than profitable trader.

 

But, no matter what, life is good. Remember that.

[n00btrader 10]

Fnyway, on the telecon, Norman asked his wife, Tisha?, to welcome onto the call a prior student who was going to talk about how his trading had improved.

 

Unfortunately her opening line was..."Welcome "name" and thanks for your income.....' :doh:

 

Seems some of the "truth" may be bit too ingrained in her subconscious ..:rofl:

 

Cheers

 

Interesting..in the Q&A after the webinar tonight, instead of his website (which btw doesn't have much material on it regarding his course), he accidentally mentioned another site, http://www.directyourmind.com . Interesting site, seems he sells or is involved in selling a bunch of unrelated software and technique training for all kinds of things, not related to trading. Oops.

[steve46 12]

Hello Folks

 

I posted a comment on a similar subject in the forum thread "What Psychologists"...I mention it because I believe that simple is often better...and that when I see long winded disertations about this subject it is often the case that the author doesn't really understand what they are talking about...having finally found my own way in this profession I suggest to others that they step back and ask themselves "how has my belief system served me so far?"....If you are satisfied with your answer....if for example nothing were to change in your life from this point forward and that is OK with you....then God Bless you...you are a lucky man (or woman)...If not I urge you to go and aggessively look for the tools you need to succeed. As I understand it...time is going by, whether you take action or not....so I urge everyone to "go for it", and may you all find the success you are looking for...

 

Best Regards

Steve

[fajim2004 10]

I have found this thread very enlightening and wish to thank everyone who has contributed.

Having always been under the belief that all I needed to make money in the markets is to find

a better trading plan that I am able execute with ease would solve all my problems. I now fully

realize how important the mental game really is.

 

This thread was the first time I have ever seen the the mental aspect discussed in so much detail. Now I understand how important it really is and to the high degree it has affected my trading.

 

For years I was able too take 5k and was able to triple it within a couple of months or less only to give it all back within a week or so. I now understand the reasons behind this and will take appropriate measures to keep this from happening again.

[MP-TT 10]

[

MP-TT and other veteran traders who have made it to consistent profits over time:

I really mean this with the utmost respect because it seems that you and others have a lot of experience and insight that can be helpful to us who are still trying to find our way to consistent profits. I have seen the above said by so many veteran traders so many times that I feel like I'm the last trader on earth who is still struggling with "what to do and when to do it".

Assuming a method with positive expectancy seems to me to be the biggest assumption of them all. Is there something wrong with me that after two years of full time trading I still haven't been able to solidify a trading method that I know has positive expectancy? Is it really that easy?

 

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.

Edited March 7, 2011 by MP-TT

[steve46 12]

I am always amazed at the mind games people play to get enough courage to pull the trigger....look, its a game of odds....and it doesn't have to be complex....assuming you have a decent plan, you have to learn to think in a non-random way.....what does that mean?.....for most retail traders, even when they have a plan that they think is profitable, the first time they encounter a losing streak, its game over....not because the plan is bad....but because they cannot make themselves take all the trades....they start to "cherry pick" taking one trade here and one there because they think they know which setup is going to be successful....THATS what non-random thinking is....its "amateur hour" and thats what kills most retail trading accounts. In order to have a chance at making it in this profession, you have to be able to committ to taking a significant sample of trades, to keeping accurate records and then you have to have the skills necessary to adapt if your plan doesn;'t work out. Thats what adult behavior and discipline is all about in this business.

[todds 10]

[

 

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.

 

MP-TT, I really appreciate the time and effort you took to respond! There is a lot of great information in your post so I'll have to read it a few more times.

 

I am definitely aiming in the direction of simple. The more I think of trading and compare it to my last endeavor of trying to be a professional golfer I know that ultimately success will come through simplicity. However, achieving simplicity is not always easy. One might say it is Simplicity through Mastery. Phil Mickelson makes golf look simple, and to him it is, but it took a lifetime for him to get to that point. A novice trying to copy his swing may not find it as easy as it looks.

 

Funny you mentioned Charlie Wright. I have another of his books called "Trading as a Business". I'll have to look at that one again.

 

Fortunately my trading journey has kept me away from indicators. I realized early on that they look a lot better in hindsight than in real time (this is not to say they cant work in the right hands.) Most of my two years has been following price action. The first year was spent entirely in sim trading the ES on a 30 second chart looking for specific reliable Elliott Wave set ups. While this gave me a great basis for reading price, I was not all that successful with it and really didn't like being confined to the ES.

 

My second year has been live trading various futures using a method based on price action taught by a group in a subscription chat room service. I know what many are thinking..."SUCKER!" I don't look at it that way. One of the biggest mistakes I made in golf was not getting a qualified instructor/mentor early on in my career. I tried to learn it all from books and watching the pros on TV. This took exponentially longer to learn the nuances of the game than had I found someone to show me the "tricks" in person. I learned a lot more as a golf club manufacturer's rep when I was able to interact with the pros and ask questions. I would recommend to any new trader to either find a successful trader who will take you under their wing or experiment with various interactive services until you find one that seems reputable and makes sense to you. I have no problem paying for lessons from pros.

 

Along the way I have also been doing research and experimenting with various ways to read price action. The threads I mentioned earlier along with James16 on Forex Factory have been very helpful. Thanks to Kiwi for that lead.

 

I took around 1500 live trades in 2010 and finished the year net even. The second half of the year was better than the first. This tells me I know something but just need to make a few tweaks here and there (I also need to trade less!). The next project will be to go back over those trades in detail to see if anything pops out. In addition, I am considering forex to reduce position size utilizing mini lots. I am finding that a typical loss in futures is just too painful and thus causes hesitation. The light bulb came on regarding position size reading the James16 thread.

 

Thousands of hours of screen time and continued education are the necessary building blocks to making a competent trader in my opinion. It all adds up, one brick at a time. MP-TT, I would guess that all the time and effort you spent on other things ultimately gave you the foundation to evaluate what has ultimately become your simple method.

 

Thanks for your reply.

[todds 10]

I am always amazed at the mind games people play to get enough courage to pull the trigger....look, its a game of odds....and it doesn't have to be complex....assuming you have a decent plan, you have to learn to think in a non-random way.....what does that mean?.....for most retail traders, even when they have a plan that they think is profitable, the first time they encounter a losing streak, its game over....not because the plan is bad....but because they cannot make themselves take all the trades....they start to "cherry pick" taking one trade here and one there because they think they know which setup is going to be successful....THATS what non-random thinking is....its "amateur hour" and thats what kills most retail trading accounts. In order to have a chance at making it in this profession, you have to be able to committ to taking a significant sample of trades, to keeping accurate records and then you have to have the skills necessary to adapt if your plan doesn;'t work out. Thats what adult behavior and discipline is all about in this business.

 

I used to pay little attention to all the talk about position sizing. But, the more I go along the more I realize its significance. I am becoming a believer that one has to find a way to reduce their size until a loss is virtually painless. If not, you will never trade your method the way you should. Even if you have a large account and are trading 1% or even 0.5% per trade, if losing this amount still hurts you have to go even lower until you find a value that does not hurt. For most, this will mean trading stocks or forex mini-lots and leaving futures for another day.