Electric taught me to trade my shift. We work in four hour shifts scalping the Forex. I am profitable. What is all this other crap about? Wifey
Good analogy. Truth is... The securities industry has been running a highly effective Propaganda Campaign for 100 years... To create a culture where most people and 90% of people under 30... Believe anyone can "beat the market" with a few simple tools or advice from a "good broker". They ** fabricate ** worlds in which Supermodels with laptops... And pensive Calvin Klein models gazing into pools of water... Easily just take money away from experienced, uber-talented Pro Traders. This is all a total scam. A more realistic view... Is that you are entering a Zero Sum Game like the World Series of Poker... And you have to beat the best players in the world to profit in the long run. Or think back to high school and remember the top 2 or 3 math brains. Where you one of them? Then why are you one of them today? Those 2 or 3 math brains today have advanceds degrees plus 10-20 years trading experience... And you think that you are going to just take their money? rm+
I don't think that is a good analogy. The 4ft weakling wonât be world heavyweight champion because of physical limitations not because he canât be taught. In the World Series of Poker the players are playing for a fixed pot of money. Yes, someone is going to take it home and it will be the best player but in the market there is no fixed pot of money. If that super brilliant mathematician bought Google at itâs IPO of $85 and then sold it to the supermodel with a laptop for $185 who won. The mathematician made a $100 but if the supermodel sold the same shares on Friday for $429 who won? Who made more money? If the stock market is a zero sum game it is one on such a large scale that it is irrelevant for you and I, here and now. There doesnât have to be a loser for every winner. A stock may not go up forever and eventually someone might take a loss on it but will their loss equal all of the gains that have been made? Not unless the stock drops to zero. I think a better way of looking at the market is: you and your friend are running from a hungry lion. In order not be eaten you donât have to be world class sprinter, you only have to be slightly faster than your friend. In the market there are supermodels with laptops and mathematicians with advance degrees and just because they are there doesnât mean you canât make money too. I don't think everyone who trys will make money in the market but if they don't it is not necessarily because they were beat by better traders, more likely they beat themselves.
Were I you I would keep looking around. You will notice what a decade means in trading. Good luck. Processing is the key. Get around to looking at processing. Good luck. Shoot over to BYU and look at their math group that does data compression. after you have seen two roses where one has the data that is 1/200 of the other, think about it. Good luck. Greatness can be fast tracked. It is not difficult to get to be "unbelievable". But it does take getting out of the rut you have cultivated mistakenly.
Archie doesn't have much understanding of the making money process and what metrics are used for descriptive purposes. You are beating a dead horse; he is not going to get a wake up call and begin to post anything pertinent or significant. His chit chat on stevie is just surface and glibness as a consequnce od seeing the name in another post.
You really are getting quite predictable Jack. Whenever someone points out the folly of your arguments, you follow a four step process: 1) Insult the opponent in a hand-waving, insipid fashion that is too general and too vague to be directly refuted. 2) Assume powers of omniscience (in determining what talents the opponent does or does not possess) and ability to predict the future (in determining what they will or will not do). 3) Distort the content of what was said--flat out lie if necessary--and dismiss, paper over or ignore all relevant points. 4) Return to gnostic pronouncements that are not grounded in logic or even in reality, shrouded in weak analogies and ill-fitting comparisons that do not pass the smell test for anyone with a basic sense of objectivity and functioning analytical skills. *5) Optional bonus step: insert multiple grammatical gaffes, spelling errors, and basic inability to format a post... all such ticks cast as eccentricity, but in reality just lowbrow sloppiness. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. At least you do everyone the favor of showing your true colors. Those who fall under your spell deserve what they get.
GREAT screen name Archemedes, But it seems your reasoning abilities aren't quite as sharp as the original envisionary. No offense meant, just a comment in reply to your posts. kt
Does this comment apply to all of your ID's? In the context of born talent or a person being taught, do you have any specific contributions that I can respond to? I am an amateur who has worked a long time to gain the knowledge , skills and experience that I have. you cast me as a lowbrow.. so be it. I can understand that you feel, from your perspective that I have little to say. Begin to get specific in your comments. Be direct and chat topically. My chat is on topic and I feel it is responsive to two kinds of previous posts. Your kind and those that are on topic where I have an additional thought that can be considered. You just serve ET as a person who says whatever and it is OT almost all of the time. Should I reply to a person who responds to you it is just a small passing comment on the subject and your relation to that subject. I have finally decided to not respond to people who are not contributors to ET. FYI that means I will chat with those who disagree with me and those who present differing ideas. I am always interested in learning about anything that has passed me by and is different. You don't fit this bill. For you, and people like you who comment to me the way you do, I am not going to respond any more.
Pot. Kettle. Black. You routinely and continuously engage in practices that would be "red-flagged" in a judged debate, then feign surprise when hostility is returned with hostility and your lack of substance in reply is pointed out.