Catch 22

[techst]

just making a point on a subject which was raised by dbphoenix near the top of this page of the thread sulong (read that bit if you like,then you might grasp the idea of my reply).

 

[DaveJB]

"It shouldn't take 3 years to get degree level education - 3 months should be more than enough."
Gotta argue with this one NO WAY could I have acquired the knowledge I ended up with in 3 months, short of some sort of direct brain programming.

Where it all goes wrong is you get to be a politician by all sorts of routes, you might be a business type, you might have led strikers in the 70's, you might even have simply wormed your way in through supreme weaselness... and now you are secretary of state for education, just as you ran transport last year and headed up defence the year before that. Combine that with the simple but unpalatable fact that your average student doesn't particularly want to study until steam comes from their ears (some do, but it is FAR from universal) ...and you have a policy set by numbskulls that is supposedly going to ensure the unwilling turn into brain surgeons. 3 months, fat chance.

I think DBP has a point here, but so do others - what I'd go for is to combine the best points of each and see where that took me. For example, get somebody who's good at P&V chart analysis, then spend 40 hours a week projecting charts of stock price action and lecture on the analysis - set homework, set analysis tests with specific, measurable objectives. (Look at this chart, there are three examples of volume supporting the price movement, identify them) that sort of thing.

Unlike P&V types I know some successful types use indicators etc so a section 'clumping' them by type, dealing with the basics of understanding them etc would be a good idea - in my mind many many indicators fit into 3 or 4 broad categories so describe one and you've covered dozens, this section need not be overly long therefore. (It will, however, stop your newly minted P&V trader immediately falling into the clutches of the Stochastics types offering 'wraps' with 'sure fire period combos' at the university exits.

I don't see anything wrong with a LONG period of studying charts with a small selection of lecturers - nor with having a few books to hand as reference works, such as Murphy. To my mind the average trading book is about 200 pages too long anyhow... what our course needs to offer is a fairly simple package, then a LOT of repetition of it until it sticks and becomes second nature.

For starters how about simply running through the Nasdaq 100 on say 15 minute charts, simply deciding whether each one is trending or not? I bet 'spottting a trend' would cease to be something people used indicators and MAs for by day 3!

 

[dbphoenix]

Henry Clews, almost certainly?

Who can say? I don't recall his having mentioned it.

Even so, returning to the metaphor of open heart surgery, I'd prefer that my surgeon at least have touched a heart at some time or other, and that he know the difference between beating and not-beating.

It is because so many people think this can be learned from books and courses and seminars and so forth and that none of it need take more than a few months (weeks?, days?) that so many people spend so much money on books and courses and seminars and so forth.

Wm O'Neil had it right many years ago. If you want to learn about fish, don't look to books about fish or lectures about fish or to fish punditry. If you want to learn about fish, study fish.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Wm O'Neil had it right many years ago. If you want to learn about fish, don't look to books about fish or lectures about fish or to fish punditry. If you want to learn about fish, study fish.

Well spoken. That's why the course I mentioned previously is hands-on. With the advent of readily available demo accounts, it's much easier today for folks to actually work with the markets these days. I can get up in front of a class and talk until my face is blue or make them read page after page, but until they actually look at the markets and see what's really going on, it doesn't mean much.

 

[TheBramble]

The problem with making 'universal' statements like that dbp is that they just cry out for verification.

First, what icons does everybody 'use an an example'? Are they ones they've read about... ?

Second, what evidence do you have that these icons (sic) did not use reading as part of their apprenticeship and on-going trading education?

We need to be very precise not only in what we say and how we say it, but we also need to ensure we have sufficiently rigorous proofs for the references we employ.

Livermore, for one. And what does it matter whether or not they "read" about him? And if he used books on trading to educate himself, I'm eager to know the titles.

Livermore really isn't an icon for me. A good read - bit like "The Goal" a novel dressed as reality dressed as a novel. If we take the character as written, he hardly gives us much to aspire to. He failed to stick to his own rules - more than once - and finally, in a pencuniarily impoverished and mentally depressive state, shot himself.

I think I'm going to hunt around a bit longer for my role model dbp if you don't mind. But don't let me stop you...

Wyckoff may be closer to someone to follow. Not 'him' (the man), but what he had to say about Price & Volume. Disembodied, empirical, measurable criteria - no human characteristics to muddy the waters or get all romantic about. I'm not the only one with a well-thumbed Wyckoff on this site...

As for precision and rigor, perhaps you'd expand on the similarities between trading and open heart surgery.

I don't see where precision and rigour come into that one dbp - it was using what's termed an analogy. As you have with the 'fish' thing. But I don't expect an explanation. I understood what you were attempting to say.

If you re-read my post you'll note I was suggesting rigour and precision were a requirement where universal statements are made. One which you've yet to justify or defend. But anyway, I suspect we could take the thread off topic and we wouldn't want that would we.

 

[dbphoenix]

Well spoken. That's why the course I mentioned previously is hands-on. With the advent of readily available demo accounts, it's much easier today for folks to actually work with the markets these days. I can get up in front of a class and talk until my face is blue or make them read page after page, but until they actually look at the markets and see what's really going on, it doesn't mean much.

Based on what you've said, however, you're not beginning at the beginning (but you're not alone; most schools don't). Plus everything you have planned is representational. Unless the students understand what it is that's being represented, they will end up "floating", like a house with no foundation.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Based on what you've said, however, you're not beginning at the beginning (but you're not alone; most schools don't). Plus everything you have planned is representational. Unless the students understand what it is that's being represented, they will end up "floating", like a house with no foundation.

Where do you define "the beginning"? This course is not intended as a complete stand-alone effort, but rather as a practical/functional tie-in to what modern finance/economics students are being taught. Most financial education is institutional in nature, not individual. The course my partner and I are developing seeks to transition one to the other.

Please clarify for me what you consider representational and what would be considered non-representational.

 

[dbphoenix]

Where do you define "the beginning"? This course is not intended as a complete stand-alone effort, but rather as a practical/functional tie-in to what modern finance/economics students are being taught. Most financial education is institutional in nature, not individual. The course my partner and I are developing seeks to transition one to the other.

Please clarify for me what you consider representational and what would be considered non-representational.

Based on your initial post, at least one objective of at least part of your course is to teach the "practical" side of "trading". Therefore, at least one of the initial tasks would be to learn how an auction market works, and by that I mean works in the real world and not in the theoretical.

As for education being institutional in nature, yes. That's largely what's wrong with it. And even though the British Primary Schools tried to change that a few decades ago (or at least some of them did), there seem to have been no long-lasting, much less far-reaching, effects.

As for representational vs non-representational, check the Basics thread in the Price and Volume Forum. If that piques your interest, PM me.

 

[JumpOff]

"We are going to start from scratch and tick of the basics that all traders must know. First of these is . . . "

A trader who has taken the effort to learn how to trade successfully, is not going to spoon feed you their 'secrets.'

Successful traders occasionally place clues in such a way that those who are willing and able can piece together the puzzle on their own, but membership in that club is self selecting - by those who are willing to do what is necessary to gain entrance.

JO

 

[timsk]

This is Going Nowhere


If I was new to T2W and new to trading, I would have read this thread with eager anticipation, believing that traders more knowledgeable and experienced than myself would provide a few pointers as to how I go about studying the markets. Any half-wit knows they need to study the markets to become a (profitable) trader, but how do they do it? With the exception of Rhody Trader and DaveJB, no one has offered anything of real practical value that I could take from the thread and apply. And poor ol' Mr. Williams is frozen in mid sentence, while his students become more agitated and frustrated by the minute . . .
Tim.

 

[TheBramble]

timsk - I genuinely believe the collection of responses you received have answered your original question rather well. If indirectly.

Your choice of title, although not elaborated upon or even alluded to, recognises the impossibility of the question you (almost) set.

Educationally structured learning (as in Trading 101) could be ripped from the contents pages of virtually ANY book on trading.

What you (and the majority of members who have taken the trouble to respond) know is that this simply doesn't do the job. IMHO nothing of that nature can.

If anyone new to t2w and trading feels as you describe they might - then they're doing OK. That's how they should be feeling. Confused, no quick route, no proscribed reading or approach - no one set way with definite guidelines or manual. Massive differences of opinion and views on style, approach, focus and interpretation.

If it were any easier or more obvious than that - it would be...

That's precisely what makes trading so interesting and worthy of our time and effort. You're constantly devising and writing your own research direction, content and aims.

 

[dbphoenix]

If I was new to T2W and new to trading, I would have read this thread with eager anticipation, believing that traders more knowledgeable and experienced than myself would provide a few pointers as to how I go about studying the markets. Any half-wit knows they need to study the markets to become a (profitable) trader, but how do they do it? With the exception of Rhody Trader and DaveJB, no one has offered anything of real practical value that I could take from the thread and apply. And poor ol' Mr. Williams is frozen in mid sentence, while his students become more agitated and frustrated by the minute . . .
Tim.

If you could rein in the attitude for a moment, you'd recognize that you're asking a different question. If you want to know HOW to go about studying the market, half-wit or no, then first sit in front of a computer screen and watch a tick chart of your favorite issue. Determine first if you can distinguish between up and down. If so, you're on your way and well ahead of many full-witted traders. If not, keep watching until you can do so or until you fall asleep.

 

[timsk]

Db,
"Determine first if you can distinguish between up and down. If so, you're on your way and well ahead of many full-witted traders. If not, keep watching until you can do so or until you fall asleep".
Progress at last! Now that wasn't too difficult was it? It appears that having a little bit of 'attitude' is exactly what's required. :cheesy:
Tim.

 

[dbphoenix]

Not really. There's nothing here that I haven't told you before.

If you're like most novices, you say you want to learn how to trade, but what you really want is to be told what to do. If you really wanted to learn how to trade, then you'd be learning how to trade. If you're not studying trading, then I assume you want to be told what to do. In that case, the word "abundance" doesn't even begin to describe what is available here, much less on the Web as a whole.

What's required is not "attitude" but the willingness to do the work.

 

[Rhody Trader]

Not really. There's nothing here that I haven't told you before.

If you're like most novices, you say you want to learn how to trade, but what you really want is to be told what to do. If you really wanted to learn how to trade, then you'd be learning how to trade. If you're not studying trading, then I assume you want to be told what to do. In that case, the word "abundance" doesn't even begin to describe what is available here, much less on the Web as a whole.

What's required is not "attitude" but the willingness to do the work.

And there we have the crux of the issue, simply put. Success in any endevour requires work. Trading is no exception. No one gets proficient by simply wishing it so. Even if one were to buy a canned system or have one taught to her/him, it would still take much work to develop the necessary understanding and comfort with the system to make it work on a consistent and continuous basis.

 

[DaveJB]

In fairness to Tim I don't think he was saying he wanted a canned system, he was asking what to study in effect, by asking what a course in trading would contain. That doesn't imply that he's unwilling to put the time in, simply that he's making a common mistake (I think) in assuming there's a body of knowledge to acquire that makes you a basically competent trader, when there isn't.

 

[Rhody Trader]

... a common mistake (I think) in assuming there's a body of knowledge to acquire that makes you a basically competent trader, when there isn't.

I would disagree with this statement. I believe you can have a knowledge base sufficient to make you a competent trader. There are certain things you need to know in order to be able to trade at all (trade execution mechanics, knowledge of tradeable vehicles), and others you have to know to trade in a meaningful fashion (understanding of market mechanisms and drivers, money management, trading psychology, etc).

Competency, however, does not necessarily lead to success. It is, however, a requirement.

 

[dbphoenix]

In fairness to Tim I don't think he was saying he wanted a canned system, he was asking what to study in effect, by asking what a course in trading would contain. That doesn't imply that he's unwilling to put the time in, simply that he's making a common mistake (I think) in assuming there's a body of knowledge to acquire that makes you a basically competent trader, when there isn't.

That's not quite the case, though at this point somebody has to decide if this thread is about trading or if it's about Tim. If the latter, then there's an issue of privacy that I prefer not to get into.

Aside from all of that, novices are sold a bill of goods regarding how long it takes and how easy/difficult it is. Regardless of what one is told, there is at the very least a great deal of screen time that must be put in, and by "great deal" I'm talking about hundreds if not thousands of hours. If he's not willing to put in those hours, then he can look forward to trying out a great many methods/systems/strategies that "don't work" and spending a lot of money on books, courses, seminars, "mentors", chat rooms, newsletters and so on that will in the long run -- and perhaps even the short run -- do him no good whatsoever.

 

[counter_violent]

NUGGETS and GEMS

Searches through mountains of info for nuggets and gems, and they come from places you would'nt imagine or least expect. Once you have enough of them the next stage begins, trying to piece them together into a workable idea.

Live trading and hard knocks, absolutely invaluable, when your hit in the pocket it does'nt half sharpen you up!!

The odd Mentor or two can be very helpful.

Teach Trading in a classroom!

No tx not for me .

 

[dbphoenix]

I would disagree with this statement. I believe you can have a knowledge base sufficient to make you a competent trader. There are certain things you need to know in order to be able to trade at all (trade execution mechanics, knowledge of tradeable vehicles), and others you have to know to trade in a meaningful fashion (understanding of market mechanisms and drivers, money management, trading psychology, etc).

And I disagree completely with this statement.

"Believing" that one can have "a knowledge base sufficient to make [him] a competent trader" isn't enough. There must be some evidence to show not only that such a knowledge base can be created but that it can also create a "competent" (variable to be defined, of course) trader. There are piles of "knowledge bases" around and an equal number of complaints that they "don't work". Any curriculum-based approach is going to be the same old same old that schools have been engaged in since time immemorial.

The basics of trading are experiential. Yes, it helps to have a guide or coach or whatever of some sort available to explain what it is that one is looking at. But "mechanics" and so forth are trivial in comparison to the importance of this experience.