Does the Market Respond to Karma?

[higherSelfishness]

I don't think many would doubt that behaviour away from the markets is important. For example it is not a good idea to have substance abuse problems or have destructive people around you. It's important to get a good nights sleep most of the time, to eat healthily, to exercise etc. There are good reasons for these, it's nothing new. And that would apply to most skills, not just trading.

Your experiences are your own, and nobody can take that from you, and you're entitled to believe what you do or want. As I said, if it's helpful, even better. But you did at the beginning mention honesty with yourself. This seems to be in conflict with your most recent statements, for example when you start suggesting metaphysics and discussing physics and quantum physics, you're on shakey ground. The latter isn't about your experience. The latter requires experimental evidence, not personal experience, and you don't have that.

How alluding to physical (meta-, quantum-, and macro- alike) aspects suggests I am being dishonest with myself, I do not know.

Shakone, every bit of experimental evidence ever garnered in the history of man was based on the experimenter's (or the subject's) personal experience (and it is then validated upon "peer-review" when the results are duplicated - consider this my submission for peer-review.) It is no accident "experience" and "experiment" begin with the same prefix, "experi-."

By all intents and purposes, (and by any definition) I did conduct a very thorough experiment. I had a "control," which is my system, which was unchanged, unambiguous, and constant throughout my experience. Throughout, every system "test," regardless of my behavior, returned results of a working, successful (and if I do say so myself, "extremely logical") system. (Every system "test" was only a wave of probability, because, again, I had not actually traded it. During the tests, the system existed in superposition, until it was "collapsed" as a "particle" when live trading commenced. (Must I stipulate again . . . yes, tests were live, on a live demo acct, yadda, yadda, yadda.))

I'll be succinct as possible:

Live results, correlated with "non-successful" behavior: failed.

Live results, correlated with "successful" behavior: success.

There are two "types" of evidence, both of them equally permissible in the world of science: statistical, and anecdotal (both extracted from physical experience/observation.) It is often the anecdotal is translated into statistical (using a group of subjects and studies over time.) There are thousands of papers published across the globe every day, which cite the experience of either the experimenter, or the experiment's subjects', whose experiences are then amalgamated to form "statistical" evidence (I could probably dig one up and post, if you require.) Statistical and anecdotal are co-dependent, derived from one another, usually creating a compounding feedback loop in the endeavor of "truth."

"This reminds me very much of the "double-slit experiment" famous in quantum mechanics. When you're testing the system, you see it as a wave of probability, and it is only a probability because your "test" does not account for one thing - YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY DOING IT. "

seems to me at least to be a misunderstanding.

How so?

. . .

Reminding you, you agree that behavior off the market is important. Can you tell me "WHY?" What "wherefore" could you allude to in explanation?

We exist in a physical system called reality. If I allude to physical laws governing your performance on the MKT, how is that possibly dishonest?

 

[random12345]

By all intents and purposes, (and by any definition) I did conduct a very thorough experiment. I had a "control," which is my system, which was unchanged, unambiguous, and constant throughout my experience. Throughout, every system "test," regardless of my behavior, returned results of a working, successful (and if I do say so myself, "extremely logical") system. (Every system "test" was only a wave of probability, because, again, I had not actually traded it. During the tests, the system existed in superposition, until it was "collapsed" as a "particle" when live trading commenced. (Must I stipulate again . . . yes, tests were live, on a live demo acct, yadda, yadda, yadda.))

Can you post this system? I'll do a 5 year reconstructed tick backtest and a wide ranging walkforward OOS for you and tell you whether a positive frame of mind helped.

 

[higherSelfishness]

Can you post this system?

 

[Shakone]

As I see it from what you've said:

Live results, with you having "non-successful" behavior, at a particular time, given particular market conditions: over this period of time you failed.

Live results, with you having "successful" behavior at a completely different time, under different market conditions, with more experience of trading the system: over this period of time you had success.

From this you conclude the 'behaviour' is wholly responsible. It might be, but there are a lot of other variables in play.

As for the quantum physics. It seems you think that things are waves, and then they become particles when we look at them. This is a misunderstanding isn't it?