you forgot this part: <b>The success of this firm attracted the attention of George Soros. Niederhoffer became a partner of Soros and managed all of the fixed income and foreign exchange from 1982 to 1990.[2] Soros said in The Alchemy of Finance that Niederhoffer was the only one of his managers who retired voluntarily from trading for him while still ahead. Soros held Victor in such high esteem that he sent his son to work for him to learn how to trade.[2]</b>
Some thoughts on trading. One of the biggest myths going is its easier and more lucrative to enter a trade in the direction of past movement than it is to predict directional change points ( like I have demonstated in this journal since its start ). It is FAR easier and lucrative to enter in a range prior to a change than to try to guess how far a direction will continue after you enter--- OR they are equal in success if your prediction models are lacking. No one knows how far a directional move will go, but i have found that the change points can be dtermined with some degree of quasi accuracy. The same old story about entering in the direction of a move is easily sold to traders as it can be shown on a chart and appears to make sense. Remember, the more something seems to make sense in the market, the less likely it is to be accurate. surf
Interesting point surf. What works depends on the preceding conditions and other factors that make up a strategy. Fading works, but so do volatility breakouts.
Thanks. I would say, objectively, being that NO ONE knows the future both strategies have an equal chance of success without some type of structual/informational edge. This informational edge can be as simple as having intuitive skill to know how the market will react to certain events, etc. If you are just basing trades based on a chart/price or volume(the past)--the failure/success rate for either strategy is equal. best, surf
It's always a treat to get one of your sermons from the mount after you have a winning trade. We should treasure such rare moments.