A: I am trading it myself B: I don't have enough cash to effectively trade "big size". And besides, how do you define "big size"? I think if I traded more than $1-2mm, I would become too obvious, and it would negate my "system". And while $1mm is not a huge amount of money for a lot of ET guys, it is more than I have in cash for margin. By a lot C: "Holy grail" is just an expression. If I were 100% positive, I would sell my house and go for it. I am not 100% positive, because I don't believe in miracles, and I have a rather large family I am financially responsible for. Peace, RS
If I had a system that worked well, and wanted to make trading my career, I'd quitely trade it. On the side I'd offer free advice/coaching, perhaps, to my fellow traders to help them lose less. Because everyone should be able to make a living how they choose to. I may teach the barest basics of trading well (not the advanced parts of the system) to someone(s) who had a lot of money and wished to either start trading or to trade better. There would be a really STIFF fee for this. Not the more advanced parts unless there was an astronomical fee involved. That money would then go into my own account. I may even trade others' money with my system. If I had a REALLY great system, then I would trade it, live well, and save up money for the day I may wish to not trade anymore, or go onto other things. Money helps remedy a lot of evils in the world. At this point (and maybe during) I would give some money away to help people like Bill Gates does and supposedly Soros does. If I knew I would no longer be or need to be trading, I may even teach/instruct others (maybe poorer people) how to prosper in trading because... Poverty Sucks. Remembering most of all that the best investment we can make is investing in people. On the other hand... gas, grass or ass, nobody gets trained for free. (In case you're reading this, Lauren, the ass part applies to you, heh). trade off
marketsurfer has the holy grail... Noone believes me... even he doesn't realize that he holds the holy grail...
Error 404 I have given your question a lot of thought lately, even before I have read your post. In terms of life cycle I am in a somewhat similar situation to yours. I have been trading since the sixties, sometimes on the floor. I have been tinkering with methods all this time (my partner in the 70's and I even owned the first personal computer, a WANG, it was the size of a small desk , cost 25k and had 64k of ram) and I am chuckling when people say they have spent thousands of hours developing something. How about tens of thousands of hours? After a few years of trading I have become quite successful, bought a seat, did well on the floor and after a few years I have retired from trading and I have used what was a fortune then to seed a new business. That business failed, other major personal problems, and here I am past 60, money gone, and a trailer of tax shelter investments from the past that are blowing up by the day. So I am down but not out. But, in the meantime I have developed not one but numerous methods that truly work and what other's would call Holy Grail making use of my practical knowledge of trading and readily available toolbox programs. For those who say it is impossible I ask you to have some imagination and work harder because market movements are highly repetitive and even the cheapest toolbox programs can be effective tools to mine that. The issue of not giving it away comes up. But right after that is logistics. I have decided that to be the safest (I can not always trust myself) I will teach a few good people so that there is a small team and I do not have to personally follow the markets and enter each order all the time. The ones that work out will become my working partners. Inevitably people will split and take some of what they have learned from me with them but some will stay and I am confident I will always be able to attract a small group of competent associates. Money is not the issue here. As I see it unlimited sums are available once some initial barriers have been overcome but are actually not necessary for a combination of robust systems.