Full time trading does it really pay

[Pazienza]

I'm putting you on ignore, only the second person I've done that too. I don't know if you're a fraud or just deluded, but there is no value in reading your output.

Not true - there is massive lulz value. Also, what if you need a treadmill desk, or need to book a holiday?

:cheesy:

Seriously, he shoots himself in the foot over and over, which is a shame. This crazy way of calculating returns being a prime example. What I can't get is why he digs deeper and deeper trying to defend his nonsense, instead of just being an adult about it, holding his hands up and moving on. Maybe some kind of personality disorder?

 

[sinimini]

Not true - there is massive lulz value. Also, what if you need a treadmill desk, or need to book a holiday?

The lulz is what made me decide not to block him, and as you so rightly pointed out, you never know when you might need a good honest travel agent.

 

[meanreversion]

Not true - there is massive lulz value. Also, what if you need a treadmill desk, or need to book a holiday?

:cheesy:

Seriously, he shoots himself in the foot over and over, which is a shame. This crazy way of calculating returns being a prime example. What I can't get is why he digs deeper and deeper trying to defend his nonsense, instead of just being an adult about it, holding his hands up and moving on. Maybe some kind of personality disorder?

Reminds me of when Woody gets angry with Buzz .. "you're just a toy!!". Buzz, of course, refuses to accept it, and tries to call Star Command.

 

[brettus]

You claim (for example) +60% return, but in fact this is more like 10-15% return on your total trading pot (this is how every single person on t2w looks at it, apart from you).

Would you put 100% of your pot into your short vol strategy? Of course not. Thus, using sensible levels of risk, a meaningful stated return on your strategy is 10-15%, not the 60%+ you report.

I'm putting you on ignore, only the second person I've done that to. I don't know if you're a fraud or just deluded, but there is no value in reading your output.

Wait a sec. This guy's account hasnt risen by 60% when he claims that it has. But what he's saying that he's up 60% on what he's risked? WTF WTF WTF. I'm going mad trying to figure out wth is going. If i have 100k and i risk 20k and i'm up 20k at the end of the year, i'm not up 100% thats f**king 20%!!! WTF!

 

[meanreversion]

It took about 10 pages to extract this information from him, it was truly painful.

The way he measures is thus.. if he receives $100 premium and the worst case outcome is -$1,000, but the spread expires worthless, he has made 10%.

His account size is of no relevance to the percentage return.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Ok, so all we need to do is divide your returns by 4 or 5 to convert it to a form we understand, right?

In no other financial forum to which I belong has anyone ever mentioned that returns should not be segregated for reporting the results of a particular strategy.

The insistence that this is standard practice becomes more suspicious by the minute.

 

[HowardCohodas]

It took about 10 pages to extract this information from him, it was truly painful.

The way he measures is thus.. if he receives $100 premium and the worst case outcome is -$1,000, but the spread expires worthless, he has made 10%.

His account size is of no relevance to the percentage return.

Extract something from me that you now state has no relevance. Brilliant. Cognitive dissonance reigns.

And if an equity investor invests $1,000 and sells for $1,100 and claims 10%, what then?

And the worst case is not $1,000, but $1,000 less the credit received. You insist on precision. I'm just helping you out.

 

[Pazienza]

Extract something from me that you now state has no relevance. Brilliant. Cognitive dissonance reigns.

Erm, I'm not sure that's what he meant. Try reading it more carefully .

And if an equity investor invests $1,000 and sells for $1,100 and claims 10%, what then?

If his overall stock trading account is (for example) $100,000, he has made rather less than 10%, the way that everyone in the world views it apart from you.

And the worst case is not $1,000, but $1,000 less the credit received. You insist on precision. I'm just helping you out.

You have a major problem Howie, one you have made much worse through stubbornness. Now, I am not saying that you are a scammer. But the method of reporting returns that you want to use is frequently used by scammers to inflate their returns.

So they say, "average return is 5% per trade". Everyone reading that reads it as 5% of their account, rather than 5% of the 1% of the account that was risked on that trade, which is what it actually is.

Can you see the difference? And can you see why you get people's backs up when you pretend that you can't?

As Mean says, it took ages to make you admit that you weren't talking about returns as a percentage of your account. Why? Why not just admit it and move on?

 

[meanreversion]

Argh, I can see his replies in your post Mr P, I might have to add you to ignore as well

 

[HowardCohodas]

You have a major problem Howie, one you have made much worse through stubbornness. Now, I am not saying that you are a scammer. But the method of reporting returns that you want to use is frequently used by scammers to inflate their returns.

So they say, "average return is 5% per trade". Everyone reading that reads it as 5% of their account, rather than 5% of the 1% of the account that was risked on that trade, which is what it actually is.

Can you see the difference? And can you see why you get people's backs up when you pretend that you can't?

As Mean says, it took ages to make you admit that you weren't talking about returns as a percentage of your account. Why? Why not just admit it and move on?

You are conflating two ideas. I hope not on purpose to draw me out again.

I have, from the start been clear about differentiating the trade profit, the number and variety of trades and the account growth. I got in trouble for that. I only resisted details regarding money management because I wanted to focus on trading spreads and forming Iron Condors. Whenever I got pulled into money management, the discussion ranged far and wide from the efficacy of my trading methods.

What I have resisted is bringing in other accounts that I have that use other strategies or are managed by others. In no other forum has this been an issue. No one has made a case that I can understand of why this is relevant. My suspicions of motives remain.

 

[Pazienza]

You are conflating two ideas. I hope not on purpose to draw me out again.

I have, from the start been clear about differentiating the trade profit, the number and variety of trades and the account growth. I got in trouble for that. I only resisted details regarding money management because I wanted to focus on trading spreads and forming Iron Condors. Whenever I got pulled into money management, the discussion ranged far and wide from the efficacy of my trading methods.

What I have resisted is bringing in other accounts that I have that use other strategies or are managed by others. In no other forum has this been an issue. No one has made a case that I can understand of why this is relevant. My suspicions of motives remain.

I've tried my best to help you. I cannot do any more. If it makes you feel better, I think you are genuinely this inept - nobody in their right mind would continue the pretence.

 

[brettus]

You are conflating two ideas. I hope not on purpose to draw me out again.

I have, from the start been clear about differentiating the trade profit, the number and variety of trades and the account growth. I got in trouble for that. I only resisted details regarding money management because I wanted to focus on trading spreads and forming Iron Condors. Whenever I got pulled into money management, the discussion ranged far and wide from the efficacy of my trading methods.

What I have resisted is bringing in other accounts that I have that use other strategies or are managed by others. In no other forum has this been an issue. No one has made a case that I can understand of why this is relevant. My suspicions of motives remain.

Why should you be different to everyone else in the world? What makes you right and the other 6bn wrong about return on the account.

 

[meanreversion]

Case for him being banned, isn't there? He's just polluting t2w with his sad nonsense. I would feel sorry for him but it's gone on too long. Forget the lulz, it just reduces the site's credibility.

 

[barjon]

Instead of arguing the toss about the percentage of what (and surely if you were then it would be correct to talk about the funds you have allocated to a particular strategy and not every last trading/investment account you happen to have) why not express the result of each trade in terms of the risk run on that trade. Probably best expressed as a factor of R, not a percentage.

Thus, risk (R) = $1000 return = $500 or 0.5R

'Course, if you don't know the risk you're in trouble to start with

Jon

 

[HowardCohodas]

Why should you be different to everyone else in the world? What makes you right and the other 6bn wrong about return on the account.

Have I not been clear that what you are suggesting is my position is untrue? I HAVE reported on my account (singular) used to trade this strategy since the beginning.

I see no reason to bring in other accounts with other strategies some of which are managed by others. In no other forum has this been an issue. You still have not explained why it is an issue to you.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Instead of arguing the toss about the percentage of what (and surely if you were then it would be correct to talk about the funds you have allocated to a particular strategy and not every last trading/investment account you happen to have) why not express the result of each trade in terms of the risk run on that trade. Probably best expressed as a factor of R, not a percentage.

Thus, risk (R) = $1000 return = $500 or 0.5R

'Course, if you don't know the risk you're in trouble to start with

Jon

A breakthrough. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Have you read my risk analysis link in my signature? I'd like to start from there, if you don't mind, rather than redoing it this thread where the OP's subject has been completely hijacked.

 

[HowardCohodas]

Case for him being banned, isn't there? He's just polluting t2w with his sad nonsense. I would feel sorry for him but it's gone on too long. Forget the lulz, it just reduces the site's credibility.

From ignored to banned in less than a day. Wow. I'm uncertain whether to be chagrined or proud of being in rarefied company.

I really I wish I knew how we became so badly crossed. We seem to have dueling monologues rather than effective dialogues. I try to respond in the best way I know how, and you lose patience with me. I'm frustrated. You are angry. Not a good state of affairs.

If obedience is what you demand, there is nowhere to go. If questioning your suggestions until I understand their basis is out of order, then there is nowhere to go. If correcting misstatements make you angry, then there is nowhere to go.

Otherwise, there is still a lot I could learn from you.

 

[DionysusToast]

I say that so called ‘full time’ traders have absolutely no idea how much extra time and effort “part time” traders are putting in to realise their own dreams and aspirations about trading and are therefore completely unqualified to make any comments about it.

To continue with the sceptical theme - A number of other people have also mentioned that they lost their entire trading pot 3, 4, X times before becoming profitable. I always wonder where they got their 2nd, 3rd, X pot to start again.

I agree with this. I am part time & I do not give up a trading day for anything. I have one pot of cash. It took me my whole life to build up and I am NOT blowing it up for anything. I simply do not take the kind of risks that would make this possible and I am also doing OK as i have learnt the gentle arts of focus & repetition.

Let's say someone in my position had for example, $250k. That person would want to protect that and be trading VERY small positions until perfection had been achieved. None of this 1% per trade nonsense. More like .01%.

For the 100 quid a day. It's interesting but I'll need to be averaging about $20k a month to give up the day job. I have a few other irons in the fire which may contribute to that $20k but until I am at that point and am 100% confident I can take care of my family through trading, I'll keep the day job.

Part time is tough - but my job is easy & some weeks there is little for me to do. I simply do not miss trading days. I don't go out with friends from Mon-Fri evenings. I get home, have some family time and then go to work for 3 hours. Last year this brought me a car, which a bus then went and wrote off!

I care little about the opinions of others as to whether part time to full time is possible. I do know other traders - a few that came up through the industry and a few that went part time to full time. I don't bug these people but they have helped immensly with some of the finer details.

You just have to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Splitlink]

Call me obtuse, but I really don't get how my returns in this account have anything to do with my total investment pot. I answered out of courtesy but have been lured into something quite unpleasant.

Howard, the moment that posters get more interested in one's investment pot rather than how he, actually, does his trading it means that they have lost the plot.

 

[new_trader]

Let's say someone in my position had for example, $250k. That person would want to protect that and be trading VERY small positions until perfection had been achieved. None of this 1% per trade nonsense. More like .01%.

DT,

I have tried to explain many times that entries and stops are a function of skill and not a function of market gyrations or % of account. It's good to see that you understand this concept.