trading and luck

M

morgan_edge

Well-known member
Messages
373
Likes
93
I feel almost dissapointed in myself for starting such a thread but its just something that is on my mind alot, worsened by the whole 'wasp saga' amongst other things. (the fact that one of the generally accepted trading idols 'may' just be a charlatan)

Knowing that so few people can make consistent money from the markets I find myself wondering what on earth I am doing. I am acutally slightly profitable after about 4 years. (nowhere NEAR profitable enough considering how much 'work' and time ive put in in those years). I am now thinking that at some point in the future my 'luck' will definitely run out.

I discovered trading though my dad. He started with about £8000 and within about a year and a half had it up to about £150,000. He demo traded for about a month before going live and started trading at about £5 per point. At one stage he was trading at about £100 per point. Pretty much always the Dow or an FX pair.

Once he got to about the 150k mark his results got slowly worse and he ended up more or less giving up when the account got back down to about £100k. Still not bad work for a year and a bit from a novice. He naturally kept an eye on the markets after giving some profits back, and demo traded etc, but On reflection he decided that he had basically just got lucky. Usually, people who say 'its just luck' are people who lose in life, but my dad made £100k. That's one things that concerned me.

Then theres the generally accepted statistics that 90% fail. If something could be taught like any well paid profession, surely the success rate would be higher than 10%?

Then theres technical analysis. I read about a book called "Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals" where institutional studies conclude that TA is bscaically a myth.
The book may be wrong, but the fact that there is even DOUBT about these things is just so discouraging. If it was FACT that charting/any method really, worked, no matter how difficult, then it would sit easier with me, but its never been proven. Its like religion!! lol

I also hate the whole ''the market is always changing'' thing where you are encouraged to keep finding new methods etc. It doesn't sit right with me because people speak of the time one must take to find a strategy, demo it, backtest it, forward test it, eventually trade it. If the market is always changing and the profitable system will only work for 1 year (lets say) then you'd need to be betting at ridiculously high stakes to even make it worth your while, as you'd then have to spend the next 6 months, not earning, whilst you discover the next 'profitable method'. This whole phenomonon again makes me question the luck element? Maybe its not about the market changing, but that the method you used that month happened to work by coincidence. Luck??

Im probably going on, and im pretty sure I have ADHD and find it hard to put my thoughts into words, and ive probably missed things and not really proposed any questions to encourage debate, but its more of a theraputic post really!

Theres a hell of a lot of doubts in my head.
 
Like any trade the trick is to get in and out very quickly and take your profit. The longer you leave it on the table the greater your chances are of losing. So rather than go for a small few % return over many years, i'm from the school of thought where i'd rather go for much larger returns and get out of the game quickly - as the longer we play, the more exposed we are to the possibility of losing. Even if we're really good, one unfortunate event eg. planes flying into buildings, people launching nukes at each other and general events we can't foresee can affect the future of an account.

Markets do change and if you have something that works for that market - you better capitalise on it while you can as you'll only have a short window before you'll have to adapt. It's imperative that you must adapt or else you die. I don't know exactly what your dad was doing, but he was obviously doing something right and the longer he was playing the greater his chance of losing became. We'll all probably blow up if we kept trading indefinitely - the trick is to quit before and close the trade.
 
Interesting post and sentiments. I wonder what the attrition rate is in other professions from those that start out to those that actually end up making a good living from it, lawyers, doctors for eg...is it lower than the oft-stated 90%+ attrition we hear so much about in trading?

I think it is NNT in his books The Black Swan/Fooled by Randomness that makes the point that when asking successful people (as measured by net worth,-there are of course other measures!) why they were successful...the general answer was '..hard work' But of course if hard work were the key to success any one who worked hard would therefore be successful. We know this not to be the case, so there must be something else, another component/factor? maybe as your dad concluded with his trading success that it was Luck?

I don't doubt what you say about all the hard work and long hours you have put in over the last 4years...I am sure that it resonates with a lot of folks reading this thread and on these boards, me included and I tend to agree that if we are going to put ourselves through all this, the rewards should outweigh any opportunity cost forgone...the road not travelled.

So much has been said and written about trading, and at the risk of over-simplifying it, achieving success in it probably boils down to finding/developing a trading edge, howsoever derived (tech analysis, fundie analysis, whatever) and then having the robust psychological make-up to apply the edge with impunity so that what ensures that the edge produces a net gain over any sample it sets-up over can be allowed to work-ie probability.

in respect of tech analysis, it is what makes up my trading edge and In having developed such an edge I did so understanding that the only 2 constants in tech trading are support/resistance and price action, and it is these constants that form the basis of the edge. Constants are constants and do not change so that my edge should always be profitable over any sample so long as the governing dynamics of supply and demand remain constant. Therefore I think it is possible to find/develop a consistently profitable tech trading edge. Other than intraday data releases and an intellectual curiosity in the overall fundamental environment I have nothing useful to add in respect of whether the fundie/global macro approach can produce a consistently profitable trading edge. What I am sure of is that I will not chance my overall success to luck alone (although I am not saying that it does not play a part from time to time, the extent to which is probably indeterminable.) I will be thorough in my preparation, diligent in my approach, and intelligent in the way I apply my tech analysis based trading edge.

As for the Wasp thing, I have no idea what the truth is, ...treat it for what it is, a sideshow, an irrelevant albeit entertaining saga. Do your own analysis, make your own decisions, choose your own gurus and remember it can be done, it is marathon not a race (sorry to trot out the trueisms) and it is unspectacular consistency that will win through.

G/L
 
bbmac said:
Interesting post and sentiments. I wonder what the attrition rate is in other professions from those that start out to those that actually end up making a good living from it, lawyers, doctors for eg...is it lower than the oft-stated 90%+ attrition we hear so much about in trading?

I think it is NNT in his books The Black Swan/Fooled by Randomness that makes the point that when asking successful people (as measured by net worth,-there are of course other measures!) why they were successful...the general answer was '..hard work' But of course if hard work were the key to success any one who worked hard would therefore be successful. We know this not to be the case, so there must be something else, another component/factor? maybe as your dad concluded with his trading success that it was Luck?

I don't doubt what you say about all the hard work and long hours you have put in over the last 4years...I am sure that it resonates with a lot of folks reading this thread and on these boards, me included and I tend to agree that if we are going to put ourselves through all this, the rewards should outweigh any opportunity cost forgone...the road not travelled.

So much has been said and written about trading, and at the risk of over-simplifying it, achieving success in it probably boils down to finding/developing a trading edge, howsoever derived (tech analysis, fundie analysis, whatever) and then having the robust psychological make-up to apply the edge with impunity so that what ensures that the edge produces a net gain over any sample it sets-up over can be allowed to work-ie probability.

in respect of tech analysis, it is what makes up my trading edge and In having developed such an edge I did so understanding that the only 2 constants in tech trading are support/resistance and price action, and it is these constants that form the basis of the edge. Constants are constants and do not change so that my edge should always be profitable over any sample so long as the governing dynamics of supply and demand remain constant. Therefore I think it is possible to find/develop a consistently profitable tech trading edge. Other than intraday data releases and an intellectual curiosity in the overall fundamental environment I have nothing useful to add in respect of whether the fundie/global macro approach can produce a consistently profitable trading edge. What I am sure of is that I will not chance my overall success to luck alone (although I am not saying that it does not play a part from time to time, the extent to which is probably indeterminable.) I will be thorough in my preparation, diligent in my approach, and intelligent in the way I apply my tech analysis based trading edge.

As for the Wasp thing, I have no idea what the truth is, ...treat it for what it is, a sideshow, an irrelevant albeit entertaining saga. Do your own analysis, make your own decisions, choose your own gurus and remember it can be done, it is marathon not a race (sorry to trot out the trueisms) and it is unspectacular consistency that will win through.

G/L
Click to expand...

well said bbmac. I believe you truely have the edge to make consistent profits based on what you described.
 
morgan_edge said:
I feel almost dissapointed in myself for starting such a thread but its just something that is on my mind alot, worsened by the whole 'wasp saga' amongst other things. (the fact that one of the generally accepted trading idols 'may' just be a charlatan)
Click to expand...
By the time he came to my attention, I think he was already a candidate for being banned so I never held him out as a hero; more of a scally.
Knowing that so few people can make consistent money from the markets I find myself wondering what on earth I am doing. I am acutally slightly profitable after about 4 years. (nowhere NEAR profitable enough considering how much 'work' and time ive put in in those years). I am now thinking that at some point in the future my 'luck' will definitely run out.
Click to expand...
Sounds a bit pessimistic.
I discovered trading though my dad. He started with about £8000 and within about a year and a half had it up to about £150,000. He demo traded for about a month before going live and started trading at about £5 per point. At one stage he was trading at about £100 per point. Pretty much always the Dow or an FX pair.

Once he got to about the 150k mark his results got slowly worse and he ended up more or less giving up when the account got back down to about £100k. Still not bad work for a year and a bit from a novice. He naturally kept an eye on the markets after giving some profits back, and demo traded etc, but On reflection he decided that he had basically just got lucky. Usually, people who say 'its just luck' are people who lose in life, but my dad made £100k. That's one things that concerned me.
Click to expand...
He sounds like a wise man, and although no doubt that decision was right for him, I do wonder if his analysis was correct. I'm not sure you can get lucky to that extent.

I wonder if what happened when he got to the £150k point was one of:
1) Getting a bit scared by the trade/bet sizes
2) Overtrading/overgearing/overleverage
(or a combination of the two).

I wonder if he could have gone back to the point where he was consistently winning (in terms of trade size and number of trades (having reduced his trading account and put the rest of the money somewhere very safe and preferably untouchable in a short time), he might have been able to continue trading, perhaps not growing the account at such a rate, but still having a good amount coming in.

Whatever, I don't think you should let his story discourage you. If anything, the opposite should be true.

Then theres the generally accepted statistics that 90% fail. If something could be taught like any well paid profession, surely the success rate would be higher than 10%?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it is generally accepted actually. When people go into this, it usually gets qualified in some way.

Then there's technical analysis. I read about a book called "Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals" where institutional studies conclude that TA is basically a myth.
The book may be wrong, but the fact that there is even DOUBT about these things is just so discouraging. If it was FACT that charting/any method really, worked, no matter how difficult, then it would sit easier with me, but its never been proven. Its like religion!! :LOL:
Click to expand...

This is just my opinion based on a lot of reading of forums like this and other places, but I don't think any consistently successful trader uses only TA, even if they might think they do themselves. I'm sure there is a hell of a lot more going on.
I also hate the whole ''the market is always changing'' thing where you are encouraged to keep finding new methods etc. It doesn't sit right with me because people speak of the time one must take to find a strategy, demo it, backtest it, forward test it, eventually trade it. If the market is always changing and the profitable system will only work for 1 year (lets say) then you'd need to be betting at ridiculously high stakes to even make it worth your while, as you'd then have to spend the next 6 months, not earning, whilst you discover the next 'profitable method'. This whole phenomonon again makes me question the luck element? Maybe its not about the market changing, but that the method you used that month happened to work by coincidence. Luck??
Click to expand...
Not ridiculously high stakes if your starting capital were high enough (and if you can stand the pressure of betting/trading at that level - see my 3rd para).

But as for markets changing, well think about correlation for example. There are times when the USD correlates inversely with the stock market, and other times when it doesn't. Similarly USD/Gold, USD/Oil. There are times when certain currency pairs correlate and other times when they don't. If you are trading based (implcitly or explicitly) on one or more of these correlations, then you are going to come unstuck if that ever changes (and it will, sooner or later).
I'm probably going on, and im pretty sure I have ADHD and find it hard to put my thoughts into words, and I've probably missed things and not really proposed any questions to encourage debate, but its more of a therapeutic post really!
Click to expand...
Maybe you should start a trading journal :)

There's a hell of a lot of doubts in my head.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with a bit of questioning. Everything right in fact.
 
from £8k to £150k within a year is definitely over leveraged and over trading.. disaster is just around the corner.

even barclay hedge fund isnt have such high returns.
 
Here's a question.
if someone took a group of people, and taught them how to trade.
and they all followed exactly what he told them to do,
and 95% of them made money during a 4 year period (btw - using only TA).
is this luck?
 
Hi morgan_edge -

Nice discussion you have started here, and I would like to throw in somethings I am absolutely positive of.

1. There is no such thing as luck. Low probability ('unlucky') events occur infrequently and the most able at their particular endeavour ('the lucky') either anticipated this or react to it to their advantage. Its not inherently unlucky to be caught in a rainstorm, and its not inherently lucky to have taken an umbrella with you.

2. TA works, but not all TA works all the time. Prices in a free market tend to progress in one direction for sustained periods (trends). Trends tend to sustain themselves as new participants speculate that they can enter and profitably exit the trend before it ends. Participants in later trends see where earlier trends started and finished and feel obliged to regard these as guides to safe entry and exit levels (support and resistance) and price tendency changes tend to recur at these levels. The sort of TA that relies on trends, support and resistance will always work. The adage used to be 'Buy low, sell high': more helpfully it should read 'Follow a trend after it has started, leave it before it ends'.
 
morgan_edge said:
I feel almost dissapointed in myself for starting such a thread but its just something that is on my mind alot, worsened by the whole 'wasp saga' amongst other things. (the fact that one of the generally accepted trading idols 'may' just be a charlatan)

Knowing that so few people can make consistent money from the markets I find myself wondering what on earth I am doing. I am acutally slightly profitable after about 4 years. (nowhere NEAR profitable enough considering how much 'work' and time ive put in in those years). I am now thinking that at some point in the future my 'luck' will definitely run out.

I discovered trading though my dad. He started with about £8000 and within about a year and a half had it up to about £150,000. He demo traded for about a month before going live and started trading at about £5 per point. At one stage he was trading at about £100 per point. Pretty much always the Dow or an FX pair.

Once he got to about the 150k mark his results got slowly worse and he ended up more or less giving up when the account got back down to about £100k. Still not bad work for a year and a bit from a novice. He naturally kept an eye on the markets after giving some profits back, and demo traded etc, but On reflection he decided that he had basically just got lucky. Usually, people who say 'its just luck' are people who lose in life, but my dad made £100k. That's one things that concerned me.

Then theres the generally accepted statistics that 90% fail. If something could be taught like any well paid profession, surely the success rate would be higher than 10%?

Then theres technical analysis. I read about a book called "Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals" where institutional studies conclude that TA is bscaically a myth.
The book may be wrong, but the fact that there is even DOUBT about these things is just so discouraging. If it was FACT that charting/any method really, worked, no matter how difficult, then it would sit easier with me, but its never been proven. Its like religion!! lol

I also hate the whole ''the market is always changing'' thing where you are encouraged to keep finding new methods etc. It doesn't sit right with me because people speak of the time one must take to find a strategy, demo it, backtest it, forward test it, eventually trade it. If the market is always changing and the profitable system will only work for 1 year (lets say) then you'd need to be betting at ridiculously high stakes to even make it worth your while, as you'd then have to spend the next 6 months, not earning, whilst you discover the next 'profitable method'. This whole phenomonon again makes me question the luck element? Maybe its not about the market changing, but that the method you used that month happened to work by coincidence. Luck??

Im probably going on, and im pretty sure I have ADHD and find it hard to put my thoughts into words, and ive probably missed things and not really proposed any questions to encourage debate, but its more of a theraputic post really!

Theres a hell of a lot of doubts in my head.
Click to expand...
This is a good post, and I think these realisations can be a springboard to move you on to the next stage where hopefully you will try and rise above the 95% that rely on luck.
 
bbmac said:
2 constants in tech trading are support/resistance and price action, and it is these constants that form the basis of the edge.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Use that with volatility and you have an excellent system.

Of course, you still have to master your own psychology and do your risk management etc etc - that's the hard bit that takes a while to learn. But it's worth it :)
 
I use to have really close stop losses.... Enter on rising price and exit on falling price...I frequently lost money because my stop loss would just get immediately smashed because i placed all empathise on perfect entries...

I decided to try buy when price is falling, exit when price is rising and give my trade significantly more room to move and thats still the basis of my consistant profitability and i feel its enough of an edge to do the opposite of a LOSER (the loser being myself before)

Take screenshots of all your trades; Before, after and considerably later and identify what your doing and what you could have done...

I think most fail because they wait for confirmation... If you consider a small market fluctuation even in an uptrend; UP, Down (Not as much, UP.... Everyone BUYS UP and then SELLS the DOWN PART... So i tried to BUY the bottom part of the cycle and SELL THE UP part... This even worked when the trend would change direction.

Everyone has too tight a stop loss; expecting too much from there entries causing frequent losers and lack of confidence, everybody follows market wisedom too much and everyone TRADES regardless of market condition, rather than waiting for THEIR preferable condition - I think you should do the opposite and really study your trades afterwards.

If you just find yourself consistantly losing; Its not your psychology, its just the way your trading... Study your trades, give yourself more freedom and relax; Don't place pressure on winning but try practice ... its better to set 2 risk and 1 reward and practice than try aim for 1:2 immediately for example - Because you probably won't profit anyway...

:) x

Most of all people have rules based on total assumptions and not experience... Keep an open mind.
 
Thanks for replying gladiator, although its not really about my trading results as I am actually profitable after 4 years trading. Its more about the question of luck and the inconclusivity of TA etc. But, lets take your method. Buying when price is falling etc. How long until it stops working? next month? The 'markets are always changing' right? When does support and resistance 'stop working'? Will support and resistance stop working when it becomes too popular?? Do you see my angle?

Virtuoso - Thing is im not even sure where to start in that respect, and for all I know, I dont even need to! That's part of the frustration I guess. What's your view on TA? There was a thread a while ago by someone who asked about 'trading without charts' where those who done this gave the impression that they pretty much couldn't lose but didn't really give a clue to anyone who asked as to how they acchieved this. I wouldn't know where to start to go about this. Is it to do with some sort of methematical model? Insider knowledge?? Fundamental analysis? I honestly have no clue.
 
morgan_edge said:
Thanks for replying gladiator, although its not really about my trading results as I am actually profitable after 4 years trading. Its more about the question of luck and the inconclusivity of TA etc. But, lets take your method. Buying when price is falling etc. How long until it stops working? next month? The 'markets are always changing' right? When does support and resistance 'stop working'? Will support and resistance stop working when it becomes too popular?? Do you see my angle?

Virtuoso - Thing is im not even sure where to start in that respect, and for all I know, I dont even need to! That's part of the frustration I guess. What's your view on TA? There was a thread a while ago by someone who asked about 'trading without charts' where those who done this gave the impression that they pretty much couldn't lose but didn't really give a clue to anyone who asked as to how they acchieved this. I wouldn't know where to start to go about this. Is it to do with some sort of methematical model? Insider knowledge?? Fundamental analysis? I honestly have no clue.
Click to expand...
I can't tell you where to start, because I have no idea what your current level of knowledge experience and understanding is. The only elements of TA that can work are those based in the reality of the market, and at a push that might only be S&R. But even S&R as most retail traders use it is essentially nonsense because none of them have a clue whether price is going to respect their level or sail straight through it, hence it's just as much guesswork as anything else. I could never live with the idea that I was simply guessing my entries, way too high a risk for me. If I'm going to base a trade on previous support or resistance I need to WHY that level is significant then I can judge whether price is more likely to respect it or sail through, and judge my risk from there.

Traders that don't use charts may do so for many reasons. They may have insider information that simply has to be acted on immediately so as not to miss the opportunity, regardless of what a chart says. They may be trading long term and hence only need high/low/open/close info for that day/week/month. They may have a mathematical model. They may be looking at what price represents 'value' to them rather than where price has come from. They may be trading by tape reading/volume/orderflow, and so on.. whether you can gain an advantage from any of that is up to you to investigate.
 
tomorton said:
Hi morgan_edge -

Nice discussion you have started here, and I would like to throw in somethings I am absolutely positive of.

1. There is no such thing as luck. Low probability ('unlucky') events occur infrequently and the most able at their particular endeavour ('the lucky') either anticipated this or react to it to their advantage. Its not inherently unlucky to be caught in a rainstorm, and its not inherently lucky to have taken an umbrella with you.

2. TA works, but not all TA works all the time. Prices in a free market tend to progress in one direction for sustained periods (trends). Trends tend to sustain themselves as new participants speculate that they can enter and profitably exit the trend before it ends. Participants in later trends see where earlier trends started and finished and feel obliged to regard these as guides to safe entry and exit levels (support and resistance) and price tendency changes tend to recur at these levels. The sort of TA that relies on trends, support and resistance will always work. The adage used to be 'Buy low, sell high': more helpfully it should read 'Follow a trend after it has started, leave it before it ends'.
Click to expand...

You are, so, right about the comment "'Follow a trend after it has started, leave it before it ends'.

Equally wrong about there being no luck. Luck is a small, but very important factor in most human enterprises.

"The best laid plans of mice and men," etc

I do say that no one should be dependent on luck. That is foolish and, no matter what some may think, this is not a lottery. Luck is good or bad and one does not know how the trade will be affected.

Last Thursday, I decided to experiment by leaving a trade open with a stop on it. I was making a profit of 23 points and ended with 9, at the close.

Yesterday, at 1315, I was making 28 points on Footsie and, because of what happened the day before, I took my profit and went to work. 1315, the time the market bottomed for the day. Time, in my case, ran out for me and I had to make a decision. It was luck.

As far as stops are concerned, a reason for not having them too close, in my view, is that, once you put one on it is, no longer, a secret. The exchange knows where it is and I am fairly sure, human nature, being what it is, that the marketmakers know where all the stops are and spike them out, if they can. It may not, always, be convenient to do so because there may be entry orders there as well---I'm not sure how that works, but I am sure that they know.
 
morgan_edge said:
I feel almost dissapointed in myself for starting such a thread but its just something that is on my mind alot, worsened by the whole 'wasp saga' amongst other things. (the fact that one of the generally accepted trading idols 'may' just be a charlatan)

Knowing that so few people can make consistent money from the markets I find myself wondering what on earth I am doing. I am acutally slightly profitable after about 4 years. (nowhere NEAR profitable enough considering how much 'work' and time ive put in in those years). I am now thinking that at some point in the future my 'luck' will definitely run out.

I discovered trading though my dad. He started with about £8000 and within about a year and a half had it up to about £150,000. He demo traded for about a month before going live and started trading at about £5 per point. At one stage he was trading at about £100 per point. Pretty much always the Dow or an FX pair.

Once he got to about the 150k mark his results got slowly worse and he ended up more or less giving up when the account got back down to about £100k. Still not bad work for a year and a bit from a novice. He naturally kept an eye on the markets after giving some profits back, and demo traded etc, but On reflection he decided that he had basically just got lucky. Usually, people who say 'its just luck' are people who lose in life, but my dad made £100k. That's one things that concerned me.

Then theres the generally accepted statistics that 90% fail. If something could be taught like any well paid profession, surely the success rate would be higher than 10%?

Then theres technical analysis. I read about a book called "Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals" where institutional studies conclude that TA is bscaically a myth.
The book may be wrong, but the fact that there is even DOUBT about these things is just so discouraging. If it was FACT that charting/any method really, worked, no matter how difficult, then it would sit easier with me, but its never been proven. Its like religion!! lol

I also hate the whole ''the market is always changing'' thing where you are encouraged to keep finding new methods etc. It doesn't sit right with me because people speak of the time one must take to find a strategy, demo it, backtest it, forward test it, eventually trade it. If the market is always changing and the profitable system will only work for 1 year (lets say) then you'd need to be betting at ridiculously high stakes to even make it worth your while, as you'd then have to spend the next 6 months, not earning, whilst you discover the next 'profitable method'. This whole phenomonon again makes me question the luck element? Maybe its not about the market changing, but that the method you used that month happened to work by coincidence. Luck??

Im probably going on, and im pretty sure I have ADHD and find it hard to put my thoughts into words, and ive probably missed things and not really proposed any questions to encourage debate, but its more of a theraputic post really!

Theres a hell of a lot of doubts in my head.
Click to expand...


From my observations, the harder one works, the luckier one becomes.

I'll make a suggestion for your benefit: have you ever considered coaching another trader? You might also search for a trader who'll challenge your assumptions, with some "I tested it all week and your stuff is not working because" (;)). Do not charge for it, as it will defeat the purpose of helping you improve your own trading.
 
Last edited:
I don't go along with that!

The harder one works, the earlier he goes to bed.

The less one works, the more time he has for thinking.

Thinking brings luck. To get lucky. you have to get in the way of it.

Don't cross the road and you won't get run over.

If you don't believe in lotteries and don't buy a ticket. For sure, you won't get lucky.

If you trade there is an element of luck in the final result. Call it the icing on the cake, if you like.

The cake is the result of your expertise. The icing, no.

In the same way, there might only be a few crumbs left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

fxtrader85
Traders & "Luck"
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
gooseman
G
D
LUCK in Trading. Does it exist?!
Replies
18
Views
3K
tradefxlive
T
R
Luck and Hope
Replies
8
Views
2K
Rambo35
R
JTrader
  • Poll
Luck.....And you.....
2 3
Replies
59
Views
9K
wasp
wasp
Priceman
Good trading / Bad luck ?
Replies
4
Views
2K
Splitlink
S
Top