Should vendors only be allowed to post a 'vendor section'

[the hare]

doesn't get any better than this for lulz.....

Remember the time when they introduced context sensitive ads in posts ?

Peter Crudas's reaction to Oanda ads appearing in every one of his posts on the CMC thread came in a close second I still occasionally collapse in tears of laughter at the recollection. Priceless

CMC have definitely punched above their weight in the provision of lulz department. Some sort of industry lifetime achievement award is definitely required for the black swan video, it will never be surpassed.

 

[The Leopard]

Because you're expecting something to happen over those 100 trades that will yield an overall profit.

Yes I am.

If you have no expectations on a single trade, equally you shouldn't have any expectations on 10 trades or 100.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I disagree.

Is it possible that it's simply that you have a method that has a lower than 50% win rate, and therefore, quite naturally you wouldn't expect the trade to win?

I don't track it formally any more, although I'm obviously vaguely aware of it and it's over 50%. Certainly I've had very good months with under 50% and in general the best months in terms of profits tend to be around 50% - 60%. They are usually far better than months with high win rates.

For most people I would imagine lower win rates would give better profits, for obvious reasons.

 

[barjon]

I understand the reality of it once you've clicked. Now why do you go from no loss - because you haven't entered - to running loss once you have? Multiply it over a series of 100 trades if you prefer. Why do you choose to go from no loss, to costs and spread loss times 100? Because you're expecting something to happen over those 100 trades that will yield an overall profit.

The outcome of any trade is random, a number, positive or negative. The outcome of any 10 trades is also random, a number, positive or negative, and so on for any amount of trades. For any number of trades, there can always be a series which is negative. If you have no expectations on a single trade, equally you shouldn't have any expectations on 10 trades or 100.

Is it possible that it's simply that you have a method that has a lower than 50% win rate, and therefore, quite naturally you wouldn't expect the trade to win?

Seems to me that what you are expecting - or even forecasting if you want - is that you will profit more from the favourable trades than you will lose from the unfavourable ones.

That's very different from expecting (forecasting) that price will go up when you enter long, which is where this discussion started.

 

[Benj1981]

Well I am green this year to date but I am not consistent. I want to get to the stage where I am at least intra week green, I can take a daily loss but not a weekly loss.

I am not qualified to mentor and quite frankly I wouldn't make a good teacher. My advice is if you are looking for a mentor I would find someone who has been green for the last 5 years.

Hang on a minute...the way you been banging on about trading on here comes across like youre a pro!? What's with that?

You actually sound like this Black Swan character quite a bit i reckon, using all the "lingo" and puffing your chest out. :whistling

 

[forker]

Hang on a minute...the way you been banging on about trading on here comes across like youre a pro!? What's with that?

You actually sound like this Black Swan character quite a bit i reckon, using all the "lingo" and puffing your chest out. :whistling

Hold on a second, how do you know blacky? Or should I rather ask, what was your banned nick?

 

[Shakone]

Seems to me that what you are expecting - or even forecasting if you want - is that you will profit more from the favourable trades than you will lose from the unfavourable ones.

That's very different from expecting (forecasting) that price will go up when you enter long, which is where this discussion started.

Sure. It depends on how your edge works. If you typically win>50% you could reasonably expect each new trade to win, if <50% you could reasonably expect a new trade to most likely lose. Of course as The Leopard pointed out, that's different from assuming.

However, it seems strange to me, that a random positive or negative number (a trade result) is viewed differently from a random positive or negative number (a series of trades).

 

[BeginnerJoe]

That's very different from expecting (forecasting) that price will go up when you enter long, which is where this discussion started.

I think people do expect price to go their way when they enter, otherwise why would they deliberately enter only to loose ?

Another skool of thought is that, you have to be in it to win it. Therefore the direction of entry is not excessively critical so long as you end up winning more than loosing over a series of entries. So the expectation for any individual entry to come up a winner needn't be there.

Choccy is in the first camp and looking over the fence thinking what's happening man ?

 

[barjon]

I think people do expect price to go their way when they enter, otherwise why would they deliberately enter only to loose ?

Another skool of thought is that, you have to be in it to win it. Therefore the direction of entry is not excessively critical so long as you end up winning more than loosing over a series of entries.

joe

At the risk of it being tabbed "semantics" I would say that people do not enter to deliberately lose, but no more do they sensibly enter in the expectation of winning.

What we all do, in effect, is to decide at some point in time, for whatever reason you happen to like, to enter on the assumption (more than a guess but less than a forecast) that price will go in your favour. The real job starts then - to take what you want (or can get) when it does, and restrict the damage when it doesn't.

It's this part of the job, imo, that sorts the men out from the boys. Entries move your account not a jot - that's left to exits.

 

[jonnyy40]

Vendors aren't a problem

 

[Benj1981]

Hold on a second, how do you know blacky? Or should I rather ask, what was your banned nick?

Ive read the history buddy - you can search for any dimwit's postings on here.

 

[ChocolateDigestive]

Hang on a minute...the way you been banging on about trading on here comes across like youre a pro!? What's with that?

You actually sound like this Black Swan character quite a bit i reckon, using all the "lingo" and puffing your chest out. :whistling

well I could actually be Black Swan under a multi-nic. i love a bit of vendor baiting me. lol.

 

[forker]

Ive read the history buddy - you can search for any dimwit's postings on here.

So if I started speaking of Spanish, would you actually care to go back and read his posts to get context... Sounds a bit suspicious to me...

 

[Benj1981]

So if I started speaking of Spanish, would you actually care to go back and read his posts to get context... Sounds a bit suspicious to me...

Black swan is mentioned every 3rd post on here so i searched. That's not against the law is it?

 

[forker]

Black swan is mentioned every 3rd post on here so i searched. That's not against the law is it?

No but it sure is a waste of time, especially when you could be working on your trading skills which makes it sound a little suspicious

 

[the hare]

Black swan is mentioned every 3rd post on here so i searched.

Yeah, CMC's social media department are on the ball. The swan is a legend

 

[VielGeld]

I've gone back on T2W's history quite a bit when I joined and after the locals all kept talking about certain individuals.

Trader_Dante, Socrates, Black Swan, Oilfxtrader, etc. the lot. T2W has had a colourful history.

'course, I ain't sayin' Benji isn't a nic. Just that I don't think it's too suspicious to check out forum history if you hang around at all.

 

[forker]

Maybe it's just me then. Never have looked at the history and never will. It's one thing looking back for the sake of the learning curve, but to look back at someone's posts because others are talking about them because they were so "colourful" is strange, especially when there is a learning curve to tackle. It's almost as though he were not here to gain trading knowledge at all but rather a windup. No offence by the way, it's just my opinion.

 

[rsh01]

I've gone back on T2W's history quite a bit when I joined

new members will be doing the same in the future, searching for benj. in about a few months time.

(sorry benj it was a cheap shot)

 

[rsh01]

how does this sort of stuff get through....

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/gen...ding-general-chat-lounge-936.html#post1925950

why is there no minimum posts before you can post a link like every other forum?
why is there no bot sweeping the threads for this sort of crap like every other forum?

shirley there is technology out there to scan text and reverse it to work out its been google translated possibly by a bot and then get the poster to verify their existence.

nice cheap trainers though.

 

[Benj1981]

new members will be doing the same in the future, searching for benj. in about a few months time.

(sorry benj it was a cheap shot)

Yeah cheap and nasty. Thanks "mate".