What ever... Satisfaction... relaxing... All what is noted is a comparative term. Obviously, once you start trading properly you'll seek out to find some other problems in life which you hope to make satisfying and relaxing... It can be trading now but then it will be family, part-time job, relationships and others... Humans have a natural instinct of seeking perfectiveness in life. It also moves in cycles... Duh...
I disagree with you, scientist. I think there are some things about trading that are truly glorious and special. I am not the first person to say this. This is an endeavor where people are really given a chance, regardless of who they are and where they come from. You don't need the connections, you don't need the pedigree and you don't need all the other crap besides merit that people seem to care so much about sometimes. A chance at what you ask? A chance at their life. A chance to make something out of yourself. A chance to create something that can't be taken away because the results and the merits that you hold are there in black and white. Nobody can argue with that. For people who have been marginalized in society, there is nothing greater than this. For me, trading was a salvation. I was never given much from anyone, and I never expected it. What pissed me off, however, was that they were never willing to give me even a slight, small chance to prove myself. If they would just give me a chance, they would never regret it. But they would never know, because they never did. The markets, however, never turned me away without giving me a chance. My money was ALWAYS good. And everybody was on an equal plane. From the biggest dudes to the littlest guys, we were all same. My 10k was good as Soros' billions. And if I could just keep calm, sane, and do my homework, then I have a shot. And a shot was all I've been asking for all this time. Jake
Yes - Trading is an equal opportunity. When trading for yourself (as opposed to trading on behalf of others) that fact that it is a profession, a business, work, a job often gets obscured by the lure of the market, and the desire to be successful, and the fear/greed mindset that sinks in with the early losing and winning trades. The fact that you are running your own business becomes forgotten. But the simple fact is you are doing a job. You go to work every day like everyone else, and if you are conscientious and diligent, then you work very hard at that job. You are the MD, the accounts dept. the It dept. R&D dept. admin support, and everything rolled into one with working on the shop floor as well. That is what running a business is, and it needs to be approached from that standpoint. BUT, the entry requirements to start the business are smaller than any other business I can think of (in cash terms), and it is a level playing field. Sure some people are further along the road than others, but no-one is competing against anyone else anyway. Not even against yourself. So the rewards and the risks taken over time are not much different. The only difference is how much money you have to 'invest' into your business as the business capital at the outset. I agree with you Jake, It is a place where you provide your own opportunity and are not reliant upon someone else 'allowing' you to have an opportunity/chance to prove yourself. Also the is no subjectivity about the results. Either you make money or you don't. And the only thing that counts is the equity curve. Few if any other businesses base their 'promotion' decisions on such black and white criteria. Either you did xyz or you didn't. If you did, you move to the next level and get a pay rise as a result. the next level then has it's very own xyz to do before you can move to the level above that and so on... Totally objective - black and white. Either you did or you didn't. No arguments no value judgements. nothing else. It is in fact 'pure' as an opportunity, and one where each individual is the master of their own destiny. Best Natalie
Period. Trading is a business, much like any other small business. I can say this from my own experience, since I ran (and still run) a business where I had to do everything: Admin, Repairs, Support, R&D, Design, Manufacture, Advertising, Display, Accouting and Sales (right in the shop), just to name a few. Trading is no different, and by all means not less time-and-work-demanding. I could theoretically just work from 9:30-10:00 everyday and theoretically make a killing during amateur hour and retire for the rest of the day. Practically, however, it took me a long time of study and figuring things out to get there in the first place - plus will give you the wrong attitude towards the job, and you will get bored and slack about it, and eventually lose. Much better is to focus whatever spare time you have on studying the markets more, developing and testing more systems etc - in order to find even more opportunities to outperform the market. Use your time to study, learn some great new thing everyday - Or write silly posts on ET and see what everybody else thinks of it Well, this is only true if you don't count initial losses to get started in the business as an "entry requirement". I think if we look at the minimum "critical mass" required in order to make a living off trading, plus account for losses and education plus disregard the PDT rule and go straight into futures - Yes, then it might be right that the entry requirements are smaller than that of many other businesses. Otherwise, I would disagree. BANG. This is what I love the most about this job. This is what it's really about. 100% precise measure of your performance, and 100% appropriate pay. Sincerely, ~The Scientist
Natalie, I too found Jake's thoughts about trading interesting. yet, you surprised me when you said we were not competing against one another. I use to think this was the most intellectually demanding task I have ever undertaken. Not true, for me anymore. It is the most competitive challenge I have ever undertaken. and there are indeed, many in the market that are out to get me to jump stops and ignore stops and shake out the weak hands and get my money. It is a serious business and competition is indeed as the core of it. If you dont think so from behind your quiet computer, take a look at the bidding in the pit and tell me if they dont look like they are in competition. It is competitive , no doubt about it and we are competing against one another. Luckily, the market is so hugh, we can share a feeling of mutual admiration for being in the bidness of trading. empathy, I think they call it woodrow
Another analogy would be methodically negotiating a tricky obstacle course to get from A to B. Best Natalie
The casino analogy is used in association with trading continually, and it is indeed a very good one. So where does the competition element come into the equation? If you are a gambler, a punter, you may well be going into the casino and placing your bets in a hope that you will win. You are betting against the house, and you will win some and you will lose some, but given enough time, you will always lose, because the games you are playing have the 'edge' stacked against you, not because the table is croocked, but because the odds of success favour the house winning over time due to the rules of the game. So you are competing against the house in the hope that you will win overall, not realising that you are in fact doomed to failure. And yet Gamblers keep coming back because they win just often enough for the idea of winning to be addictive and so much fun that they want that buzz, that high, and continue to have the belief that the 'Big Win' is just around the corner, and that lady luck will smile upon them. They all dream of being the person that breaks the house, yet sadly they never will. So, let's examine this from the house's point of view. Every time $1000 is bet at their tables, they know that out of that $1000 of bets, they will win some of them, and they will lose others. But they also know that they have a small mathemtical edge that means that out of that $1000 that passes across their tables, in spite of losing some and winning others, they will get to keep about $50 of it. So by the same token, if $1bn crosses their tables, their edge dictates that they will get to keep $50m of it. The only thing they don't know is which individual $$$ of that $1bn are going to be the 50 million individual $$$ they get to keep. With that kind of edge, they can afford lavish hospitality in lavish hotels to both attract people to their establishemnt, and keep them there and happy and most importantly keep them turning over $$$ at the tables. It is a pure exercise in size. They know that while each individual bet they may win or lose, overall they will win, and they will monitor that edge very carefully in order to make sure they never lose it. If they were to lose it they would very quickly find another edge in order to contunue the game. The win or loss from each individual bet is meaningless to the casino in such circumstances, only the overall picture and edge matters. The casino is not competing with the players/punters, because it does not need to. In trading, if you are competing, then you are putting yourself in the position of one of the punters, and turning the market into the house. You are abandoning all the elements that act in your favour like finding and operating an edge, being able to cherry pick which edges you will exploit and which you will not, and only using the best of the edges that you can identify. You are allowing the market to have all the edges, and to exploit them against you. The market is comprised of a very large number of individual players. Some (a small number) of those players operate as the house, and operate with an edge that they have identified, tested, monitor closely, and guard carefully. To these players, the individual trades are unimportant in the grand scheme of things, because operating their edge carefully, methodically and consistently dictates that like the casino (house) their equity curve will continue to rise. The remainder (vast majority) of the players are the punters, who have no edge, or one that is not properly tested, or not fully believed and so deviated from, not executed consistently etc. The question is - If you are trading in the market with a consistent edge, and exectuing that edge consistently and methodically, where does competition come into the equation? Are you not in fact operating as the house? best Natalie