Why and how Win-Win in Forex is possible | Page 2 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Why it is possible to predict price movement? 1,353 replies

Win in Trend and Win in Range 227 replies

Financial Transaction Tax - You think it's still possible to win the game? 16 replies

Win 2 trades out of 10 and win 180 pips 8 replies

Is it possible to consistently win at Forex trading? 12 replies

Attachments: Why and how Win-Win in Forex is possible
Exit Attachments

Why and how Win-Win in Forex is possible

  • #21
  • Feb 20, 2012 3:41am Feb 20, 2012 3:41am
Jaysus, uncle nubs... if you could just channel 1 % of this energy you're charged with, you'd be the next marathon winner or you could be making love for 16 hours or you could ... no, no wait. What if .. you're not a real person at all? You're just an experimental chatbot, designed to increase forum traffic by provoking conversations. YEAH, f...k that must be it. Whoever wrote your program, must be Einstein's relative, coz you're GOOD. Einstein's relative, haha, you get that?

Quoting nubcake
thanks for confirming for me that you do, in fact, have no idea what you are talking about.

e.g. money has no value! really? i'll go pay for my food with bundles of sticks then.
forget about tomorrow, just steal away into the night
  • #22
  • Feb 20, 2012 3:45am Feb 20, 2012 3:45am
Quoting spekitox
Jaysus, uncle nubs... if you could just channel 1 % of this energy you're charged with, you'd be the next marathon winner or you could be making love for 16 hours or you could ... no, no wait. What if .. you're not a real person at all? You're just an experimental chatbot, designed to increase forum traffic by provoking conversations. YEAH, f...k that must be it. Whoever wrote your program, must be Einstein's relative, coz you're GOOD. Einstein's relative, haha, you get that?
Like it's all relative and shit. I got it./ Funny man too... Dam Spekitox you were more entertaining in the music thread man. Where you been. Get in there in there homes, shake what ya mamma gave ya lol
Time hides Nothing
  • #23
  • Feb 20, 2012 3:54am Feb 20, 2012 3:54am
Quoting spekitox
Jaysus, uncle nubs... if you could just channel 1 % of this energy you're charged with, you'd be the next marathon winner or you could be making love for 16 hours or you could ... no, no wait. What if .. you're not a real person at all? You're just an experimental chatbot, designed to increase forum traffic by provoking conversations. YEAH, f...k that must be it. Whoever wrote your program, must be Einstein's relative, coz you're GOOD. Einstein's relative, haha, you get that?

a team has been dispatched to your address. please do not resist. you will not need any belongings. thank you for your cooperation.

fin.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #24
  • Feb 20, 2012 4:19am Feb 20, 2012 4:19am
Nothing special really ... collecting air miles, kissing in Paris, holding hands in Rome, running naked in rainstorms ... yeah thanks for the invitation, need to tidy up my playlists first.
Gotta pop out for a sandwich now, I'm starving. Talk to you later.

Quoting CindyXXXX
Like it's all relative and shit. I got it./ Funny man too... Dam Spekitox you were more entertaining in the music thread man. Where you been. Get in there in there homes, shake what ya mamma gave ya lol
forget about tomorrow, just steal away into the night
  • #25
  • Feb 20, 2012 6:55am Feb 20, 2012 6:55am
Quoting nubcake
everything you just typed i will simply say "refer to my previous 2 posts".
Wow, your post was littered with errors and I corrected them in a very easy to understand manner and you seem to have taken nothing on board. Either that or you are so stubborn that you can't admit when you are wrong. Do you still believe it is impossible for a market to go up forever (granted it will probably never happen, but market function proves it is not impossible)? Do you still believe that someone has to actually lose real money for it to be a zero sum market? Do you still believe that transactions have to take place for it to be a market, even if bids and/or offers are on the board?

Quoting nubcake
money has no value! really? i'll go pay for my food with bundles of sticks then.
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. You keep doing that. I NEVER stated that money has no value, in fact my post is littered with references of the value of money which is derived from the market. If you are taking the currency in isolation and not compared with another currency then the market is the country as a whole and the value is 'how much stuff costs'. Inflation/deflation is the measure of how fast the value is decreasing/increasing.

I simply stated that money is not backed by anything of tangible value (ie something physical and real like property or gold). It is created by the will of central banks. First it is not there, then suddenly it is. I am surprised at the ignorance of the monetary system. You seem to have no idea how it works. I am cirtainly no expert, I just google shit and talk to people, but I can see I understand this a lot better than you.

Quoting nubcake
money can get printed by banks, sure, but this isn't magic money. it just shifts the value of all units in circulation to a different value. it may take some time, but it gets there in the end.
Just take a look at the increase in money supply in the US over the last decade or so and then compare that with the inflation rate. It is not even a close contest. We will need to see double and triple digit inflation to catch up any time soon. Now take a look at the EUR/USD chart. We have been ranging between about 1.17 and 1.51 since around 2003 (with a short spike above it for a few months in 2007). Now consider that the US prints alot more than the euro zone.

So when is the value going to shift to represent this extra money being created as you say it will??? There is no data to back up what you are claiming. Even if it does come into line eventually as you say, it does not matter. Unless it happens straight away (such as in a share split) then there is magically created money for a period in the system that was not their before.

The fact is that money IS MAGICALLY CREATED. Money is the biggest deception of all time. And to make matters worse, there is an interest rate attached to all money created. Where is that supposed to come from?


Quoting nubcake
i will note that as for dividends making a market positive sum, as you are arguing, i say you are totally wrong. IF you are going to start considering the outside monetary factors instead of just what is transacted between different parties within a market then you have to.... HAVE TO... include everything else, including inflation.
Inflation has nothing to do with whether a money is flowing into a given market. Inflation affects the rate of return but does not affect whether the market is zero sum or not.

Quoting nubcake
if you include inflation i believe you will find that your example is not positive sum, but is instead negative sum.
So is it zero sum or negative sum??? You can't have both.

Quoting nubcake
for someone who wasn't particularly sure of themselves as to whether they believed things were x/y/z sum or not, you sure seem confident now for some reason
As I stated earlier my first post I was thinking out loud. I am partly playing devils advocate for sake of debate, but I am definately begining to lean toward the fact that the forex market is not zero sum. I cirtainly believe that shares paying dividends are not.

Quoting nubcake
this forum....
you...
  • #26
  • Feb 20, 2012 7:07am Feb 20, 2012 7:07am
someone else plz create a new thread and weigh-in. i can't be arsed wasting any more of my time on this shit. there is just so much wrong with everything that agro is saying. i'm just not interested in others happy fun-time worlds of make-believe.

sure, what he says makes sense, if you ignore how things really function and just decide things work how you think they do. ignorance is bliss. it's all yours people. have at it.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #27
  • Feb 20, 2012 7:50am Feb 20, 2012 7:50am
Haha - nice avatar Agro! Takes me back to saturday morning tv in my pj's!

I don't want to get into the whole magic money bullshit. A fractional banking sector creates money in a way - the selling of government debt can kind of make money when you are the reserve currency - but tight control needs to be held limiting the creation of money or you just produce big bubbles that burst - but that is not the point i wanted to made.

People always talk about the fx being a zero sum game - but i think that is a little misguided. the fx market doesn't exist for traders - it exists for commerce. Markets just exist so people are able to offset their risk - whatever that risk may be. they pay a premium, and they offset their risk.

Most of the people that use a market are paying a premium for insurance of some kind or paying for the facilitation of some kind of business - and are not making money out of speculation - and so those people have gained from the fx market even though it has cost them. A large percentage of traders lose money - but most of the participants in a market actually gain from the market. So the market is win win lose.
Enter Signature
  • #28
  • Feb 20, 2012 7:58am Feb 20, 2012 7:58am
Quoting Brutalpip
Hey friends!

Because of ongoing judgements over my passion as a way to rob the weak in the markets, I'd like to explain how the other side of my winning trades is no way determined to LOSE money to me. The image explains everything. The only possible argument to bring forth after this is, most people get robbed of constantly anyway. Right. Because they trade by taking bigger or more losers than winners. They make their loss happen. I know what Im talking about, as I went through this pain for one full year, 5 days fulltime. By the way,...
I'm sorry, but I've read this 5 times now and I have no idea what you are asking or saying. I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with the zero-sum nature of the forex market, but having said that, I'm not sure what you are asking for or what kind of discussion you are looking for. As for the possibility of a win-win strategy: you can only talk about a win-win scenario in forex trading if you ignore the corresponding lose-lose scenario that exists on the other side of your transactions. Hope you can provide some clearer indications of your intent.
  • #29
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:10am Feb 20, 2012 8:10am
Quoting Sarythsaya
Haha - nice avatar Agro! Takes me back to saturday morning tv in my pj's!

I don't want to get into the whole magic money bullshit. A fractional banking sector creates money in a way - the selling of government debt can kind of make money when you are the reserve currency - but tight control needs to be held limiting the creation of money or you just produce big bubbles that burst - but that is not the point i wanted to made.

People always talk about the fx being a zero sum game - but i think that is a little misguided. the fx market doesn't...
your title says 'not zero sum'. ok, so show me a trade where money appears or disappears in thin air. a trader, or business, losing money on a trade does not mean that trading is negative sum. a winning trader who has an ever increasing balance is not proof that it is positive sum. combine everyone all together and what do you get? zero sum.

.....

why is this so hard for everyone?

as soon as you introduce outside factors into the equation then you can't be selective about what you include and ignore, and then the whole picture expands to include a million different avenues where money flows.... which in the end will all be accounted for one way or another. but trading is zero sum. from the perspective of an individual and their account it's negative sum due to broker fees and also depending on if they can become a part of the book and gain the spread or have to pay it.

scalpers experience (ie from their perspective) positive sum due to trading noise and earning the spread in spite of broker fees. bucket shops want to experience + sum from muppet traders paying the spread over and over going nowhere and must be cautious that they don't expose themselves to too much one-sided market risk. STP brokers want to experience + sum from onforwarding orders and collective a pip along the way. businesses needing to make payments overseas experience total loss and therefore negative sum. the banks... take a guess.

and so on forever.

but it is all accounted for. that's the start, middle, and end of the story. you can track each and every dollar.

those who want to argue the negative sum side are likely those who simply don't experience profits and want to know why they are such terrible trading losers, and the scapegoat is the negative sum claim.

it's not a negative sum game, you are just shit and on the wrong side of the market and can't see why.

resorting to ignoring what you do and don't want to include just to put spin on an angle is a pointless exercise.

fuck this place is stupid. someone please show some ounce of intelligence!!!
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #30
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:21am Feb 20, 2012 8:21am
I think the 34 people viewing this thread and not taking you on are showing an ounce or two of intelligence Nubcake. You're one brash MF lol.

One question though. All the debate on the zero sum or not, how does the answer to this question affect your bottom line? And does it? And if it doesn't then why do we care so?

And to the OP... WTF?
Time hides Nothing
  • #31
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:26am Feb 20, 2012 8:26am
Alright.... I think you guys are talking about slightly different things here.

When I talk about trading being a zero-sum game, it means that trading is a zero-sum game. Life is a little different.

The powers that own this planet can print money and cover it with a guaranteed annual inflation rate that assures that they will never lose.

We just trade a market. The tulip craze, as it turned out, was a zero-sum game. In the end, someone always gets left with an old moldy tulip bulb, or re-valued house, or worthless ponzi-derivative.

But talking about governments/banks creating money from debt is a different subject.
  • #32
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:29am Feb 20, 2012 8:29am
Quoting CindyXXXX
I think the 34 people viewing this thread and not taking you on are showing an ounce or two of intelligence Nubcake. You're one brash MF lol.

One question though. All the debate on the zero sum or not, how does the answer to this question effect your bottom line? And does it? And if it doesn't then why do we care so?

And to the OP... WTF?
it doesn't affect my bottom line. it doesn't affect anyone's, obviously. i care only because i'd like to see someone say something that has a bit of intelligence and thought behind it. i want someone to say something fucking smart and perhaps even educate me on something i am wrong about, and not with half-assed bullshit responses that are nothing but the workings of a weak imagination fueling the fires of ignorance!

some day i might learn something from this wretched place... no, probably not.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #33
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:44am Feb 20, 2012 8:44am
Quoting CindyXXXX
I think the 34 people viewing this thread and not taking you on are showing an ounce or two of intelligence Nubcake. You're one brash MF lol.

One question though. All the debate on the zero sum or not, how does the answer to this question affect your bottom line? And does it? And if it doesn't then why do we care so?

And to the OP... WTF?
Hey cindy how you doing.

In answer to your question, I think it has a huge impact on your bottom line. If the market is strongly positive sum then there is no point spending any time on PA or FA study. You should just buy. If strongly negative then the opposite applies. As it stands though I think it is only very slightly positive or negative (switching from + to - depending on what central banks are doing) and as a result it is prudent to think of the market as zero sum even if it is not purely a zero sum game. If you understand that a large effect on your bottom line is competition from other market participants then you can derive effective strategies from this knowledge. Stop hunting (whether the instigator or follower) is the most obvious but there are many others.

As for nubcakes' last post, I will address this when I am not so busy

Edit - make that second last post by nubs, he got in before I posted this. His last post is partially answered by this post (it does affect your bottom line) and the rest will be addressed when I answer the other post
  • #34
  • Feb 20, 2012 8:51am Feb 20, 2012 8:51am
Quoting Agro
Hey cindy how you doing.

In answer to your question, I think it has a huge impact on your bottom line. If the market is strongly positive sum then there is no point spending any time on PA or FA study. You should just buy. If strongly negative then the opposite applies. As it stands though I think it is only very slightly positive or negative (switching from + to - depending on what central banks are doing) and as a result it is prudent to think of the market as zero sum even if it is not purely a zero sum game. If you understand that a...
Very good thank you. I'm alright mate. But buyers need sellers right? I think this was NCs argument, even if those sellers are liquidity providers like brokers or banks. What you're describing reminds me more of yield differentials. What am I missing?
Time hides Nothing
  • #35
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:00am Feb 20, 2012 9:00am
Quoting CindyXXXX
Very good thank you. I'm alright mate. But buyers need sellers right? I think this was NCs argument, even if those sellers are liquidity providers like brokers or banks. What you're describing reminds me more of yield differentials. What am I missing?
I think the missing link in the eternal zero sum debate is that markets are not closed systems. To purely have a zero sum system, there needs to be nothing flowing in or out. But markets do not exhibit this character. Money flows in through banks 'printing' money (not always as simple as printing money, quantitate easing is another way and there are many others) or dividend yields. It can also flow out.
  • #36
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:21am Feb 20, 2012 9:21am
Quoting Agro
I think the missing link in the eternal zero sum debate is that markets are not closed systems.
lol.

no the missing link is that people are fucking stupid, start off talking about one thing, and then decide that they want to add bits and pieces here and there to sway things one way or another without also adding the offsetting side of these extra pieces. usually they swing it to the negative sum argument since they are perpetual losers who just can't understand how they can fail so damn hard and it just doesn't make any sense to them!

so a bank 'prints money' (your current favorite scapegoat), and goes somewhere right? the bank is richer? they spread amongst everyone in the country and so everyone becomes richer? they give it away to some lucky person who then buys an island somewhere? what happens to this magical money?

if you say they then put it into the market.... that's not an answer. someone took the other side of that one-way trade! it doesn't even matter if they don't unwind that trade, ever, because the simple fact is that whether or not they trade it one way or two ways they still end up with MONEY!!! money that they can do shit with. similarly with everyone else on the opposite of their transaction. retail traders are in then back out because you can't go to the shops and buy cheese and crackers with your floating bucket shop trading account margin. businesses and banks are in and out, and also sometimes just one-way transacting because at the end of the day they will always end up with an actual currency of one kind or another which they will use. they aren't transacting with retail muppets playing trading games on their mum and dads computer, and they aren't enclosed in the retail bucket shop bubble.

you think that just because someone 'prints money' and maybe moves the market and some retail clown makes a few dollars that somehow this funny money made the retail market positive sum. all that happened was the bucket had to pay a little back to the muppets if there happened to be enough of them on the correct side and for long enough to capture enough of the move that it actually ate into the buckets swimming pool of money. the bucket was the counterparty in this case on the derivative retail market to the winners. on the flipside if the muppets were all on the wrong side then they all pay the bucket a little extra than normal, so in that case the retailers were the counterparty to the buckets overall winning positions.

can you sometime this week perhaps type a post that isn't completely wrong? actually don't bother. i know you are completely lost in confusion through all of this. take a month and meditate on it or something...
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #37
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:27am Feb 20, 2012 9:27am
Quoting nubcake
lol.

no the missing link is that people are fucking stupid, start off talking about one thing, and then decide that they want to add bits and pieces here and there ......
Sooo, what I just said. You guys really are talking about different things.

But, have a good time with it.
  • #38
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:30am Feb 20, 2012 9:30am
Quoting Price
Sooo, what I just said. You guys really are talking about different things.

But, have a good time with it.
yes and i understand this. i know where one border exists and another begins. agro seems to be confused about the whole thing and believes money comes from nowhere and can make everyone richer... or something like that
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #39
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:34am Feb 20, 2012 9:34am
Quoting Custos
I still don't understand how this adds up with your first post. No matter how much leverage the other party is using, he will lose exactly the amount that you are winning. So how can this be a win-win situation?
Hello Custos

We don't trade again each other on a one / one basis. We trade in a pool of traders. So two different approaches in a long and short position in the same direction trend by two different traders could result in a winning situation for both.

All depend where is your own entry and exit, no matter or caring about who is winning or loosing.

Also all depend also on the chart scale use.
Trader A: He use A 1h chart as a long trend. Trader A entered and 2 hours later close is position after the price as reach is profit. He is winning.

Trader B: Trader B: use a 5M chart. 30 Minute after trader A got in a long position, Price retaliate. Trader B got in for a short position. Traders B see is profit target hit and close is short position 50 minutes later.


Trader A as seen the price retaliate, but it did not touch is Stop loss target. He is still in a long position after Trader B got out of is short position. Price eventually reverse and pursuit in the long side.

Whit that explanation, you could see that both traders end up as winners and profitable on the same trend and having a different approaches. All depend again, where is your own and personal entry end exit

Both can be winners. All depend on your view. Looking at the original chart did explain it clearly

Have a good day

Martin
  • #40
  • Feb 20, 2012 9:39am Feb 20, 2012 9:39am
Quoting arjfca
Hello Custos

We don't trade again each other on a one / one basis. We trade in a pool of traders. So two different approaches in a long and short position in the same direction trend by two different traders could result in a winning situation for both.

All depend where is your own entry and exit, no matter or caring about who is winning or loosing.

Also all depend also on the chart scale use.
Trader A: He use A 1h chart as a long trend. Trader A entered and 2 hours later close is position after the price as reach is profit. He is...
great. another one with one eye closed and not even paying attention. i'm sure custos really appreciates your well-thought examples which completely missed the point of what custos was actually saying. good one!
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
0 traders viewing now