Silly post-modern nonsense. Describing the world in mathematical terms has been phenomenally successful. Theoretical work like Einstein has lead to experimental work that's confirmed theory (Eddington) and expanded our understanding of the way the universe functions.
This interpretation lacks the conceptual rigor needed to address the philosophical subtleties at play.
Two points he made stick out: 1. The guy said Martingale or doubling down is a bad strategy. and 2. in his summary he said each trade is random.
I did not listen to the entire video, however, what I heard him say was that each trade was independent from any other trade and that is true. Can you point me to the minute on the video he said it was random? I did hear a little on what he said about martingale but I consider he has only been trading for 7 years and I think he was speaking from his personal experience. I use martingale quite often. I did today. I not only averaged down on a trade but I double up. Martingale is doubling up after a loss. The difference is I am NOT actually taking a loss. It is only a paper loss until the double up price probes back up. I also see an averaged down trade (and that averaged down may be double up or even tripled up or same size as the original entry) as ONE trade not two independent trades as such. I see the positions taken interconnected. In addition, strict martingale has nothing to do with momentum, price MOVEMENT, market probing, price action, but it is based on pure luck. Trading when using martingale is different than luck and as we used to say "it is a horse of a different color." Any reasonable dipstick can look at any chart of any time frame on any minute, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly chart and SEE probing on every bar and every group of bars. Probing and correct price action reading coupled with discerning and seeing the larger context is what can make martingaling work in trading. IT IS NOT A LUCK FACTOR but a skill factor of knowing how and when to apply it in trading. Furthermore, when it doesn't work a trader must know what to do to mitigate the damage done. That really is what the whittling down technique I developed for myself is all about. Mitigating a loss (whether martingaled or not until the overall trade becomes profitable). Just this week I pulled over 1600 points out of the market in one session after being down over 2000 points. How did I do it? Through whittling down. It took me a couple of hours or so (if I recall correctly) but I got it done. I was trying to video the process but for some reason the video capture only captured a small of amount of the many trades I took. I am not sure what I did wrong trying to make the video work. I sometimes mis-read price action and am wrong or make a mistake but I have developed ways to recuperate a loss and to do so quickly. Watch today's video. It is a short video as I only had time for a few trades, but it was made live not a replay and if I remember correctly I mis-read the market PA on the very first trade and even martingaled on it. However, instead of resorting to whittling down the paper loss I decided to just take the loss and double up in the right directing and prompting got back all my loss and up around 53 points in profit. Most traders I know who average down and maybe martingale cannot make it work because they have not invested the time to learn how to read price action. I can promise IMO 7 years is not enough time to become really proficient in PA. Nevertheless, the guy did make some reasonable points. At least something to "think" about. See most traders are doing it just "hoping" it will work. That is a recipe for disaster. As a trader I have to know when and how to average down. Averaging down is about INCREASING my probability of a successful outcome on a trade but at the expense of bigger risk/smaller reward. It works because of market probing IF one knows how to read the market probes. I miss it sometimes and when I do I know I must correct it very fast, or it will grow into a bigger loss. I will post today's short video now in my journal.
The market cannot be mathematically certain. We could all be rich if we just knew the formula. It cannot be because there exists too many variables. Some can be known, others cannot be known until they are known, and others are simply unknowable, and others have yet to even be discovered. The market is dynamic in structure and is based on human perception, momentum, human behavior and human DNA. Until our DNA changes the markets will continue to do what we humans do. Look at charts from 1930's compared to charts from 2024 and if a person looks at them they will see the SAME patterns. Over 70% of the market (it is believed) to be traded by algos..computers.. and yet the same patterns are there that were on the hand drawn charts of yesteryear. I used to draw a few by hand too! Yes, I am old and fossilized! IMO the laws of physics are probably more applicable to trading than just pure mathematical calculations. We trade in a grey fog. There are moments of great clarity but most trading is like trading while navigating in a fog. I used to run the Mississippi and Ohio rivers taking heating oil up north to keep the Yankees thawed out during the winter. There were times we were navigating the twist and bends of those rivers and even making locks in the dead of night in great fog. But we navigated and the Yankees lived for another winter. LOL Such is trading.
Its true! Trading sometimes feel like a navigating in fog. Any clear strategy that can help cut through fog a bit.
Here, first bullet point: I am not questioning your wisdom, or his, just to show there are more than one way to trade and that is actually the beauty of it. We are all different, trade differently but once we understand basics PA and "probability", all roads lead to Rome. In trading, IMHO, probability is not a dirty word. Take care and thank you for your response.
There is no substitute for experience. You probably went up/down the river a few hundred times and your instinct was guiding you. Same in day trading.
Yes many ways to trade. Many different beliefs about trading too. I posted the video not because I would believe or even agree with all he says but I think the young man did makes some good points to be considered. Thanks for pointing out his view of randomness. I just listened to a small portion of the video b4 posting it. He apparently believes in randomness as most traders do. I find it a bit funny that most traders only see noise on shorter time frames and no noise on longer TFs. And investors will cost average which in reality is just averaging down. In the investing world they see that as an opportunity to get more at a discounted price. But when it comes to doing the same thing on a 5 minute TF they simply cannot apply it or have not learned to apply it through different techniques. I, on the other hand believe in "o" noise in the market. If it moves even 1 tick it is because an institution moved it 1 tick or someone who trades institution size. It never moves over my 1 or 10 contract size. That is nothing. It is a drop of water in a 55 gal drum. It means nothing in terms of price movement. I do agree with him that every trade is independent regardless of the previous trades. It stands on its own. While I do see averaging down as interconnected and as one trade (even though it is more than one) I see it that way only because it is not a loss taken but only a paper loss until the trade itself with all the added positions are consummated. Of course, by the time that happens one can clearly see the separate conditions of each trade. For scalping anyway, I see it is more useful to hold a losing position and add to it AS LONG as the premise for taking the trades is still intact. In my video yesterday that is why I took that loss fast. I determined my premise for the initial entry and averaged down entry was questionable, so I decided to scrap the trade and go the other way doubled up with 6 contracts. I came to believe that would be a more reasonable way to handle that trade and recover from a loss that was at the time (b4 the exit) a paper loss only. Price with the new trade on of 6 contracts would only have to travel in distance 1/2 of the distance as the losing averaged down trade to get me back my loss and bit more to get me in the green again. I reasoned it was a high probability the 6 contract trade would be a winner because of price movement (the two bars b4 taking my loss) and the tendency of the market to have inertia. These things what makes trading very interesting. Every trade is like starting with a new opportunity. Every day is a new day filled with new opportunities. Trading is uncertain and will always be that way. No one not even the institutions can possibly know all the variables. Trading is a wonderful challenge to engage in. Anyone that promises risk free and 100% winning and never losing obviously has not traded and are likely just selling something. I do my best to maintain a high win rate as I believe that is a necessary component to be a successful scalper. But I lose too. Sometimes heavily. I make mistakes. I read wrong but I have enough sense to know that when wrong I must do whatever I have to do to correct my errant course of action. It can be painful, but the pain will pass, and many more opportunities will show up. I will listen to the video completely. I just thought the young man at 34 I think he said was his age had a pretty good handle on some concepts.
Well, we did have radar, but the rivers do change as currents change. And the radar doesn't show everything so clearly all the time. Plus, in fog meeting and navigating around other boats (read institutions in trading LOL)...etc. I was not the captain but did spend some time in the wheelhouse. I was a tankerman. Pumping that heating oil out to keep the Yankees warm.