QUOTE=frugi]To return to a more germane track (no not one by Kraftwerk) I have been asked to provide a "most pertinent definition" of a weak hand and I think this is a jolly good question given the frequent references to them and their strong counterpart
I hope Mark may be willing to do us the honour of expanding (or indeed condensing given my irksome verbosity) on this topic later, but I thought I'd offer my unqualified 20 Korean won first (though I realise that I owe several elements of the below to Mark anyway).
Trading is a battle between strong and weak hands, or predators and prey. The weak tend to have poor risk management, be reactive, impulsive, impatient, inexperienced, unprofessional, eager to chase the market, comfortable with the illusion of safety in a crowd, employ sloppy entries and loose stops and the like. They are apt to be shaken out of postions that would ultimately be the correct ones while entering into positions that look enticing but turn out to be the wrong ones. They are the gamblers and the crowd, the fodder for the strong hands. Their actions make the job of the strong hands easier as they tend to be predictable and easily manipulated. They tend to have less capital, shaky discipline and a limited understanding of market dynamics. They are often serial hunters of the Grail and dishonest with themselves. They are fuel suppliers.
The strong are pretty much the opposite. Predators with deep pockets, eternal patience, professional conduct, very tight risk control, very high self-awareness, enter only when they perceive conditions offer an excellent opportunity, independent, logical thinkers. They understand the harsh realities of the market, empathise with the prey and capitalise as a result. They drink the fuel.
But this is perhaps to merely describe some of the many hackneyed differences between successful and unsuccessful traders. What we need is a concise definition of these groups of participants and I have failed to provide one. Anyone?
I'd also love to know the etymology and history of these terms. Who first said "I'm a strong hand and I'm a-gonna shake out this tiresome weak hand?" as he helped carve out a hammer with a judiciously dropped and lower-recovered 400 lot. They sound so apt. The strong versus the weak, while "hands" is presumably a metaphor for the holding of postions. A pro is a strong hand because he knows what he is doing and does it right consistently. He is also, in some respect perhaps, "in charge" of some elements of market dynamics? Have cash,.will herd, fish and test when it's cheap. A weak hand with 5k simply can't do this ... but can he be a minor strong hand by copying a big one?
Is it possible to be a weak hand on Monday and a strong hand on Tuesday depending on one's trades or is this a definition that cuts deeper than one's perception of today's market conditions? If the former, is it fair to generalise with these terms at all? *disappears down pointless semantic cul-de-sac*.[/QUOTE]
.