Menu

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Taking a live blown account back to victory!!! 8 replies

What Was Your "Ahaa!" Moment 35 replies

"Victory" 6 replies

Can I Be a GBP/JPY Dimwit For a Moment 3 replies

Whose victory going to help dollar go up? 1 reply

The Moment Of Victory

This sharing is very good. My path may not be the same as you, but I do somehow share your experience in some way.

My experience is that I learned (actually still learning) trading methods on FF, and I knew the method works (with an edge) on its own, because others use it successfully (with their discretion), but when I used it and customized it to suit my own style. I felt high pressure and the edge was not clear to me. I did not know why it didn't work at the time. (Now I can see I was not trained myself enough and odds played a role to cloud the edge). I think in this situation emotional was a bigger issue for me to handle.

I seriously agree that emotional detachment is very important, without a degree of detachment, I cannot even engage my mind effectively to practise and learn, and the ups and downs can easily stop me out from the journey.

Quoting Custos
I think it depends how many years you have been at it. If you discover early on what works and what doesn't, then you will still be very emotional about it.
But if you are like me who had many fake eureka moments early on only to discover that these moments were false and didn't turn you into profitability, you will either stop with trading or get emotionally detached to new discoveries and just see if your new discovery works out.
In the end, once I knew exactly that I had an edge, I didn't feel that excited. I just apply my edge each and every...
Quoting kk007
My experience is that I learned (actually still learning) trading methods on FF, and I knew the method works (with an edge) on its own, because others use it successfully (with their discretion), but when I used it and customized it to suit my own style.
I think most people here are just lying about their profitability. Just imagine you are years at it and are still not successful. It takes a bold character to admit that you are still losing and still staying with trading. I think most just go the easy road and say "yes I am successful", cause they know that nobody ever will be able to verify their claims.

Just my opinion.
  • Post #43
  • Quote
  • Edited 11:37pm May 2, 2011 8:59pm | Edited 11:37pm
Quoting Custos
I think most people here are just lying about their profitability. Just imagine you are years at it and are still not successful. It takes a bold character to admit that you are still losing and still staying with trading. I think most just go the easy road and say "yes I am successful", cause they know that nobody ever will be able to verify their claims.

Just my opinion.
Don't you think BillyRayValentine are successful trader (you have vouched for him, perhaps he has lied for years and spent hours from time to time to posted and lied?). Lying is not surprising, but keep lying every day just for face is not for most people, I think. (Keeping self-deceiving for years is an art of persistence ).

Furthermore, if one is not very lazy, he can check the validity of someone's method with forward data. With some effort, one can distinguish fact against ficition.
  • Post #44
  • Quote
  • Edited 1:56am May 3, 2011 1:44am | Edited 1:56am
Quoting kk007
Don't you think BillyRayValentine are successful trader (you have vouched for him, perhaps he has lied for years and spent hours from time to time to posted and lied?). Lying is not surprising, but keep lying every day just for face is not for most people, I think. (Keeping self-deceiving for years is an art of persistence ).

Furthermore, if one is not very lazy, he can check the validity of someone's method with forward data. With some effort, one can distinguish fact against ficition.
Well, as I said, it is difficult to verify people's claims, thus I don't wanna comment on one's individual performance.

But I agree with your point about not being lazy. I generally try to code every new idea I read and then backtest it on several years of data. Unfortunately most ideas don't survive that backtest. That is the reason why I think most are lying about their profitability or only had a lucky streak.

and before you edited your post you thought I implied that you were not profitable, but actually if you look at my post I was referring to your statement that others were claiming to successfully using a method. (I marked that in bold on my previous post, so I thought it was clear that I was referring to the general ff public).
Thanks Custos for reply again. I think I finally got what you tried to say after reading again.

Of course not everyone honest on earth, but people can generally distinguish between who is who, if they spend enough effort.

For someone who just want to "save face" to lie, he would not post their trading success regularly on a forum. If he was asked questions, he would not answer things with logic and reasoning.

For your backtesting, if you backtested like an EA, you would generally be unable to find edge. For high-probability trading, a lot of discretions generally involved.

Don't know how much you may agree with my words.

cheers,

Quoting Custos
Well, as I said, it is difficult to verify people's claims, thus I don't wanna comment on one's individual performance.

But I agree with your point about not being lazy. I generally try to code every new idea I read and then backtest it on several years of data. Unfortunately most ideas don't survive that backtest. That is the reason why I think most are lying about their profitability or only had a lucky streak.

and before you edited your post you thought I implied that you were not profitable, but actually if you look at my post I was referring...
Quoting kk007
Thanks Custos for reply again. I think I finally got what you tried to say after reading again.

Of course not everyone honest on earth, but people can generally distinguish between who is who, if they spend enough effort.

For someone who just want to "save face" to lie, he would not post their trading success regularly on a forum. If he was asked questions, he would not answer things with logic and reasoning.

For your backtesting, if you backtested like an EA, you would generally be unable to find edge. For high-probability trading, a lot...
well, everybody has an objective. Maybe some not successful people just have the desire to at least be applauded by from people in a forum to find some kind of success which they miss in actual trading.

It depends entirely on which approaches people take, but in general almost everything can be programmed, except maybe trendlines (at least I haven't found the logic yet, with which it can be programmed).
Discretion are just rules that have not been formulated yet. So, normally if somebody can tell me in which points they are discretionary one can program that into rules too.
I think it's far more difficult to find edges when not using a program. You will see an edge in so many different methods, cause your sample size will be rather small. Any method can have a couple of hundred successful trades before being whiped out. There are quite a few trading methods that will have quite a few lucky streaks and look like they have an edge. But there are only a handful, that really provide an edge.
Now it is my opinion that for finding those that really provide an edge, you need more trades than any normal human being can perform manually to reach statistical significance. That is why I rather use a program to be able to say with a certain probability that a method has an edge.

Just my opinion.
A sense of relief.
Measure twice, cut once
Quoting aediaz1
A sense of relief.
Would you mind elaborate a bit more? Say, 20-30 words.
Thanks,

About people, I personally don't know the kind of people you described. Maybe there are, but may not be many.

About programming, depending on the approach you take, if you take a quantitative approach, yes I think programming is important. Nevertheless, if you are a chartist, there is a saying "A picture worth a thousand words". To program a method, you need to first translate a chart visual situation into words. Next, you have to quantify the parameters, before you can fully program the method. If the logic of the programming is not complicated enough to describe a visual situation, you cannot actually backtest a trading method.

Compared a quantitative approach to a chartist approach, I personally believe that the later produce more high-probability setups. In general, I don't think an EA gives high-probability setup set, exception is extremely rare. An EA may give you an edge but would not be a strong one.


Quoting Custos
well, everybody has an objective. Maybe some not successful people just have the desire to at least be applauded by from people in a forum to find some kind of success which they miss in actual trading.

It depends entirely on which approaches people take, but in general almost everything can be programmed, except maybe trendlines (at least I haven't found the logic yet, with which it can be programmed).
Discretion are just rules that have not been formulated yet. So, normally if somebody can tell me in which points they are discretionary one can...
  • Post #50
  • Quote
  • Edited 9:42am May 3, 2011 9:31am | Edited 9:42am
Quoting kk007
Would you mind elaborate a bit more? Say, 20-30 words.
After years of research and money spent on education (softwares, trading-related losses, etc) you get to the point where you realize the price you have sacrificed, gets high. The time spent on trading research could probably have gotten me another Bachelor-degree when it comes to effort and costs.

Thats why it was a great relief for me. Many think that the job is done when you finally got a profitable system, its not. It's only the start.
Measure twice, cut once
Quoting kk007
Thanks,

About people, I personally don't know the kind of people you described. Maybe there are, but may not be many.

About programming, depending on the approach you take, if you take a quantitative approach, yes I think programming is important. Nevertheless, if you are a chartist, there is a saying "A picture worth a thousand words". To program a method, you need to first translate a chart visual situation into words. Next, you have to quantify the parameters, before you can fully program the method. If the logic of the programming is not...
well, I do have a different opinion. But I don't think that either of us is wrong.
Quoting aediaz1
After years of research and money spent on education (softwares, trading-related losses, etc) you get to the point where you realize the price you have sacrificed, gets high. The time spent on trading research could probably have gotten me another Bachelor-degree when it comes to effort and costs.

Thats why it was a great relief for me. Many think that the job is done when you finally got a profitable system, its not. It's only the start.
Thanks aediaz1, I had the same feeling as you at some point. Still once a while when I realize some gifted persons (very few indeed) becomes profitable within 1 year, I feel jealous .
Quoting Custos
well, I do have a different opinion. But I don't think that either of us is wrong.
cheers! Custos.
Quoting benssol
Yes

the point is there is no moment of victory, we all begin confused and searching for this moment but later we realize the truth

it will be routine believe me

good trade OK
bad trade OK
no difference at all

no memory

no need for extra focus like the early days no need to read what others doing and no need for anything, no expectation, just open you station scan the charts and wait for your setup

if it comes, Ok, if it wont OK,
and while this find a movie/TV to watch, a game to play
and at EOD review your work, and maintain the log,...
Well said, spot on.
Quoting kk007
Compared a quantitative approach to a chartist approach, I personally believe that the later produce more high-probability setups. In general, I don't think an EA gives high-probability setup set, exception is extremely rare.
You actually don't need a high probability of a winning trade to be successful. You could have as low as for example 20% win percentage and still be profitable, given that your win is large enough and your losses are small. Here back-testing and EAs can be useful, I think. Evrey now and then you can have a winning streak and a loosing streak, but if you have a large enough data set and you are on average profitable, it's good news.
  • Post #56
  • Quote
  • Edited 9:44pm May 3, 2011 9:06pm | Edited 9:44pm
Quoting P.w.w
You actually don't need a high probability of a winning trade to be successful. You could have as low as for example 20% win percentage and still be profitable, given that your win is large enough and your losses are small. Here back-testing and EAs can be useful, I think. Evrey now and then you can have a winning streak and a loosing streak, but if you have a large enough data set and you are on average profitable, it's good news.
1. A method required large number of setups with a small-edge
2. A method with low probability of success but good RRR

Both of above, even profitable, is not my cup of tea!

And I should have said that I don't think an EA produces good edges, rather than high-probability setups (there may be very few exceptions).
  • Post #57
  • Quote
  • Last Post: May 3, 2011 10:47pm May 3, 2011 10:47pm
True, benssol's sharing is really good.
Quoting jag1966
Well said, spot on.
0 traders viewing now