Becoming a proffessional through prop shop?

[Liquid validity]

I understand what ya saying LV and on some levels i agree, ie physical, its gona be tough setting a pressup record with no arms unless youre a right clever dick. But as someone whos been in both camps its no contest.
I think the ford quote is bang on, so bang on its going in my sig, along with a few others of his.
All that said we are all different, theres no rules, but thats ok. Peace to all

Thats part of what I was driving at but not all of it.

This is the main point for me:
Everyone, bar none, who come into trading initially
think they can.
Otherwise why do it if you expect to fail?

Does 'thinking they can' bring their dreams to fruition for everyone?
No, simple reason there is more to it than that.
Thats what I was highlighting with the astronaut example.

Don't get me wrong, its an integral part, but not enough on its own.
It is however a much better start than dismissing something as impossible
without even finding out for sure.
Its purely a question of balance and realism.

Henry Ford was a great engineer and industrialist.
Its those skillsets that quite rightly made him think - I can.
Without those skillsets, he would have just been another delusional
failure.
Like I said, positive thought needs a factual foundation.
Without that, its just fantasy.
Its also fair to say there were plenty of great engineers from the same era
who didn't think they could - and so fulfilled their expectations.

So for me, 'think I can' extends to:
Assess my own capabilities impartially.
Assess the level of my own skills and capabilities impartially.
Assess whether or not I need to improve current skills or learn new skills impartially.

Thinking you can does not bypass hard work and effort.
It merely makes the task achievable in your own mind.
Which is certainly the best place to start from.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again.
'Think you can' is a crucial element, but it is no way near enough on its own.
Its a great quote - provided you have the ability and skills
to backup that self belief.

 

[Shakone]

There's a lot of new age self-help stuff in this thread which should be challenged. Do you actually believe you have a right and left brain and that you're more right-brained hence more creative? Sorry to break it to you, but the brain doesn't work that way. Surely it's obvious that it's nonsense isn't it? I mean really think about it. Apply both sides of the brain this time

When you commit to something, the universe doesn't align to help you, it's you helping yourself. You may think that things fall into place and so the universe aligns to help you, but again that's obviously nonsense isn't it? What it most likely indicates is that you've been working against yourself in the past and not seizing opportunities when they've arisen, and perhaps not even realising the opportunity was there. The world is full of opportunities.

I've encountered a lot of people who think that something is too hard and so give up without even trying (as LV mentions above). 5 minutes later, I can take them through it and show them how it can be done, and it's them doing it. So positive attitude is useful, but it's not easy to bring out of someone. Actually I'm not even sure positive is the right word. It's the willingness to 'have a go' that seems to be lacking in some people.

I agree with LV, think you can is not enough. There are unsolvable problems. Thinking you can leads to a wasted life. And examples of others successes are again misleading. If Brett Hipkiss is saying it, then fine, but otherwise we don't know what he had to go through to achieve what he did. Unless you know the sheer amount of work, struggle and even suffering that went into a success, it's difficult to make a sensible comment.

 

[Liquid validity]

Do you actually believe you have a right and left brain and that you're more right-brained hence more creative? Sorry to break it to you, but the brain doesn't work that way.

True:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/16/left-right-brain-distinction-myth
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275

Agree with rest of post as well

 

[darktone]

Thats part of what I was driving at but not all of it.

This is the main point for me:
Everyone, bar none, who come into trading initially
think they can.
Otherwise why do it if you expect to fail?

Does 'thinking they can' bring their dreams to fruition for everyone?
No, simple reason there is more to it than that.
Thats what I was highlighting with the astronaut example.

Don't get me wrong, its an integral part, but not enough on its own.
It is however a much better start than dismissing something as impossible
without even finding out for sure.
Its purely a question of balance and realism.

Totally agree.

Henry Ford was a great engineer and industrialist.
Its those skillsets that quite rightly made him think - I can.
Without those skillsets, he would have just been another delusional
failure.
Like I said, positive thought needs a factual foundation.
Without that, its just fantasy.
Its also fair to say there were plenty of great engineers from the same era
who didn't think they could - and so fulfilled their expectations.

Agreed. Id add that i dont subscribe to 'positive thought'.

So for me, 'think I can' extends to:
Assess my own capabilities impartially.
Assess the level of my own skills and capabilities impartially.
Assess whether or not I need to improve current skills or learn new skills impartially.

Thinking you can does not bypass hard work and effort.
It merely makes the task achievable in your own mind.
Which is certainly the best place to start from.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again.
'Think you can' is a crucial element, but it is no way near enough on its own.
Its a great quote - provided you have the ability and skills
to backup that self belief.

I agree with that also.

So where do we bump together then?
For me its a fact that these statements are true:-
Beliefs shape thought, thoughts shape emotions.
I can manage my beliefs.
Beliefs and thoughts impact my life in a physical way.

Would you agree with those?

 

[darktone]

There's a lot of new age self-help stuff in this thread which should be challenged. Do you actually believe you have a right and left brain and that you're more right-brained hence more creative? Sorry to break it to you, but the brain doesn't work that way. Surely it's obvious that it's nonsense isn't it? I mean really think about it. Apply both sides of the brain this time

When you commit to something, the universe doesn't align to help you, it's you helping yourself. You may think that things fall into place and so the universe aligns to help you, but again that's obviously nonsense isn't it? What it most likely indicates is that you've been working against yourself in the past and not seizing opportunities when they've arisen, and perhaps not even realising the opportunity was there. The world is full of opportunities.

I've encountered a lot of people who think that something is too hard and so give up without even trying (as LV mentions above). 5 minutes later, I can take them through it and show them how it can be done, and it's them doing it. So positive attitude is useful, but it's not easy to bring out of someone. Actually I'm not even sure positive is the right word. It's the willingness to 'have a go' that seems to be lacking in some people.

I agree with LV, think you can is not enough. There are unsolvable problems. Thinking you can leads to a wasted life. And examples of others successes are again misleading. If Brett Hipkiss is saying it, then fine, but otherwise we don't know what he had to go through to achieve what he did. Unless you know the sheer amount of work, struggle and even suffering that went into a success, it's difficult to make a sensible comment.

Yeah i like most of that. Esp the 'willingness to have a go' bit.
Can you give us an example of an 'unsolvable problem'.

 

[Shakone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

This tells us that logically given any set of basic axioms (assumptions), there will always be things we can't prove (unsolvable problems). And the nasty part is we don't always know whether something can or can't be solved.

Less abstract, perhaps something like free energy machines, existence of God, existence of a soul, the exact path of the Dow for the next 2 years, how the universe really began, what I'm going to have for lunch (unsolvable for you, but not for me) etc.

Some people have even been said to have gone insane trying to solve problems that were later found to be unsolvable. As LV said, thinking you can may be necessary, but it's not sufficient.


Back to the OP, as random said, it's advisable that he get an education. Also he would probably be better off going to IB rather than prop, because it's easier to go from IB to prop than to go from prop to IB, isn't it? Lastly, it's always advisable to have a regular salary over an irregular salary like trading, unless the irregular salary dwarfs the regular one over a long enough period. Heading straight for prop gives no such guarantee.

 

[darktone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

This tells us that logically given any set of basic axioms (assumptions), there will always be things we can't prove (unsolvable problems). And the nasty part is we don't always know whether something can or can't be solved.

Aint that the truth!

Less abstract, perhaps something like free energy machines, existence of God, existence of a soul, the exact path of the Dow for the next 2 years, how the universe really began, what I'm going to have for lunch (unsolvable for you, but not for me) etc.

I like the lunch one best as you know what i do not, unless i can learn to read your mind sometime . The rest may be solvable at some point, who knows, not me.

Some people have even been said to have gone insane trying to solve problems that were later found to be unsolvable. As LV said, thinking you can may be necessary, but it's not sufficient.

Yeah completely agree with that bit.
Edit:-Btw, I dont think ive ever suggested that all thats required is to 'think I can'. More to highlight the devastating impact of 'I cant' can have.

All fascinating stuff for me.

 

[BSD]

There is no one objective reality, so whats nonsense to you, is not nonsense to me.

There is no right brain or left brain ?

Not seeing the essence of that statement and getting lost on irrelevant semantics is so typical for the majority of people who always get lost in lifes noise while failing to identify the essential elements thtat it really doesn't even warrant a comment.

There are no people who tackle everything predominantly from a logical or an intuitive side ?

Noooo, not at all what !



For some everything in life is a huge effort, while others just breeze through with ease.

I've honestly never had to work very hard at anything ever, not at school, not at Uni, not at making trading my career and source of income of choice, and that's definitely not because I work harder than anyone else, or that I'm more clever than others, it's just because I've always had this firm belief in me that I'll always get everything I want once I've defined my objective is.

I honestly believe that first of all most people in life fail because they do not know what they want. Not knowing where you want to go is a surefire method of ending up where most probably you never wanted to be.

Second of all, even if they do know what they want they don't have the discipline to do what needs to be done.

Take trading or losing weight.

Neither is even remotely rocket science.

Yet why is society constantly getting fatter, why do most lose in trading ?

An Analysis Of The Profiles And Motivations Of Habitual Commodity Speculators

The focus of this study is the habitual speculator in commodity futures markets. The speculator's activity broadens a market, creates essential liquidity, and performs an irreplaceable pricing function. Working knowledge of the profiles and motivations of habitual speculators is essential to both market theorist and policy makers. Responses to a 73 question survey were collected directly from retail commodity brokers with offices in Alabama. Each questionnaire recorded information on an individual commodity client who had traded for an extended period of time. The typical trader studied is a married, white male, age 52. He is affluent and well educated. He is a self-employed business owner who can recover from financial setbacks. He is a politically right wing conservative involved in the political process. He assumes a good deal of risk in most phases of his life. He is both an aggressive investor and an active gambler. This trader does not consider preservation of his commodity capital to be a very high trading priority. As a result, he rarely uses stop loss orders. He wins more frequently than he loses (over 51% of the time) but is an overall net loser in dollar terms. In spite of recurring trading losses, he has never made any substantial change in his basic trading style. To this trader, whether he won or lost on a particular trade is more important than the size of the win or loss. Thus he consistently cuts his profits short while letting his losses run. He also worries more about missing a move in the market by being on the sidelines than about losing by being on the wrong side of a market move; i.e., being in the action is more important than the financial consequences. Participating brokers confirmed that for the majority of the speculators studied, the primary motivation for continuous trading is the recreational utility derived largely from having a market position.


THAT are the hard, substantiated, proven and exteremely simple facts why most traders lose.

And people wanting their french fries, meatloafs and cake more than looking good and being healthy is the simple hard fact why society is getting more and more obese.

Not much to do with riddles life throws ya that are too complex for most to figure out or hard work at all.

No, it's just a complete lack of commitment and belief in outcomes, that you will be able to cut your losses while letting your winners run, and that yes you will develop the will strength to resist that supersized menu.



It really is like Ed Seykota said: "Win or lose, everybody gets what they want out of the market. Some people seem to like to lose, so they win by losing money."

In the same vein most simply like their food more than they fear the consequences.

She could be quite pretty. But...

Back to beliefs.

Jim Carrey wrote himself a check for 10 million dollars before he'd ever filmed his first movie.

Thomas Eddison used to proclaim new inventions before they'd ever materialsed.

Mochael Schumacher regularly used to visualise himself standing on the number one winning podest.

Sebastian Vettels upraised finger is a reminder to himself to achieve numero uno status.

Again, of course you've got to identify the key success relevant factors and implement them with consequence and discipline.

But once you've got that down pat success should be a breeze.

The difference between Vettel and his colleagues is not that he's a better driver.

It's what I'd call him having ordered that up from the universe, and what my less connected materialistic brethren would simply call being mentally stronger.

That's what Henry Ford meant with think you can and you can, think you cannot and you cannot !

 

[Liquid validity]

Id add that i dont subscribe to 'positive thought'.

'Think I can' = a positive thought.
If you disagree, just replace positive thought with 'think I can'
in my quote - that is what I meant.

So where do we bump together then?
For me its a fact that these statements are true:-
Beliefs shape thought, thoughts shape emotions.
I can manage my beliefs.
Beliefs and thoughts impact my life in a physical way.

Its not about disagreeing or agreeing with that.
I've hinted enough times that it has to be backed up by work,
ability and the relevant skillsets.
Instead of beating about the bush, I'll be blunt.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/psy...183118-all-isnt-method-especially-titz-2.html
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/discretionary-trading/183354-wot-u-think-o-these-then.html
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/discretionary-trading/180396-keeping-things-simple.html

Those threads show me that you are still going from one strategy to the
next without giving any of them a chance.
In one of them you adopt your interpretation of Balodimas's approach.
You don't know exactly how he trades, and he won't trade your account for you.

There is a common theme - low sample size.
You don't like SIM or backtesting.
So that just leaves real time testing to generate a sample size of 500-1000 minimum.
Thats it - work.

You probably think I'm being harsh, superior or think I'm some sort of sh1t hot trader.
None of those apply.
I'm saying this because I recognise where you are, because I did the
exact same things...
Until you knuckle down and do some real hardcore testing and research, that won't change.

I assume you want input, or you would not have created the threads I mentioned.
If I've got the wrong end of the stick, correct me.
I can only base my opinion on the facts to hand.

 

[BSD]

Back to the OP, as random said, it's advisable that he get an education. Also he would probably be better off going to IB rather than prop, because it's easier to go from IB to prop than to go from prop to IB, isn't it? Lastly, it's always advisable to have a regular salary over an irregular salary like trading, unless the irregular salary dwarfs the regular one over a long enough period. Heading straight for prop gives no such guarantee.

An education is always great.

But the rest is simply the main reason most fail, because they have this tremendous Fear of failure, always wanting to have a guarantee and double insurance for the downside.

Son, no emipre was ever built without masters of the universe who were willing to lift up their skirts, grab their balls, stake outrageous claims and goals and have fantastic fun while taking big risks !



THAT is why Gammer Jammer and Brett are now at banks from prop trading, why Lawrie Inman and our TWI are now at major hedge funds also from prop positions, why they have the careers they now have, because they never feared exposure to risk, they never had a psychological need for double protection.

Do it the other way round and you'll never be mentally strong enough to withstand the pressure of trading your own money, that's why most bank traders fail to make it on their own and without he security of trading other peoples money with a regular check added in every month.

Which again shows it's essentially all down to your belief in your capabilities and your balls !

 

[tar]

THAT is why Gammer Jammer and Brett are now at banks from prop trading, why Lawrie Inman and our TWI are now at major hedge funds also from prop positions, why they have the careers they now have, because they never feared exposure to risk, they never had a psychological need for double protection.

Sometimes i feel many do mix between someone working in a bank or a hedge fund and being a profitable trader , well there is no correlation , you could be a loser and still work in a bank like a voice broker or doing some tasks related to trading but that doesn't necessarily mean you are "a great profitable trader" , its a fact that most prop traders lose as well , but ofcourse the prop environment is much better than trading from a home that's for sure .

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/166016-95-lose-6.html#post2068914

 

[Liquid validity]

THAT is why Gammer Jammer and Brett are now at banks from prop trading, why Lawrie Inman and our TWI are now at major hedge funds also from prop positions, why they have the careers they now have, because they never feared exposure to risk, they never had a psychological need for double protection.

Neither did Leeson, Kerviel, Hamanaka or Iguchi fear risk.
Those factors alone can just as easily be part of a
rogue / blowup trader.

The people you have named are where they are because
they can handle risk and have the balls to deal with it.
They are also there because they are good and put the work in.

 

[BSD]

Again no disagreement there mate.



Just remembered this guy:

I am just thinking I dont have that much to spend in trading yet I have the courage to try. I am just afraid I'd fail.

Perfectly summarises the two things I'm going on about, a deeply rooted belief that you can't, and and fear of failure, as the underlying inhibitors of success.

 

[BSD]

Sometimes i feel many do mix between someone working in a bank or a hedge fund and being a profitable trader , well there is no correlation , you could be a loser and still work in a bank like a voice broker or doing some tasks related to trading but that doesn't necessarily mean you are "a great profitable trader"
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/first-steps/166016-95-lose-6.html#post2068914

True of course, but I wasn't making generalised statements but referring to specific people, in the case of Brett and Gamma Jammer they both have proprietary trading roles.

And in the case of TWI and Lawrie Inman, well, they are both traders at hedge funds and trading there, not cleaning the floors.

 

[Liquid validity]

Again no disagreement there mate.
Just remembered this guy:

I am just thinking I dont have that much to spend in trading yet I have the courage to try. I am just afraid I'd fail.

Perfectly summarises the two things I'm going on about, a deeply rooted belief that you can't, and and fear of failure, as the underlying inhibitors of success.

Yeah I agree, and I do know what you are getting at.
This topic seems to be constantly occurring lately

I just prefer to empasise the work aspect of it a little more.
I think the ease with which someone accomplishes a task they set
themselves really depends on how much they want it, acumen,
talent and ability as well as funding / capitalisation and balls.

Those that posses those traits in spades will naturally find it easy.
Those that are not as well equipped will struggle more, or may even not
acomplish the task.

Everyone is different in that regard, which is why I prefer to assume
nothing and emphasise risk and work ethic more.
If someone finds research, testing,trading and profitability comes easy
to them, good for them.

I'd rather not assume that is the case with everyone though.
After all, trading is a zero or even minus sum game.
Its impossible for everyone to profit.
I suppose that about sums up my stance on this.

 

[BSD]

Neither did Leeson, Kerviel, fear risk.
Those factors alone can just as easily be part of a
rogue / blowup trader.

[/B]

One thing that needs to be clarified here is that neither Leeson or Kerviel were actually traders, neither was actually authorised let alone allowed to trade speculative position on behalf of their employers.

That said we obviously have people like Livermore who clearly knew how to trade, yet still had his demons / depression leading to a couple of blowups.

I have phases where I pull stunts I totally know I shouldn't, but, while it's getting rarer - issat a word lol - it does still happen on occasion.

But I fully realise that it's not my method or anything like that, it's my mind playing tricks and a moment of weakness where I don't have the necessary belief in myself and in the edge I have long term, but instead get lost on meaningless indidividual trades that in isolation always have a random outcome as the edge only manifests in the long term distribution of things.

 

[BSD]

I just prefer to empasise the work aspect of it a little more.
I think the ease with which someone accomplishes a task they set
themselves really depends on how much they want it, acumen,
talent and ability as well as funding / capitalisation and balls.

Those that posses those traits in spades will naturally find it easy.
Those that are not as well equipped will struggle more, or may even not
acomplish the task.

Everyone is different in that regard, which is why I prefer to assume
nothing and emphasise risk and work ethic more.
If someone finds research, testing,trading and profitability comes easy
to them, good for them.

I'd rather not assume that is the case with everyone though.
After all, trading is a zero or even minus sum game.
Its impossible for everyone to profit.
I suppose that about sums up my stance on this.

Amen, very much agree with that.

Right, off to get a haircut soon, have a good weekend mate.

 

[darktone]

'Think I can' = a positive thought.
If you disagree, just replace positive thought with 'think I can'
in my quote - that is what I meant.

Its not about disagreeing or agreeing with that.
I've hinted enough times that it has to be backed up by work,
ability and the relevant skillsets.
Instead of beating about the bush, I'll be blunt.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/psy...183118-all-isnt-method-especially-titz-2.html
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/discretionary-trading/183354-wot-u-think-o-these-then.html
http://www.trade2win.com/boards/discretionary-trading/180396-keeping-things-simple.html

Those threads show me that you are still going from one strategy to the
next without giving any of them a chance.
In one of them you adopt your interpretation of Balodimas's approach.
You don't know exactly how he trades, and he won't trade your account for you.

There is a common theme - low sample size.
You don't like SIM or backtesting.
So that just leaves real time testing to generate a sample size of 500-1000 minimum.
Thats it - work.

You probably think I'm being harsh, superior or think I'm some sort of sh1t hot trader.
None of those apply.
I'm saying this because I recognise where you are, because I did the
exact same things...
Until you knuckle down and do some real hardcore testing and research, that won't change.

I assume you want input, or you would not have created the threads I mentioned.
If I've got the wrong end of the stick, correct me.
I can only base my opinion on the facts to hand.

Youve got the wrong end of the stick LV.
In short, I want to teach in part, and put my views up for challenge.
Your opinion imo, is based on your perception of the 'facts'.

The main objectives of 'keeping things simple' was to show that:-
1) it can be done with an sb
2) to show a different take on managing loss
3) that its not rocket science.
In the process i found to my surprise I made an unusual amount of mistakes, of all descriptions (not usual for me) and the return relative to the market tone was very low for me.
I whittled it down to a fear of posting in public, this in turn uncovered fear in my trading. Primarily in my entry method. I dont know about you, but when I uncover serious flaws in what I do i have no option but to stop and investigate.
I many ways i considered the thread a failure from the general readers point of view, but ive learnt a lot from the experience.

The TiTZ thread main objectives were:-
1) to try and communicate the importance of psychology in trading (life in general)
2) put my views up for challenge
3) to help me cement my views
After reading TiTZ (prompted by the KTS threads discoveries) ive become aware that my view of the market is distorted. Also that i have unrealistic expectations in a few areas. Again, i personally cant ignore these flaws so they demand my attention
In many ways i also see this thread as a failure for most who folks who read it, why? Perhaps im not very good at communicating things, or more likely the readers are unaware of the topic,they are simply blinded by their beliefs.
Regardless, ive personally learnt from writing it.
I have to admit im running on fumes re that thread, i think ive just enough left to draw attention to what i see at the important bits in the book and close it up.
Then take another long tarde2win vacation.

wot u think o these then was as a result of reading the
'to good to be true' thread.
My thoughts went something like this "Do these guys really think they can have any real idea of what a trader is aiming to do by seeing a sliver of his trades?"
The temptation was too much
"Lets see how much they can decipher from these then!" :cheesy:
I was gona keep this to myself but the results were, lets say, revealing.
1) No one came close to the size i was trading. (4ppp)
2) No one could tell me my max risk at anytime.
3) No one could tell me if my directional play outperformed the market.
4) No one seemed to grasp the significance of losing only 80 'always in' pts in a 130+ move, (shocking to me tbh, i mean that is basic sh1t)
5) Even when I made the thread aware of my size and objectives some folks still persisted with their now obviously erroneous views re my size and performance.
Are these people stupid? Im sure they dont think so, neither do I. They just dont realize that they a being governed by their beliefs/personal experience, which leads their views, on risk, stops, he will go broke etc etc etc.
Re Balodimas's approach:- All i know is that he trades without fear, is a predominant short, he doesnt use stops. Notions near all traders dismiss. What i find most interesting about Jimmy is he is aware of his flaws as he is aware of his seeming inability to do much about them, outside of growing, learning, aiming to do better. As for the entry method, its my own beta method im afraid, no doubt Jimmy would laugh
Re SIM, backtesting:- Sim is great, i like sim, but it cant test psych like live real money can. Back testing ive done by eye, but personally i prefer to forward test an idea, usually with nano money, then mini money, then full live.
Either way, bearing in mind im a directional and manual, for me both are very secondary in importance to psych work, which is where i put most of my 'work' efforts.

When alls said and done, I dont think your being harsh mate, youre just another someone with a view on t2w, and Id much rather you give me your true opinion than agree aimlessly and like my posts.

Its all good LV, no malice from me mate.

 

[Shakone]

There is no one objective reality, so whats nonsense to you, is not nonsense to me.

No, the right-brained stuff is nonsense because it both doesn't make sense (if you think it through) and is also not true. Yet you suggest teaming up a left-brainer with a right-brainer and that you are 80% right-brained - things which have no basis. Tongue-in-cheek perhaps, but dangerous when someone is asking for advice about his future career.

There are no people who tackle everything predominantly from a logical or an intuitive side ?

Well how would you judge this? There's no one objective reality according to you, so there's no such thing as an objective logic or intuition. That's the difficulty with your philosophical slant, it can't be measured. Which allows anyone to claim whatever they like with little or no evidence. It also stifles discussion, because anyone can just say, 'well pigs might not fly in your world, but they do in my world because it's all subjective. So there!' If that's really your position then let me know and I'll stop debating with you. Or we can discuss facts and measurable things.

I agree with you that most people don't know what they want. That's an obstacle to success. How do you know what you want? How do you know that what you want is what you think you want? As you point out, discipline is another factor.

Yet why is society constantly getting fatter, why do most lose in trading ?

Because many people eat too much and don't burn off the calories and perhaps because we didn't evolve to be handed large amounts of food without having to hunt or gather it.

THAT are the hard, substantiated, proven and exteremely simple facts why most traders lose.

Most traders lose because they don't have a trading system that they can apply that overcomes the cost of trading. If it's purely a psychological issue with execution, you could try automation. I think we both know that if everyone on Trade2Win starts automating, it isn't going to turn everyone here into a profitable trader. Or even the majority. Not exactly a panacea is it? That means that for the majority, it's not about psychology, except perhaps the psychology involved in developing your system. There is a lot of denial. Thinking that your subjective truth is all that matters, that what you think or feel is all that matters and there are no objective realities is a form of denial. Ignoring objective realities altogether is another. The market has a habit of handing you your ass if you ignore its reality when you have a position on.

Again you talk about other people, like Vettel and tell me what he has and how he is different from others and whether he is a better driver or not. These are not only things that you don't know, but things that you have no right to comment on in my opinion. You haven't earned them yourself.

There are limits to what thought can achieve.

Son, no emipre was ever built without masters of the universe who were willing to lift up their skirts, grab their balls, stake outrageous claims and goals and have fantastic fun while taking big risks !

THAT is why Gammer Jammer and Brett are now at banks from prop trading, why Lawrie Inman and our TWI are now at major hedge funds also from prop positions, why they have the careers they now have, because they never feared exposure to risk, they never had a psychological need for double protection.

Again talking for other people and empires that you weren't a part of and didn't create. If GammerJammer or Brett wants to say that they never feared exposure to risk, or that their mindset alone is what made them succeed, then they can. But you shouldn't, imo, except when you're referring to yourself.

I understand that you think that your psychology played a huge part in your success. Fair enough, but did you lose in the beginning? Did you then develop a different system and later had success?

I'd also disagree with the sentiment behind the statement of the lack of fear or risk. There's a reason that empires built great armies, walls, castles, weapons etc.. A castle doesn't do any invading for you. It's protection. Having protection doesn't prevent you from taking risk or having fun or achieving goals. There's a reason traders use stops. It's a healthy respect for the risk rather than a fear. If you want to call that fear, then I'm glad I have some fear.

One thing that needs to be clarified here is that neither Leeson or Kerviel were actually traders, neither was actually authorised let alone allowed to trade speculative position on behalf of their employers.

Well sometimes banks turn a blind eye when it's going well and then call it unauthorised or pretend they didn't know when it goes wrong. Scapegoating to restore confidence like with the London Whale recently. Kerviel's colleagues suggest that it was known that he was trading speculative positions for his employers and allowed, as does Kerviel. I think they are both generally classed as traders.

 

[Liquid validity]

Youve got the wrong end of the stick LV.
Its all good LV, no malice from me mate.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.
No malice from me either