Trading for a living | Page 18 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Living in China, trading for a living 18 replies

1 trade per pair per year 6 replies

multiple systems per pair/multiple pairs per system? 3 replies

Trading 24 hours per day, 5 days per week 14 replies

Attachments: Trading for a living
Exit Attachments

Trading for a living

  • #341
  • Oct 27, 2025 11:51am Oct 27, 2025 11:51am
Quoting Thtpro
{quote} Most don't - academics never trade, they are just academics
That made me laugh
  • #342
  • Oct 27, 2025 11:58am Oct 27, 2025 11:58am
Quoting Noisy
{quote} That made me laugh
But it's patently untrue. Clearly, the poster has no clue what he is taking about. LTCM is the most obvious counter-example, but there are many. I would guess that Thtpro has never been employed in the finance department of a university located close to one of the major financial centres.
  • #343
  • Oct 27, 2025 12:12pm Oct 27, 2025 12:12pm
Quoting Thtpro
{quote} Most don't - academics never trade, they are just academics The trick is to just test test test and test more - If you keep on finding certain things, it means something, which is why I mention cycles so much If you find that a 3.33pm you look out of your window and a pink penguin appears and you win on a trade over and over again, then when you see that pink penguin at 3.33pm its game on trade time Said it before we are forced to view on a 2 dimensional screen - that is part of the problem I posted another screenshot of our Walter on page...
Personally I find this kind of debate pointless and uninteresting. It reminds me of the parable, of Indian origin, called the "The Blind Men and the Elephant". It can be summarised like this:

Several blind men each touch a different part of an elephant—its trunk, leg, ear, side, tail, or tusk—and each describes what they think the elephant is like:

  1. One feels the trunk and says it’s like a snake.
  2. Another feels the leg and says it’s like a tree.
  3. Another feels the ear and says it’s like a fan.
  4. Another feels the side and says it’s like a wall.
  5. Another feels the tail and says it’s like a rope.

Each description is partially correct, but none capture the whole truth. When they argue about the nature of the elephant, their disagreement stems not from error but from incomplete perception.

In a trading context it was briefly expressed by a former colleague of mine (the head of algo trading mentioned earlier) by the English/American idiom "there are many ways to skin a cat", which he would use when someone got a bit too enthusiastic about the performance of their model. And in institutional algo trading of spare cash the equity curves can become close to linear.

  • #344
  • Oct 27, 2025 12:20pm Oct 27, 2025 12:20pm
Quoting medici
{quote} Personally I find this kind of debate pointless and uninteresting. It reminds me of the parable, of Indian origin, called the "The Blind Men and the Elephant". It can be summarised like this: Several blind men each touch a different part of an elephant—its trunk, leg, ear, side, tail, or tusk—and each describes what they think the elephant is like: One feels the trunk and says it’s like a snake. Another feels the leg and says it’s like a tree. Another feels the ear and says it’s like a fan. Another feels the side and says it’s like a wall....
My equity curves are linear too. They start from top-left and go to bottom-right
  • #345
  • Oct 27, 2025 12:23pm Oct 27, 2025 12:23pm
  •  amvt
  • Joined Feb 2025 | Status: Developer by Choice Trader by Heart | 202 Posts
Quoting sharingan9
{quote} Interesting. There is a multidimensionality to the markets but I do not believe it is beyond our understanding as if it were somehow only known by the divine or something. I think we understand it hence the reason why we crafted the term multidimensional.
Hello sharingan,

I agree with your statements, but unfortunately, you are talking about something my original post did not mention. You are right, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. No such thing exists even in our daily lives. But, this is arguing on your own opinion of how people are trading.

Also, I humbly disagree with the following statements:

Quote
The bullish nature of the interpretation was shared by those that can move the markets(financial institutions) meaning in the group of bullish traders with bullish interpretations were financial institutions that agreed with the bullish prediction even if their interpretation was different or the same as some of the other bullish traders.

There's a lot of things to unpack here, but I'll be brief.

First of all, people who "move" the markets are nothing if they are the ones playing alone. Hence, even if you have the power to move the markets, you can't profit from it unless another person looses. It's a zero-sum game. Hence, it's not that easy to say, that we constantly have to be in line with big institutions. The biggest example of this is the 2008 Crash. How much chaos there was. Big banks ironically gone bank corrupt. Decades old firms vanished. The power was after all in the hands of all people, not some.

This is the main point I am trying to imply. It's not necessarily the condition of the market that is common, or what you call "Bullish" or " Bearish". You can very well have 2 people trade buy in a short timeframe and sell in a higher timeframe. Both can succeed. But why can both succeed? That is what multi-dimensional causes. I recall, you were also saying something about multi-timeframes, where you are buying a bearish candle on the 4hour timeframe. This is the fractal nature of the market. This is the non-linear nature of the market. Whatever you may call it. But, this means, there are specific structures that exists within more, like an inception almost, where your strategy becomes valid. Otherwise it would fail, because now it exists in another state.

The market is continuous and simultaneous in all of its states. This is what's known as multi-dimensional. And of course, we came up with the term, but that does not mean we understand it.

The term multi-dimensional, was not invented for trading, but by mathematicians like August Ferdinand Möbius and Bernhard Riemann. So, in terms of trading, we may not have all the tools to reach the full understanding of dimensionality or at-least how to exploit it.

However, I really enjoyed having this conversation. It's more "food for thought" rather then being practical but it's nice to have some break from all of the "profits" and "losses" discussions
— Developed by MMQ
  • #346
  • Oct 27, 2025 12:51pm Oct 27, 2025 12:51pm
Quoting amvt
{quote} This is the main point I am trying to imply. It's not necessarily the condition of the market that is common, or what you call "Bullish" or " Bearish". You can very well have 2 people trade buy in a short timeframe and sell in a higher timeframe. Both can succeed. But why can both succeed? That is what multi-dimensional causes. I recall, you were also saying something about multi-timeframes, where you are buying a bearish candle on the 4hour timeframe. This is the fractal nature of the market. This is the non-linear nature of the market....
Agreed. There's plenty of evidence in support of this. Specifically, multi-fractal market theory is a fundamental departure from the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and can even be used to measure the efficiency of a market. Research shows that the degree of multi-fractality correlates inversely with market efficiency. Which is why my trading focuses on markets with the most evident multi-level fractality.
  • #347
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:07pm Oct 27, 2025 1:07pm
  •  amvt
  • Joined Feb 2025 | Status: Developer by Choice Trader by Heart | 202 Posts
Quoting medici
{quote} Agreed. There's plenty of evidence in support of this. Specifically, multi-fractal market theory is a fundamental departure from the Efficient Market Hypothesis, and can even be used to measure the efficiency of a market. Research shows that the degree of multi-fractality correlates inversely with market efficiency. Which is why my trading focuses on markets with the most evident multi-level fractality.
Huh, that's really interesting that you can quantitatively measure market efficiency, I never thought about that. But, what's even more interesting is that there are specific degrees to the multi-fractal nature of the market. In other words, the higher the multi-fractality, the lower the market efficiency and vice versa. But, this is curious stuff. I assume the "degrees" in this context should mean the timeframes?

If it does, then that could mean you can measure how each timeframes "correlate" with each other accurately. Correlate is a term I use loosely here, for the lack of a better word.
— Developed by MMQ
  • #348
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:08pm Oct 27, 2025 1:08pm
Quoting medici
{quote} Personally I find this kind of debate pointless and uninteresting. It reminds me of the parable, of Indian origin, called the "The Blind Men and the Elephant". It can be summarised like this: Several blind men each touch a different part of an elephant—its trunk, leg, ear, side, tail, or tusk—and each describes what they think the elephant is like: One feels the trunk and says it’s like a snake. Another feels the leg and says it’s like a tree. Another feels the ear and says it’s like a fan. Another feels the side and says it’s like a wall....
That is exactly how I approached things back in 2010 - wanted to see the whole thing rather than just aspects of it

I've not done the research but I doubt many academics can actually trade - if we took every fund manager out there and forced them to trade for a living we'd probably find a good 90-95% of them fail, same with academics

The aim of the game is to make a profit - doesn't matter how we do that, as long as you do it consistently enough - we all have our opinions, experiences and evidence of what we prefer to use/fall back on

Apologies if I have offended your view point, but I have a differing one on academics
  • #349
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:11pm Oct 27, 2025 1:11pm
Quoting amvt
{quote} ] The term multi-dimensional, was not invented for trading, but by mathematicians like August Ferdinand Möbius and Bernhard Riemann.
It may be a moot point, but the first person to introduce the term was Joseph Fourier in his analytical theory of heat. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

Quote
So, in terms of trading, we may not have all the tools to reach the full understanding of dimensionality or at-least how to exploit it.

Actually, we do have a very good toolbox in multi-fractal modelling as originated by Benoit Mandelbrot. And he wasn't the first to use the concept of fractal dimension, which was first formalised by Felix Hausdorff in 1918, but explored already in 1904 by the Swedish mathematician Helge von Koch, which in its turn was inspired by examples of sets of dimension less than 1 constructed by Georg Cantor.

Can you tell I've spent too much time in academia?
  • #350
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:14pm Oct 27, 2025 1:14pm
  •  amvt
  • Joined Feb 2025 | Status: Developer by Choice Trader by Heart | 202 Posts
Quoting medici
Quoting amvt
{quote} ] The term multi-dimensional, was not invented for trading, but by mathematicians like August Ferdinand Möbius and Bernhard Riemann. It may be a moot point, but the first person to introduce the term was Joseph Fourier in his analytical theory of heat. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis {quote} Actually, we do have a very good toolbox in multi-fractal modelling as originated by Benoit Mandelbrot. And he wasn't the first to use the concept of fractal dimension, which was first
...
it does not hurt to learn more
— Developed by MMQ
  • #351
  • Edited 1:26pm Oct 27, 2025 1:15pm | Edited 1:26pm
Quoting Thtpro
{quote} I've not done the research but I doubt many academics can actually trade - if we took every fund manager out there and forced them to trade for a living we'd probably find a good 90-95% of them fail, same with academics
Sure, but that's no consolation for struggling retail traders, is it? And nothing taken personally. I don't mind the slightest people disagreeing with me
  • #352
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:22pm Oct 27, 2025 1:22pm
Quoting amvt
{quote}The same nobel prize winners who have established the decade's old "Efficient Market Hypothesis" was broken by other nobel prize winners. So, who's telling the right thing? The educated? Or the market's own nature? Due to the respect of the thread starter, I won't continue with the discussion, but sharingan and thtpro discussion reminded of this "phenomenon", if you like to call it that.
Also point of clarification. Efficient Market Hypothesis and auction theory are not the same. Auction theory asserts there is asymmetry in information and prices are not fully revealing and the markets are inefficient so the whole point of auction theory is employing method to help achieve efficient outcomes to help the markets become more efficient. Stiglitz who won the Nobel prize for his elaboration on the impossibility of informationally efficient markets broke EMH not auction theory. Auction theory and Stiglitz are actually complimentary in that Auction theory is a tool used to navigate the world Stiglitz described which is in fact real world economics. This is why both Auction theory and Stiglitz work won the Nobel prize.
  • #353
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:22pm Oct 27, 2025 1:22pm
Quoting amvt
{quote} Huh, that's really interesting that you can quantitatively measure market efficiency, I never thought about that. But, what's even more interesting is that there are specific degrees to the multi-fractal nature of the market. In other words, the higher the multi-fractality, the lower the market efficiency and vice versa. But, this is curious stuff. I assume the "degrees" in this context should mean the timeframes? If it does, then that could mean you can measure how each timeframes "correlate" with each other accurately. Correlate...
"Should" is the wrong word here. It depends on your modelling needs, and a lot of people use time series data for that reason. As do most of the standard models. At the same time, one gets a more accurate view of the multi-fractality by using a more geometric approach that avoids the time dimension.
  • #354
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:28pm Oct 27, 2025 1:28pm
  •  amvt
  • Joined Feb 2025 | Status: Developer by Choice Trader by Heart | 202 Posts
Quoting medici
{quote} "Should" is the wrong word here. It depends on your modelling needs, and a lot of people use time series data for that reason. As do most of the standard models. At the same time, one gets a more accurate view of the multi-fractality by using a more geometric approach that avoids the time dimension.
Agreed. This also explains your preference for Renko Bricks. I will look into this further as this has peaked my interest.
— Developed by MMQ
  • #355
  • Edited Oct 28, 2025 1:45am Oct 27, 2025 1:36pm | Edited Oct 28, 2025 1:45am
Quoting medici
{quote} {quote} To me the solution comprises five steps: 1. Get your house in order To succeed in trading, automated or not, you and your life need to be in balance. This relates to questions such as "Are you fit to trade?" and "Do you know how to live?" These questions border on the psychological and spiritual, and many successful traders engage the help of psychologists/coaches and/or engage in spiritual practices such as meditation. 2. Check your presuppositions Most beginners come to the market with unrealistic expectations and without understanding...
I like the mousetrap metaphor, and I would definitely support the five points mentioned. Unfortunately, my life is anything but balanced.

From a purely objective point of view, and given the given circumstances—especially the lack of capital but also a profitable trading strategy—this does indeed seem to be hard to do.
  • #356
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:39pm Oct 27, 2025 1:39pm
Quoting medici
{quote} Sure, but that's no consolation for struggling retail traders, is it?
Of course it is - if professional fund managers would massively struggle to actually trade for a living and they are meant to have all the up to date knowledge on markets - it tells you you don't need to know a jot about anything

Other than you make money by being correctly positioned with price action and for that you need to know nothing about anything complicated

So the struggling retail trader, should have a think, how do I simply follow price action and devise a method to do so or which they are many

So if a professional fund manager would struggle - you have to do something different to the masses - that is the solution

I'm not smart, but I realise if 90-95% of people who try to trade fail, then they are doing something fundamentally wrong

Everything you need is on a price chart, especially the lower time-frames - you just have to work out what works and devise a plan around it - the money is easy, but finding the path to the money isn't - this is the world of trading and timing the market(s)
  • #357
  • Oct 27, 2025 1:58pm Oct 27, 2025 1:58pm
Quoting amvt
{quote} Hello sharingan, I agree with your statements, but unfortunately, you are talking about something my original post did not mention. You are right, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. No such thing exists even in our daily lives. But, this is arguing on your own opinion of how people are trading. Also, I humbly disagree with the following statements: {quote} There's a lot of things to unpack here, but I'll be brief. First of all, people who "move" the markets are nothing if they are the ones playing alone. Hence, even if you have the...

I mentioned right or wrong because that is how you initially phrased your point as I quote you here "The point I am trying to assert is a bit philosophical in nature: If my strategy works, does that mean, the tools that I use control the behavior of the market? Have I discovered some sort of a "law". And everybody is...just wrong?" My answer is you are not right and everybody is not wrong, it is NOT a question of right or wrong. You simply followed those that can move the markets and those that lost did not. I am literally quoting you word for word.

My point is following the ones moving the markets which are usually financial institutions but it is basically about following who can move the markets. In the markets there are those that have the power to move markets more so than others. In rare instances like say Gamestop you can have a situation where even the retailers can be in control but that is not normally the case. Normally financial are the ones moving the markets which is why I say the ones that profit are following the institutions. Gamestop is not the norm in the markets. It is more of an anomaly. Financial institutions can move the markets more than you can. It is just a fact.

The financial collapse in 2008 is also not the norm but this example is actually in line with my point of banks being the ones that drop price. The collapse started out when the housing bubble burst which lead to bank failures and credit freezing. This then lead to investor panic because they needed to free up their assets. Do you know which investors sold and crashed asset prices the most??? Banks....and Financial institutions because they were severely over leveraged and the institutions faced margin calls and had to force liquidate. Retail was not even a cause of the price drops but a reaction.

What power was in the hands of the people? We were helpless! We didnt even get bailed out we just lost our money while alot of the banks were bailed out by the Govt. I would know I was born and raised in New York city and Ive been here my entire life and I was right in the middle of Wall Street at the time lol. So that is just a complete mischaracterization of the collapse. What are you talking about lol? So this is more to my point that banks/institutions are usually in control of price movement.

I then addressed your multidimensionality proposition and granted there is such a thing in the markets however it is all tied to 1 commonality which is whoever is in control of directional money flows(usually institutions). In your 2 people trading example, the one buying followed an institution who was bullish and won, The one selling followed an institution and won. Simple as that. Also, we understand multidimensionality very well. Don't sell yourself and humanity short. I know there is this tendency to overcomplicate what the markets are but in reality it is not hard to understand what is going on. Profiting off the markets may initially prove difficult but the apparatus is simple.
  • #358
  • Edited 2:32pm Oct 27, 2025 2:19pm | Edited 2:32pm
  •  amvt
  • Joined Feb 2025 | Status: Developer by Choice Trader by Heart | 202 Posts
Quoting sharingan9
{quote} I mentioned right or wrong because that is how you initially phrased your point as I quote you here "The point I am trying to assert is a bit philosophical in nature: If my strategy works, does that mean, the tools that I use control the behavior of the market? Have I discovered some sort of a "law". And everybody is...just wrong?" My answer is you are not right and everybody is not wrong, it is a question of right or wrong. You simply followed those that can move the markets and those that lost did not. I am literally quoting you word for...
Aha, I suppose it's etymology all over again.

I'll take this very brief.

Me saying "Everybody is wrong", does not necessarily mean I followed an institution. I am trying to say something completely different, but you are stuck in your original argument so I can't really help you here.

Regarding the 2008 Crash example. This was to follow your point of "following the institutions". I was trying to imply that following them is not always a good idea, and there's no reliable way to follow them anyways. I agree that the institutions carry more buying power than all of us. They can start trends, end trends etc. But, that does not mean they control it. They are also tied to their quotas and investors. They cannot control something where the most amount of money invested is foreign. More than that, it's literally impossible to control the markets. The trends will start only if the public gets involved. The trends will end, only if the public won't trade. It's not upto them. It's upto all of us.

Of-course you were helpless during the crisis. But did you all play a role in it? YES! Majority of the public bought Triple-A loans (the investors market for credit default swaps), which were being handed out like food-stamps. No responsibilities. None were taken by the authorities.

(also, the crash was due to bonds failure specifically, which led the panic and chaos not the banks failures which, though, did play a role in it)

But anyways, I wish you all the best in your following the institutions strategy, as I can't conversate with a person who won't see past their own thoughts. Best of luck
— Developed by MMQ
  • #359
  • Oct 27, 2025 2:45pm Oct 27, 2025 2:45pm
Quoting Thtpro
So if a professional fund manager would struggle - you have to do something different to the masses
Could that be it?

Inserted Video
  • #360
  • Oct 27, 2025 3:01pm Oct 27, 2025 3:01pm
Quoting amvt
{quote} Aha, I suppose it's etymology all over again. I'll take this very brief. Me saying "Everybody is wrong", does not necessarily mean I followed an institution. I am trying to say something completely different, but you are stuck in your original argument so I can't really help you here. Regarding the 2008 Crash example. This was to follow your point of "following the institutions". I was trying to imply that following them is not always a good idea, and there's no reliable way to follow them anyways. I agree that the institutions carry more...

You brought up the 2008 crash to discuss the banks moral corruption as a reason for not following their price movement? I thought that might be the case and tried to bring the crash back to the point of the convo which was to show that they in fact move the markets so you win when you follow them(inadvertently or purposely). You used the 2008 crash example in a very strange almost non sequitur manner. You also agreed with me. You say "I agree that the institutions carry more buying power than all of us.They can start trends, end trends etc." You are following institutions whether you like it or not.

Fair enough though. I respect your view. I think your points lost continuity but it was a nice debate. Wish you green pips my friend.
0 traders viewing now