My Favorite Jesse Livermore Quote:

[TheBramble]

Ignoring the whole suicide thing- which I believe was nothing to with his trading and should be kept in the context of his personal life, not his trading carrier.

I appreciate the point you're making and I believe most people take that view.

However, my own personal position is that there is no such handy contextualisation possible. You can't be long-term successful in one area of your life if you have major deficiencies in any other area or it will all come to naught.

 

[rawrschach]

I respect your opinion. As I’m sure you do mine…?

I’m saying you’re quoting data for which you have no valid source. He never had anything like $100M in CASH. A point I emphasised in an earlier post in this thread. Just like the Elliotts and Ganns of this world – their alleged fortunes grow by 100% each year. LOL.

He did actually. He used to make a point of liquidating his positions and withdrawing his money from his trading account.

However, my own personal position is that there is no such handy contextualisation possible. You can't be long-term successful in one area of your life if you have major deficiencies in any other area or it will all come to naught.

No offence, but that is BS. There is plenty of natural talent that is great at what they do bu go off the rails in their personal life - Maradona, Cobain, Winehouse etc etc.

Even though he blew out his account he was definitely not poor at the time he died; money was not the motivation behind his death, neither was trading. Let's not forget his wife's past 5 husbands had kileld themselves too, and he was clinically depressed.

It is absurd to claim it's 'luck' to come back so many times from nothing to millions.

 

[TheBramble]

He did actually. He used to make a point of liquidating his positions and withdrawing his money from his trading account.

He did what? I wasn't suggesting he didn't make and use profits from his trading. I'm saying he was never worth $100M in CASH.

No offence, but that is BS. There is plenty of natural talent that is great at what they do bu go off the rails in their personal life - Maradona, Cobain, Winehouse etc etc.

Too late. Offence taken. It’s not BS if it’s a personal view. That you don’t share it doesn’t make yours BS either.

Can you point out what I’ve missed with Maradona, Cobain and Winehouse in your interpretation of ‘long-term success’?

Even though he blew out his account he was definitely not poor at the time he died; money was not the motivation behind his death, neither was trading. Let's not forget his wife's past 5 husbands had kileld themselves too, and he was clinically depressed.

How do you know what took him over the edge? Were you his mate? Were you there? His suicide note specifically indicated his failure in trading as being his reasons for ending it.

Not poor at time of death, perhaps. But $5M in closed assets is a far cry from $100M especially as we are not privy to precisely how that last tranche (whatever it’s maximum size had been) had been lost.

 

[TheBramble]

It is absurd to claim it's 'luck' to come back so many times from nothing to millions.

{you sneaked an edit on me while I was replying...}

If it wasn't luck - he would have held on to his profits.

 

[rawrschach]

"Can you point out what I’ve missed with Maradona, Cobain and Winehouse in your interpretation of ‘long-term success’?"

Cobin if alive would still be a great musician, as is Winehouse, Maradona was still a great player in his 30s

 

[Rossini]

{you sneaked an edit on me while I was replying...}

If it wasn't luck - he would have held on to his profits.

That is just BS. Lets say that i'm great at getting in, i'm skilled, my timing is superb! But every so often I get it wrong (no surprise there). The times I get it wrong I refuse to take a loss, I try to average and most of the time it saves me. One time it kills me and i'm finished.

Was it luck that I had consistently great entries and I could read the market? No, it was skill. The fact that I busted out is irrelevant.

 

[TheBramble]

"Can you point out what I’ve missed with Maradona, Cobain and Winehouse in your interpretation of ‘long-term success’?"

Cobin if alive would still be a great musician, as is Winehouse, Maradona was still a great player in his 30s

"IF ALIVE"??? LOL!

Your qualifications and credentials for confirmation of long-term success are rather relaxed...

So Livermore could have blown his brains out after his first profitable trade and still been a success in your eyes then?

Bad examples really as Cobain, Maradona and Winehouse may not necessarily sit side by side in most people’s idea of long-term success. They don’t mine. That they do for you is all well and good – and quite irrelevant to Livermore and trading.

You’re saying (I think) that coming out with more than you go in with qualifies any trader as successful. I’d agree from the very limited perspective of financial success. My issue is that losing a fortune, several times, and then blowing your brains out does not represent my model of success and certainly not a personal profile to which I would recommend anyone to aspire.

But these are just personal views, yours and mine.

 

[TheBramble]

That is just BS. Lets say that i'm great at getting in, i'm skilled, my timing is superb! But every so often I get it wrong (no surprise there). The times I get it wrong I refuse to take a loss, I try to average and most of the time it saves me. One time it kills me and i'm finished.

Was it luck that I had consistently great entries and I could read the market? No, it was skill. The fact that I busted out is irrelevant.

You're quite wrong and this isn't just my view, it's obvious.

Your hypothetical game plan is flawed from Day-1. That you didn't flame out with the 'one time it kills you' your first time in the market was pure luck.

 

[Rossini]

Quite right, but thats exits and MM your taking about. In my example entries had nothing to do with 'luck'.

 

[rawrschach]

"IF ALIVE"??? LOL!

Your qualifications and credentials for confirmation of long-term success are rather relaxed...

So Livermore could have blown his brains out after his first profitable trade and still been a success in your eyes then?

Bad examples really as Cobain, Maradona and Winehouse may not necessarily sit side by side in most people’s idea of long-term success. They don’t mine. That they do for you is all well and good – and quite irrelevant to Livermore and trading.

You’re saying (I think) that coming out with more than you go in with qualifies any trader as successful. I’d agree from the very limited perspective of financial success. My issue is that losing a fortune, several times, and then blowing your brains out does not represent my model of success and certainly not a personal profile to which I would recommend anyone to aspire.

But these are just personal views, yours and mine.

Who the hell is aspiring to build a personal profile like his? This is a tradin website, he was a great trader, he has explicity described all his mistakes in his book so you end up with a combination of some of the best market advice anywhere, coupled with mistakes he made. If you read the book and try to pursue the same money management as him then you're a retard.

I'm talking about success at your field, unless you really think that whether Cobain was a good musician or Livermore a great trader should definitively decide whether or not they were 'successes'.

Your argument seems to be 'olol they're dead so they are failures'. Failure at life, maybe; at music and trading? I think not. To assume that he was a s hit trader cuz he shot himself is downright stupid. Ever heard of false logic?

 

[TheBramble]

Quite right, but thats exits and MM your taking about. In my example entries had nothing to do with 'luck'.

LOL. You can have as many PERFECT entries as you like, but without everything else, they'll be useless to you. Perfect entries by themselves will not make you a long-term successful trader. Your longevity, in those circumstances, will be determined purely by chance.

Are you really saying you can be incredibly skilled in just one of the disciplines needed for consistently profitable trading and that in and of itself makes you an incredibly skilled and successful trader? If you are, then you and Livermore and rawrschach are all in good company. Stay away from gun shops and women with a track record of inducing a desire for suicide.

Whether you choose to consider it from the very narrow perspective of just successful trading, to the wider considerations and the far more powerful viewpoint of an overall successful life, you can’t just be good at one thing and crap at something else for long-term success, in any endeavour.

 

[TheBramble]

Who the hell is aspiring to build a personal profile like his? This is a tradin website, he was a great trader, he has explicity described all his mistakes in his book so you end up with a combination of some of the best market advice anywhere, coupled with mistakes he made. If you read the book and try to pursue the same money management as him then you're a retard.

He didn’t explain what took the final tranche, and presumably his largest, so perhaps not all his mistakes. He was a great trader you say. Can you list just half-a-dozen of his ‘best market advice’ and ‘mistakes he made’? And more importantly in my view, can you go further and define just one bit of advice he didn’t give, but should have, and one mistake he made, but never mentioned? If you’re that avid a fan, this should be easy for you.

I'm talking about success at your field, unless you really think that whether Cobain was a good musician or Livermore a great trader should definitively decide whether or not they were 'successes'.

Your argument seems to be 'olol they're dead so they are failures'. Failure at life, maybe; at music and trading? I think not. To assume that he was a s hit trader cuz he shot himself is downright stupid. Ever heard of false logic?

You’ve misunderstood. It’s not the fact that they killed themselves that makes them bad trader or bad musician, but that they allowed other negative factors to impact the areas where they were skilled. You can’t (as Rossini attempted) contextualise bits you don’t like away. If you could, the successful trader Livermore would have died in peaceful, mega-wealthy old age having accrued the largest trading pot ever while his alter-ego, on relatively diminished income, capital (and presumably responsibility) would have shot himself in the head.

Unfortunately they were one and the same person and they rather cancelled each other out.

 

[TheBramble]

OK. Too much time spent already on this thread. In response to OPs question I'll add my favourite JL quote.

"Based on my trading career, I've got a 5 in 6 chance of making it..."

 

[Rossini]

I think we are going off on a tangent here. I think JL was hugely skilful. You do not, believe what you like but I will not change my view.


''Are you really saying you can be incredibly skilled in just one of the disciplines needed for consistently profitable trading and that in and of itself makes you an incredibly skilled and successful trader? If you are, then you and Livermore and rawrschach are all in good company. Stay away from gun shops and women with a track record of inducing a desire for suicide.''

No, as above, i'm saying that trading skill is a different skill set to money management. I am not saying that you don't need both for long term success.

To put it another way.



Lets say that trader A is a competent trader with a slightly above average ability. He finishes trading and retires with 10m. He has had a good life and is well balanced. Trader B had accumulated 1 trillion during his carrier yet because of factors not relating to trading (depression etc.) retires on a state pension. Who is the most skilled trader? I can't think of any argument that would favour trader A.

 

[TheBramble]

Lets say that trader A is a competent trader with a slightly above average ability. He finishes trading and retires with 10m. He has had a good life and is well balanced. Trader B had accumulated 1 trillion during his carrier yet because of factors not relating to trading (depression etc.) retires on a state pension. Who is the most skilled trader? I can't think of any argument that would favour trader A.

LOL! You are kidding, right?

 

[mrsoul]

I think we are going off on a tangent here. I think JL was hugely skilful. You do not, believe what you like but I will not change my view.


''Are you really saying you can be incredibly skilled in just one of the disciplines needed for consistently profitable trading and that in and of itself makes you an incredibly skilled and successful trader? If you are, then you and Livermore and rawrschach are all in good company. Stay away from gun shops and women with a track record of inducing a desire for suicide.''

ay that trader A is a competent trader with a slightly above average ability. He finishes trading and retires with 10m. He has had a good life and is well balanced. Trader B had accumulated 1 trillion during his carrier yet because of factors not relating to trading (depression etc.) retires on a state pension. Who is the most skilled trader? I can't think of any argument that would favour trader A.

I think this is the bottom line with Livermore and his millions:
I agree 100% with Rossini.
There are 2 different skill sets involved here:
1) Making Money
2)Keeping it

Clearly, Livermore was one of the best EVER at MAKING money.
Has anyone ever heard of a trader, dead or alive, who has turned thousands into millions a number of times?
This is an UNHEARD of feat.
Staistically, it is IMPOSSIBLE that luck played a role in his winning!

However, and I think this is what has Brambles ire, Livermore was nowhere near as good at keeping money as he was at makng it.

Livermore was, unfortunately, taken by the trading demon way too many times.
Simply put, he went on "tilt" way too often (I posted a thread on "going on tilt"- it is especially relevant here).

Livermore, unfortunately, couldn't handle the psychological trading demons, which often times take over a trader when they make a series of, avoidable, bad plays.
He crumbled emotionally, and his money management went out the window- this was his undong.

Psychologically as a trader, Livermore was a rank amateur.

One thing I have really learned from this thread is how important it is to remain off tilt-
If Livermore could have done that, he would have owned the world.

The psychological challenge of trading is relly half the game.

Livermore's lessons, in Reminisciences, are invaluable if you want to take your game to the next level.

Good Luck All

 

[Technically Fundamental]

IMO trading ability and psychological problems are not mutually exclusive traits. Just look at the behaviour patterns of most successful traders. Self destructive is an understatement.

Livermore was undoubtedly a brilliant trader. The numbers speak for themselves on that point. Alas, he was also a nutjob. Hence his losing the millions and climactic last meal of snub nose a lá tete.

This thread is quite pointless as history has already decided judged his case.

 

[TheBramble]

I think this is the bottom line with Livermore and his millions:
I agree 100% with Rossini.
There are 2 different skill sets involved here:
1) Making Money
2)Keeping it

Clearly, Livermore was one of the best EVER at MAKING money.
Has anyone ever heard of a trader, dead or alive, who has turned thousands into millions a number of times?
This is an UNHEARD of feat.
Staistically, it is IMPOSSIBLE that luck played a role in his winning!

However, and I think this is what has Brambles ire, Livermore was nowhere near as good at keeping money as he was at makng it.

Livermore was, unfortunately, taken by the trading demon way too many times.
Simply put, he went on "tilt" way too often (I posted a thread on "going on tilt"- it is especially relevant here).

Livermore, unfortunately, couldn't handle the psychological trading demons, which often times take over a trader when they make a series of, avoidable, bad plays.
He crumbled emotionally, and his money management went out the window- this was his undong.

Psychologically as a trader, Livermore was a rank amateur.

One thing I have really learned from this thread is how important it is to remain off tilt-
If Livermore could have done that, he would have owned the world.

The psychological challenge of trading is relly half the game.

Livermore's lessons, in Reminisciences, are invaluable if you want to take your game to the next level.

Good Luck All

Sums it up neatly.

 

[Rossini]

Something we agree on!! ;-)

 

[Technically Fundamental]

I think he had excellent money management skills. He must have had to make the millions.