'market worked against me' excuse

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by gg12, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. gg12


    On 05/16/07 my account had a loss of -40.3% in one Dow session.

    I underestimated the potential of the DOW to go up. So is the DOW movement the excuse for my loss?

    I found out, that it was just a mistake of myself in putting on positions in a situation where I had statistically no odds.

    That means I had only a 50:50 (or even less) change to win. In that case a pause would have made more sense. There is no need to trade every day!

    And if something is to be blamed it's my missing reponsiblity and ignorange.
    And if someone is to be blamed it's me.

    But I don't take my own post personal or emotional...
    #21     May 20, 2007
  2. gg12


    I didn't see a most significant trend line break today.


    When will I learn?
    #22     May 23, 2007
  3. gg12


    Today I failed on basics........

    All effort is wasted if not doing the gound work.
    #23     May 23, 2007
  4. gg12


    Yesterday the market really worked against me.

    After a double-bottom it went even lower.

    And I was greedy, overconvident - on equity high.

    Not my fault??????
    #24     Jun 8, 2007
  5. gg12


    Sometimes I have the feeling that it's not worth the time and effort. That's because I can't make a living with trading yet and I have big swings in my equity curve.

    The market seems to 'be going crazy' and over some periods of time and then starts to completely 'working against me'. After that, when doing the analysis all seems 'logical' (38, 50% retracements, etc.) - in hindsight - and the theroretical results are encouraging.

    Systems which worked great over long time suddenly turn into looses. That's most of the time a hit against my ego, because I thougt I did my homework. I set clear targets and after a bigger deviation I often became inpatient and wanted to 'keep things on track'; - to make it back.

    I was getting angry, tiered and agressive with the consequence of starting destructive habits like 'doubling up' or taking additional unjustified risks. I some cases that agressive tactics worked well, but of course with a wrong reinforcement.

    In the long run it's not good to fight. It's much better to adapt to the new (detected) situation.

    But the strange thing is that the need to adapt more quickly it is not in sync with 'sticking' to a plan (persistance). Working with conflicting targets needs experience.

    To make it even more 'interesting', a two step adaption can put one into the original 'estabhished and proven' approach.
    #25     Jun 27, 2007