It's not much when it comes to institutional finance, to be honest. There is a member here who is trying to deploy over a yard, IIRC. It's a U-shaped curve, unfortunately - it's hard to be a good trader when you have too little capital and it's even harder to be a good trader when you have a lot. To add, I think the modern finance is slowly becoming an empirical science more than anything else. That academic rigor is being added across the field, regardless of time frames or asset classes. One definitely realizes that people became much more evidence-based, as you talk to people all across the field, from fundamental long/short to high frequency.
Is that the guy that sells educational trading videos? PS. Actually, his 24 preludes cover all major and minor keys (I think), so he definitely did not keep it simple
Probably - there are more and more vendors covering the Russian market, these days ... I blame Bach, myself. Once he'd produced a set of 24, one in each key, those Russians didn't want to be left out. If it was good enough for Bach, it was good enough for Rachmaninov, then Shostakovitch, and probably others (maybe even including Putin, by now: he seems to have a hand in everything else ...).
"We rarely hear the inner music, but we are all dancing to it." - Rumi And so it is with the market. Note that many traders- Linda Radke included- talk about how their early music education and training gave them -in their view- a distinct advantage because reading and practicing music causes you to learn and implement pattern recognition- and that while there is foundation of technical skills that must be learned, you must also have a feel or gift for it to go beyond. I see those points and accept them, but I also think there is a more basic factor at play- and that is that classically trained musicians (but not limited to) have already sorted themselves into that sub-species of humans that can/must mentally and physically be able to spend massive amounts of internally motivated time alone and self-directed, practicing- even though the future is uncertain. People who hear a performance and say "gee, I wish I could play like that" are often no different that the endless number of people who say "gee, I wish I could trade, could you show me how to do it after work next Friday." How the hell do you know whether you can play the cello. When was the last time you put at least ten hours a day into practicing something for years? Alright, nuff of that.
I find these discussions about what method works or which is better to be quite interesting. Every time this comes up, the most critical part of the argument, ie. the results, is left out. I mean imagine drug companies all trying to push their own medication as the best, without actually putting up stats to show how many people have benefits and how many people have serious side effects. No amount of marketing could hide the crucial numbers, and then the consumer could decide. Likewise, every time you have traders arguing about complex math models, and how beneficial they are, or, as in another current thread, if volume is important, or any other conceivable way to trade the market, what is missing from these discussions is the results attained. I have lots of respect for @sle, and @Scataphagos , and everyone knows that @Xela is a highly regarded poster. But lets face it, their results would paint a much better picture than any words they choose to use. If @sle works for a firm and is trading hundreds of millions of dollars, a 20% gain trading equites would be incredible, and yet, this 20% gain for a retail trader with a 100k account would be pathetic. (clearly its different trading a 100k account vs. 100mil account). You might have guys trading currencies and think they are hot shit with their method and making 50 pips per day using all sorts of indicators, but then you have guys like @Scataphagos who likes to use the KISS method and is raking in many more points while sitting back more and using more generous stops and targets perhaps, with the end result being that more points are actually banked. The point of all this is that there is actually a way to evaluate what works and what doesn't. Case in point, those guys saying they are using volume for their analysis, how many ES points are they making in an average week, and what are they risking, and how does this compare to a trader who isn't using volume? I've picked on @bone before, and I will use him again for this example. On his website, he states that his trading method allows clients to put on trades with a 1:1 ratio, and often times the profit can be greater than 1:1. Clearly this isn't with a 90% win rate, and so in my opinion, whatever complex method he uses is highly overly complex if all you're doing is putting on a 1:1 trade and hoping to win more than half. Another example is @Maverick74 . I've had discussions with him in other threads about how his in depth studies of fundamental analysis help him put on CL trades. He proposes that one needs to go to great lengths of studying inventory reports and rig counts and have access to so much complex info, which most don't, but how does his trading, his profits, his win rate, compare to guys like @Overnight who is just a price action trader? I've also tried several times now to get @Sprout to produce some stats on his in-depth bar analysis. He seems to love to tell new members about his method, but nowhere is there a mention of how his in depth analysis translates into win rate, and hence, into profits. The point I'm making is that I think many traders here delude themselves into thinking that what they are doing is actually making a difference. They may be profitable, but its more than likely because of a good sense of market direction and excellent trade and money management metrics. Perhaps there is a psychological benefit to doing more analysis and having more confidence when you put on a trade, but none of this actually helps the trade. The placebo effect produces results in medicine, and perhaps in trading as well, but we all know that getting the sugar pill without any actual active ingredient isn't making the patient feel better because of the active ingredient, since it doesn't contain it. So all of these discussions about what is necessary for trading is only necessary if its producing more profits than a simple method. Every time I've seen actual results from someone who is doing something overly complex, and I can list several examples, these results were barely worth any mention. Sharing results can put lots of these discussions to rest.