Hi jem and Brett, jem, I am just an amateur; we do make mistakes and, now, you point out a few more that I may have made. Brett is interested in helping people excell. He has a trader-trader relationship with Greenspoon. I was briefly addressing the results of the Lo/Repin since they were looking at people who were trading and they measured what others measure. Sometimes people who trade feel that they can get help from people in the health services field. In the sports industry that does happen occasionally as well. I have heard from speakers at conferences and in the academic community that there are people who do poorly in trading and that they seek help. This is the downside of trading. The downside predominated in the Lo/Repin/Steenbarger reference. The two signifincat measures that confirmed this were the signup wants/expectations and stated the rapid attrition of the respondents from 80 to 33. The product of the 69 members included and the duration of the excercise (25 days) is very different than the sample size (emailed responses) evaluated (775). the strength and weakness charateristics cannot be corrolated to or with the responses. But these characterisitcs in relation to the P&L show why the participants were paying LBR fees. I am unfamiliar with the pressure stuff and it is not listed in the 42 elements that comprise the 8 permutations of the valence and its compliment arousal. I cannot ID with the sample either. My trading experience goes through a range of perfomance that exceeds all of Brett's sample and clients as far as I can determine. I do not know for the 2002 Lo/Repin work since it did not include performance quant and qual. When I think of emotional associations with trading, I associate it the with times in which trading is going on. A 48 hour window for assessing is not meaningful for me. The combat orientation is familiar to me. OODA is an interesting viewpoint and jem relates how he chooses not to use it. I come from the ISAGA world and interaction analysis with particular and specific applications in international negotiations. The periodicity of our team rep rates was 12 seconds. This is not a probability orientation as is used by the test group. Traders are well served by an orientation that fits either a probability orientation or an alternative orientation. OODA is not a probability orientation it is a reaction orientation to betting (See poker type analogies). High velocity trading fits a conventional business model of optimization through performance characteristics best described as effectiveness and efficiency. It is not the "standard orthodoxy' that was tested. The emotions associated with this model, taken in situ, as vectors are different than those of the referenced project. I posted to note that the people who are the subject of the study have needs as a consequence of what they went through as trainees and as paper and/or real money traders. It would be interesting to see the direction the study responses took over time. We do know that they shrunk for an assortment of reason. Summer trading may have made it's usual point. Repeated failure and lack of success in training and trading all have consequences. In trhe training and study, no one except, a few, were trading with any reported success as reported as they stuck it out. The consequences that came to them emotionally and otherwise need remedies. aslo consider the needs of those who did not continue to either report or train. A neutral bias for trading what was being taught (day trading) is a pragmatic consideration. A terrific market situation was evident for all to see. Attrition would not be likely at all just based on the opportunity over the five weeks. It seems that thee was attrition. Valence....arousal.
Thanks for the post. You highlight one of the single most important issue that keeps aspiring traders from being profitable traders. The fact is.....no one....can know why and what is causing price movement at that particular instance. In the simple process flow chart below, we see that the nature of causation of DOM activity is irrelevant. | "games" / "manipulations" / "Other reasons to impact price movement" | -----> | DOM activity | ------> | Change in value area | Focusing on the immediate cause of change in value is all the necessary information we need, to make the key trading decision of whether to participate in the perceived upcoming change in market value. As traders we are interested in perceiving changes in value area before the change occurs. Therefore, what causes the DOM activity itself is irrelevant ,understanding the dynamics of DOM activity is relevant since this is a key metrics to pre-determine change in market value. I would suggest you undertake Mr. Hersheys Stop and Reverse training method to re-wire your brain correctly. My technique that I use is to flip a coin and attach trade bias to each individual side. ie when you get the Head, buy long, and when you get the Tail, sell short. Your goal once in the trade will be to manage the trade so you can get out even. Every 50 trades, switch the bias of the coin. ie now you will have Heads, sell short, and Tail, buy long. Focusing on managing the trade entry dictated by the coin will effectively re-wire your mental flowchart to focus on the DOM instead of looking for reasons on what is causing the DOM to change. I find that the best trading decisions are often counter-intuitive, and this is the best exercise I do to "re-wire" my thinking. This is a great thread and I have to thank Dr. Brett Steenbarger for sharing his research on the various modalities of highly successful traders.
LOL, I 've read many Jack's posts and finally read them without dictionary. But didn't see this one, it is very interesting, thanks Spyder!
Well, I can't say that I am not profitable. I consistently am in those areas of the market which I understand. But know that it can be better and decided to get as much knowledge about such valuable information streams as DOM and volume filtered T&S. You're absolutely right that often we don't need to dig that deep, for example when looking at price action I don't care what caused buying or selling at exact moment (of course I keep in mind general fundamental picture, but hence I trade off short time frames, fundamentals don't influence individual trades too much), for me it is enough to see that supply is exceeding demand or wise versa. But in the case of DOM I feel (and know) that I miss some essential component needed to understand WHAT causes changes in Order Book just like as I know what causes price movement - it is buying and selling. So the question is still open... But anyway thanks for post. I am glad that this thread flows in river-bed of positive and informative discussion. Janis
Spyder before this post - I thought you were legit in your efforts. Now I am beginning to wonder? Would it surprise you that a false guru can take information and repackage it in an appealing manner? It was not the words that he used - it was the way he misused them. The fact you tell me he is familiar with the concepts is even more damning. No one who competes and overcomes the pressure to make a living at a sport or daytrading would consider using the word therapy the way jack did. To use guru speak - it is a completely different paradigm. Jack could have proclaimed ignorance of the topic. Without that claim I am even more convinced his claims of 20-30 -trades a day in the S&Ps-- and always being on the right side of the market- and 700 lots- are fake.
LOL, there's just NO WAY this is happnening in anything even remotely resembling nomral life, so why even mention it? Jimmy Jam
I had to show what I doubt about jack. He is a trading educator. Fine - it is his claims of being a great trader and his condescension with which I have problems. I find a world of difference between his claims of greatness and the work of a real trader. I have met some great real traders. (mostly of the floor variety). None of them act like jack. To be a great trader you have to be well balanced and self secure.
With all due respect jem, I recommend you review my post once again. I simply pointed out an error in your reasoning. Should you wish to ignore the information provided, such an action represents no concern to me. I've met the man - several times. I've visited his home. I've seen him trade. As such, I view things from a slightly different vantage point than most. Feel free to hold whatever opinion best suits your needs. Good Trading to you. - Spydertrader
1. Spydertrader - In response to your use of excellent guru condescension lines. (Feel free to hold whatever opinion best suits your needs.) Let me explain none of my opinions with respect to Jack have to suit my needs. When Jack proves he can trade - I will modify my current thesis. Till then I know he has a very poor signal to noise ratio and when he has traded he lost 24% of his account. 2. I also caught the guru like "non acknowledgment" of the point made by critics. To reiterate. Jack misused a word and concept that manifests his lack of profitable trading experience. If you wish to address that point let me know. 3. Finally spyder I have read a small number of posts by you. I never went after you. I thought you were sincere in your efforts. To my knowledge you never claimed to be a big trader. But now I have to ask, do claim to be able to make a living trading the S&Ps. Are you claiming to be consistently profitable?