Your attitude alone will turn investors away. Your lack of experience makes your high opinion of your abilities meaningless.
I've got my second wind. This is my house. Nobody makes a move without me knowing what's going on. I've been frustrated because I've been losing or break even scalping. However, I've hit every prediction I've made, i.e trading my traditional style. I've not won like this in months. There is nobody at Goldman Sachs, at Tudor Investments, at EliteTrader who has my abilities. Nobody and if you question it then come up with the money for the contest and we'll put to the test. Come on Bone. Come on you vendor losers like you know who are scum. Challenge me. Challenge me to trade in my arena with risk controls. Challenge me in my house.. let the Kings come out and Challenge me. Challenge me. You don't wanttododthat. Grandiose? I said I've been break even or losing scalping. I said every year I think I'll probably end up quitting. I don't see what's so grandiose about those statements. Honestly, most of the market is a fool. Most of the people reading this are fools because the first thing on their mind is how I can challenge that fool when the rational thing would be partner with me. Fund me. Feed me. Be nice to me. Take from me. But that's too easy.. that's too brilliant. That's too genius. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMw_HuTSQAI Now, I know the volatility is up and I do better when the volatility is up. But, uhm yeah it's been good really good.. When the market goes straight up then its hard to do anything but just hold.
I get sick and tired of the ridiculousness that the rainbow merchants push. One of the biggest lies is they push this idea of trading as working for yourself. You know getting out from under The Man. Well, I'm here to tell you that almost every successful business has investors. The whole notion of someone making a living and not have anybody to report too is just so far from the truth that is silly that anybody can believe it. And, that's true unless you're already wealthy and even if you are then you'll probably want to get investors to get more wealthy because you're probably going be greedy. The whole trading education system is built on lies on top of lies. Of course, they are appealing lies. So, you're going to working for someone. Exactly who work for and what they are willing to pay is going to be based on who get to help you. Honestly, I question if I made the right decision you know because now my success is largely dependent on what this investor decides to do. But, before my success dependent on again what another decided too. If you say okay I'm going to sell a trading system. Now your customers are essentially your boss. Your dependent on the people who fund you whether that you do that by getting lots of people to invest or you get a few people to fund you, at the end of the day then it is the same thing. So, what I'm getting at is that the whole notion.. the whole setup.. the whole purpose that the trading vendors push is really at odds with the reality. The reality is that your objective is to make your investors wealthy. That's the reality and if you do that then you're going to get wealthy too. Find me a business today that is hugely successful that didn't have investors beyond the people who started it and that weren't wealthy to start with. You won't. Trading for personal freedom, end of day, BS. To be successful you're going to need to do 1 or likely 2 of 2 things: A. Get a job and work for The Man to fund your trading expect to put in years to get the capital. B. Find investors and work for them.
Two things; First, what could possibly be in it for me to challenge you to a trading competition? You are asking me to stake you in a competition against myself. Second, the more you talk, the more you come off as having a gamblers mentality toward trading. That is exactly what short term trading competitions are. Any sort of competition where someone pays a small amount for a chance at winning a much larger amount, is a gambling competition. This gamblers mentality is a key factor in your volatile equity curve. Let's get real for a minute. You should really be looking for a good swing shift job, paying more than $30K annual. Live on bean and rice, saving everything you can. Trading your strategy until you've built about $200K of your own capital, and at least a year of consistent returns. Not just returns, but good returns, with a great risk profile. Then you might be able to think about launching a CTA.
Lucias, Maybe if you were realistic, someone might want to work with you. Who do you think you are kidding? Your pitch is weak. Go back and read all your comments. You don't even sound logical. Who would want to throw any money at you? I'm not sure you would even find someone to waste their time dealing with you in a challenge. I'm sure you have talent. You definitely have potential. I like your persistence. Lose the BS... We can all smell it from afar.
Lucias, making general statements of this nature serve no purpose other than to turn people away. If you are sincerely not interested in other's opinions then there is no use posting on a public forum. I learned how to daytrade stocks in a public daytraing house, from other traders. I was happy to get advice from everyone. Some of the advice I incorporated into my trading and some I discounted as I found that it did not help increase my profits. But I can assure you that I was thankful for all of the advice (good or bad). Trading in the stock market is not a challenge between you and me but rather the challenge is between you and your ability to make money in the stock market. If you are happy with your returns (3%, 30%, 100%, etc.) then that is all that matters. The above information was meant to help you, so please do not berate me for dispensing advice that is given in good will. I do have one question. On the first page of your thread, you meantioned that you DO NOT FOLLOW RULES in your trading. That statement is confusing for me as I do not understand how to improve a process that follows no rules. You do not have to respond to this question, but if you would elaborate a bit on that concept I would appreciate it. Thank you, Carol
@epic: I would be putting up a greater amount of capital so that my EV would be worse then yours. I agree with your sentiment about trading competitions in general and this is why my idea would be that the competition would be ranked against a formula taking into account risk adjusted and net return ,as well as, having per trade risk controls. I can't do it though unless there is a return great enough to make it worth my time. So, I agree for it to happen someone would have to sponsor it... >First, what could possibly be in it for me to challenge you to a trading >competition? You are asking me to stake you in a competition against myself. >Second, the more you talk, the more you come off as having a gamblers >mentality toward trading. That is exactly what short term trading >competitions are. Any sort of competition where someone pays a small >amount for a chance at winning a much larger amount, is a gambling >competitiom @klurby: Technically I've never traded the futures contracts. I've traded them on simulator, and I've traded spread contracts at NADEX at equivalent size to the ES futures, though typically less then that. I'm currently trading futures on a simulator as part of a review process from an interested backer who would fund me with 10k+ account. The amount you need to trade futures depends on your methods, broker, etc. I would say 10k is near the lower bounds. Most futures brokers only require 5k to open an account. I have methods that can trade with as little as 6k-8k depending on the market. >How do you trade futures with only 3k? dont you need at least 10k? @carolnetzer27: It is very true that it is difficult to improve discretionary trading methods. I have fully quantified methods that are completely rule based and they do work rather well too. However, I do not believe that strictly following a rule-based method is the right approach to trading. I offer such rule-based methods as a PRODUCT because that is what I correctly deduced that CONSUMERS (investors) wanted. And, I had seen both methods working: that is I've had success with both methods. However, sense gaining more experience I no longer believe in a strict rule-based method and plan to change my PRODUCTS, in the near future, to indicate that they are highly systematic but that there is some opportunity for human decision making. Trading styles can be grouped into 3 styles: 100% Rule Based/Mechanical: No human decision making takes place. This is a bit of a misnomer because human decision making must still take place at some level. But, in general all efforts are to minimize it. The only decision is whether to trade the system or shut it down. Systematic: Method has defined rules but human decision making and intervention is possible. Discretionary: Method does not have precise/completely defined rules but in general "fuzzy" rules and in general principles are used. My experience had generally led me to prefer systematic and discretionary methods over mechanical methods. But, you're exactly right about process improvement. It is the hardest aspect and exactly how to do that has been a major focus of my life work. My orientation is more focused on principles then rules. Principles would be making the optimal decision, managing risk, and finding good opportunities. A rules based approach is primarily designed to limit and restrict for you from making bad decision whereas a a principles based approach is geared to orienting one to making good decisions. I just find the second more useful for me. >I do have one question. On the first page of your thread, you mentioned >that you DO NOT FOLLOW RULES in your trading. That statement is >confusing for me as I do not understand how to improve a process that >follows no rules.