Powerful stuff but dangerous in inexperienced hands. You may not believe in the law of gravity, but that doesn't change it. On the other hand, we see the concept of perception and belief producing reality every day in politics. The Clinton administration was an eight year exercise in creating an alternate reality by denying the existence of objective facts. On a more modest scale, Howard Dean has put himself at the forefront of the Democrat field by refusing to accept the conventional wisdom and instead creating an alternate reality.
pensez-vous c'est l'air que etant respire?* there is a school of thought that believes you - in your own mind, your own consciousness - are as immortal as you choose to be. no matter what it is you try to do. the argument goes something like this: at every thermodynamic event in the universe there are multiple paths forward. all such paths exist. all possible universes exist in parallel. if you decide to jump out of a 747 at 35k feet without a parachute, most of us will observe a deservedly stupid death. but some of us will be in the same path/branch you are travelling and will observe something that can be described as a miracle. something truly bizarre - but physically possible - will happen that will enable you to survive. the key is that as long as there is a possible path of survival, the personal-private-you will take such a path. in your subjective world. in an infinite universe, all things possible, no matter how improbable, happen. or as the old jewish mystics might have described it: G-d is a verb. *do you think that's air you're breathing?
Well said Bundlemaker. If we don't accept full responsibility for what we have created in our lives, then how can we change? There came a point in our lives when, even though outside influences (parents, friends, teachers, media, etc...) projected their beliefs upon us, we could make a decision to accept it or not. Every moment we are making decisions, the question you have to ask yourself is; Is what I am choosing in alignment with what I want to create in my life? It can be a painful realization to accept the fact that we have created the abundance or lack in our lives, no one else. But it is through this acceptance from which true change can begin. regards, Bruce Hawkins p.s. Once again Girlpower has raised the level of discourse of this board up a few notches.
As a follow up, let me mention I did not come to this conclusion from the psychological community or the self improvement community or the eastern philosophy community, all of whom have espoused this concepts for a longgggg time. These conclusion stem from an earnest interest to understand physics. Thats right, hard science (if such a thing even exists). Quantum mechanics, Bells theorem, the concepts used to explain the observables of energy/matter all point to the observer creating the observed in a real and literal fashion. I dare say everyone has experienced something that could be considered a miracle. What if all of life could be that way, not just rare segments? So, what if every trade could be a winner? Is it likely, probable, possible? Perhaps not. That's not the point. Would it be useful to consider what it would be like if every trade could be a winner? Now your thinking process changes. A neat NLP based model is the "meta model". Start asking questions like: what causes or prevents? never? what would happen if? what wouldn't happen if it didn't? Just play with the language. If you really start thinking this way, you won't believe what happens.
the implication is the other way round: put yourself in a situation where only a miracle stands between you and total annihilation and you will ensure the miracle. it's a way of living the old adage "fortune smiles on the brave and the foolish".
in my opinion - one of the most important thing for a trader is not accepting anybody elses opinion without evaluating it for him-/herself. but if somebody decides to go the rather unusual way of becoming a trader - then she/he must be some sort of a free spirit anyway (at least if she/he has already realized how tough it's going to be and still keeps moving on) - which still does not mean he/she has no mental barriers (they might be there - but still unrecognized). there are no limits - but creating them might also be a result of some sort of need for comfort - like: ok - this is THE best thing than can be reached in this field - so no need to try harder from now on. this is ok - if somebody is satisfied with his/her results - reaching a certain high level and staying there is hard enough. and i believe this is one of the biggest differences between trading and most other things - resting at and maintainig a certain level is not equal to stepping back over the long run - i'd rather say maintaining a certain level over many years is progress anyway because you are your only competitor - and nobody else.
Well put. Isn't it wild how we humans can consistantly and almost at will create miracles with negative consequences. Why not the other way around? It's called conditioning. Thank you for a great reframe!
In the spectrum of ET potential functions, I believe threads like this one offer the best possibilities for improvement. Serendipity has afforded me many opportunities through out life. In the ones where institutionalization was a goal, training often was the vehicle. This is a pragmatic applied theory turf. bundlemaker and the political comments of AAAonthebeltway focus on the BE DO HAVE philosophy present in many therapy disciplines. Those I have mentored in the over 40 years of transferring stuff related to investing have always been most responsive to input that is enabling and leads them to generate their own extensions of what is initially in the space. I diminish the overshadowing psychological downside from the get go in a perdetermined manner. The steps of the progression I use in many cutting edge fields is the same. As applied to making money; the steps go this way: 1. Establish that the arena is about one thing only: making money. 2. Establish that learning is paramount and how learning works as a series of successful steps. 3. Make the person understand that learning is measured by personal success in making money. And that going from one level to another is based on multiples of initial capital. Levels are cummulative money velocity levels. (When a person is in my presence and on a machine; I will take over the trades when necessary and then shut the session down after I have prevented loss. I debrief 4 times longer than the person trades live in my presence.) 4. I debrief with a NLP based 4 step resolution approach. I change the pictures when the pictures show up. (The Fight Fair family therapy program is remarkable. When I added Interaction Analysis to it the way it then worked was to do picture modification as a cooperative effort of husband and wife). I used Interaction Analysis at the White House to debrief negotiators in prolonged negotiation sesssions. I distinguished myself at Camp Daivid by getting a speeding ticket along side the perimeter of Camp David and I was allowed to be debriefed by security on what curfew really means after a PhD on my team ( a western guy who hadn't seen an eastern snip) got lost in a snipe hunt and was picked up by security. lol. 5. During the beginner level of trading, I impose restrictions that are based upon 100% psychological considerations. This is the single most important thing that can be done "to" a person. I "do" it without any reservations whatsoever as a control over the person. a. I make the person stay in the beginner mode until he has tripled his initial capital. b. I make the person take out his initial capital once he has tripled his money. c. I make the person spend that money on an often predetermined expenditure. ( This acheives a goal of mine. I feel the single most important thing a person has going for him is psychological. I impose this item by my ploy b and c. The person can no longer lose money as he trades with only the 2x profits he is using as he learns.) (A person here, correctly, told Bagger he is going to be taking laps. Several people here take laps; they, also, will continue until they go away. 6. I go by levels to SCT. The only way to make money is to trade all opportunities at the time you are qualified by success to trade those opportunities. 7. A person can recognize his level of performance by how well he realizes the potential that is there. I define eight levels of doubling money velocity. I write them on the back of a business card if someone wants to know them. 8. I request that people do two things ( in ET, the harshness I endured at the beginning probaly precluded my making any requests). I suggest that they help a younger person out (as I was at the end of grad school) and that they share profits with a not-for-profit that appeals to them as a way of extending themselves into the community continually. A person with whom I work is not focused on the market; he is focused on making money in an opportunity setting. The person is focused on making money. By going by plateaux, the person maintains an holistic (non-edge) orientation and sees the pairing of risk and reward. They start in lowest risk highest reward setting with the minimum of applied capital no matter what their initial capital is. They do not know that by bringing more capital to the table to start that they have to pass a more severe test to get to the next level. People do not outflank me usually like bagger did. I name stuff so there is no connection to the bullshit out there all over the place. By keeping a money making focus, I totally eliminate a person setting a ceiling on performance and degenerating to an edge like mentality. They see the carrot for continuing to learn. I do about 80% of time in the very beginning on 4 steppers. the process of IDing the picture that is in vogue (Step 1) requires meandering through the psychological morass to find it. It is not a money making focus usually but money is involved. I saw the lapping going on with bobcathy when I arrived. I tried and failed to get a response on a 4 stepper there. I was convinced a first use would trigger the dominoes to take them right to a focus on making money. Bagger and bobcathy are pendulums. They love it and always will. So making money is the focus and the pychological pictures impeding learning to make money have to go away and be replaced. How markets work is a by product of making money. By building an inital high money velocity that begins daily as a base and adding lessor additional money velocities where risk is higher keeps the psychological QA (Quality Assurance ) well in tact. Because the markets are natural organisms, there is no philosophical nor intellectual adjustments required in reasoning. (the Edge orientation is brutal in this regard since it is antithetical to nature and reasoning. the mere search focus for set ups is a continually degenerating psychological "trap". Generating frustration and failure continually ultimately extinguishes any kind of desire whatsoever and a deep survival approach emerges. Safety in survival is an entrenchment that has, as we all see here, has it's own vocabulary, harshness, denial, and suppression orientation. The ceiling concept and presumed self whatevers lead to comparitive stuff couched in avoidance of facts. I work from a 100% psychological viewpoint and I engage the most powerful hooks emphasizing process, not results in a holistic system. By eliminating downsides at every turn, I build enabling natural pictures to replace garbage, fear, anger, competitiveness, winner's bullshit, and myths that abound.
Great post. A lot of truth in it. I agree with all the aspects here on comparing extreme sports achievements with trading achievements. However, I should say that I now disagree with the 80/20 rule on psychology/skill. I would say that, in the roots of it - Trading is more like 90/10 or 95/5 psychology. It is extreme. The "better" you get, the less the technique matters. After a certain critical mass, I've found, only your mind is the final frontier which you are constantly trying to redraw, if you're an ambitious trader. The actual physical "limit" as to what you can make trading the ES a day, is - when you divide all the ranges into smaller and smaller timeframe fractals - that is following Mandelbrot's fractal theory - Maybe a hundred points or more. This is now the point where you would say "bullshit". Maybe you'd say "bullshit" at 30pts, or 10pts, or like many traders on ET 1.5 pts. Think about what your "bullshit" point is. This is your mental barrier. The mission of this thread should be to identify that mental barrier and try to lift it. I know traders who can average 6 or more points per day on the ES consistently. This is far from utopia, but to you it might already be the bullshit point, which means you're currently at a disadvantage, that is handicapped. However, if you know traders who can do that, you can say to yourself - Well - He can make 6pts - It's possible. How can I make at least 3? - This is my point here. To just lift your mental ceiling as to what is possible and then aspire to at least do half that. Why wouldn't you be half as good as excellent traders? What does it take? You can always ask them. They'll tell you - Humility, always being open, never taking anything for granted, never setting yourself mental limits, having the sky as your limit, always trying to learn something new etc etc. There's a lot more, but I'll come to that in another post. What really annoys me is the close-mindedness of so many ET'ers who poop around saying that 1pts or 2pts or whatever is the most you can supposedly make in a day. It seriously annoys me. I can outperform this all the time, and many others do much better than me. I wish those ET'ers wouldn't waste their and my time posting their opinion (and that's all it is - opinion) of what is possible. It really is an annoyance, to say the least, not to mention sad. These people will never get out of their mental trap unless they open up. My girlfriend, for example, thinks that making 3-6 points on the ES is completely normal. She thinks that's what futures traders make. She has never even seen any of ET's famous frontiers, and will never be exposed to those barriers. She's not even a trader, but she's already ahead of most ET'ers. Are you gettin me here? It's all psychology. The enemy is you. What we should remind ourselves of is the fact that 97% of futures traders lose. Why would it be any better on ET? Chances are 95% of ppl on ET are losers, too. The other 4.9% are happy that they survive, and make a little money on top of that to live. They never even look beyond that. They're, as it goes "happy with what they've got". There's nothing wrong with that, if that's fine for you, but be careful that it doesn't become so ingrained that it makes you judgmental as to what is possible and what isn't. It's easy to run into this trap, and most people do. Then they end up "flaming" their fellows for "unrealistic expectations", finding a crowd of equally insecure sheep to reinforce them, further ingraining the beliefs and staking the frontiers they've set themselves. The problem is that the few shepherds around will just quietly laugh to themselves - They know better, but most of them shut up - They rather avoid the trouble. However, it is them that will meet privately to reinforce each other and discover new barriers, while the "public" boards remain stained with disbelief and mental ceilings. Fine for the shepherds. They don't care. It's your life. But there are a few out there who don't shut up, and ignite hot discussions in an attempt to gauge mental ceilings and maybe help others to overcome them. Some of those people are Jack Hershey, Girlpower, myself and a few others. Smarter traders. You know who. Just have a look at some members, who have their mental limits so deeply ingrained that they can't stop ranting about their "limits" and violently insult the "shepherds", some of those just named. One example would be DT-waw, who didn't mind saying loudly that "we are schizophrenics, suffer from serious mental disease, require treatment, and should be banned from ET by Baron." Here you have a little idea as to how powerful is the stranglehold these beliefs have on some people. What if you tried to destroy those barriers? What would happen? Maybe more than you'd realize. It certainly couldn't hurt. What is my mental limit / bullshit point? I have none. Not when I look at Marty Schwartz, who turned $15,000 into $20,000,000 in 10 years, or the recent interview of Dan Zanger in S&C Mag, who turned $11,000 into $42,000,000 in 23 months trading stocks - Very recently! We're talking 300,000% in less than 2years. This might maybe be a mental barrier. If you choose to accept it, rather than try to exceed it. But to assume that it's impossible is at least stupid, showing Effron audited return statements and tax returns. But some people, for reasons unbeknownst to me, never learn. I politely ask those people to please stay away from these kinds of conversations or otherwise, if they have something to say, try the constructive or innovative approach for a change, in trying to overcome their issues. So much for commonly prevalent psychology. Why do I say eventually it becomes 90/95% psychology? Well, I still study stuff, but I think I have most of the trading technique down pat - But psychology makes all the difference. Yesterday, I made 8pts in the morning/noon and then gave back 6.5 during the afternoon, trying to predict the end of the "chop". Why? Overconfidence. Overconfidence = Psychology. Part of that, I rode an ES channel breakout yesterday. I took 1/2 off after 5 ticks, then exited the other half after only 7T. Why? There was a pivot very near, it was clear that if price is so close to the pivots, it would probably go there first, before reversing. And it did. Violently. So why the hell did I get out with an average of 1.25pts rather than 3+ points, until the pivot was reached? Greed. Greed to lock in a profit. Fear. Fear of the breakout to reverse, leaving me with 1T or so profit only. Greed & Fear = Psychology. These are all concepts a trader will encounter and fight for the rest of his life. Even Marty Schwartz. Overconfidence, Ego, Greed, Fear. My quest is to become better and better at controlling them, more and more objective. Technique / knowledge has nothing to do with all this. My only limits to the upside are now mental, psychological. 95% of them. I improve everyday, and so does my performance. I read more psychology books than trading books now. Also just read Mark Douglas' or Alex Elder's books again. They go in on all this deeply. Particularly Douglas. Another fantastic book on alleviating limits is "In Pursuit of Excellence: How to Win in Sport and Life Through Mental Training" by Terry Orlick, which is in fact from the named sports world. It's a good read for traders. You get it at Amazon. There is no reason for you to hesitate getting any of these books. So be disciplined and buy them now, at least Orlick's book, "Trading in the Zone" by douglas and "Pit Bull" by Marty Schwartz. If you already have them, read them again. Twice. And then again. The same goes for the "Market Wizards" series. But when it all comes down to it, the #1 key to success, in my opinion, is to first recognize and admit (trading) faults - whenever they happen - To yourself, and if you can, to others, like I just did with given examples. The more often you do, the less inhibited you will become admitting your faults. Once recognizing and admitting faults immediately becomes a matter of course to you, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to show exceptional performance. Self-recognition is everything. It kills the ego trying to come through, and stomps all over it. This requires discipline. Show me someone who has no problems talking about his daily fuck-ups and I'll show you an excellent trader! Live long and prosper, ~The Scientist