Catch 22

[DaveJB]

Sorry,
by competent I meant to include profitable, making a profit is the aim of trading so I don't see how this can be divorced from any definition of competence in the field - and I don't believe that it IS possible to say 'you need to know this this and this' and people will then be profitable if they learn it, on the other hand I'd say there's a certain amount you do need to know otherwise you definitely won't be profitable.

However, I'm not trying to split hairs over this or get into an argument etc you've every right to your views and I've been known to be wrong before <g>

 

[Rhody Trader]

"Believing" that one can have "a knowledge base sufficient to make [him] a competent trader" isn't enough. There must be some evidence to show not only that such a knowledge base can be created but that it can also create a "competent" (variable to be defined, of course) trader. There are piles of "knowledge bases" around and an equal number of complaints that they "don't work". Any curriculum-based approach is going to be the same old same old that schools have been engaged in since time immemorial.

The basics of trading are experiential. Yes, it helps to have a guide or coach or whatever of some sort available to explain what it is that one is looking at. But "mechanics" and so forth are trivial in comparison to the importance of this experience.

I think we're talking in parallel here. By competent I mean simply that one can actually execute trades, understands margin/leverage (depending on the market), knows how to figure out profit and loss, that kind of thing. These are the more hard science requirements of trading where there is little, if any wiggle room.

Beyond that, I agree wholeheartedly that experience is the way to develop from what I have deemed a competent trader to a successful one. Of course, that is neither a direct path, nor necessarily one which even the majority of traders can navigate. Any cirriculum which does not include experience as an integral part is of little or no lasting value.

The question then becomes how does the cirriculum direct the experiential learning?

 

[dbphoenix]

The question then becomes how does the cirriculum direct the experiential learning?

As I said in my reply to your PM, after many years of doing this, I've chosen to accomplish the task through journalling, largely because of the commitment required, but also because of neuroscience and what it tells us of the learning process. It's not enough to demand money. What matters is the commitment in time and in effort.

 

[Rhody Trader]

As I said in my reply to your PM, after many years of doing this, I've chosen to accomplish the task through journalling, largely because of the commitment required, but also because of neuroscience and what it tells us of the learning process. It's not enough to demand money. What matters is the commitment in time and in effort.

Journaling is actually a key part of our course. We introduced it during our second go through as the major project of the class. Unfortunately, in only 4-5 weeks you can't really get too far along. More can be done over a full-length semester, but even there you have major limitations.

 

[dbphoenix]

I suspect we don't mean the same thing by "journalling". It's not something you'd do in a classroom.

In any case, the wheels are starting to spin here. If you want to do a trading novice some good, show him how to create a trading plan. Explain how to observe, how to state and test a hypothesis, how to evaluate the results, how to restate and retest and re-evaluate until he finds an edge. Without that, what's the point?

 

[Rhody Trader]

I suspect we don't mean the same thing by "journalling". It's not something you'd do in a classroom.

How are you defining the term?

In any case, the wheels are starting to spin here. If you want to do a trading novice some good, show him how to create a trading plan. Explain how to observe, how to state and test a hypothesis, how to evaluate the results, how to restate and retest and re-evaluate until he finds an edge. Without that, what's the point?

That's already part of the plan. Despite the short-comings, there are some things where academics can come in handy.

 

[dbphoenix]

How are you defining the term?

There are several journals-in-progress in the PV Forum.

That's already part of the plan. Despite the short-comings, there are some things where academics can come in handy.

Not trying to be argumentative, but a journal is more than a diary. A useful one is the result of a lot of screen time.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Not trying to be argumentative, but a journal is more than a diary. A useful one is the result of a lot of screen time.

Fair comment. Never thought otherwise.

 

[JumpOff]

Rhody and Timsk, perhaps this is a obvious statement/question, and I hope you understand that I mean no offense.

If I were a student in this class, I would want to know if the person designing the curriculum and teaching the course had the skill to make an account balance go steadily up, no matter whether the market was going up/down/sideways. When I was at university, I assumed all my instructors had degrees and had passed competency exams, and published a little bit, and were subject to peer review.

Since your designing a class or perhaps a whole curriculum about "how to trade successfully," how do you certify the instructor and the curriculum designer?

JO

 

[Rhody Trader]

Since your designing a class or perhaps a whole curriculum about "how to trade successfully," how do you certify the instructor and the curriculum designer?

JO

It's a valid question. I would argue that indeed the course content needs to be designed by someone with credibility. How you define credibility can be a bit dicey, though. Does it have to be someone who has demonstrated outstanding performance year after year? Or can it be someone who may have been a bit more of a plodder, but who has put in the time in the trenches, so to speak?

I would bring sports in as an example. How many successful managers or coaches are there who were gifted performers during their playing careers? Not that many. On the other hand, there are a great many very good managers who were only average professionals. The arguement goes that the star was gifted, but that the run of the mill bloke had to work at it - went through the process of learning from his mistakes - and so has a bit more of an understanding of the learning process.

There is another side to the situation as well. Most university courses are not taught by experts. Rather, the instructors use materials developed by experts (books, generally) to teach a given subject. A well designed course need only require an instructor able to act as educational facilitator.

 

[DaveJB]

A well designed course need only require an instructor able to act as educational facilitator.

- I'm not (honest <g>) trying to be argumentative here, but I think there's a problem with this idea. In 'normal' learning situations, where the lecturer/tutor is passing on the brilliant ideas of others, there's definitely a case of the original discovery taking far greater ability, probably also intelligence, than it takes to understand the idea once it's been formulated and proved. I can do a passable job of tutoring the ideas encompassed by relativity for example, but if Albert Einstein (or some other) hadn't come up with it all no way would I have produced it myself.

ie A competent (there's that word again <g>) tutor needn't be all that hot to manage to pass the subject matter on to students. When problems arise the tutor either answers the question or says they'll get back to the student after checking... now a trainee trader loses a trade, and says 'why didn't that go up the way the book said it ought to?'

I would argue that a trading tutor who had read and digested the huge array of info out there on trading, but who had been unable to put it all together for themselves, would probably not be able to explain to the trainee how to draw the correct conclusions and go forward to benefit from the lesson.

Whilst I think many an aspiring trader woudl welcome a course, "trading 101", I'm far from convinced it can be produced, as I don't think you can actually list a bunch of ideas that will make you profitable by learning them... I'd perhaps make an exception for things like the Turtles, but whether that's teaching trading or just turning a human into a machine is a somewhat philosophical point.... I'm not sure the outcome was traders particularly, but my argument isn't a strong one I'll admit. I'm also far from convinced it would be good for the aspiring trader - you might instill confidence, you might teach them the mechanics of making a trade, you might teach them some good habits and the method of reading a variety of charts and indicators (not analysis, particulary)... but would that advance the trader towards consistently making a profit?

I can see the point in 1 on 1 training, with a successful trader helping a newbie learn to see the charts the way the trader does... but on the whole I think a lot of training is quite counterproductive.

 

[Rhody Trader]

- I'm not (honest <g>) trying to be argumentative here...

A little debate is a healthy thing.

Whilst I think many an aspiring trader woudl welcome a course, "trading 101", I'm far from convinced it can be produced, as I don't think you can actually list a bunch of ideas that will make you profitable by learning them... . I'm also far from convinced it would be good for the aspiring trader - you might instill confidence, you might teach them the mechanics of making a trade, you might teach them some good habits and the method of reading a variety of charts and indicators (not analysis, particulary)... but would that advance the trader towards consistently making a profit?

I think part of the loggerhead here is that the type of course I'm developing is not "How to Make Loads of Money in the Markets". It is intended to be an introduction to trading (maybe "Trading 001"?) offered within a university structure encompassing approximately 13 weeks. In no way, shape, or form is the goal to create "succesful" traders. I completely agree that no class of this nature could ever accomplish that objective.

The class I am developing focuses on turning the student in to an educated trader. By "educated" I simply mean answering the type of new trader questions we all see posted in the newbie sections of this forum and others - real basic stuff: how to actually execute trades, what margin is and how to use it, how to calculate p&l, the market mechanisms and how external events can impact prices, simple elements of money management and trading psychology, introductions to analytic/trading methods. This is stuff not handled well within the standard university finance cirriculum because it focuses so much on the institutional side of the game (rather than the individual).

The class is not intended to create traders. It's design is to introduce trading. As db has discussed, once the basics are sufficiently addressed, the onus is then put on the student to actually learn how to trade the markets through personal experience.

 

[DaveJB]

Yes,
I quite understand that - and can feel a degree of sympathy for what sounds a worthy aim... I just have this nagging feeling though that you can't do it to this extent and then stop - it's a 'belief' and therefore quite justifiably open to question, but my 'belief' is that it does more harm than good to take people part way to where they need to be, and then stop. I can see no good reason to teach the mechanics of it all unless the aim is to turn out a good trader - if the student is not going on to trade then the course is like learning Sanskrit... apologies to Sanskrit lecturers, but "bloody useless" springs to mind.

If the student is intending to go on to be a trader then teaching the mechanics offers the opportunity to do a bad job - I'd argue that the mechanics of putting the trade on is quite obviously the last part of what is needed... learn to pick the trade, and what to do with it, then learn the simple bit about actually placing the trade and closing it when the time comes.

It just seems very 'cart before horse' to me - until the student has the mental ability, psychology etc to trade successfully it's a positive bonus that they remain ignorant of how to place a trade... it might put them off doing it! Once the student has ability in picking entry and exit, then it's a relatively simple matter to teach them the mechanical side involved in collecting the money.

I think your intention sounds good, I have no reason at all to doubt your sincerity or belief in what you intend here, it's just I think you've got the priorty back to front.

 

[Rhody Trader]

I think your intention sounds good, I have no reason at all to doubt your sincerity or belief in what you intend here, it's just I think you've got the priorty back to front.

You may be correct in the order of subject teaching. Maybe it would be a good carrot to not allow actual trading until they get all the rest of it sorted out.

There's a further complexity in all this. The course needs to be done not as some stand-alone offering, but rather as a part of an overall university financial cirriculum. That means I also have to incorporate various bits and pieces of financial theory (efficient markets, portfolio theory, etc.)

 

[timsk]

Db,
"If you're like most novices, you say you want to learn how to trade, but what you really want is to be told what to do. If you really wanted to learn how to trade, then you'd be learning how to trade. If you're not studying trading, then I assume you want to be told what to do. In that case, the word "abundance" doesn't even begin to describe what is available here, much less on the Web as a whole.
What's required is not "attitude" but the willingness to do the work".

I really don't understand why you are personalising this. As I stated clearly in my opening post, there are many new members on T2W and many of those will be new to trading as well. Clearly I'm not new to T2W and if studying trading for three years as I have done means I'm still a novice, then so be it. The thread is NOT about me: never was. I was merely enquiring on behalf of newbies how experienced members might go about the process of learning how to trade. To say things like "but what you really want is to be told what to do" is offensive. You have absolutely no idea about what I may or may not want. To say "what's required is not "attitude" but the willingness to do the work" implies that I am lazy, which I don't believe I am. Even if I was, I resent such an implied accusation being made on a public forum such as this. You then say "if you really wanted to learn how to trade, then you'd be learning how to trade". How on earth does such a banal comment help a novice trader? If there are any novice traders reading this who have joined T2W recently and find this remark helpful, please post and I will publicly apologise to Db.

Db, as you seem intent on making this about me, prepare yourself for some home truths. If you set yourself up as some sort of trading sage who dispenses wise words of wisdom to all and sundry, then you must be respectful of others as you would want them to be of you. You can make a start with me. Also, you must act responsibly, which means doing your utmost to help and to clarify complex issues and not add to the confusion with remarks like "If you want to learn about the markets, study the markets". I might understand what you're driving at, but a newbie wouldn't. You're very good at 'talking the talk' but I have yet to see any evidence that you can 'walk the walk' which, as Jump Off said in an earlier post, is something all students would expect a tutor / mentor to demonstrate.

Tim.

 

[JumpOff]

Db, ........
You're very good at 'talking the talk' but I have yet to see any evidence that you can 'walk the walk' which, as Jump Off said in an earlier post, is something all students would expect a tutor / mentor to demonstrate.

Tim.

I said when I was at university, I expected that the instructor had been vetted by their peers - since I had no way to judge them from my position of ignorance. This is why I paid the university a fee. I do not expect db to prove anything to me, this is my own exploration. I feel I have already received fair value from the essays I purchased for a pittance. If he is willing to give his time to those of us who read these boards and who are using his methods to explore price and volume action, then I am sure he has his own reasons for doing so. Perhaps we are his test guinea pigs for a curriculum he is developing.

Perhaps he just enjoys seeing how much *$%^^@ he can get new gullible traders to swallow before they throw up their hands in despair.

Perhaps he enjoys seeing traders gain understanding of what makes a market tick, and likes to associate with people who are willing to drive their own program. Whatever. Since I'm not paying him for his time, and we have not entered into a contract, all either of us can expect is that we will continue our voluntary association as long as it is useful to both of us.

JO

By the way, I am pleased that you started this thread, because I enjoyed reading your original question and everyone's replies. I hope it continues. I think it is a worthy goal to gather up a summary of what's important and lay it out in an organized way, but of course the successful traders won't tell you how to do it,( or they'd have to kill you.....)

 

[dbphoenix]

I really don't understand why you are personalising this.

Tim.

Since you went to such lengths, I'll reply.

In response to my comments about learning how to trade by studying the market, you replied that "any half wit" knows that, then altered your original question.

I then replied that if you could rein in the attitude for a moment, you'd recognize that. You then replied that it apparently took attitude to get a response.

I then made my "if you're like most novices" post. If you are not like most novices, then the post doesn't apply to you.

If you don't want personalized responses, then don't make personalized attacks.

 

[dbphoenix]

And, FWIW, since I had no intention of posting again but was drawn back into the thread anyway, I agree with everything that Dave has posted here.

 

[Rhody Trader]

.. but of course the successful traders won't tell you how to do it,( or they'd have to kill you.....)

I was about so say I disagree with this statement, but then it dawned on me that in fact most traders really won't share their methods.

Some perhaps take the view that their methods are their own and cannot necessarily be successfully transferred to others for an array of reasons. There is certainly some truth in that.

Many others fear that if they share it will somehow result in a degrading of the performance of those methods. If we were all robots and could just pass programs back and forth so that each would trade exactly the same then there would be some merit to this arguement. Because we are all individuals and will act in our own unique way, however, the sharing of methods is much less risky in this fashion than seems to be commonly believed.

Of course there is the other side of the equation where traders are readily agreeable to sharing, either for a cost or free. The former tend to be looked on suspiciously, and sometimes with very good reason. Actually, suspicion can also fall upon the latter group as well, as sorts tend to draw impressionable traders out of the woodwork in search of a quick fix at no cost.

The trader who preaches the requirement for individual work and study perhaps attracts the least attention, but tends to offer the most in the long run.

 

[DaveJB]

Rhody,
in that context then I can see your dilemma, I'm just approaching it from the viewpoint of people coming here and hoping to exit as successful traders.

If you are teaching a finance course, and part of that course is intended to look at the mechanics of trading, then fine - in that situation the cart had best precede the horse, as it's the 'successful trading' that is hard to learn/teach whilst virtually any fool can self teach the mechanics side to a basic competence level with ease. (Sadly all too much ease in many cases!)

That's a different purpose in my view to the 'trading 101' idea here - all I'd say about your course is that I hope you make it very very plain (repeatedly) to your students that they are in no way qualified to actually trade as a result of completing it. I'm not trying to be rude here - an analogy might be that I could teach a bunch of monkeys to pound typewriters but they'd not turn out even a decent short story between them.
(For this please ignore the old saw, and the Bob Newhart sketch, on the subject if you are familiar with both/either).