Why Traders lose money and how to start being consistently profit 52 replies
How many consistently profitable traders around? 87 replies
Emacsen Study, Study, Study 0 replies
Which Brokers Do Consistently Profitable Live Traders Use? 2 replies
Are New Traders Who Are Successful Hated? 43 replies
DislikedI know consistent profitability is possible - not remotely but quite easy if the rules of the game are known and respected.Ignored
DislikedRun with the probabilities; and manage risk to reduce the potential effects of the "dark uncertainty"Ignored
DislikedI find it ironic that so many people assert that trading is impossible and yet they still trade and post on message boardsIgnored
DislikedCritics of technical analysis attack not what it can do - which is control risk, but what they wish it could do - which is show a direction to trade in. Direction is simply trader's momentary choiceIgnored
DislikedYou're just sexually repressed. And that will be a $100 ( or a wheelbarrow of Deutschmarks), please..............Ignored
DislikedDieting has a "negative expectancy". Only 95% are successful at it (according to stats).
Just human nature I guess. So maybe forex isn't that much harder than dieting?Ignored
DislikedNo offense to anybody, but I seem to be retyping the same old stuff over and over again. I've lost all enthusiasm to debate theory relentlessly; to whatever extent I might be wrong, so be it, I don't really care. I just want to focus on my own trading now.Ignored
DislikedJust a few great quotes, in my opinion! (I've probably missed loads of others, I couldn't quote the whole thread though, lol )
lol, a bargain at twice the price, my wheelbarrow is in the post!
-Ignored
DislikedPipmutt, I want to add something on the concept of risk control. (When I say risk, I mean a choice, because risk is both a negative and a positive.) Normally when one you mention risk control to a trader, they might think of a stop, but that's merely a form of risk control on a positional level. The way you control risk from a price interpretation standpoint is to constantly evaluate upside versus downside risk, and to always position with what you believe is the less "risky" side. In other words, only one direction at a time....Ignored
DislikedI'm not sure I follow exactly what you're saying regards risk being both positive and negative, how can you have positive risk? Sorry, am I being dense?
I'm all for unconventional thinking so I'm interested to know what you're saying, it's not something I've heard before.
-Ignored
Disliked
In taking a risk, in making a choice, there can be a negative outcome, but there can also be a positive outcome. In the infinite space of possibilities that exist, the positive outcome of a risk is at least as equally possible as the negative outcome is. For traders that means that the trader himself or herself is the key to how a taken risk (or choice) turns out over the long run, and not the markets' activity.Ignored
DislikedSorry, I'm still not getting it. Risk, by definition, is a negative thing. Ok, taking a risk in order to potentially reap a reward is perhaps a more positive way to think of risk but it's still risk.
I agree with the second part though, a trader is totally in control of the long-term outcome.
Maybe a practical example will help me understand. Say my plan is to buy one lot of Eur/Usd at 1.3080 and have a stop at 1.2960 and a target of 1.3260. My risk is 120 pips, $1200. If price goes to 1.2960 I will lose $1200. How is that potential loss...Ignored
Disliked2. All these studies always calculate the percentage of successful traders among ALL traders at all. This is seriously misleading. Comparing a successful trader with complete newcomers is nonsense.
It is like stating that less than 1% among all people who have ever run in their life are successful professional runner sportsmen.
Or that less than 1% of all people who have ever played football are professional football players.Ignored
DislikedBut you cannot have some type of a gain without exposing yourself to some type of a loss. You cannot have something for nothing.Ignored
Disliked
In your example, your potential loss isn't the positive, your potential gain is the positive. But you cannot have some type of a gain without exposing yourself to some type of a loss. You cannot have something for nothing.Ignored
DislikedIt is not always negative to cross the street because one can get hit by a carIgnored
DislikedIf we simply said that "X% of traders who make it past the N-year barrier will eventually succeed", then that's not telling him what he really wants to know. If you see the number of times this question gets asked on forums, you'll know what I mean.
I think it's fairly obvious that the longer a 'trader' survives, the greater his chances of attaining success. What level does one have to attain, in order to call himself a 'trader'? And how do we measure it (win rate, profit factor, annual return percent, dollars per month, ....)? If we raise...Ignored
DislikedExactly. Many traders seem to think success is the product of maximizing return while minimizing risk. But the reality is that - at least the vast majority of the time - both are in some way directly proportional to each other. Or to put it succinctly: "no guts, no glory".Ignored
DislikedExactly. Many traders seem to think success is the product of maximizing return while minimizing risk. But the reality is that - at least the vast majority of the time - both are in some way directly proportional to each other. Or to put it succinctly: "no guts, no glory".
[i][color=RoyalBlue]"This is why, like FXPetra said, any singular moment in the markets is random, because it's not putting anything in subjective context. Intelligent risk cannot be taken without subjective context. Simply waiting for a moving average crossover,...Ignored
Disliked"your potential loss isn't the positive", right, so we've reached agreement, potential loss (risk) isn't positive.
No, but actually getting hit by a car (the risk) would be. The reward, getting to the other side of the road, is the only positive. We take a calculated risk based on probability, with the knowledge we have available.Ignored