If you want to fail as a trader, study TA

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Expert said:
The first thing you must realize is this, trading is gambling, no matter who says otherwise, and if you want to make money trading you MUST become a good gambler and understand the rules of the engagement, else you will join the masses in their quest for the never ending story.
Click to expand...
This very much depends on one's definition of gambling. If you consider walking down a flight of steps or crossing a busy road to be gambling, then I would agree with you. However, most people, I suspect, would not think of these everyday activities (and many others like them) as gambling - and neither do I. Millions of us perform these tasks every day of our lives without incident. Equally, each day, someone, somewhere, suffers serious injury and a few unfortunate souls lose their lives. Most people perform these activities safely because they have a positive expectancy which is achieved through education (i.e. learning the 'green cross code' as children) and experience. Personally, I don't consider descending a flight of stairs or crossing the road to be gambling and, for the same reasons, I don't consider trading to be gambling either. The obvious caveat to this is that trading must be done correctly, by which I mean the trader must have a defined edge and an overall positive expectancy based on results from live trading.
Tim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D70
Ooh hope TE isn't leaving us, first I was like who's this guy, but then I started thinking that a lot of his stuff was actually tongue-in-cheek and humour.

And like Split said he has mellowed.

So I wouldn't mind him staying.

3441312.jpg


:clover:
 
timsk said:
This very much depends on one's definition of gambling. If you consider walking down a flight of steps or crossing a busy road to be gambling, then I would agree with you. However, most people, I suspect, would not think of these everyday activities (and many others like them) as gambling - and neither do I. Millions of us perform these tasks every day of our lives without incident. Equally, each day, someone, somewhere, suffers serious injury and a few unfortunate souls lose their lives. Most people perform these activities safely because they have a positive expectancy which is achieved through education (i.e. learning the 'green cross code' as children) and experience. Personally, I don't consider descending a flight of stairs or crossing the road to be gambling and, for the same reasons, I don't consider trading to be gambling either. The obvious caveat to this is that trading must be done correctly, by which I mean the trader must have a defined edge and an overall positive expectancy based on results from live trading.
Tim.
Click to expand...

Tim - gambling IS all about edges.

Regardless of the type of gambling, be it horse racing, dog racing, poker, blackjack, roulette etc - there are odds at play. Some people understand those odds and some don't.

Think about horse racing - the average punter gets fleeced as they don't bet based on the odds. The bookies on the other hand - well, they have smart people figuring out the odds and adjusting so that the betting doesn't become one-sided.

When it comes down to it - when you buy any financial instrument, you are betting that someone else (or 'the market') will be willing to buy it back off you for a higher price at some time in the future. Whether they do that has very little to do with actual value.

So really - the bet you make when you buy something is that some other schmuck will be willing to pay a higher price and he in turn is also betting that some other schmuck will do the same. OK -there are nuances where this isn't necessarily the case but it is a sound generalisation.

Obviously, the trick is not to be the last schmuck buying.
 
trading isnt gambling and if you treat it as such is prolly why u suck at it!

for one in trading you are a participent on in what your "betting on" your opinion has some effect on the outcome, how ever small. in gambling it does not. (cept for poker i guess?)

another point is that in casino games and card games, previous results have no effect on the outcome what so ever. not the case in trading (or all you TA folk would have to admit TA is pointless lol)
 
Yeah well ! There's TA and there's TA. Bog standard which is freely available and about as much use as a chocolate fire guard. Then there is the really useful stuff which no-one ever talks about...and long may it continue.

It's all measuring comparing and weighing... anyhow no matter what anyone says...it's all TA.;)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gambling is........ not being able to influence the outcome.
Trading is...........being able to influence the outcome.
 
Last edited:
N Rothschild said:
trading isnt gambling and if you treat it as such is prolly why u suck at it!

for one in trading you are a participent on in what your "betting on" your opinion has some effect on the outcome, how ever small. in gambling it does not. (cept for poker i guess?)

another point is that in casino games and card games, previous results have no effect on the outcome what so ever. not the case in trading (or all you TA folk would have to admit TA is pointless lol)
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples in the world of gambling where previous results have an effect on the outcome. Blackjack, poker and most forms of sports betting are all examples of this.
 
DionysusToast said:
Tim - gambling IS all about edges.

Regardless of the type of gambling, be it horse racing, dog racing, poker, blackjack, roulette etc - there are odds at play. Some people understand those odds and some don't.
Click to expand...

Hi DT,
I agree with you that gambling is about edges and, therefore, I wouldn't separate myself as a trader from the pro' horse racing punter or pro' poker player who has an edge and makes consistent profits. (Please note I'm talking about principles here, I'm not making any claims or boasts about my own trading.) For me, gambling is engaging in a game of pure chance where it is not possible for any participant to develop any kind of an edge - no matter how small. In your list, you mention roulette. I'm no expert on the game but, AFAIK, it's a game of pure chance and anyone who plays it will, in the long run, lose money.

In all three pursuits mentioned above - knowledge, skill and experience can produce an edge which leads to a positive expectancy. Exactly the same can be said of descending a flight of stairs or crossing the road. However, as a generalization, I suspect that society as a whole would say that poker players, traders and horse racing punters are all gamblers, while someone who crosses a road or descends a staircase isn't.

By the same token, most people wouldn't think of a conventional business as gambling either but, IMO, there's no difference there either. When a salesperson from a company goes on a sales call, s/he doesn't know if that particular call will result in a sale. Or the next one or the one after that. However, they know their averages and that for every 10 appointments they make, they'll get 5 follow up appointments and then 2 sales (or whatever their stat's are). The income from the 2 sales covers the cost of the other 8 (failed) sales calls, leaving a profit on top. Good salespeople have an edge, as do good traders or good poker players and just about everyone who crosses a road. Those that play the lottery or roulette have no edge; can't ever develop one and are the true gamblers - by my definition. Having said that, of course there are droves of people who engage in horse racing, poker and trading without ever developing an edge and, consequently, they too are gambling. But that doesn't apply to any of us on this forum does it!
:p
Tim.
 
How true that is. All business is a gamble but especially the small ones. The large ones hedge the new startups with the successful ones, so it becomes less of a large gamble. Except for the director in charge, who faces the sack.:)
 
Traduk said:
It was immediately obvious that your childish drawing was an event that cannot occur in nature due to physical limitations. It is\was embarrassing to adults to acknowledge something impossible even if your agenda requires a suspension of logic.

As for now expecting people to be telepathic and read your mind, you have to be joking. There are dozens of trading psychology 101 page 1 reasons why your illogical drawing can have could have analogous meaning but you could easily support your ego by deeming all bar one as wrong.

Please post something that warrants your chosen screen name and be measured by your peers. Kindergarten stuff does nothing for anybody with perhaps one exception.
Click to expand...
Quite by coincidence I purchased a copy of Le Petit Prince in France on Saturday and the drawings come from that book

http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Le_Petit_Prince#I

Charlton
 
Charlton said:
Quite by coincidence I purchased a copy of Le Petit Prince in France on Saturday and the drawings come from that book

http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Le_Petit_Prince#I

Charlton
Click to expand...

The more profound observations of standard human perception as alluded to within the book obviously struck a chord within the poster.

There are a relatively small proportion of people who see things differently than most and challenge commonly accepted beliefs. An obvious target is the perceived reason why within trading a high proportion fail (TA) but I believe that it is wrong to dismiss something and in the process try to humiliate users without offering reasons or a plausible alternative.

Fortunately within trading there are many ways to get it right but infinitely more ways to get it wrong. Whatever methods are employed have to be owned or come to belong to the user because the method supports the user's psychology.
 
Traduk said:
The more profound observations of standard human perception as alluded to within the book obviously struck a chord within the poster.

There are a relatively small proportion of people who see things differently than most and challenge commonly accepted beliefs. An obvious target is the perceived reason why within trading a high proportion fail (TA) but I believe that it is wrong to dismiss something and in the process try to humiliate users without offering reasons or a plausible alternative.

Fortunately within trading there are many ways to get it right but infinitely more ways to get it wrong. Whatever methods are employed have to be owned or come to belong to the user because the method supports the user's psychology.
Click to expand...

When you look, you must see
What others not, will never be
On the cover, all looks fine
But deep inside, the words are rhyme

The Expert, aka, TE :smart:
 
I am now closing the second line of communication until I see fit to open it again. To date, I am very disappointed by the unwillingness of most to do some basic thinking, and, it just shows why the majority will always be the majority.

If you ask the RIGHT questions you will get the RIGHT answers, and vice verse of course.

Think of trading like driving the car to work every day, for, you know you must go and do what you do best in order to make some money, so, why do you think trading is any different?

Be The Best, Or Join The Rest.

TE
 
The Expert said:
I am now closing the second line of communication
TE
Click to expand...

i hope you can keep your promise this time
and don't keep coming back again and again like other threads you supposedly "quit"

but I doubt that your overblown ego, which is obviously over-compensating for some serious deficiencies in your life, will permit you to stay away for long ....
 
Is this thread worth reading or is it just a bunch of riddles & arguing?

TA is just your tool kit for gaining a statistical advantage "an edge" in betting on which way a market will move, and that's all a trade is, a bet, like it or not (unless you have the financial muscle to actually move it yourself) you will never be able to look into the future and say for certain which way a market will go.

So purely & simply, the real key to success is "managing your risk".
 
Traduk said:
The more profound observations of standard human perception as alluded to within the book obviously struck a chord within the poster.

There are a relatively small proportion of people who see things differently than most and challenge commonly accepted beliefs. An obvious target is the perceived reason why within trading a high proportion fail (TA) but I believe that it is wrong to dismiss something and in the process try to humiliate users without offering reasons or a plausible alternative.

Fortunately within trading there are many ways to get it right but infinitely more ways to get it wrong. Whatever methods are employed have to be owned or come to belong to the user because the method supports the user's psychology.
Click to expand...



If there are an infinite number of ways of getting it wrong then there are an infinite number of ways of getting it right.

There are no losing systems, the systems are just being used in the wrong manner.

We are talking about a two horse race, up and down.

Volatility.

Trading is about capturing volatility or being on the positive side of volatility, whilst also reducing downside risk to the trading account.

This can be done through TA, despite what the OP may have stated.

The markets are dynamic, they are not exact, and are always different at any one moment, so why should any static approach be beneficial in the long run?
 
kimo'sabby said:
If there are an infinite number of ways of getting it wrong then there are an infinite number of ways of getting it right.

There are no losing systems, the systems are just being used in the wrong manner.

We are talking about a two horse race, up and down.

Volatility.

Trading is about capturing volatility or being on the positive side of volatility, whilst also reducing downside risk to the trading account.

This can be done through TA, despite what the OP may have stated.

The markets are dynamic, they are not exact, and are always different at any one moment, so why should any static approach be beneficial in the long run?
Click to expand...

At the time I was thinking holistically about trading. Irrespective of approach and methodology when the governing factors of W\L, R\R and cost factors are put in the equation the field becomes dramatically limited. Tight money management adds further restrictions which is determined by account size and risk tolerance.

I do not know your definition of systems but before I dropped all hope of a system I designed 37 and threw the lot away because they either lost or had too large a draw-down at times. I am sure that it can be done but I wanted to make money and discretionary trading proved the way forward and has done so for most of two decades.

If you think there are infinite ways of getting it right try adding the control factors of W\L, R\R etc into the equation and see how many ways that eliminates.
 
Traduk said:
If you think there are infinite ways of getting it right try adding the control factors of W\L, R\R etc into the equation and see how many ways that eliminates.
Click to expand...


:LOL:It doesn't eliminate in the favour of your arguement, if anything, the broker makes.

So what is in the 'favour' of the trader?

There are traders who are on the 'make', how do they do it?

I'll give you a clue.

Up and down.:LOL:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Pipsaholic
Failed Traders
Replies
4
Views
1K
pboyles
P
A
New Trader: What is the point of TA
2
Replies
20
Views
5K
Charlton
C
G
failed to get out of the blocks
Replies
1
Views
739
timsk
timsk
B
"Finding" shares to trade with TA
Replies
2
Views
3K
tomorton
T
K
If you are a sheep say Bhaaaaa.....
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
oildaytrader
oildaytrader
Top