Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Gekko78

Stop Trying to Be a Home Run Hitter

Recommended Posts

Came across this today .......... I like the philosophy. Thoughts???

 

 

 

In Baseball there are home run hitters and there are players who get a lot of hits. Usually the two are not synonymous meaning the players who hit the most home runs are usually not the same players who get a lot of hits. However , in baseball getting on base 3 out of 10 at bats could get you into the hall of fame. Hitting home runs is great of course and something many people strive for but , some people are just not home run hitters. In fact , your chances of getting into the hall of fame are greater by getting hits than they are getting home runs.

 

This same concept applies to trading as well. When people first start out they tend to try and go for those "home run" trades. Trying to turn $1,000 into $10,000 in a month. While this is not impossible to do it is HIGHLY improbable to achieve.The problem here is that a new trader who is trying to turn a little into a lot will usually take on excessive risk and poor money management techniques in order to try and improve his bottom line. Sure he may get lucky a few times and have some good winners with this but eventually the market will teach him a lesson and he will likely lose all his capital.

 

If you think about it another way and go for the "base hits" you will more than likely achieve greater results over a longer period of time consistently which is really the name of the game. Anyone can have a few lucky trades but being able to stay the course for the long term is something very few can do.

 

Here is an example to illustrate this point:

 

A trader with a starting bankroll of $1,000 going for a 5% weekly goal will have turned that $1,000 into $12,643 by the end of year one.

 

If the trader were able to consistently maintain this strategy for 2 years he would have transformed his original $1,000 into $159, 843( due to the power of compounding) ....not bad for 1% a day right?

 

The problem is that the trader wants the $159,843 RIGHT NOW! Not in 2 years.....hence why 90% of traders lose over time.

 

To do this the trader must set a daily goal of 1%. 1% of $1,000 is $10 a day . That should be fairly easy to do. $10 is a 2 point movement in the YM , NQ or 6B ( $6.25 ) contracts. ( not including commissions.) This is also is a little less than a 1 tick move in the E-mini S&P futures contract ( $12.25 per tick)

 

The issue is that traders get greedy , they win one they keep going , they win another one they keep going even after they have hit their targets until evetually they hit a streak of losers and give it all back to the market. When you hit your goal for the day you are DONE for the day.

 

Discipline , money management and controlling your emotions are the keys to the trading kingdom while strategy plays a very small role.

 

1% is easy to do but the catch is it is also easy not to do. If you want to make it in this business you have get consistent in order to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts off the top of the head......most of mine are opposing as the article is so positive :) and I am a trouble maker.....

 

..............

 

A home run in base ball at best will get you a limited number of runs.....a home run in trading has a far better return.

 

Many traders who try for home runs also realise that most trades wont turn into the big winner. You still have to manage the trade. If the market changes, so does the trade, but at least you are giving your self the opportunity to make a lot as opposed to restricting yourself.

 

If you are a trader who makes it over a few days then gives it all back...what makes you think you have the strategy to stick to trying to make 1% a day with consistency.

Whats wrong with doing less trades, sitting and waiting for higher probability trades, or sitting on longer term trades.....if you have the same discipline, money mgmt and control

 

The other issues many traders have is they over trade - how do you stop this becoming a problem?

 

"1% is easy to do" ---- is it?

If you have such a great system that can pick levels well, then why limit their upside?

 

If you have a system that is soooo good that 1% per day is easy - why stop when you hit your $ profit for the day.....surely with that consistency you keep doing more and more trades if the setups are right? There seems to be an inconsistency here.

 

If the trader is so reliably hitting 1% then he should have no problems with 2-3% a day. If they cant do this, then how scalable is the system?

 

Make sure you have low commissions

 

Do you require a system that costs $1000 per month to trade like this --- if so, you will need far more than $1000 in the account!

 

The article states "The problem is that the trader wants the $159,843 RIGHT NOW! Not in 2 years.....hence why 90% of traders lose over time"

 

Well, we all know its not the only reason traders are not profitable, and yet at the same time as telling us we should walk before we run....it then promotes the idea of a trading style that seems to idolise instant gratification from short term trading as opposed to a slow and steady sitting on a position....contradictory maybe?

 

There is no mention of the leverage involved......to get 1% a day - its probably pretty large.

 

Drawdowns in such a system are probably harder to recover from, and a few big losses will take out many many days profits. So in other words - you always need to be on your game, as a slip up is likely to be very costly.

 

 

.......................

 

Same old story - there are different ways to do things.

No one way is right or wrong....there is no single truth out there, each trader is different......yadda yadda....if short term trading a hitting singles mentality works for you dont let anyone tell you different, and if such articles give you the right mindset to help go for it.....just get a good reliable cheap broker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
Thoughts off the top of the head......most of mine are opposing as the article is so positive :) and I am a trouble maker.....

 

..............

 

A home run in base ball at best will get you a limited number of runs.....a home run in trading has a far better return.

 

Many traders who try for home runs also realise that most trades wont turn into the big winner. You still have to manage the trade. If the market changes, so does the trade, but at least you are giving your self the opportunity to make a lot as opposed to restricting yourself.

 

If you are a trader who makes it over a few days then gives it all back...what makes you think you have the strategy to stick to trying to make 1% a day with consistency.

Whats wrong with doing less trades, sitting and waiting for higher probability trades, or sitting on longer term trades.....if you have the same discipline, money mgmt and control

 

The other issues many traders have is they over trade - how do you stop this becoming a problem?

 

"1% is easy to do" ---- is it?

If you have such a great system that can pick levels well, then why limit their upside?

 

If you have a system that is soooo good that 1% per day is easy - why stop when you hit your $ profit for the day.....surely with that consistency you keep doing more and more trades if the setups are right? There seems to be an inconsistency here.

 

If the trader is so reliably hitting 1% then he should have no problems with 2-3% a day. If they cant do this, then how scalable is the system?

 

Make sure you have low commissions

 

Do you require a system that costs $1000 per month to trade like this --- if so, you will need far more than $1000 in the account!

 

The article states "The problem is that the trader wants the $159,843 RIGHT NOW! Not in 2 years.....hence why 90% of traders lose over time"

 

Well, we all know its not the only reason traders are not profitable, and yet at the same time as telling us we should walk before we run....it then promotes the idea of a trading style that seems to idolise instant gratification from short term trading as opposed to a slow and steady sitting on a position....contradictory maybe?

 

There is no mention of the leverage involved......to get 1% a day - its probably pretty large.

 

Drawdowns in such a system are probably harder to recover from, and a few big losses will take out many many days profits. So in other words - you always need to be on your game, as a slip up is likely to be very costly.

 

 

.......................

 

Same old story - there are different ways to do things.

No one way is right or wrong....there is no single truth out there, each trader is different......yadda yadda....if short term trading a hitting singles mentality works for you dont let anyone tell you different, and if such articles give you the right mindset to help go for it.....just get a good reliable cheap broker.

 

Yea there are probably a few things that need to be gone into further detail here.

 

I like the philosophy as that is kind of of something I already do .

 

I have $$ targets per day that I shoot for , after that I move over to SIM and try out other things. There is no need to "keep going" ....sure I miss out on some winners but I miss out on losers to .....and those losers would have forced me to give back profits.

 

I stopped looking for 10-20 tick winners a long time ago ....especially when trading things like ES , 6B and NQ.....a lot easier to get a 4-5 tick winner than 20 ........

 

2-4 tick ES winners are presented all day long .....

 

Guess it depends on your style of trading also .. I could not sit in a trade for 20 ticks .....to stressful . Like you said you have to do what works for you..........I learned a long time ago that swing trading , or anything longer , is not for me as I do not have the patience for it . I cannot change that so I play to strengths and not try and change my weaknesses ( at least not yet)

 

I think getting 1% a day is a lot easier than most people think ...........a profit is a profit whether it is $1 or $100

 

I do not know what goes on in other traders minds when they are trading......everyones emotional level is different . That is why indicators do not work well because they try and quantify emotion which cannot be done.

 

I think if people looked at trading from a simple viewpoint instead of over complicating it then things might be a little easier ..............but that is just me

 

As I already know there are many people on this forum who do not share my viewpoint.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not easy to get 1% a day. That's the problem. It is a seemingly simple goal on a given day, but extended over time, it's incredibly difficult. This is a 1300% return. How many of the greatest traders have ever got such a return in ANY year, never mind multiple years?

 

So contrary to what you say, that 1% per day is easier than most people think...no it's harder than most people think. Much harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
Thoughts off the top of the head......most of mine are opposing as the article is so positive :) and I am a trouble maker.....

 

..............

 

A home run in base ball at best will get you a limited number of runs.....a home run in trading has a far better return.

 

Many traders who try for home runs also realise that most trades wont turn into the big winner. You still have to manage the trade. If the market changes, so does the trade, but at least you are giving your self the opportunity to make a lot as opposed to restricting yourself.

 

If you are a trader who makes it over a few days then gives it all back...what makes you think you have the strategy to stick to trying to make 1% a day with consistency.

Whats wrong with doing less trades, sitting and waiting for higher probability trades, or sitting on longer term trades.....if you have the same discipline, money mgmt and control

 

The other issues many traders have is they over trade - how do you stop this becoming a problem?

 

"1% is easy to do" ---- is it?

If you have such a great system that can pick levels well, then why limit their upside?

 

If you have a system that is soooo good that 1% per day is easy - why stop when you hit your $ profit for the day.....surely with that consistency you keep doing more and more trades if the setups are right? There seems to be an inconsistency here.

 

If the trader is so reliably hitting 1% then he should have no problems with 2-3% a day. If they cant do this, then how scalable is the system?

 

Make sure you have low commissions

 

Do you require a system that costs $1000 per month to trade like this --- if so, you will need far more than $1000 in the account!

 

The article states "The problem is that the trader wants the $159,843 RIGHT NOW! Not in 2 years.....hence why 90% of traders lose over time"

 

Well, we all know its not the only reason traders are not profitable, and yet at the same time as telling us we should walk before we run....it then promotes the idea of a trading style that seems to idolise instant gratification from short term trading as opposed to a slow and steady sitting on a position....contradictory maybe?

 

There is no mention of the leverage involved......to get 1% a day - its probably pretty large.

 

Drawdowns in such a system are probably harder to recover from, and a few big losses will take out many many days profits. So in other words - you always need to be on your game, as a slip up is likely to be very costly.

 

 

.......................

 

Same old story - there are different ways to do things.

No one way is right or wrong....there is no single truth out there, each trader is different......yadda yadda....if short term trading a hitting singles mentality works for you dont let anyone tell you different, and if such articles give you the right mindset to help go for it.....just get a good reliable cheap broker.

 

  Seeker said:
Well it's not easy to get 1% a day. That's the problem. It is a seemingly simple goal on a given day, but extended over time, it's incredibly difficult. This is a 1300% return. How many of the greatest traders have ever got such a return in ANY year, never mind multiple years?

 

So contrary to what you say, that 1% per day is easier than most people think...no it's harder than most people think. Much harder.

 

Depends on account size 1% of $1,000 is $10

 

1% of $100,000 =$1,000 a lot harder to achieve.

 

Also harder to achieve mentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's hard to achieve full stop. Hard to achieve on a $1000 account. Very hard. We're talking every day aren't we, not just one day. Increasing the account size only makes a hard task even harder.

 

Again, who do you know that can achieve this, day after day after day for years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Seeker said:
No it's hard to achieve full stop. Hard to achieve on a $1000 account. Very hard. We're talking every day aren't we, not just one day. Increasing the account size only makes a hard task even harder.

 

Again, who do you know that can achieve this, day after day after day for years?

 

Guess we will have agree to disagree .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.