yes. sorry for the confusion. this is still PART 1--i'll change the heading. thanks for the kind words on the surf report ! surfer
We don't see with our eyes but with our brain in truth Why ? because eyes are just captors and brain interprets the signals from the captors through a model whatever it is this model is not reality per se so you don't see the reality you see your brain model. I remind you the book I have already mentioned from Nobel prize Edelman "A universe of conciousness. How matter becomes imagination" in year 2000. There are some mathematics involved (because it discuss a new scientific modelisation of brain including the emergence of conciousness) but most part of the books is understandble without math skill.
Seems what we are collectively saying is: We trade what we see, then what we think. (To have any logic / intuition don't we have to at least SEE the chart and/or price action first?) BSAM
what you see is the past, you trade your thoughts on the future ( what you think) based on how you interpret the past. hope this makes sense. best, surfer
How about this for a happy medium: Before you enter, trade what you think; after you enter, trade what you see. ?
I think I know what you mean, but for arguments sake, if you say you cannot enter a trade without a bias, why would you stay in that trade if you are now riding "bias-free"? If by no bias you mean you cannot anticipate what the future move is, then wouldn't you just exit the trade? I think what candletrader and the rest assume as "trade what you see" is the same thing you mean when you say "ride the trade without bias" -- meaning, form an opinion but remain open to what the market is telling you. My opinion on the subject is that I always wait for a certain event (aka price movement) to occur before I form my opinion and begin to anticipate; therefore, I guess I belong to the camp who trades what they see? I am anticipating, based on what I am seeing occur (or not occur) in the present or near past. Satisfy my need to be categorized!
I think I can see (sorry for the pun - couldn't resist it ) what both Surf is getting at here. I think confusion arises when people have opinions about where the market 'should' go to the extent that they are blind to what the market is actually doing and telling them, and that is a danger. But, I think (that word again ) that Surf is talking more about using what has already been, and obviously seeing that, but thinking beyond that in a strategic way, just as someone in a chess game will be thinking many moves in advance, and playing strategically with that in mind. i.e. using all the clues presented to think in an anticipatory way and play that anticipation... Proactive trading rather than reactive trading... Is this what you are getting at Surf? best Natalie
Let Marketsurfer get on with it instead of pushing yourselves into analysis paralysis. Let him publish a body of work, then ask questions. This way you may find your earlier questions redundant. Go for it market surfer - put your thoughts down on this thread - worry about the questions later.
"Every argument eventually becomes an argument about definitions" (don't remember who). Seems to me it became pure sholastic: as soon as all agreed on definitions, the rest became non-issue How about this, for argument sake: trade is entered and managed with no bias whatsoever, just because there is valid setup? You can say that setup itself was formed at earlier time on some research that leads to bias, i.e.: this type of breakout usually leads to upward movement. Right, but the imperative word is USUALLY, not ALWAYS, which means: this setup could work or not in ANY GIVEN case. Thus, knowing that in a long run trading this setup is going to make money for me, I don't know which trade on this setup is going to be a winner and which a loss. Hence, I simply react on valid signal and let the market to prove me right or wrong. No bias, pure trading what I see. No thinking involved. Eyes to finger. Robot-like.