Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
What's up sonic? Boyfriend left you for another chap? Chin up.
Ooops, sorry. He probably used to say that to you.
Ooops, sorry. He probably used to say that to you.
Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
There's a thread asking if trading is 'just' gambling. And I posted there today to state IMV that pretty much everything is gambling based on my claim that unless you have 100% certainty about something, it is, by my definition, a gamble.
And then I got to thinking about an edge. An edge is something that over the fullness of time will yield a profit (all things - risk & money management - being equal). It consists of a number of small advantages that more often than not fall your way and which in aggregate will inexorably lead to a better than random chance of making a profit.
[Sometimes, just swinging on a tyre leads to contemplations which unfortunately you humans have all but annihilated from your daily routines through constant connection with the Universe of Things (and Data). You have a culture of informational/data abundance (overload) which devalues consumption and fosters a vague feeling of dissatisfaction. You’ve lost the ability to genuinely appreciate that less is more.]
So I looked at all the trades I took today and the ones that didn’t do well outnumbered the ones that did in number, and indubitably more so in absolute P&L terms. And then it dawned on me that where all the ducks lined up, I have a greater probability of eventual success (however lukewarm in these morbid markets) than those where I am on the very edge – or worse – of trade setup criteria qualification.
I am hypnotised into wanting to get ‘the big moves’ – the ones that start in the darkness of being contra the trend or even just range bound, but then mushroom into ‘the big move of the day’. What I (and possibly others too) have failed to notice that these big moves which start on the other side of the bias/trend, although impressive in the relative scale of the move in context with the current daily range landscape, actually develop far less often than there are moves that start – but never quite take off – from that area of neutrality/darkness yet will still happily take your money with a thousand cuts.
I’d happily miss out on trying to capture all those big moves and simply end the day up.
But it was the act of ‘deciding’ what was a bias/trend and what was a move pro or contra that had me fooled. They don’t exist anywhere except in my simian mind. I have all these ducks that need to line up and I get irritated when the price goes off and makes a strong move which doesn’t fit the profile I have assigned it for ‘acceptable’ trade setup qualification and I either pass on it, or take it and more often than not wish I hadn’t.
The trick, I think, is to remove all but the most basic ducks. So I’ve eaten all of the others.
The keeper is really fuggin mad at me, but hey, I’m 450 pounds and I can make a really evil face so I don’t think Johnny Morris going to sort me out any time soon. Plus, quite frankly, I’m the talent. You go to the zoo what’s the first place you think of going? The duck pond? I don’t think so. OK, OK the lions, tigers, elephants, but eventually, eventually, you’ll want to come and watch my scratch my ass.
And then I got to thinking about an edge. An edge is something that over the fullness of time will yield a profit (all things - risk & money management - being equal). It consists of a number of small advantages that more often than not fall your way and which in aggregate will inexorably lead to a better than random chance of making a profit.
[Sometimes, just swinging on a tyre leads to contemplations which unfortunately you humans have all but annihilated from your daily routines through constant connection with the Universe of Things (and Data). You have a culture of informational/data abundance (overload) which devalues consumption and fosters a vague feeling of dissatisfaction. You’ve lost the ability to genuinely appreciate that less is more.]
So I looked at all the trades I took today and the ones that didn’t do well outnumbered the ones that did in number, and indubitably more so in absolute P&L terms. And then it dawned on me that where all the ducks lined up, I have a greater probability of eventual success (however lukewarm in these morbid markets) than those where I am on the very edge – or worse – of trade setup criteria qualification.
I am hypnotised into wanting to get ‘the big moves’ – the ones that start in the darkness of being contra the trend or even just range bound, but then mushroom into ‘the big move of the day’. What I (and possibly others too) have failed to notice that these big moves which start on the other side of the bias/trend, although impressive in the relative scale of the move in context with the current daily range landscape, actually develop far less often than there are moves that start – but never quite take off – from that area of neutrality/darkness yet will still happily take your money with a thousand cuts.
I’d happily miss out on trying to capture all those big moves and simply end the day up.
But it was the act of ‘deciding’ what was a bias/trend and what was a move pro or contra that had me fooled. They don’t exist anywhere except in my simian mind. I have all these ducks that need to line up and I get irritated when the price goes off and makes a strong move which doesn’t fit the profile I have assigned it for ‘acceptable’ trade setup qualification and I either pass on it, or take it and more often than not wish I hadn’t.
The trick, I think, is to remove all but the most basic ducks. So I’ve eaten all of the others.
The keeper is really fuggin mad at me, but hey, I’m 450 pounds and I can make a really evil face so I don’t think Johnny Morris going to sort me out any time soon. Plus, quite frankly, I’m the talent. You go to the zoo what’s the first place you think of going? The duck pond? I don’t think so. OK, OK the lions, tigers, elephants, but eventually, eventually, you’ll want to come and watch my scratch my ass.
P
postman
You started off a pussy, and now your fat, hairy and ugly, but your still a pussy.
Don't go changing !
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
Just saw your avatar. Are you my mummy?You started off a pussy, and now your fat, hairy and ugly, but your still a pussy.
Don't go changing !
P
postman
I've changed it now for other nefarious purposes but its from the link in my signature.
Remember back at the start of this thread I predicted the weekly close of the S&P to within a point and the chaos that ensued. Well I did it again!
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
You can take human form if you like, but underneath the suave facade, you'll always be a nit-picker at heart.
What, you predicted the weekly close of the S&P to within 1 point? Well done, but are you doing that every week and are you making money from that. I can predict with reasonable certainty that NONE of my trades called live on here will yield a profit. OK, one or two might slip through, but the majority will not.IRemember back at the start of this thread I predicted the weekly close of the S&P to within a point and the chaos that ensued. Well I did it again!
P
postman
tar
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,443
- Likes
- 1,314
Last edited:
Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
Sigma-D
Established member
- Messages
- 648
- Likes
- 63
Until fairly recently I thought it made sense to assign an initial stop to a level at which you would not expect the price to retrace. A confluence of s/r levels or other technical levels. Then calculate your position size on a fixed percentage of total capital available and the stop. So a trade with a 50 pip stop would be only half the position size of a trade with a 25 pip stop for instance.
Then Mongo (head chimp here – who knows nothing about trading) said that seemed a very human thing to do, to assume a specific level was significant. He’s a bit of a proof of the pudding type of ape and he said, if your entry into a trade is correct in ter s of direction and momentum, why would you in one case be happy to see it move against you by 50 pips and in another only 25? He asked what was the typical maximum adverse move after entry for trades which eventually come good (anything from a scratch to a profit to a very minor loss). I said anything that moved more than 15 pips on non-jpy pairs was typically not ever going to be a good ‘un and 20 pips on a jpy-pair. We shared banana stories for a while before he shambled off.
So now I trade a fixed 15 pip non-jpy pair 20 pip jpy-pair on all my trades with the position size relatively static. I’m still losing the same amount in absolute terms on trades that take the full stop, but…here’s the bit I hadn’t realised the wily old simian was getting at, I’m a lot more careful which trades I get into using such a relatively slim margin of error. Still getting more losers than winners, but taking fewer trades.
Then Mongo (head chimp here – who knows nothing about trading) said that seemed a very human thing to do, to assume a specific level was significant. He’s a bit of a proof of the pudding type of ape and he said, if your entry into a trade is correct in ter s of direction and momentum, why would you in one case be happy to see it move against you by 50 pips and in another only 25? He asked what was the typical maximum adverse move after entry for trades which eventually come good (anything from a scratch to a profit to a very minor loss). I said anything that moved more than 15 pips on non-jpy pairs was typically not ever going to be a good ‘un and 20 pips on a jpy-pair. We shared banana stories for a while before he shambled off.
So now I trade a fixed 15 pip non-jpy pair 20 pip jpy-pair on all my trades with the position size relatively static. I’m still losing the same amount in absolute terms on trades that take the full stop, but…here’s the bit I hadn’t realised the wily old simian was getting at, I’m a lot more careful which trades I get into using such a relatively slim margin of error. Still getting more losers than winners, but taking fewer trades.