Both very good points! When I first learned how to program trading systems, I spent night after night discovering that 99.9% of the ideas I had were totally useless. But then I found one idea that wasn't. And then another. All it took was the first idea for me to make millions of dollars. Now what if there's a trader here who has another million dollar idea, but is sitting in front of his computer somewhere in Cedar Rapids and has no idea where to even begin scaling his idea? Would I be better off allocating $1 mil to him or to another suit in NYC that's going to close down his fund and open up another one next year if he blows up? So getting back to my proposal.... Like I said in the OP, it's not for everybody. But for the right person it could be a game changer as they say on ESPN.
Doug: Now that we got here, would you be able to share how to go about raising money to manage it, and whether or not it is a good business in the first place? I was reading an arvtile the other day, and the people and entities that put money with Madoff did it for the simple reason that he was giving them a steady income of 1% per month. I think many traders in here would have no problem turning even three times as much (of course as long as size is not too big). So money must be there, and it needs just the right ways to get to it. If you cannot share, it is fine. I think you are doing fine in here. BTW, traders are skeptical not only of you, but even of themselves. Every trade they place, they assume it is wrong... So imagine how something that is not coming from them would be treated.
RFT's way to profit from 200 traders (newbiews): 1. give each an account. 2. Take the opposite of their position 10 times on another account. Overall, the system should be a winner since 95 % of them will lose, which means that the overall position will be profitable. PS: I have heard that forex brokers use something similar, and help themselves by giving high leverage to beginners.
California - someone tilted the United States and all the nuts rolled in. Getting paid 2% and a 20% incentive fee doesn't make any sense for a small trader, do the numbers. It does make sense for a big fund, again put a simple excel spreadsheet together. Paying out 50% makes no sense under any circumstances where a trader has an edge. One would do far better by keeping 100% of that edge. And this Patty person, she does what exactly? To say that someone does the best job in the world at anything suggests that the person making that statement has screened everyone else in the world to make that determination. It's sort of like "my dad is the best dad in the world". Grow up. In a time of widespread slime and dishonesty, this sounds like more of the same.
That person would not need you and your 50% profit sharing arrangement and if he/she did agree to such an arrangement you'd have to question their sanity and hence the sincerity of their trading results. But you sound none too bright yourself with your Rolls Royce that you casually mention in your post. I know many very high net worth people and what they share in common is that they would never make a statement like that. I smell a rat.
ok... here's the numbers... $1 million account trader makes 50% roi profit = $500,000 trader makes $100,000 An extra $100,000 for sitting in front of the computer and putting in the same trades he would have anyway, except with no risk, isn't a bad deal. Now suppose he documents the track record, and raises more capital, to say $10 million (still a very small fund). Now he makes $1 mil in performance. I'm not sure what doesn't make sense about this? There are people trading accounts under $100,000 that would love to trade $1 million accounts and share the profits. They have all upside and no downside. Any trader knows that their edge could vanish and they would be at risk. Trading OPM is all upside, no downside. Some people might find that appealing. Among other things, Patty helps wipe out limiting beliefs that keep people from succeeding. Not that anybody here would have any. I heard some people do though. The "grow up" admonition is one of my favorites, in that it implies another person is immature, while exhibiting the very characteristic that it attempts to ridicule. Do you know what a fund of funds does? It invests money with traders who often call themselves hedge fund managers. The problem with hedge fund managers is that there is no transparency. The same objective could be accomplished by having a talented trader trade my accounts held in my name. I'm not sure why this seems like such an extraordinary suggestion, let alone slimey or dishonest. In fact, it seems like a really smart idea. All I need to do is spend some time looking for a couple legitimately great traders and open up a trading account or two. Then I put capital to work and everybody wins.
LOL... I think this is another "teachable moment" that totally relates to trading. Everybody has a model of the world based on their experiences. They can also get information from other people to expand their model of the world to include other people's experiences. Then they experience a stimulus that doesn't fit with their existing model of the world. They make an evaluation, such as the one above, in which they invalidate their new experience in order to preserve their existing model of the world. Why? Because they get so much certainty and significance from their existing model, and they fear losing the certainty they feel from what they believe they already know. Mr. Geezer believes something like, "Every X I experienced has done Y. No X has ever done Z. Therefore, when I see somebody do Z, they must not be an X." So instead of expanding the model to include data that says "X does Z" he instead concludes that the unknown CANNOT be in the X set. This happens all the time with trading, and especially with people who obsess over charts and indicators. They actually convince themselves that X -> Y. And when the outcome isn't Y like expected, they convince themselves that it must not really have been an X they identified because to conclude that X doesn't always lead to Y would destroy their certainty. And Geezer's analysis about how no high net worth individuals "would never make a statement like that" exemplifies another common problem with traders. A trader will look at examples of head-and-shoulders tops that are followed by a plunge in price and think that ALL head-and-shoulders patterns have a good chance of being followed by a price drop. What is not accounted for are the infinite number of similar patterns that the trader has never seen that led to an increase in price. So now we have four issues: 1) using a limited data set to draw conclusions, and 2) believing that the limited data set is predictive, 3) believing that the limited data is all encompassing, and 4) drawing inferences from the original data set that might not be accurate in the first place, e.g., "high net worth people would never do...." So back on topic to my OP, the coaching is intended to help people identify, eliminate, and replace patterns that limit success or lead directly to failure. Successful traders already have installed patterns that work. Smart traders who might even have a great edge might be hindered by some of their patterns, which if eliminated, could turn them into very profitable money makers. And just a reminder to anybody who missed my initial comment about driving my Rolls Royce to go fishing, it was in the context that to the people who were watching me drive down this little road to the river, it was an unusual sight. I was comparing that to the people who were skeptical that my intentions are sincere simply because in their experience it seemed like an unusual event. Doug P.S. For everybody who's waiting for my to reply to their PMs, I'm almost done setting up an online form to help me organize this effort and get to know everybody.
what software will be used for example in both the charting and actual trading software and who will pay for these fees