Trade to Win or Something Else?

[temptrader]

A hypothesis which unfortunately renders T2W redundant.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

yes, rols, it damn well does. Thank you very much, sir, to pointing that out to us. Maybe T2W is for people who have the talent but don't know where to start so they could find their feet? Newton needed Euclid, Descartes and Barrow, Maxwell need Farraday, Coloumb and other French scientist, Einstein needed Lorentz, Mach, Michelson and Morley, Planck etc. . Hence the purpose of T2W is not totally redundant. All because one buys a book on Quantum Mechanics it does not necesarily follow that one will become a world class physicist. However books exist, and are there for anyone with aspirations and ability to lead humanity forward, by adding more to the store of human knowledge. Someone once tried to ban obscure areas of mathematicial research, of course top mathematicians vigorously opposed such an action since mathematics is a connected whole and one obscure result today might be a major field in a hundred years time

 

[Legion]

"Everything in them is obvious. Anyone who is not able to recognise the significance of the obvious should not be trading or even thinking of trading."

Yes getting to advantage point of clear observation of the obvious is a step, but even though Humans can recognise the significance of the obvious, we (myself included) have at times failed to act . Humanity fails to act at times even though the significance of the obvious is screaming at them ? why?

As for the point re traders born and not made... hmmm my instinct goes with you can *get anyone to do anything (within their own framework of all their genetic possibility) with discipline providing its what they will for themselves and the nurture environment is suitable to deliver those goals.

* Getting ourselves to do anything for ourselves .... hmmm born or made... can we rebirth ? I think people have experienced new births of themselves to such an extent that who they once may of been now no longer matches the memories of old. So I'd nudge with made, but not closed off.... but we are products? of an environment still, we have to be , we evolve to adpat (or adapt , evolve & survive ) so we manufacture our very own being to ensure our continued existence ,for that is our nature, the essence of man ?

We are a work in progress in the manufacturing account of life, constantly being born, we are made.

Adapt, evolve to survive in the markets. That to me looks like a process after birth?

 

[jimbo57]

You need to get out more, much more than you are currently getting out.

Sry for the delay in answering I have been out.

I would also add that the quality of content from you since yr above quote explains succinctly how I can go through 3000+ posts of yrs in less than a week (and do a lot else besides - the usual human functions, including a dance class you will be pleased to know!)

But what I am intrigued by is yr admission a few years ago in one of yr posts that you lost over £4m trading. Were you pinning a tail on a donkey? Over trading? Following yr intuition? Running around aimlessly? All the above and more?

And how did your apparant epiphany lead you into tutoring?

 

[SOCRATES]

"Everything in them is obvious. Anyone who is not able to recognise the significance of the obvious should not be trading or even thinking of trading."

Yes getting to advantage point of clear observation of the obvious is a step, but even though Humans can recognise the significance of the obvious, we (myself included) have at times failed to act . Humanity fails to act at times even though the significance of the obvious is screaming at them ? why?

As for the point re traders born and not made... hmmm my instinct goes with you can *get anyone to do anything (within their own framework of all their genetic possibility) with discipline providing its what they will for themselves and the nurture environment is suitable to deliver those goals.

* Getting ourselves to do anything for ourselves .... hmmm born or made... can we rebirth ? I think people have experienced new births of themselves to such an extent that who they once may of been now no longer matches the memories of old. So I'd nudge with made, but not closed off.... but we are products? of an environment still, we have to be , we evolve to adpat (or adapt , evolve & survive ) so we manufacture our very own being to ensure our continued existence ,for that is our nature, the essence of man ?

We are a work in progress in the manufacturing account of life, constantly being born, we are made.

Adapt, evolve to survive in the markets. That to me looks like a process after birth?

Yes I agree with you ...sharp eyes and ears everywhere but you should not worry unduly, because for specific purposes...sort of blind and deaf, you know...:cheesy: ...I mean selectively blind and deaf, not generally...:cheesy:

 

[frugi]

Consider the drafts of Montaigne: they bristle with the prolonged torture of corrections, additions, rewordings etc. endless careful detailed polishing that makes one realise the clichéd schoolmaster's advice of 10% inspiration 90% perspiration holds true even in the rarefied air of innate talent. Or look at Raphael's drawings after he has studied the masters and learnt to do perspective. They may look like the effortless strokes born of raw talent alone, but with the context of his earlier drawings I think one could attribute the improvement mainly to years of diligent mimicry, a painstaking transfer of skills by proxy if you like. How prosaic and disappointing to imagine these elite creatures having to stoop to practice in order to make their work seem effortless! (Meanwhile the world is probably awash with lazy geniuses who have come to nothing because they expected their talent to somehow allow circumvention of the work required to bring it to fruition.).

Sure, not every trader will be a Mozart but you'd be surprised how far graft can take one. To deny an aspiring trader the chance of success because he's not "built correctly" from birth is to deny the immense and constantly surprising power of humans to learn and adapt, indeed perhaps to create versions of internal circuitry with which luckier ones may have come pre-installed. What is our brain but a malleable electrochemical soup after all? No hardwired semiconductors in place that a priori necessarily deny change. The obvious can become signficant with practice, though yes to the innately talented it will of probably come more easily and to a larger degree. Even if it doesn't, there is hope for all for are prepared to devote time to getting the details right, honing practical skills on the field of experience and slowly piecing things together, just as there is room for a skilled joiner to work alongside a cabinet maker. Indeed the lazy cabinet maker may have to watch out that he is not replaced.

 

[SOCRATES]

Consider the drafts of Montaigne: they bristle with the prolonged torture of corrections, additions, rewordings etc. endless careful detailed polishing that makes one realise the clichéd schoolmaster's advice of 10% inspiration 90% perspiration holds true even in the rarefied air of innate talent. Or look at Raphael's drawings after he has studied the masters and learnt to do perspective. They may look like the effortless strokes born of raw talent alone, but with the context of his earlier drawings I think one could attribute the improvement mainly to years of diligent mimicry, a painstaking transfer of skills by proxy if you like. How prosaic and disappointing to imagine these elite creatures having to stoop to practice in order to make their work seem effortless! (Meanwhile the world is probably awash with lazy geniuses who have come to nothing because they expected their talent to somehow allow circumvention of the work required to bring it to fruition.).

Sure, not every trader will be a Mozart but you'd be surprised how far graft can take one. To deny an aspiring trader the chance of success because he's not "built correctly" from birth is to deny the immense and constantly surprising power of humans to learn and adapt, indeed perhaps to create versions of internal circuitry with which luckier ones may have come pre-installed. What is our brain but a malleable electrochemical soup after all? No hardwired semiconductors in place that a priori necessarily deny change. The obvious can become signficant with practice, though yes to the innately talented it will of probably come more easily and to a larger degree. Even if it doesn't, there is hope for all for are prepared to devote time to getting the details right, honing practical skills on the field of experience and slowly piecing things together, just as there is room for a skilled joiner to work alongside a cabinet maker. Indeed the lazy cabinet maker may have to watch out that he is not replaced.

I have a bit of time available...

This is why this site is such a valuable reasource. It is a very comprehensive catalogue of ideas provided from many angles by many different people.Nearly everything needed is to be found in here. It is like a soup of concepts. Sorry have to go. Sorry.

 

[rols]

Consider the drafts of Montaigne: they bristle with the prolonged torture of corrections, additions, rewordings etc. endless careful detailed polishing that makes one realise the clichéd schoolmaster's advice of 10% inspiration 90% perspiration holds true even in the rarefied air of innate talent. Or look at Raphael's drawings after he has studied the masters and learnt to do perspective. They may look like the effortless strokes born of raw talent alone, but with the context of his earlier drawings I think one could attribute the improvement mainly to years of diligent mimicry, a painstaking transfer of skills by proxy if you like. How prosaic and disappointing to imagine these elite creatures having to stoop to practice in order to make their work seem effortless! (Meanwhile the world is probably awash with lazy geniuses who have come to nothing because they expected their talent to somehow allow circumvention of the work required to bring it to fruition.).

Sure, not every trader will be a Mozart but you'd be surprised how far graft can take one. To deny an aspiring trader the chance of success because he's not "built correctly" from birth is to deny the immense and constantly surprising power of humans to learn and adapt, indeed perhaps to create versions of internal circuitry with which luckier ones may have come pre-installed. What is our brain but a malleable electrochemical soup after all? No hardwired semiconductors in place that a priori necessarily deny change. The obvious can become signficant with practice, though yes to the innately talented it will of probably come more easily and to a larger degree. Even if it doesn't, there is hope for all for are prepared to devote time to getting the details right, honing practical skills on the field of experience and slowly piecing things together, just as there is room for a skilled joiner to work alongside a cabinet maker. Indeed the lazy cabinet maker may have to watch out that he is not replaced.

Quite so.

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
(Pangloss from Candide - Voltaire)

:cheesy:

 

[temptrader]

Consider the drafts of Montaigne: they bristle with the prolonged torture of corrections, additions, rewordings etc. endless careful detailed polishing that makes one realise the clichéd schoolmaster's advice of 10% inspiration 90% perspiration holds true even in the rarefied air of innate talent. Or look at Raphael's drawings after he has studied the masters and learnt to do perspective. They may look like the effortless strokes born of raw talent alone, but with the context of his earlier drawings I think one could attribute the improvement mainly to years of diligent mimicry, a painstaking transfer of skills by proxy if you like. How prosaic and disappointing to imagine these elite creatures having to stoop to practice in order to make their work seem effortless! (Meanwhile the world is probably awash with lazy geniuses who have come to nothing because they expected their talent to somehow allow circumvention of the work required to bring it to fruition.).

Sure, not every trader will be a Mozart but you'd be surprised how far graft can take one. To deny an aspiring trader the chance of success because he's not "built correctly" from birth is to deny the immense and constantly surprising power of humans to learn and adapt, indeed perhaps to create versions of internal circuitry with which luckier ones may have come pre-installed. What is our brain but a malleable electrochemical soup after all? No hardwired semiconductors in place that a priori necessarily deny change. The obvious can become signficant with practice, though yes to the innately talented it will of probably come more easily and to a larger degree. Even if it doesn't, there is hope for all for are prepared to devote time to getting the details right, honing practical skills on the field of experience and slowly piecing things together, just as there is room for a skilled joiner to work alongside a cabinet maker. Indeed the lazy cabinet maker may have to watch out that he is not replaced.

here you got the wrong end of the stick: what me and Socrates are trying to say is that there is no substitute for talent. You are confusing it with levels of success. Exceptional people are rare - always have been, always will be. Some work hard, some don't have to.

Take a look at tennis: someone once asked Sampras how he became world number one, and he replied that the answer is the same if you ask any other sportsman at the very top of their profession: he just couldn't take losing, what triggered it was when he lost to Stefan Edberg in the final of the US open because he developed stomach cramps during the match. After that he started getting ulcers and feeling so bad about it that he trained like mad, followed rigid discipline in diet and training, and within a year he was world number one.

Could you imagine someone like Tim Henman doing what Sampras did? Henman doesn't have what it takes to win a grand slam, but that doesn't stop him having fairly high levels of success in a career to rake millions.

Likewise, there's nothing to stop people going into this site, taking in the wisdom and making a moderate success, even though there are few of those who can do even that . . .

Oh, and in case you are all wondering: Newton at the height of his powers was studying about 18 hours a day in total solitude in his rooms, and this contributed to his nervous breakdown in later life. Einstein almost worked himself to death in finishing the General Theory of Relativity. Hard work only takes you so far, from then on it's a little bit of luck and a lot of natural ability.

 

[dbphoenix]

here you got the wrong end of the stick: what me and Socrates are trying to say is that there is no substitute for talent. You are confusing it with levels of success. Exceptional people are rare - always have been, always will be. Some work hard, some don't have to.

There are also a lot of "talented" people out there who are starving to death. Being "exceptional" is not a free ticket.

There are thousands of artists out there who make a nice living and whom you've never heard of. Ditto traders.

Talent is overrated. Success depends on an array of other factors.

Db

 

[temptrader]

There are also a lot of "talented" people out there who are starving to death. Being "exceptional" is not a free ticket.

There are thousands of artists out there who make a nice living and whom you've never heard of. Ditto traders.

Talent is overrated. Success depends on an array of other factors.

Db

Yes, success does depend on a variety of factors. But talent is a necessary condition for success. Things get woolly at this point.

I wouldn't say talent is overrated at all, since there is so little of it around. But you also have to give way to the fact that the public's perception of talent is slightly warped.

There are many "talented" people who are starving to death because of their situation, obviously. But if we were to speak in terms of an experiment and vary one parameter and keep all others fixed you will agree with my statement.

 

[dbphoenix]

Yes, success does depend on a variety of factors. But talent is a necessary condition for success. Things get woolly at this point.

I wouldn't say talent is overrated at all, since there is so little of it around. But you also have to give way to the fact that the public's perception of talent is slightly warped.

There are many "talented" people who are starving to death because of their situation, obviously. But if we were to speak in terms of an experiment and vary one parameter and keep all others fixed you will agree with my statement.

Whether talent is a necessary condition for success depends on how you define success. One needn't make millions in order to be successful.

Second, who says there's so little talent around? Talent is not monolithic any more than intelligence is.

So, no, I don't agree with your statement. But then I'm not as elitist or as exclusionary as Bertie is.

Db

 

[jimbo57]

SOCRATES

When are you going to answer my questions? Or is it obvious why you haven't?

BTW I am not fat as you imply above but I do see a trait in your comments. And I see a huge gaping chasm of a contradiction too. It's obvious isn't it? A nugget as you might say?

 

[jimbo57]

Yes I agree with you ...sharp eyes and ears everywhere but you should not worry unduly, because for specific purposes...sort of blind and deaf, you know...:cheesy: ...I mean selectively blind and deaf, not generally...:cheesy:

Another point, why does yr post show no sign of editing, yet you have, post the event, edited it ?(just trying to get back on topic, T2W Feedback that is)

the Persian Salsa Dancer

 

[jimbo57]

Well, it is obvious isn't it ?. It may be denied categorically, but it is as obvious as obvious can be, that's all.

I will tell you a little anecdote.

Years ago, in the middle of a seminar in which I was a speaker, there was a member of the audience who kept interrupting with silly questions. I answered all of them until I got fed up with it.

I then posed a question in the form of a puzzle to the class (not related to trading by the way) in which they had to work out the answer for themselves.

The time allotted to carry out this task was three minutes.

When the three minutes were up, each one was invited to submit his answer.

Coincidentally all the answers given were incorrect.......except that I left the persistent questioner for the last....he was very proud and very pleased to give a perfect answer.

Except....that he had cheated.

He had cheated because after 30 seconds had elapsed he got up...and walked over to have a look out of the window, whilst everyone else was grafting at solving the problem.

He...knew the answer in advance...

How did I know this and was able to prove it ?

Simple :~ As he already knew the answer in advance, he did not have the patience to sit it out and pretend. He gave himself away by acting the way he did.

That stopped him from interrupting with nonsense from then on.

All of these things are obvious.

The markets are the same, obvious. Everything in them is obvious. Anyone who is not able to recognise the significance of the obvious should not be trading or even thinking of trading.

That is why I have arrived at the conclusion that traders are born, and not made.

And how is knowing the answer in advance....cheating?

So many questions to answer - I look forward in a perverse way it must be said, to hearing your answers.

The chasm grows, the nugget ever more clear it seems to me.

 

[firewalker99]

The talent myth

here you got the wrong end of the stick: what me and Socrates are trying to say is that there is no substitute for talent. You are confusing it with levels of success. Exceptional people are rare - always have been, always will be. Some work hard, some don't have to.

Couldn't disagree more. What makes exceptional people truly exceptional is that they have more motivation and an inherent "urge" to do better than others. Hence they work, study, exercise, train,... harder than anybody else so they can improve and will improve. I - and scientists appear to prove me right - don't believe for one second you are born a genius. Yes, you can inherit some traits/characteristics, but this is not what makes one exceptional.

Take a look at tennis: someone once asked Sampras how he became world number one, and he replied that the answer is the same if you ask any other sportsman at the very top of their profession: he just couldn't take losing, what triggered it was when he lost to Stefan Edberg in the final of the US open because he developed stomach cramps during the match. After that he started getting ulcers and feeling so bad about it that he trained like mad, followed rigid discipline in diet and training, and within a year he was world number one.

I think you're just proving my point: "he trained like mad, followed rigid discipline..."

Could you imagine someone like Tim Henman doing what Sampras did? Henman doesn't have what it takes to win a grand slam, but that doesn't stop him having fairly high levels of success in a career to rake millions.

Why doesn't he has it? I don't know much about tennis, but I do know about Formula 1. Why are champions like Schumacher and Senna a class of their own? Because they are fanatics. They work like mad, train like mad, drive hundreds of test laps more than others and got started very early in their life (driving karts on the age of 4 or 5). Every other driver in the field admitted that Michael Schumacher worked extremely hard in every aspect of his career, not only on the track but also off the track. Again, hard work seems to be the key here!

Likewise, there's nothing to stop people going into this site, taking in the wisdom and making a moderate success, even though there are few of those who can do even that . . .

If they are willing to spent hours and hours and hours studying, evaluating, testing, refining, backtesting, forwardtesting, trading for real, getting the discipline etc. All depends on your motivation: do you want to make thousands or millions?

Oh, and in case you are all wondering: Newton at the height of his powers was studying about 18 hours a day in total solitude in his rooms, and this contributed to his nervous breakdown in later life. Einstein almost worked himself to death in finishing the General Theory of Relativity. Hard work only takes you so far, from then on it's a little bit of luck and a lot of natural ability.

Excellent! Thank you for proving my point "studying 18 hours a day in solitude", "working himself to death"... Luck has little to do with it, and talent even less. Talent is just a way for people who don't want to understand why "they don't have what it takes" and others do. Talent is an excuse for those who are unable to dig as deep as true champions to find the motivation to outperform.

You don't have to take my word for it, as I can't prove nor disprove this but my hypothesis has recently been confirmed by several experiments. One of the best examples is where people with an IQ of 90 were trained to become chess masters. And indeed, they became. It shows that anybody can become anything, if he's got the drive and the motivation. And this is what separates the best from the rest: some have it an extraordinary amount, others just in "very much".

For all those sceptics out there, this won't convince you, but read it nonetheless:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm

Newton, Maxwell, Einstein . . . were born that way and not made that way.

If you have reasons why you would want to believe such a thing, I'd be happy to read them. But apart from the typical response "how else could they have achieved such things?" people are just not willing to accept the fact that they could achieve great things too. But no, it won't "happen to you" unless you make it happen. Geniuses are made, not born. Mozart played the violin before he could speak, Tiger Woods played golf before he could walk.

Environment can play a big role however: deliberate practive and sensitive mentoring.

Eric Kandel of Columbia University in New York, who won a Nobel prize in 2000 for discovering much of the neural basis of memory and learning, has shown that both the number and strength of the nerve connections associated with a memory or skill increase in proportion to how often and how emphatically the lesson is repeated. So focused study and practice literally build the neural networks of expertise. Genetics may allow one person to build synapses faster than another, but either way the lesson must still be learnt. Genius must be built.

Makes for an interesting read:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/how-to-be-a-genius/2006/10/13/1160246332748.html

If you want to read more and discover the disappointing reality check that hard work is the key, you can The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, available from online bookstores.

 

[barjon]

mmm, surely there has to be an innate ability to start with which to build on by hard work?

People with slow twitch muscles, for example, could train 24 hours a day and still never be much good at sprinting since they don't have the right physical requirements (fast twitch muscles) to start with.

People are born with the left and right hemispheres of their brain and their own level of left brain/right brain dominance. Great artists are heavily right side dominant since the right hemisphere encompasses intuitive, creative and artistic elements.

So far as trading is concerned it is perhaps likely that most mechanical traders are left side dominant (analystic and logic) whereas most intuitive discretionary traders are right side dominant. Maybe that to be a truly exceptional trader you have to have just the right left brain/right brain balance and that's down to an accident of birth and nothing to do with hard work.

good trading

jon

 

[neil]

mmm, surely there has to be an innate ability to start with which to build on by hard work?

People with slow twitch muscles, for example, could train 24 hours a day and still never be much good at sprinting since they don't have the right physical requirements (fast twitch muscles) to start with.

People are born with the left and right hemispheres of their brain and their own level of left brain/right brain dominance. Great artists are heavily right side dominant since the right hemisphere encompasses intuitive, creative and artistic elements.

So far as trading is concerned it is perhaps likely that most mechanical traders are left side dominant (analystic and logic) whereas most intuitive discretionary traders are right side dominant. Maybe that to be a truly exceptional trader you have to have just the right left brain/right brain balance and that's down to an accident of birth and nothing to do with hard work.

good trading

jon

Or - let's assume their is an ability plateau then maybe hard work allows that person to achieve his highest innate value, maybe even exceeed his "wired" talent/ability level. Just guessing since I have no knowledge of this subject

 

[firewalker99]

mmm, surely there has to be an innate ability to start with which to build on by hard work?

That is what we would all like to believe yes.

People with slow twitch muscles, for example, could train 24 hours a day and still never be much good at sprinting since they don't have the right physical requirements (fast twitch muscles) to start with.

Unless you're born with a abnormality, disease or disability, you can start training your body and your mind from the moment of birth (responsibility lies with the elders).

People are born with the left and right hemispheres of their brain and their own level of left brain/right brain dominance. Great artists are heavily right side dominant since the right hemisphere encompasses intuitive, creative and artistic elements.

You may state that great artists are heavily right side dominant, and that might be the case, but you might be turning cause and effect around.

So far as trading is concerned it is perhaps likely that most mechanical traders are left side dominant (analystic and logic) whereas most intuitive discretionary traders are right side dominant. Maybe that to be a truly exceptional trader you have to have just the right left brain/right brain balance and that's down to an accident of birth and nothing to do with hard work.

That might well be the case, but those traders have just learned to practise their respective brain sides better. Yes you can learn to balance and train your brain hemispheres, just as anything else.

"Eric Kandel of Columbia University in New York, who won a Nobel prize in 2000 for discovering much of the neural basis of memory and learning, has shown that both the number and strength of the nerve connections associated with a memory or skill increase in proportion to how often and how emphatically the lesson is repeated. So focused study and practice literally build the neural networks of expertise. Genetics may allow one person to build synapses faster than another, but either way the lesson must still be learnt."

Brain scientists will tell you that the idea of a rigid divide is a myth (another myth yes!), although a very popular one. They even have a word for the public's enthusiasm : 'dichotomania'. One explanation for being so prone to false application is that the left-right brain dichotomy is an easy-to-understand notion (which the public loves), yetoften oversimplified and misused.

Scientists have long thought that the hemispheres of the brain that controls language and speech is determined before birth. However recently scientists discovered that that the site in the brain that controls language in right-handed people shifts with aging. Furthermore functions may be lateralized, these lateralizations are trends and do not apply to every person in every case so a generalization is not in order.

I believe the burden of proof lies with you barjon

 

[firewalker99]

Or - let's assume their is an ability plateau then maybe hard work allows that person to achieve his highest innate value, maybe even exceeed his "wired" talent/ability level. Just guessing since I have no knowledge of this subject

Yes there are levels some people can exceed while others remain stuck. This however has nothing to do with your lack of talent, but your lack of training correctly ("deliberate practice") or your lack of guidance. I never said you could achieve everything all by yourself. Some people need more mentors than others, but once we put our minds to it, we can ultimately achieve greatness each in our own.

 

[barjon]

.

.................I believe the burden of proof lies with you barjon ......................

Not sure i can offer any proof, firewalker, but all i can say is that your proposition that hard, well directed work is all that is necessary to become truly exceptional defies my sixty five years worth of life experience.

I have seen people who excel without putting much work into it and without (on the face of it) having any strong motivation or urge to succeed. I have seen people who do have a tremendous urge to succeed and who work extremely hard at it and yet never rise far above the pack.

From what I've experienced I'd have to subscribe to Neil's view.

jon