- Status
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
CYOF said:If I was to say the following (again, leaving out recognised medical conditions):
Any person who goes in and sits down with another person ( a shrink), to try and get that person to tell them what is wrong with the way they think, is in my opinion:
Stupid
Silly
Thick
Foolish
Idiot
Gob****e -this is an Irish one
what would you say?
I'd say I've wished you the best of luck. I'm done with that. Again, best of luck. I hope everything works out the way you want it to.
Db
CYOF
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,114
- Likes
- 32
dbphoenix said:
Fine, we will leave it at that.
The point I was trying to make is that a lot of people will think the same way, but will not actually say it.
Good trading, and how about showing us that Expectancy spreadsheet which is 12 for 143 in a row. I can open up a google collaborative spreadsheet on the new link I posted over in the System Expectancy thread?
Regards,
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
CYOF said:
Yes, leave it, thank you.
As for the 143 trades, that's actually bertie's claim. And we're all still waiting for that expectancy number you asked him for some time back. As for mine, I stopped doing that long ago as I had no more use for it.
Db
CYOF
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,114
- Likes
- 32
Oh, my mistake!dbphoenix said:
But has Socrates not said that he will not divulge any information?
Why should we expect anything, if he has said he is not willing to divulge?
I sure as hell don't!
In fact, from what I can see, I am the only one who is willing to divulge information, as scant as it may be at the present time.
Not to start it all off again, Db, but maybe a final answer as to why you do not want to divulge any live trading information in detail - or are you doing so already?
If so, then just re-state for those of us that have not noticed it yet, so that we may get back to business.
This is a fair comment, no?
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
CYOF said:
Fair if I'm selling a trading system or charging for some course or seminar or other. Otherwise, I no longer do any of that since people try to copy me instead of developing their own strategies. Therefore, my focus for some time has been teaching people how to do the latter. A few have taken me up on it. Most prefer to use somebody else's. Makes no difference to me one way or the other.
Of course, if you want to know how I trade, you're welcome to read any of my threads, but, no, I'm not going to repeat it all again for you. It's all already here. Sorry (you may want to look at the charts I posted in chump's thread; or not).
Db
the blades
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,336
- Likes
- 275
CYOF said:
It's fair comment if he starts calling all and sundry "dunces" or "cannon fodder" - he should then put up or shut up and prove why he's above the dunces.
Otherwise advice, that can be followed or ignored, would seem like fair comment to me.
UTB
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
the blades said:
I should point out, I suppose, that I used to demonstrate live trades in the ET chatroom, but it was then that I discovered that most message board "traders" actually have full-time jobs and trade recreationally, if at all. Since nearly everyone vanished at 1000 and didn't reappear until lunch, when I was usually done, I quit doing it and haven't done it again. Waste of time.
Otherwise, I did recently post real-time charts for several days showing how I plot S&R and how all that can be traded, but the thread was ignored, so I quit doing that.
So when somebody says he wants to know how I trade, I usually tell him to look it up. They rarely can make even that much of a commitment, much less make the commitment to develop a trading strategy.
But, they're not trading my money, so who cares?
Db
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,040
- Likes
- 509
On topic from Innerworth (psych mailout)
The Well Planned Trade
It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. This old adage is especially relevant to trading. Many novice traders assume that winning is the only thing that matters, but what they soon find out is that profiting over the long-term requires discipline and trading well developed trading plans. Sure, you can capitalize on chance and make a few winning trades here and there, but you can only win in the long run by developing a trading plan and following it.
It is important to distinguish justified wins from unjustified wins. A justified win is when a trader makes a very detailed trading plan and follows the plan. A win that results from following a trading plan is justified and reinforces discipline. An unjustified win occurs when a trader doesn't make a plan or drifts from the plan. He or she may be rewarded, but the outcome occurred by chance. The win is unjustified and can reinforce undisciplined trading.
For example, suppose you go long on a stock, expecting it to go up $1, but it went down. If you followed your plan, you might close the trade. Suppose out of frustration, though, you hold out and hope against hope that the trade will turn around. Now suppose that it does, and you end up profiting. You have ended up with a profit, but you may have reinforced an impulsive trading style.
You might think that profits are all that matter. "All is well that ends well," right? Well, maybe not. You may make a big profit, but at what psychological cost? Unexpected wins may provide short-term pleasure, but they can adversely influence discipline in the long term. Rather than developing a well-defined trading plan, following it, and getting rewarded by trading it, a trader puts on a trade haphazardly and is coincidently rewarded. In this case, a lack of discipline is rewarded, and this unjustified reward may increase a trader's tendency to abandon trading plans in the future because he or she has been rewarded for doing so in the past. However, the positive outcomes are usually short-lived, and a lack of discipline ultimately produces trading losses.
Cultivating discipline is vital for consistent and profitable trading. One implements proven trading strategies, over and over, so that across a series of trades, the strategies work enough to produce an overall profit. It's like making shot after shot on the basketball court so as to accumulate a winning number of points. The more shots you take, the more likely you will amass points. But the winning player is the person who first develops the skill to make the shot consistently, so that at every possible opportunity, the ball is likely to go through the basket. To a great extent, consistency is key. If the player uses one approach one time, and a different approach at another time, performance is haphazard. It's the same for trading. One must trade consistently, following a specific trading plan on each and every single trade. This allows the law of averages to work in your favor, so that across the series of trades, you will make an overall profit. If you follow the plan sometimes and abandon it at other times, you throw off the probabilities. Suppose you used a strategy that had a track record of 80%. Under the best-case scenario, you could only expect to win 80% of the time. But since history doesn't always repeat itself, it's likely that you will win less than 80% of the time. If you don't execute the trading strategy the same way each time, you will decrease your winning odds. And fewer winning trades may mean an overall loss. That's why discipline is so important.
With discipline comes profitability. Don't let unjustified wins interfere with your ability to maintain discipline. Follow your trading plan, and reinforce the idea that if you follow your plan, you will end up with profits in the long run. If you abandon your trading plan, and get an unjustified win, you may feel good in the short term, but you'll pay a long term price when it comes to your ability to maintain discipline. So clearly define your trades, and stick with your trading plan. The justified wins you receive from following your plan with help you develop an unwavering pattern of disciplined trading.
from Innerworth.com
The Well Planned Trade
It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game. This old adage is especially relevant to trading. Many novice traders assume that winning is the only thing that matters, but what they soon find out is that profiting over the long-term requires discipline and trading well developed trading plans. Sure, you can capitalize on chance and make a few winning trades here and there, but you can only win in the long run by developing a trading plan and following it.
It is important to distinguish justified wins from unjustified wins. A justified win is when a trader makes a very detailed trading plan and follows the plan. A win that results from following a trading plan is justified and reinforces discipline. An unjustified win occurs when a trader doesn't make a plan or drifts from the plan. He or she may be rewarded, but the outcome occurred by chance. The win is unjustified and can reinforce undisciplined trading.
For example, suppose you go long on a stock, expecting it to go up $1, but it went down. If you followed your plan, you might close the trade. Suppose out of frustration, though, you hold out and hope against hope that the trade will turn around. Now suppose that it does, and you end up profiting. You have ended up with a profit, but you may have reinforced an impulsive trading style.
You might think that profits are all that matter. "All is well that ends well," right? Well, maybe not. You may make a big profit, but at what psychological cost? Unexpected wins may provide short-term pleasure, but they can adversely influence discipline in the long term. Rather than developing a well-defined trading plan, following it, and getting rewarded by trading it, a trader puts on a trade haphazardly and is coincidently rewarded. In this case, a lack of discipline is rewarded, and this unjustified reward may increase a trader's tendency to abandon trading plans in the future because he or she has been rewarded for doing so in the past. However, the positive outcomes are usually short-lived, and a lack of discipline ultimately produces trading losses.
Cultivating discipline is vital for consistent and profitable trading. One implements proven trading strategies, over and over, so that across a series of trades, the strategies work enough to produce an overall profit. It's like making shot after shot on the basketball court so as to accumulate a winning number of points. The more shots you take, the more likely you will amass points. But the winning player is the person who first develops the skill to make the shot consistently, so that at every possible opportunity, the ball is likely to go through the basket. To a great extent, consistency is key. If the player uses one approach one time, and a different approach at another time, performance is haphazard. It's the same for trading. One must trade consistently, following a specific trading plan on each and every single trade. This allows the law of averages to work in your favor, so that across the series of trades, you will make an overall profit. If you follow the plan sometimes and abandon it at other times, you throw off the probabilities. Suppose you used a strategy that had a track record of 80%. Under the best-case scenario, you could only expect to win 80% of the time. But since history doesn't always repeat itself, it's likely that you will win less than 80% of the time. If you don't execute the trading strategy the same way each time, you will decrease your winning odds. And fewer winning trades may mean an overall loss. That's why discipline is so important.
With discipline comes profitability. Don't let unjustified wins interfere with your ability to maintain discipline. Follow your trading plan, and reinforce the idea that if you follow your plan, you will end up with profits in the long run. If you abandon your trading plan, and get an unjustified win, you may feel good in the short term, but you'll pay a long term price when it comes to your ability to maintain discipline. So clearly define your trades, and stick with your trading plan. The justified wins you receive from following your plan with help you develop an unwavering pattern of disciplined trading.
from Innerworth.com
A"ny person who goes in and sits down with another person ( a shrink), to try and get that person to tell them what is wrong with the way they think, is in my opinion:
Stupid
Silly
Thick
Foolish
Idiot
Gob****e -this is an Irish one
what would you say?"
Leaving out the "shrink" and assuming this person could be anyone whom they felt could be trusted to have some expertise then any of the following could be possible :
They could be aware enough to know they were unable to think their way through theirown problems ,but secure enough to know that anyone can learn how to think those problems through by learning how from someone with relevant experience.
They could have miraculously made their way through life without having been tainted by the nonsensical comments above which are very typical of the 'attitudes' to knowledge that abound.
Don't ask Little Johnny ,don't put your hand up and admit you don't know (how to think) because that makes you ignorant (ignorant being made an insult rather than the dictionary term that simply indicates that something is not known)
Thinking correctly is as much about learning as for example running the 100 metres. You wouldn't hesitate to ask someone who knew how to do the latter for advice ,but apparently you don't think that that applies when it comes to learning how to think. How to problem solve etc.
Unfortunately thinking correctly does not automatically become correct simply by prefacing it with "it's right for ME" ,but between us I think you know that regardless of what you post here.
For clarity I am making a huge distinction here between telling people ,what is correct to think as opposed to telling them how to go about thinking correctly for themselves ..you can learn the latter from someone who already does it ,whilst the former is pretty well useless.
Stupid
Silly
Thick
Foolish
Idiot
Gob****e -this is an Irish one
what would you say?"
Leaving out the "shrink" and assuming this person could be anyone whom they felt could be trusted to have some expertise then any of the following could be possible :
They could be aware enough to know they were unable to think their way through theirown problems ,but secure enough to know that anyone can learn how to think those problems through by learning how from someone with relevant experience.
They could have miraculously made their way through life without having been tainted by the nonsensical comments above which are very typical of the 'attitudes' to knowledge that abound.
Don't ask Little Johnny ,don't put your hand up and admit you don't know (how to think) because that makes you ignorant (ignorant being made an insult rather than the dictionary term that simply indicates that something is not known)
Thinking correctly is as much about learning as for example running the 100 metres. You wouldn't hesitate to ask someone who knew how to do the latter for advice ,but apparently you don't think that that applies when it comes to learning how to think. How to problem solve etc.
Unfortunately thinking correctly does not automatically become correct simply by prefacing it with "it's right for ME" ,but between us I think you know that regardless of what you post here.
For clarity I am making a huge distinction here between telling people ,what is correct to think as opposed to telling them how to go about thinking correctly for themselves ..you can learn the latter from someone who already does it ,whilst the former is pretty well useless.
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,807
- Likes
- 4,007
chump said:
What do I say? - I say thank you very much to all my teachers who tought me correctly what to think.
eg: If I wasn't correctly informed about Gravity - how would I have discovered it? Somebody could have asked me to think about why apples fall down from trees and not float up assuming starting from no awareness of gravity or how two masses attract each other, which stupid idiot could have come up with such a concept?
eg: If I wasn't told about the number zero - and somebody asked me to think about nothing who would not think some silly sod is playing some foolish game.
I've had exchanges with chump before where
1. I asked some questions
2. I was told I was asking the wrong questions
3. I asked what questions I should be asking
4. I was told there is no point in him telling me as I wouldn't understand the answers as I had not fathomed to ask the right questions.
I did get a little annoyed at first but reading Chumps last paragraph above has made me feel better as at least he his being true and consistent in his opinions. Although I disagree with them very strongly.
One of the great greek philosophers apparently objected to ideas and thoughts to be written down because he thought they would become fixed and could not be changed. I can see the point he was trying to make but what's wrong with writing down conflicting ideas and letting people decide for them selves where the actual thinking and weighing of ideas and intelligence takes place.
That is what freedom and wide education is about. Even if you tell someone like chump what is correct to think as I may suggest now he will tell me where to get off.
Chump thinks for him self and thinks other people should think like he does.
The development of human society is based on transferring knowledge and information not re-inventing the wheel :!:
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Atilla said:
There are those who want to be taught what to think and there are those who want to be taught how to think. I'm one of the latter. So is, I suspect, chump. Are we right? I can't say. But being taught what to think is not my style.
Therefore, those who want to be taught what to think are wasting my time and theirs by asking me what they should think. Those who want to be taught how to think, on the other hand, and there have been a few, are a real pleasure.
Db
nine
Senior member
- Messages
- 2,040
- Likes
- 509
No, thats way too simplistic and reflects a mid 20th century and earlier view of the brain. Late 20th century research reveals a much more complex picture.CYOF said:
Try a view that has clusters of neurons from different parts of the brain responding to various trigger events (and your story teller having varying levels of consciousness of both the overall cluster response and elements within it (emotional, thought, action elements for example)) and you will be closer to the model revealed by modern science.
This creates an interesting challenge for traders trying to improve elements of their behaviour and suggests both why people will move into states where they do things they would not "normally" do and also some interesting twists on behaviour extinction and operant conditioning.
Last edited:
I agree with what CYOF has said, but everything I've seen or heard about trading psychology suffers from oversimplification. We can agree about the value of staying 'cool', but we are all different. Some are more naturally 'cool' than other, but that doesn't mean they are naturally better traders. It just means that their mental fixation or 'stuckness of metal habit' which sabotages their trading lies in a different area. What is needed is a way to help one another spot these patterns in each other.
To do this we need to know who each other are, and we need to get to the core quickly. i know of no better way to do that than with the enneagram. I've only met one other trader who had even thought about using the enneagram to help traders become better people and better traders. Hopefully there are others out there.
I've found it extremely helpful myself. I began studying personality theory long before trading, adn I am certain that my understanding has helped me become a better trader much more quickly.
For those who might be interested... I am an enneagram 5 with equally strong 4 and 6 wings, healthy connections to 8 and 5 (security and stress points) and a social subtype. Fives tend to hoard knowledge, but advance by learning generosity. I am not a therapist of any sort, but I have taken courses in a professional enneagram certification program both for personal growth and out of a desire to be more qualified to share this knowledge to help others.
So if anyone is interested, I'd be glad to share more or answer questions.
To do this we need to know who each other are, and we need to get to the core quickly. i know of no better way to do that than with the enneagram. I've only met one other trader who had even thought about using the enneagram to help traders become better people and better traders. Hopefully there are others out there.
I've found it extremely helpful myself. I began studying personality theory long before trading, adn I am certain that my understanding has helped me become a better trader much more quickly.
For those who might be interested... I am an enneagram 5 with equally strong 4 and 6 wings, healthy connections to 8 and 5 (security and stress points) and a social subtype. Fives tend to hoard knowledge, but advance by learning generosity. I am not a therapist of any sort, but I have taken courses in a professional enneagram certification program both for personal growth and out of a desire to be more qualified to share this knowledge to help others.
So if anyone is interested, I'd be glad to share more or answer questions.
Let me try for a bit more clarity.
As part of a learning process we might say there are two possibilities. One is to be given information ,that is being told what to think because what is known has from an experiential point of view been found to be sound.
Eg The Battle of Hasting was indeed in 1067
No amount of thinking will change this fact (probably).
However , we could impart this knowledge a different way. We could suggest to the learner that they go visit the site of the battle and look for clues. We could ask them to consult historical texts.We could ask them how after accumulating their data they would conclude that The Battle of Hastings was indeed in 1066.
At no point in this process did we spoonfeed the information , we directed , we asked them to ask questions and consider same to form a conclusion.
When we take this approach it becomes a generalisable skill. That is when confronted with any unknown situation they can take the steps to confront it by investigating it and collecting data and then asking questions about that data as to what exactly does it mean.
By contrast in the absence of this approach anyone who's simply been told what to think by being given information is simply not prepared to learn about anything that is unknown except by being given the information by someone who already has it. Moreover they are also ill prepared to consider whether that information is actually sound.Hence my former statement as to this being "pretty useless" , an unfortunate overstatement on my part ,but nonetheless in relation to being taught how to think holds some relative merit.
Of course there is a place for giving information and therefore telling people what to think.. If my daughter were to step off the road without looking for traffic I wouldn't stand there for an hour talking her through the thought process so she could see for herself what a dangerous thing it was to do. Obviously I would simply tell her at that point.
Much of our being told what to think ,or being given information is done for exactly that reason , time , or lack of it. In school were our teachers not able to simply give us some information they would simply not have the time to cover what they need to cover. This of course does not mean it is the only method of learning and I think you can see that in my view it is not the optimum mode of learning for some purposes.
We have to be pragmatic , we just don't have the time to learn everything we need by being told how to think about it correctly , but unless at some point we make the effort to learn how to think correctly for ourselves as opposed to being told what to think then we are working far below our potential.
My response was to the specific situation outlined above and the comments made re same, nothing more ,but clearly my initial reply has been generalised so i have added to that reply for clarity.
Given my views you also understand why I'm pretty happy to just go away now and leave you to think ,or not as the case might be. I can see below you will not be wanting for views on this subject so you don't need mine.
As part of a learning process we might say there are two possibilities. One is to be given information ,that is being told what to think because what is known has from an experiential point of view been found to be sound.
Eg The Battle of Hasting was indeed in 1067
No amount of thinking will change this fact (probably).
However , we could impart this knowledge a different way. We could suggest to the learner that they go visit the site of the battle and look for clues. We could ask them to consult historical texts.We could ask them how after accumulating their data they would conclude that The Battle of Hastings was indeed in 1066.
At no point in this process did we spoonfeed the information , we directed , we asked them to ask questions and consider same to form a conclusion.
When we take this approach it becomes a generalisable skill. That is when confronted with any unknown situation they can take the steps to confront it by investigating it and collecting data and then asking questions about that data as to what exactly does it mean.
By contrast in the absence of this approach anyone who's simply been told what to think by being given information is simply not prepared to learn about anything that is unknown except by being given the information by someone who already has it. Moreover they are also ill prepared to consider whether that information is actually sound.Hence my former statement as to this being "pretty useless" , an unfortunate overstatement on my part ,but nonetheless in relation to being taught how to think holds some relative merit.
Of course there is a place for giving information and therefore telling people what to think.. If my daughter were to step off the road without looking for traffic I wouldn't stand there for an hour talking her through the thought process so she could see for herself what a dangerous thing it was to do. Obviously I would simply tell her at that point.
Much of our being told what to think ,or being given information is done for exactly that reason , time , or lack of it. In school were our teachers not able to simply give us some information they would simply not have the time to cover what they need to cover. This of course does not mean it is the only method of learning and I think you can see that in my view it is not the optimum mode of learning for some purposes.
We have to be pragmatic , we just don't have the time to learn everything we need by being told how to think about it correctly , but unless at some point we make the effort to learn how to think correctly for ourselves as opposed to being told what to think then we are working far below our potential.
My response was to the specific situation outlined above and the comments made re same, nothing more ,but clearly my initial reply has been generalised so i have added to that reply for clarity.
Given my views you also understand why I'm pretty happy to just go away now and leave you to think ,or not as the case might be. I can see below you will not be wanting for views on this subject so you don't need mine.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
