Buy My Trading Strategy - It's Brilliant!!

[SpearPointTrader 10]

I'd like to move on to the original premise of this Thread...

 

Why people will pay anyone, let alone the scammers to learn to trade..

 

I wonder how many have paid for someones DVD's, Books, Seminars, On line Chat rooms, etc, etc.

 

I'd be very suprised if we all didn't do some of it at various times... I certianly have and I came out of the industry and was exposed too some "brillant" traders..

 

The more I gathered the more deadends I encountered.. Some of those deadends took over a year to jetison... Elliot Wave comes to mind just for one... I have a list so long that when I go back to the beginning I ask myself what was I smoking??

 

I just was searching..and I would have paid anything to get the answers...WHY..I wanted to stop the pain, frustration and confusion.. I wanted to succeed.. I think it is human nature to want to get mentored..

 

Until you master this trading thing all you can do is relate it to your own life experiences which is centered on structured education...so we tend to follow that path..

 

Unfotunately unlike the "real" world, trading is not especially replicable. Some of the structural part is in many respects replicable...a chart is a chart, a pattern is a pattern - you can learn to recognize that at its most basic level etc. but it is the rest of it.. how and what to do with it - the alignment...the mental process to create a decision making path from whatever structure you recognize to take action... that is where it breaks down.

 

How aligned do you have to be to sit in a University class to pass the exam? Not even close to what trading is but how would you know?

 

And there are a never ending list of vendors good and bad waiting to help you fulfill your dreams.. what most vendors don't, won't or can't tell you is that it is all on your shoulders not theirs for you to succeed..

 

I have been fortunate to know successful traders in my career..when we talk shop we talk the same stuff.. "we know" but that is where it starts & stops..

 

I reference my 20 - 50 lot ES buddy. He thinks I'm nuts for trading my size and scaling them out instead of trading larger for shorter targets (he is a member/lower cost).

 

Who's right? We both are..

 

How does that relate to buying a course..the same issue how do you take it and play it like its your own? I don't think too many can.. but everyone thinks they'll be the one

 

I used to think like you. However, I came to realize that everything I thought was unteachable, was just so because I was not consciously aware I was doing them.

 

A good example is trading outside the bollinger bands. I used to look at the set ups, and buy or sell instinctively based on whether or not I 'Felt' the price had reach maximum exhaustion, or had more room to go.

 

When I was writing my course, I was trying to think of a way to communicate a skill I thought was purely instinctual. However when I really studied my past trades, I began to see a pattern. Then it hit me. I was subconsciously trading this pattern and not even knowing it! Once I figured out what it was, and it came into conscious focus, writing down the rules to follow was pretty easy.

 

These rules, when applied to other more commonly known set ups, helped make them more efficient. An example of that is the key reversal. Sometimes they mean something, and other times they don't. Now I have rules that qualify them, so I know when to trade them, when to use them as exits for an existing trade, and when to ignore them all together. Something that was a 50/50 gamble, now pays of for me 70-80% of the time.

 

The truth I discovered is that if a man CAN do something, then it can be taught; if he can identify it's base elements and then break them down into a defined, step by step curriculum.

[roztom 10]

I used to think like you. However, I came to realize that everything I thought was unteachable, was just so because I was not consciously aware I was doing them.

 

A good example is trading outside the bollinger bands. I used to look at the set ups, and buy or sell instinctively based on whether or not I 'Felt' the price had reach maximum exhaustion, or had more room to go.

 

When I was writing my course, I was trying to think of a way to communicate a skill I thought was purely instinctual. However when I really studied my past trades, I began to see a pattern. Then it hit me. I was subconsciously trading this pattern and not even knowing it! Once I figured out what it was, and it came into conscious focus, writing down the rules to follow was pretty easy.

 

These rules, when applied to other more commonly known set ups, helped make them more efficient. An example of that is the key reversal. Sometimes they mean something, and other times they don't. Now I have rules that qualify them, so I know when to trade them, when to use them as exits for an existing trade, and when to ignore them all together. Something that was a 50/50 gamble, now pays of for me 70-80% of the time.

 

The truth I discovered is that if a man CAN do something, then it can be taught; if he can identify it's base elements and then break them down into a defined, step by step curriculum.

 

Since we have already discussed your "course" and you said you would NOT contribute to the site here to help us become better traders, "For Free" which many others here do... I would then respectfully request that you keep your word..

[Tams 20]

.

 

 

 

 

this is called subconscious marketing

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[karoshiman 10]

 

I'd be very suprised if we all didn't do some of it at various times...

 

 

Me too...

 

 

I have a list so long that when I go back to the beginning I ask myself what was I smoking??

 

 

LOL :haha:

 

 

Who's right? We both are..

 

 

Exactly! That's the point. It is not about who is right about a method.

 

I would like to add also the following.

 

If you have found something that works, apply it and try to become the best you can be with it. I think we have also sometimes the tendency to look at what others are doing as their system could be better than ours (... the grass is greener...). I mean it is good to try to improve and learn new things but at some point you have to stick with something and try to perfect it (if it works, of course).

 

For example, some of you guys use Market Profile. I've read only very little about it and have only rudimentary knowledge about its application. But it's different to what I do and what works for me.

 

Also, I've read today on this forum about the Taylor Trading Technique (TTT), which I've never heard about before. I might read a little bit more about it to understand a bit more and see, if it FITS INTO MY TRADING STYLE. However, this is still very superficial research. Only if I think that it could benefit my already existing trading style and make it better, I will start some serious research on it.

 

I have the feeling that if I would start now to try to understand Market Profile or TTT (or any other method) in detail this would be counterproductive for my trading as I could not focus on my current trading style 100%.

 

What I've learned from my past careers is that focus is an essential element in success. You cannot be an expert in everything... (or if you try to be, you have to stop trading and earn your money as an "expert" )

[SpearPointTrader 10]

Since we have already discussed your "course" and you said you would NOT contribute to the site here to help us become better traders, "For Free" which many others here do... I would then respectfully request that you keep your word..

 

I didn't teach anything you'd pick up on. I basically explained how my mind set graduated from the way you think, to the way I think now. I used the example that brought me to my understanding.

 

Maybe a non trading example will sooth your tiny mind.

 

In martial arts, they say you don't truly learn your art, until you have to teach it. I think this is very true in many endeavors. However, when it comes to teaching, that is an art all unto itself. The reason you think trading cannot be taught, is due to the fact that you do not understand the art of teaching at all. If you did, you would see that the things you write are just plain silly.

[roztom 10]

I didn't teach anything you'd pick up on. I basically explained how my mind set graduated from the way you think, to the way I think now. I used the example that brought me to my understanding.

 

Maybe a non trading example will sooth your tiny mind.

 

In martial arts, they say you don't truly learn your art, until you have to teach it. I think this is very true in many endeavors. However, when it comes to teaching, that is an art all unto itself. The reason you think trading cannot be taught, is due to the fact that you do not understand the art of teaching at all. If you did, you would see that the things you write are just plain silly.

 

While you think being a martial artist entitles you to claim that you are a teacher, one thing you seem to be missing is humility.. ego is often an attempt to compensate for what truly lacks..

 

I will share just a tidbit about me - I have "taught" in Fortune 100 Companies to Senior Executive Officers, Global Money Center Banks and much more... I know what the real deal is... stop kidding yourself

 

You are certianly entitled to your opinion.. for what it might be worth ... but I cannot waste any more of my time... on this topic since it seems to be a circle jerk..

 

One thing I do appreciate about your contribution, at least to me personally, is that I now have a reason to try out the ignore button.

Edited March 19, 2012 by roztom

[SpearPointTrader 10]

Hmm, well you are certianly entitled to your opinion.. for what it might be worth ...

 

One thing I do appreciate about your contribution, at least to me personally, is that I now have a reason to try out the ignore button.

 

Well, maybe if you guys were more respectful, and not have treated me like I am some sort of scum bag, for no rational reason whatsoever, then you would not have to. Instead, you dug your own grave with me, and now have to hide behind the ignore button like a little child.

[Tams 20]

.

 

I have a new resolution,

 

I am going to write my trading system on paper.

 

I think it is long overdue;

I had it on papers here and there,

I have my indicators in the computer,

I have some notes, I have some chart samples,

but never had everything together like a manual.

I think it will help me to clarify a few things that I do intuitively,

and it will definitely be worthwhile when I die, I have something to pass on.

 

I will start this project tonight !

[SpearPointTrader 10]

.

 

I have a new resolution,

 

I am going to write my trading system on paper.

 

I think it is long overdue;

I had it on papers here and there,

I have my indicators in the computer,

I have some notes, I have some chart samples,

but never had everything together like a manual.

I think it will help me to clarify a few things that I do intuitively,

and it will definitely be worthwhile when I die, I have something to pass on.

 

I will start this project tonight !

 

Actually, that is a very good idea. If you genuinely do so with the intent of being able to teach someone with it, you will be a much better trader when you are done.

[SIUYA 11]

I already thought you were a computer trading genius Tams......now I am beginning to wonder. (whats the emoticon for me shaking my head in dejection)

[Tams 20]

I already thought you were a computer trading genius Tams......now I am beginning to wonder. (whats the emoticon for me shaking my head in dejection)

 

 

 

The perception is a deception.

 

 

 

.

[SunTrader 10]

......

Mods, feel free to edit out the line feeds

... and maybe change the rules about character counts.

What if someone wanted to just post the word "Yes" ???

I agree completely.

 

Above line was too short also. :doh:

[Tams 20]

...what if someone wanted to just post the word "yes" ???

 

 

Yes !

[Tams 20]

Originally Posted by zdo »

...what if someone wanted to just post the word "yes" ???

 

 

Yes !

 

 

I did it... with a YES only.

[khamore1 10]

The perception is a deception.

 

 

 

.

 

perception is everything

[SunTrader 10]

I did it... with a YES only.

 

A work around Microsoft would love.

 

[Connect 10]

I don't care

[zdo 20]

I did it... with a YES only.

 

Thanks.

How ?

I want to just post a :doh; and nothing else

 

(... "Thanks. How?" would not take and that's all I wanted to say )

[SIUYA 11]

doh (space)x20 exclamation mark

[Tams 20]

Thanks.

How ?

I want to just post a :doh; and nothing else

 

(... "Thanks. How?" would not take and that's all I wanted to say )

 

 

go to my post, press the

button at the bottom right corner of the post... and see the trick.

[Pipskateer 10]

What a shame that a nice thread which started off in such an interesting direction down "Informative Boulevard" has taken a disheartening and unneccessary detour onto "Pissing Contest Avenue." Ah well, we're all human, right? :doh:

 

Let me add my then... Not looking to take any sides here, but maybe to refocus to a beneficial direction?

 

I've never been a corporate professional or institutional trader who has ever worked at a bank or trading firm, but I have traded for my beans and tater money. I've also had the opportunity to learn some very valuable trading and money management insights from one of the very BEST traders in the institutional field. Take that information at face value or leave it. I have traded on/off for at least nine years. Much of that time was spent working with a highly focused group of like-minded Fibonacci traders of varying levels of proficiency and personal success. I still fondly consider every one of them as friends and colleagues, although I'm no longer an active member of that group.

 

My trading career "AHA moment" came after a few years of pursuing the Holy Grail 100% NO FAIL System, finally culminating within the group I mentioned above. My personal revelation was not that the HG did not exist...but that it doesn't matter whether it exists or not, provided...you build your trading method on a foundation of mathematically profitable money management rules.

 

Let's refocus on what really matters about trading, which is making consistent profits and KEEPING them. In that context, it really doesn't matter WHAT system you trade, where you got it, whether it is one you built yourself, or whether you purchased a "black box" system. What REALLY matters when all the dust settles is whether a particular system produces something called a "Positive Expectancy." Why do we hear that constantly-repeated statistic in the trading world about 95% of all traders failing? It's for one reason ONLY....it's that we are trading in mathematical combinations, largely unplanned, which are not resulting in a positive expectancy over "X" number of trades taken. I know that negative expectancy MUST be unplanned because no one in their right mind would knowingly set out to trade a losing system, right? Yet, the 95% failure rate still prevails.

 

There is a fairly simple math formula for expectancy of a system. It is as follows:

 

Expectancy = (Probability of Win * Average Win) – (Probability of Loss * Average Loss)

 

Put into practical terms, let's say over a series of 100 trades, your "system" produces 70% wins with winners averaging $100 profit per trade. You lose only 30% of the time with average losers of $250 per trade. Here is what your expectancy would be using the above equation:

 

Expectancy = (0.70 X $100) - (0.30 X $250)

Expectancy = $70 - $82.50

Expectancy = - $12.50

 

This is an example of a system with NEGATIVE Expectancy. Most traders never EVER bother to calculate this, nor do they know how. Did you also notice that the entire calculation depends on having amassed a sufficient number of sample trades whereby a probability or precentage of win/loss can be determined? How many traders actually do sufficient testing of their system to even come up with the input values needed to calculate expectancy? I suspect far too few ever get that far. :helloooo:

 

Now that we have that foundation laid, we can begin to look at the reasons WHY a particular trader's results yield negative rather than positive expectancy. I believe there are basically two broad categories of trading styles which represent the extreme ends of the trading spectrum: Mechanical Traders and Intuitive Traders. All traders will fall somewhere between these two extremes, usually leaning more closely to one side or the other. The mechanical trader employs a systematic, (hopefully) fixed set of rules for trade entry and exit. The intuitive trader instead trades mostly by "touch and feel" relying on his/her internal intuitions about the market. There are successful and unsuccessful traders in both categories and in the hybrid grey area that lies in between, but I think there are far more mechanical traders who end up ditching their (proven?) system rules based on a sudden spark of "intutition" (emotion) which usually ends in disaster. Relying on an unproven sense of trading intuition is like a Japanese Katana blade in the hands of an amateur...it's more deadly to the user and spectators than it is to the enemy. Again, the deciding factor of ALL trader success or failure, regardless of whether one trades mechanically or by intution, is always, always, ALWAYS whether or not a particular trader achieves "Positive Expectancy". And how can that ever be reliably achieved if it is never proactively set forth as an informed, conscious, FOUNDATIONAL objective?

 

I am of the mindset that successful intuitive traders are the rare breed exception and that such success is only achieved by those possessing a certain level of inherent ability and aptitude after much practice, honing of skills, and raw trial and error. Realistically, there just aren't that many traders who will ever be capable of trading profitably via intuition. Thus, it is my personal opinion that the overwhelming majority of traders would stand a much better chance of achieving positive expectancy if they would focus on developing the discipline necessary to trade within a well-defined rule-set, purposely constructed to operate within a framework of mathematically sound money management parameters. Most traders need to leave intuitive trading to those who are prepared and committed to do ALL that is necessary to safely master it. In that mindset, let's focus on a mechanical trading perspective from here forward.

 

I believe that failure to achieve Positive Expectancy, speaking in the context of mechanical, fixed rules-based trading, is due to two very distinct possibilities.

 

A. The trader, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is NOT following the system rules consistently, yielding results that fall outside of mathematically profitable money management parameters.

B. The system rules are inherently mathematically flawed with regard to money management parameters by design.

 

I think it's pretty much that simple. If the rules are mathematically sound, and the trader is not turning a profit, then he/she is fudging on the rules and is most likely shooting from the hip or failing to execute properly for whatever reason. If the rules ARE being followed properly and the trader is still not turning a profit, then the rules must be inherently flawed from a math/money managment standpoint. In either case, these errors should be uncovered by properly test-trading the system. I recommend demo trading first to validate proper trade rule execution before proceeding on to low-leverage live trading for the reality factor.

 

Maybe I'm preaching to the choir...maybe I'm "Captain Obvious" here...but I'll boil this all down to the lowest common denominators. There are basically three "vital signs" of a mathematically sound trading process, REGARDLESS of the entry/exit strategy employed. They are:

 

1. Reward To Risk Ratio
   
2. Win/Loss Ratio
   
3. Risk % Per Trade
   

 

When the dust settles, when it's all over but the crying, whether you bought a black box system from a "scammer", or whether you built your own system from the ground up...ALL trading performance results, whether by intentional design or by unplanned default, are a function of a net blend of those three factors above. The only question is...whether the resulting blend of factors was the CAUSE or the EFFECT in the final expectancy value achieved.

 

The most common reason that traders fail to achieve positive expectancy (besides not ever PLANNING for it by consciously building it into their process from the start) is that far too often traders have a lop-sided fixation with only PART of the overall expectancy equation. Specifically, they are 99.9% of the time usually bent towards considering the Win/Loss factors of a particular system they are enamoured with. The FACT is...trading with positive expectancy will only happen consistently when the trader purposefully builds the correct MIX of money management factors into the foundation of his/her trading plan, as opposed to tacking on money management as an afterthought. You must design your trading plan and system to incorporate the correct blend of Win/Loss, Reward/Risk, and Risk % Per trade factors FIRST and then come up with entry/exit criteria that fit into those paramerters.

 

AND...you must decide on the blend of factors that best fit your psychological risk tolerances. For example, some traders could never tolerate trading a system that had a high losing percentage of trades even though the Reward/Risk factor was sufficiently high to produce net-positive expectancy. Still other traders could never perform under the pressure of utilizing a system that offered a very high win rate, but which had an inverted Reward/Risk profile where the losing trades were significantly larger than the winners. But no matter which trade entry system, or blend of money management factors "feels" psychologically tolerable to a trader, it won't matter one hill of beans if the net result is consistently negative expectancy. Anything less is just a hobby or a bad gambling habit. Do you know what YOUR expectancy values are over the last 100 to 1000 trades? You'd better... :missy:

 

Sorry if I deviated from the OP's direction, but it seems that was already done several pages ago. I hope I've given you something of value to consider here.