The Psychological Gap

[frugi]

Frugi

If you don't have an edge (like a casino) what is the point of trading with real money, in an attempt to profit, assuming profit is your aim ?

Surely you have to absolutely know you have an edge (like a casino) or what is the point of the exercise ?

Hagadol

That would depend on what you mean by "belief". One does not "believe" that a particular drug works. Either it does or it doesn't. That's the point of testing. If one has to resort to belief, he'd better look elsewhere.

Well, it may have worked 10000 times out of 10000 in meticulously controlled empirical tests, but that does not mean it will not fail on the 10001st time. Of course my belief would grow as the evidence supporting it mounted, to the point of eventually putting money on it, but I would never confuse a belief with the truth. To think one's edge is absolute is surely foolhardy? There is a certain amount of trust inherent in trading: even when you think you've finally cracked it you cannot know for sure because conditions can change, imho. Those who can adapt and know when they have to are much more likely to survive. Perhaps I say that because I still have much to learn

 

[TheBramble]

That would depend on what you mean by "belief". One does not "believe" that a particular drug works. Either it does or it doesn't. That's the point of testing. If one has to resort to belief, he'd better look elsewhere.

Placebos?

 

[dbphoenix]

Sorry mate, but you're ducking the issue.

You HAVE to have a belief in something to start with otherwise there's no frame of reference.

You mention gravity. It's a convenient model which we choose to call a belief. Until a better explanation comes along.

The 'fact' that "what Douglas proposes is perfectly in line with what I know about concept development" means nothing to anyone but you - and the people that 'believe' in you.

You simply can't argue belief from the same context or level on which that belief exists.

You have to take a position (as you have) that 'there exists an unimpeachable source which we must all believe in as a basic premise' - which, of course, there isn't.

This is major hair-splitting and quite pointless for trading endeavours, and addresses in no may RR's initial post, but does provide a useful antidote to going to bed.

The "frame of reference" comes from observation. Price, for example, either goes up or down in this or that set of circumstances. What one believes is beside the point.

As to what I know about concept development, I know what everybody who's studied it knows. They don't even have to know I exist. On the other hand, if I hadn't studied concept development for my doctorate, I might have a very different view of Douglas's propositions.

I don't recall saying anything about "unimpeachable sources". Post #?

As for the initial post, if what I've been saying does not address it, my apologies. I'll stop posting.

 

[TheBramble]

On the other hand, if I hadn't studied concept development for my doctorate, I might have a very different view of Douglas's propositions.

Doctorate? Shoot, you're a Phd? Well, I'll shut up then...sorry. My comments count for sh*it.

I don't recall saying anything about "unimpeachable sources". Post #?

No, you didn't. That was my attempt to define the intellectual inference you relied upon in your attempt to make your point. We all have to refer to some 'prior authority' in order to support our own case.

As for the initial post, if what I've been saying does not address it, my apologies. I'll stop posting.

No, don't do that. I'm almost as off-topic as you are.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well, it may have worked 10000 times out of 10000 in meticulously controlled empirical tests, but that does not mean it will not fail on the 10001st time. Of course my belief would grow as the evidence supporting it mounted, to the point of eventually putting money on it, but I would never confuse a belief with the truth. To think one's edge is absolute is surely foolhardy? There is a certain amount of trust inherent in trading: even when you think you've finally cracked it you cannot know for sure because conditions can change, imho. Those who can adapt and know when they have to are much more likely to survive. Perhaps I say that because I still have much to learn

Why would your "belief" even enter into it? The data are what they are. You needn't believe anything.

As to the casino, the two of you are addressing the issue differently. "Like" a casino is not the same as identical to a casino. Douglas's proposition is that one approach trading like a casino, i.e., that one will achieve a certain outcome over time, "like" a casino. He's not suggesting that trading can be reduced to a rigid set of mathematical probabilities.

But, again, this may not be what the thread initiater had in mind, so have a nice evening . . .

 

[frugi]

Thank you - you too. An interesting thread, even if we have leapt on a tangent or two. I'm sure Rosso won't mind.

I like a man who knows his latinate plurals just as much as I like my beliefs to be influenced, to a certain extent, by the data I have harvested in order to form, test and revise them. And I don't mean mechanical backtesting. Anyway I'll duck out of the virtuous circle now, too

 

[rossored]

No, I don't mind at all. Quite an interesting read this morning playing catch up.

Yesterday evening, by way of trying to sort my head out, you might be interested to know that I took a couple of small positions on YM and both turned out to be wrong. No bother, they were only tiny losses, under $100.

However, I had a moment of clarity sometime later in the evening which I was surprised I hadn't thought of earlier (this moment of clarity may have been partly clouded by a small measure of 12 year single malt) which made me have a bit of a rethink about my strategy.

I'm not going to say what it is, and it wouldn't matter if I did or I didn't, because it won't mean anything to anyone but myself, but I'll be attempting to put it into practice after the open this afternoon.

I expect much of my problem is a matter of conditioning myself that in order for what I perceive as my edge to actually be an edge, it needs to be traded to the plan, 100% of the time, and that has not been happening, hence my occasionally odd results from my occasionally odd efforts.

I'll post here again with my results, perhaps in a few days' time.

 

[hagadol]

Rossored

"I expect much of my problem is a matter of conditioning myself that in order for what I perceive as my edge to actually be an edge, it needs to be traded to the plan, 100% of the time, and that has not been happening, hence my occasionally odd results from my occasionally odd efforts"

The danger is, after a few losing trades, when doubt sets in, is that you will add or subtract bits from your system. Beware !

If the edge has worked, in history, keep trading it, without system messing. Remember that you have no way of knowing if the next trade will work, no more than you know that a coin toss will come up heads or tails, though over the next sample of trades you will be up, if you have an edge.

 

[gene]

The original question was
"How many times have you looked at a price chart and said to yourself "Hmm, it looks like the market is going up/down here.", and what you thought was going to happen actually happened. But you did nothing except watch the market move while you anguished over all the money you could have made"

I have a question:
How many times have you looked at a price chart and said to yourself "Hmm, it looks like the market is going up/down here.", and the opposite happened. Fortunately, you did nothing about it except watch the market move while you revelled over all the money you saved by not trading.
How many times? About as many times as the market moved the way you thought it would?

My point is this:
When you miss those moves, you're probably doing the right thing. You realize that you never KNOW what the market is going to do, so you trade only what you consider to be the STRONGEST signals. Those times that you missed a move probably were not what you considered to be strong signals, therefore, you exercised good discipline. What happens after that is just the roll of the dice.