They do? Really? I'm always interested in examining further education myself, for comparative purposes. Please post the threads where we can learn from those who teach specific, HIGHLY detailed entry = stop management profit exit techniques? As for those currently running training courses being failed traders, haven't you guys picked on Don Miller in here enough? :eek:
I'd respectfully but strongly advise you to work much harder on finding solutions to beating the market than you do venting here and/or posting market calls with random, anonymous people. There are many solutions for you out there... but a negative mindset will push you further and further from potential success.
man, you could learn enough from NoDoji's posts 'who teach specific, HIGHLY detailed entry = stop management profit exit techniques'. i ignore your naive comments on my post before.
olifxpro said he started 3 threads on this already, basically justifying his own inability to find a solution to his ineffective trend-following strategy, hence "trends don't work in smaller timeframes, choppy, etc" and to make him feel better in giving up daytrading as "95% of daytraders fail". I think he will start a 4th thread when his swing and position trading failed too. He is not being flexible, relying only on trend-following and ignoring counter-trend techniques, reversion to mean concepts.
Frank Only two threads on day trading were started.I have been working on a random , trending and contrariness day trading system. Of course I am flexible , nothing is impossible , man went to moon so the sky is you limit.
First paragraph assumption of 50/50 is wrong unless your entry is random to start with. Even then, depending on the instrument, there is still longer term bias that exists skewing the probability. 2nd paragraph depends on the type of trade you are engaged in. Counter-trend trading with increased frequency of trade means less accurate entries and that put you in a position to want to add to losing position. Trend following trading adding at the point of breakout if you use pullback entry to start with, does not hurt the overall prob. Simple enough?
Taking into account retail transaction costs, even 50/50 is optimistic. The longer term bias will not help you beat the passive market return. Accuracy of entry is not really a problem when a strategy is automated. Trend traders .. sigh. Never mind. Better than random entries assume the trader has an actual edge .. not just a discretionary punt on the right "feeling".
you should only place a trade when the odds of winning are far greater than the odds of losing. you will never know the exact odds until you exit the trade as anything can happen once you are filled. if you are unable to see when the odds are in your favor then you best find another way to make money. how good you get at winning will depend on how much experience you have and how much $ you make will depend on how much trading capital you have available to you. the main reason why most traders do not make any money is because they do not know what they are doing, for if they did they would be making money.
Ok...you can control the game my ending it....that is true. But with a coin flip, you either wind up winning or wind up losing. Random walk theory says that the result will oscillate around zero but it can spend lots of time in the loser catagory or lots of time in the winner category. Lets say heads are good and tails are bad. Then you arbitrarily decide to stop the game when you get three heads ahead. Then you are cutting off the possibility of every being 4 heads ahead, or 5 heads ahead right? Yet the possibility of being 4 tails behind, or 5 tails behind still exists. So you are in effect letting your losses run but cutting your winners in a 50/50 game. Don't think that would work by itself. To be honest with you, I wonder about cutting your losers when you're two flips behind or 3 flips ahead. But I think that the losses would add up exactly to what the winners did cumulatively. I honestly might model it on a computer because I'm curious about that. SM