Plain Vanilla Options Trades.

[bluetipex]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluetipex
A very popular thread, which has perhaps deviated a little from the original theme.

I have only dabbled in options a few years back, so am by no means an expert. There are many here who I'm sure are far more knowledgeable, so what I'm about to say may be completely wrong! I'm sure I'll be corrected very swiftly if that is the case!

It has been said that the Writer has the edge over the Buyer, and I believe this to be true from simply looking at the 3 to 1 ratio of successful end results of writing over buying. However, I, like a few others, submit that this has not been proven by the exercise completed. Simple logic is all that is required to conclude this. In addition, the "edge" has never been adequately defined. It is up to the subjective opinion of the reader to define this for themselves. Therefore, the stated aim of this thread has NOT been accomplished.

In my humble opinion, a simplistic view of a successful trader is one who is skilled in predicting TIMING and DIRECTION. If one can master this then you will be successful.

What Socrates has proven, in my humble opinion, is that he has mastered this very, very, very difficult task. (I have assumed that the trades were actually placed by him, etc. I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt).

To emphasise my point even more clearly, I'd like you to consider the following scenario:

Suppose another contributer to T2W, let's say his nick is "PYTHAGORUS", decided to prove that Option BUYERS have the edge over Option WRITERS by successfully completing 20 option trades, buying FTSE Call options over the past 3-4 weeks. He posted his trades live, and could be seen on the web etc. These 20 trades are all profitable. How many of you would then agree that PYTHAGORUS has proven his hypothesis? I would not. I would say that PYTHAGORUS is an excellent trader, and has mastered market TIMING and DIRECTION. He would deserve, in my opinion, equal respect and admiration as Socrates.

If PYTHAGORUS and SOCRATES sit opposite each other, each drinking a glass of their favourite tipple, each arguing that their case has been proven, who would win the argument? Surely they would go round and round and round in circles?

The above scenario illustrates why I believe the stated aim of this thread has not been proven. A DIFFERENT exercise would have to be carried out to PROVE this aim, after having DEFINED all the parameters involved, especially "EDGE".

Would one of you option experts please correct me if my grasp of options has been exposed for the inadequacy that is highly likely? Please show me the flaw in my logic.

(I also wonder how quickly someone will create the nick "PYTHAGORUS" and start posting live trades!!!!)




Update:~
######

Total Realised Profits so far...................................................................................................£5255=

(this is not including trade E, carried out by CYOF)

Open Positions:~

Trades D, 6F, 7 and 9. all in FTSE 100 Apr 5925 puts, totalling 23 puts
written at a mean average price of
48.8260 each.

Market price to buy last seen at close to buy is 21


therefore current unrealised profit for these is (27.826 X 23 X 10) =.................................................................................................................................................... £6400=

....................And................


Trade number 12...

3 X FTSE 100 Index puts 6225 May written @ 115.5 and last seen 28

therefore Current Unrealised Profit for this one is (3 X 87.5X 10 ) = ..........................£ 2625=

Plus

Trade 15

6 Apr 6175 Written @ 84

Closing Price 52.5

(6 X 31.5 X10)= Unrealised Profit..........................................................................................£1890=

Plus....

Trade 15A

Written 3 May6225 @ 110
Closing Price 87.5

(3 x22.5 X10)= Unrealised Profit...............................................................................................£675=

Plus ....

Trade 16
Written 3May 6075 @ 74.5
Closing Price 56.5
(3 X 18 X10)= Unrealised Profit...............................................................................................£520=

Plus....

Trade17
Written 6 Mar6175 @ 42.5
Closing Price 21.5
(6 X 21 X10) =Unrealised Profit............................................................................................. £1260=

Plus...

Trade 19
Written2 May5925 @ 62
Closing Price 36
(2 X 26 X10)= Unrealised Profit.................................................................................................£520=

Plus...

Trade20
1 May6225 @ 116
Closing Price 87.5
(1 X28.5 X10)= Unrealised Profit................................................................................................£285=


Sub total of Unrealised Profits so far................................................................................ £14,175 =

Plus

Realised Profits so far carried down......................................................................................£5255=

Total Profits so far................................................................................................................... £19,430=
###############...................................................................................................................########

And all in under a month...in fact a total of only 18 trading days...

*************************************************************************************************

Now bluetipex,

You can waddle on about all the rubbish you so desire, about jimmy who might do this, and jack who might do that, but it is those that Just Do IT -thanks for that great phrase, Charlton - who gets things done :idea:

If you want to listen to all the usual non sensical rubbish from Profitaker and his buddies, who by his own admission does not even trade, then be my guest.

But, do not become like the majority here, whom, for some stupid reason, unknown to me, try to Tell others how to think.

What a mentality

Facts - Facts - Facts >>> Truth - Truth - Truth

Everything else, as some of our limited mind posters say, is nothing only pure drosse, or something to that effect. I prefer to call it, a total waste of time, and as Time = Money, I am sure we are all keen to cut all the bull and see what it is we really need to be looking at, as opposed to what we Think it is we should be looking at :idea:

Supposen, Supposen, 3 men were frozen

We do not have the time, nor the mentality, for supposen anything, period :idea:

Money = Time
Time = Watch
Watch = Opportunity
Opportunity = Movement
Movement = Error
Error = Feedback
Feedback = Adjust
Adjust = Money
Money = Time

Everything operates in cycles :idea:

The best cycles are the ones with harmonic vibrations :idea:

Time for Telly Tubby Toast

Au Revoir,

CYOF

I shall disregard all of your posts because you talk utter, utter nonsense. You seem incapable of normal, constructive debate. I believe my post was fairly clear, and you (indeed no-one) has responded with a reasonable counter-argument, or pointed out the flaw in the logic, in clear, concise English. Communication with you is really hard work. Unnecessarily so. Very sad.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Reality<=============================================================>CYOF

 

[bluetipex]

Aaahhhh ! Pennies seem to be beginning to drop here at last...

When you have many years watching and experiencing similar things they begin to become second nature, like for example you do not have to thnk of the route, if you have to go out of your home to post a letter or get a pint of milk because you "know" where the postbx is and you "know" where the corner shop that sells the milk is.

You "know" where these things are and if you close your eyes you can visualise them before you actually get there and see them in reality in front of you.

But a visitor would be lost and you would have to give directions.

Well, trading at the highest level is the same. You need years of experience to acquire the right map inside your head and to know in which direction to set out for you to ultimately obtain what you want with a major degree of certainty instead of getting lost. All this is a matter of trading maturity, and a deep knowledge of the environment in which you are occupying and operating in.

What an excellent post.

This makes complete sense.

An intuitive knowledge of the markets takes years of experience to develop. One can debate whether this "intuition" can be TAUGHT???

Socrates and I once had a brief exchange with regard to the parallels of trading with "autism" - and people with this condition being able to complete extraordinary feats, effortlessly. The question is, can us "ordinary" folk develop a kind of "autistic" insight into the markets enabling us to trade successfully???? If, to become successful, ordinary people like me have to train our minds to operate in this way, no wonder trading is so B****** difficult!!!!! It's a journey well worth embarking upon, because once mastered, the potential rewards are clearly unlimited!!

Socrates. I much prefer when you speak like this rather than the allegorical stories. Don't get me wrong, I do like allegories; e.g Paulo Coelho etc. I just don't enjoy them with regard to trading. However, if this is the method you choose to explain your arguments, then so be it!

Regards

 

[CYOF]

CYOF

I shall disregard all of your posts because you talk utter, utter nonsense. You seem incapable of normal, constructive debate. I believe my post was fairly clear, and you (indeed no-one) has responded with a reasonable counter-argument, or pointed out the flaw in the logic, in clear, concise English. Communication with you is really hard work. Unnecessarily so. Very sad.

Well, my dear sir, you can argue all you like, and waffle all you like, and listen to dunces all you like, or you can Look and See what is right in front of you. :idea:

If I do not present an argument as You would like it to be presented, then though.

Remember, trading is not about debating what will or might happen with others. :idea:

Trading is about making money - consistently - by repeating what you Already know works, from that little old word called experience:idea:

What is utter nonsense btw :?:

Is buying calls utter nonsense when you have a 1 in 4 chance of making some money from the seller :?:

Is talking about volatility blow offs and skewered sausages also nonsense :?:

And what about Black Swans and Black Holes :?:

Are we getting back to the Fundamentals Vs The Technicals :?:

Are you a Trader or an Investor :?:

How many here have actually placed no trades at all, yet still talk as if they have been trading all of their lives :?:

Once you truly believe that you know nothing about anything, then, and only then, will you be not like the majority, who actually know everything about nothing :idea:

Toodle pip - back to the Foyer for me, or maybe I will try once more, just to see, if the majority will start thinking for themselves

But I need to be careful, for I have many watchers, some who work for the copyright association, others who work for the publishers, and some who just plain don't like me because I am a Paddy, but you know what, I really don't care, one little bit, at all, really :cheesy:

I will now leave and let Socrates continue to present the Facts to you all.

My last words here will be:

The Choice Is Yours - Always Has Been - Always Will Be

Slainte,

 

[Profitaker]

First a moderator's plea: rudeness is rudeness whether it be initiated or in response so please be civil to each other.

Rudeness is often used by an individual when he has failed to get his point across. It is, if you like, a last ditch attempt at doing so. Not wishing to name names here, but after several years of posting many thousands of posts, and still failing to get his points accepted by the majority has clearly caused his rudeness to become legendary.

I agree that rudeness from either an initiator or respondent is equally unacceptable. But just a thought, if you remove the initiator then there can be no respondent.

It is true to say that a series of successful trades does not provide proof positive, but what can constitute proof?

The same procedure that would constitute proof positive that a casino has the edge in roulette. Namely hundreds of thousands, and ideally millions of trials. The more trials, the more credible the evidence. Of course in reality there is no need for such a demonstration at the casino because most people know that 36/37 is less than 1. The same principle of probabilities and payoffs that apply to casinos also applies to options, albeit in slightly more complex form.

I have never traded options (nor will I) but I can say that in over thirty years of trying I have never had twenty winning trades on the trot

Ok, I can easily change that for you and will guarantee you 20 consecutive winning trades. AND I won’t try to charge you £ 400 for doing so. Ready ?

What you do is sell options that are far away from the money, in fact the further away the better. I would suggest selling 50 lots of the March 6025 Puts and 25 lots of the March 6675 Calls. That would gross you about £ 4600. Easy money, eh ? Now, go put that trade on and we’ll congratulate ourselves on 16th March when they expire worthless and we’ll do that 20 more times.

You see when selling options you are predicting where the market won’t go, which is a darn sight easier than predicting where the market will go. But even then, that won't change your ultimate profitability. It'll only change how you get there because making £ 4600 x 20 times and then losing £ 150,000 is not as good as losing £ 4600 x 20 times and then making £ 150,000.

 

[SOCRATES]

Rudeness is often used by an individual when he has failed to get his point across. It is, if you like, a last ditch attempt at doing so. Not wishing to name names here, but after several years of posting many thousands of posts, and still failing to get his points accepted by the majority has clearly caused his rudeness to become legendary.

Of course my points do not get accepted by by the majority. I have explained I am not concerned with the majority. I am concerned with the exclusive minority. I am devoted to the pursuit of excellence and not the pursuit of mediocrity like you are.

I agree that rudeness from either an initiator or respondent is equally unacceptable. But just a thought, if you remove the initiator then there can be no respondent.

What ! You are the one who is rude. I have asked you several times to leave my thread alone. I have told you publicly you are not welcome to post your graffitti on my thread. I have told you many times your posts are not relevant and off topic. You persist in posting here. Additionally you declare publicly you have placed the host of this thread (being me) on ignore, and you have the cheek to talk about rudeness ? This is because you have no manners.

Additionally you are yourself the initiator of the rudeness not only because you are an unwelcome guest and a parasite here, but because of your general demeanour and use of unacceptable language.It is you who initiates not me. It is therefore you who ought to be removed.

But I have in the end result, the last say. You have tried again and again by fair means and foul to penetrate the private area in www.citybulls.com http://www.citybulls.com despitedespite having been told many times you are not welcome. You have publicly begged, "let me in" ..."let me in"...but I am the gatekeeper there, appointied on an honorary basis and I am doing my duty to keep you frimly out, despite the disgusting assortment of nicks you invent to keep re registering.

You can restrict yourself to logging on and making a nuisance of yourself in the public forums but the other areas are firmly out of bounds to you. It gives me satisfaction to tell you The Star Chamber and the Elite 34S Club are totally out of your reach. This is because they can not be accessed via the internet. This is specifially intended to keep them totally out of your reach.

The same procedure that would constitute proof positive that a casino has the edge in roulette. Namely hundreds of thousands, and ideally millions of trials. The more trials, the more credible the evidence. Of course in reality there is no need for such a demonstration at the casino because most people know that 36/37 is less than 1. The same principle of probabilities and payoffs that apply to casinos also applies to options, albeit in slightly more complex form.

The markets are not a casino. They may seem to be like a casino to you but they are not.
Everything, but everything is decided in advance, but not in the way you thnk it is.

Ok, I can easily change that for you and will guarantee you 20 consecutive winning trades. AND I won’t try to charge you £ 400 for doing so. Ready ?

You are the last one to be able to guarantee anything. This is why up to now you have given off a lot of hot air but never put your money where your big mouth is, which incidentally it would not do you any harm to wash it washed out for you with really strong disinfectant while you are at it. What frustrates you is very simple. I know how to wind you up. I know how to tease you rotten. All I have to do is to post live trades and that gets you going like a rocket.
Why ? It is simple, you are determined to try to corrupt as many people as you can to your warped way of thinking. I am very grateful to you in a way. You ensure the cannon fodder reamains. We need cannon fodder. We need as much as possible. You help to provide it but you shoot yourself in the foot in the process, and we laugh.


What you do is sell options that are far away from the money, in fact the further away the better. I would suggest selling 50 lots of the March 6025 Puts and 25 lots of the March 6675 Calls. That would gross you about £ 4600. Easy money, eh ? Now, go put that trade on and we’ll congratulate ourselves on 16th March when they expire worthless and we’ll do that 20 more times.

This is bevause the Black Swan that you and your friend ducatti of Ants fame, persist in trying to frighten ordinary decent people with. But the Black Swan is not under your control at all. You would like to control it and to be able to if not order, then to be able to properly predict its appearance. But both options are not available to you, to your frustration and annoyance.

I have the two copies of the Weekend Edition of the Financial Times that I replace every weeknend as part of the precaution to keep the Black Swan away.

( The reference to these two rolled copies of this newspaper is allegorical by the way and serves to camouflage and hide the real tactics used, which incidentally are decided in The Star Chamber to which you do not have access) Everything is known in advance everything. You cannot be given a proper explanation because you are a rude young upstart.

You see when selling options you are predicting where the market won’t go, which is a darn sight easier than predicting where the market will go. But even then, that won't change your ultimate profitability. It'll only change how you get there because making £ 4600 x 20 times and then losing £ 150,000 is not as good as losing £ 4600 x 20 times and then making £ 150,000.

This is more of your bluster. You have not an iota of an idea of what's what. You think the markets are random. You talk in terms of flicking a coin in the air. I have news for you, I have a coin too, but my coin has two heads when I choose or two tails when I choose again.

The object of the excercise overall is to keep you in the dark, like in a mushroom farm.

Kept in the dark and then from time to time a bucket of manure chucked over....

Bookmarked, I will comment later as I am bizzi bizzi bizzi....and by the way, thanks for making the blunder....

 

[Splitlink]

First a moderator's plea: rudeness is rudeness whether it be initiated or in response so please be civil to each other.

As Split points out the discussion is going in circles, but I can't resist sticking in my twopennyworth. I said earlier in the thread that there seems to be two potential edges at play here - the first is about determining market direction and the second is about taking advantage of that via options. The thread is about the second and contends that writing options gives an edge all else being equal.

It is true to say that a series of successful trades does not provide proof positive, but what can constitute proof? One can produce some complex mathematics I suppose, or provide backtested results to the year dot, or consider potential performance against a range of hypothetical scenarios - but, at the end of the day, proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is all any trader will use - their consistent profits and a consistent swelling of their trading account satisfactorily (for them at least) demonstrates their edge.

I have never traded options (nor will I) but I can say that in over thirty years of trying I have never had twenty winning trades on the trot

good trading (options or not)

jon

I am on the point of leaving for work and I did say Goodbye until next week, but I cannot let your post pass without these two questions

1) Based on the fact that it may be possible to make 100000 pounds in a series of trades but, on just one trade, you can lose everything you own. Do you condone what Socrates has been doing as a method of prudent trading?

2) Do you believe that, by winning twenty trades but losing one trade with massive and unlimited losses as a possibility, writing has the edge over buying?

That is what this thread is all about.

Split





,

 

[Crap Buddist]

If too many get it at once, shoot the story teller ?

Rudeness is often used by an individual when he has failed to get his point across. It is, if you like, a last ditch attempt at doing so. Not wishing to name names here, but after several years of posting many thousands of posts, and still failing to get his points accepted by the majority has clearly caused his rudeness to become legendary.

I would think that the poster is very o.k. with this point , from what i can read into it thats the point of a very considered response aimed at talking (chatting) to those who are at the level already yet also lowering a rung of the up ladder down to those who are 'ready' to step on the tread?

That is likely to be the minority hence if the majority is reading it and knowing it then maybe its learning of knowledge too fast, or given too freely ?

Just a point some may or may not agree with it but I can see a sense or very good reason for it to be controlled ? I mean even normal education is package and structured at a controlled pace for a good reason I dont see why trading should be any different.

Now if so many pay the so few,even more reason to be critical on education or advancing your competitors, I mean they pay you , why help at all ,very openly and so very publicly, I can see very good reason why some people would want to do the exact opposite and disinform?

Idont think that needs to be done as there is so much tinsel hanging on the tree its groaning under the weight of it . And that helps serve to keep the soup mix alive and bubbling?

And what would Sir David Attenborough account of it all , "here then the typical trader approaches the market, (insert you fav. imagined piece here, members may like to present their own story for this bit) and as you can see, he's no longer " :cheesy:

Sense or non sense ?

If too many get it at once, shoot the story teller ? And if no one gets it at all Hang the story teller then shoot him to make sure :cheesy:

Yeesh, I guess telling stories is a responsible thing to undertake ?

 

[SOCRATES]

Profitaker
Senior Member







Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 484
Quote:
Originally Posted by andycan

but have you accepted this to be fact or have you proven it to yourself?
not long ago you said the markets are random and thre are many so called expert that will agree with you (most dont trade lol)
but what about those that say the markets are predictable are they looneys or they dont fit your way of thinking?
I have proven it to myself, at least in the market I trade.

Options are priced on the basis that markets are random. That is why no matter how far a stock or index has tanked (or rallied) the price of a call will be exactly the same as a put of the same strike. In other words, the options market prices in a move in either direction as 50/50.

I didn't say that anyone that claims to be able to accurately predict direction was a looney. What I did say is that it is very easy to be fooled by randomness.
__________________
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

Bookmarked...typical calbunklery for comment later.......

This is exhibit A.

It shows the belief structure to which Profitaker is prisoner. No self respecting pro would venture to express opinions of this sort. It helps to evaluate his thinking, what do I think of it ? Not Much...Beginner Talk.

 

[Profitaker]

CB

I too would think the (hypothetical) poster is very ok that the majority treat him with contempt. Just because he screams and shouts that 2+2=5 does not make it so, at least to the majority, it doesn't. The same principle is true of somebody that screams and shouts that he can see into the future. He can't, at least to the majority, he can't.

 

[SOCRATES]

2007, 03:56 PM #497
Profitaker
Senior Member







Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 485
Perhaps the confusion over writer / buyer edge boils down to the difference between frequency of profits and magnitude of profits. Grant has given a simple yet excellent example of this.

Nobody would argue (well perhaps some here would argue just for the sake of arguing) that the casino has the edge. Yet despite this, using the strategy that Grant has put forward, the casino loses not 1 in 4 times, but 35 out of 37 times ! How can it be that the casino has the edge and makes good profits over the long run.

The answer is that although the gambler wins many frequent lots of £ 1000, when the casino wins the magnitude of the win is massive (£ 35,000) and wipes out all the gamblers gains, and then some.

This principle is exactly the same when laying a 20/1 horse not to win a race, or selling a 0.10 delta Put option.

The edge lies in determining the true odds of any probability. Simple, but in the case of options complex odds calculations are needed.
__________________
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.



Bookmarked again....and reserved 4 later for more fun....

This is Exhibit B.

This again shows the belief structure in which he is held prisoner.
This is how gamblers on Steamboat Willie plying the Missisippi River used to talk among themselves and their card games...LOL....for a so to speak savant on options it is ridiculous.

 

[SOCRATES]

SOCRATES
Legendary Member




#################################################################################

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,141 Quote:
Originally Posted by Profitaker

Well, how else would you evaluate probabilities ? Candlesticks ? Bollinger bands ? Moving averages ? Flip a coin ?

##################################################################################


No...not exactly....hehe...but by tuning correctly into the intent....the intent is the key........including the sudden appearance of a black swan round the corner..
__________________
SOCRATES


There is a very fine line dividing sense from nonsense.
The great majority are unaware of its existence, or, choose to ignore it. Consequently they succeed in misdirecting themselves to choose the wrong side of this line, for reasons best known to themselves. This is a source of amazement to those very few able to correctly logically deduce and reason, viewing nearly everything you will encounter here as nonsense, pure nonsense, that the majority ultimately embrace.

SOCRATES
View Public Profile
Send a private message to SOCRATES
Find More Posts by SOCRATES
Add SOCRATES to Your Buddy List

Page 11 of 15 « First < 2 3 4

And some more...found it at last........... ......hilarious.......... ..........for detailed comment later...Ha Ha Ha.

And this is Exhibit C.

This one is even worse, and even more mortifying and embarassing to read...LOL....It reveals the writer of the post not to have a clue about what it is he is talking about...LOL

 

[SOCRATES]

CB

I too would think the (hypothetical) poster is very ok that the majority treat him with contempt. Just because he screams and shouts that 2+2=5 does not make it so, at least to the majority, it doesn't. The same principle is true of somebody that screams and shouts that he can see into the future. He can't, at least to the majority, he can't.

.....quite so, but only according to your blinkered frame of reference.

 

[SOCRATES]

2 + 2 will not make 5, they will make 4.

But 2 + 2 when written side by side make 22.

When written upside down make 55...........

or, if you are able to think out of the box,

Two ducks sitting on a pond....

And ...if you repeat 222222 very fast it is because I can run rings round you anytime I like........and what is more it is there for all to see....

 

[andycan]

Ok I think I'm starting to get it now.

You seem to be suggesting that with experience and knowledge one will be able to determine with a high degree of accuracy where the market will go. You may get the timing off but otherwise you will be pretty close to the money. That sounds reasonable.

I would ask a quick question in relation to "I have nailed highs and lows to a T" if I may. Have you ever done an empirical study on your picking of highs and lows? Do you know the % number of times you nail that high or low compared to the number of times you attempt to do so? No need to answer that by the way as it's not really important. I only bring it up because it is a common human trait to remember the times we get something right and forget all the times we attempted the same thing but got it wrong. Without a proper empirical study, logging every attempt, we have no true idea if we get it right any more times than pure chance would allow us to. I'm not suggesting your success at picking highs and lows is pure chance either. I'm merely raising the issue.

Now, having said all that.....stating that you sometimes(or even often) get it right in a vague kind of "I was pretty darn close" sort of way is one thing. Saying "I have absolute knowledge of all outcomes in advance. Everything is known in advance. I work from absolute certainty." is a whole different kettle of fish.

Soc may very well be all knowing. My only issue with that statement is in how it relates to the stated aim of this thread. As I've said before, if Soc is all knowing, then he can post all the live profitable trades he wants and this alone will not and can not serve as proof of his hypothesis. With Soc being totally unwilling to go into details it is impossible to ascertain if his profitable trades come from his knowing everything or if they come simply from an inherent edge to writing options as he claims.

Yet again though Soc would rather insult than debate. I still wanted to bring it up as I'm still interested in seeing proof one way or the other. I'm still vainly(obviously) hoping that Soc will actually decide to post some fair dinkum proof of his hypothesis if he has any.

Cheers,
PKFFW

your question is more complex than i initially thought
and as its really off topic a tad, i will say:
no i have never recorded the times i have pin pointed highs or lows for the fact of pin pointing, but i have recorded the times i have pin pointed high and lows and traded them, because i keep records of that. and i can say that accuracy in not due to chance, and that is clearly evident with experience

 

[SOCRATES]

your question is more complex than i initially thought
and as its really off topic a tad, i will say:
no i have never recorded the times i have pin pointed highs or lows for the fact of pin pointing, but i have recorded the times i have pin pointed high and lows and traded them, because i keep records of that. and i can say that accuracy in not due to chance, and that is clearly evident with experience

Yes, because it is inutitively experiential, futurologically speaking, and not theoretical, and not out of textbooks, yes ?

 

[SOCRATES]

And I forgot to mention....perversely "different" and not necessarily opposite or contradictory, but "different" to textbooks as well. yes ?...:cheesy:

 

[barjon]

I am on the point of leaving for work and I did say Goodbye until next week, but I cannot let your post pass without these two questions

1) Based on the fact that it may be possible to make 100000 pounds in a series of trades but, on just one trade, you can lose everything you own. Do you condone what Socrates has been doing as a method of prudent trading?

2) Do you believe that, by winning twenty trades but losing one trade with massive and unlimited losses as a possibility, writing has the edge over buying?

That is what this thread is all about.

Split
,

Well, assuming you're peeping on on your thread holiday, split

The point I was trying to make was that I'm not sure what "proof" can be offered at the end of the day aside from trading results. Quite how many results and for how long a period is a separate matter.

As to whether Socrates' trading here is prudent, who am I to say? That's up to him and depends on his personal risk:reward profile; the probability of Black Swan events; and his tactics for dealing with such eventualities. It sounds too high risk for me but, then again, I probably wouldn't trade at all if I was always worrying about Armageddon around the corner wiping me out.

good trading

jon

 

[andycan]

And I forgot to mention....perversely "different" and not necessarily opposite or contradictory, but "different" to textbooks as well. yes ?...:cheesy:

it pains me to say but it appears this is the case
it makes me wonder about text books, you could write a book 400 pages long for just one days trading reading into the psychology of all involved the technical aspects and then of course we have the fundamentals and most know how cockeyed that can be.
so though a book can give you a snip-it of information, a microscopic moment into an event it cant subsititute that information in one chapter let alone one book.

 

[Charlton]

The proficient trader

"They (proficient traders) already have done all the work and have reliable and accurate route maps inside their heads they refer to. The fact that the reference to the map is silent and invisible makes it that much more mystifying.



The problem as you very accurately have pinpointed is that we live in an age of instant gratification......, an "off the shelf" kind of society



You "know" where these things are and if you close your eyes you can visualise them before you actually get there and see them in reality in front of you"

Socrates

I have chosen a few extracts from some of your recent posts. I read them this morning, along with another you posted, which indicated the amount of hard work you have put into your trading development in the past.

Not many of the readers on this site, I suspect, would be so dedicated, but for those who are the rewards are well-deserved. Those who are thus dedicated are the ones who are "born to be traders".

As in other professions, such as top-level sport, once the years of work have been devoted to the task of development, a mind-map results, which makes the task (to an outsider) seem deceptively easy because it has become so for the proficient practitioner. If asked to explain how the task is carried out it will never be done so to the satisfaction of the amateur, because it can only be explained in general terms at the level of understanding of the amateur. The amateur is not the expert and cannot get into the mind-set of the expert unless and until he becomes one.

Your knowing of the market takes the form of visualisation prior to the event. This is often experienced by top athletes as well and may take the form of other sensory activity - some talk of feeling, others of hearing for example.

I congratulate you on providing these clear indications of the arduous process towards proficient trading, the problems of training others and the folly of the search for an external holy grail.

Charlton