the blades
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,336
- Likes
- 275
SOCRATES said:
I couldn't agree more. But judging by my "success", there are some very unfit people out there.
UTB
Very interesting posts so far. I thank all of you for posting! I'll go search around the boards/site(s) more in depth on this topic.
I don't fully understand. If it was all survival of the fittest, then how is it possible that small size traders can make money? Wouldn't it be the ones with the millions to use, and all the equipment, that get everything? Besides the odd 'one in a million' talent that doesn't have much to start with. I guess it goes back to that question that another presented in response to your comment... about 'what determines 'fittest'? '.
SOCRATES said:
I don't fully understand. If it was all survival of the fittest, then how is it possible that small size traders can make money? Wouldn't it be the ones with the millions to use, and all the equipment, that get everything? Besides the odd 'one in a million' talent that doesn't have much to start with. I guess it goes back to that question that another presented in response to your comment... about 'what determines 'fittest'? '.
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Millano said:
Actually, the ones with the millions and the equipment and the blah blah can blow up just as easily as the trader who's at his kitchen table in his pajamas.
Many people view trading as a war and the markets as a battlefield. If you like. But the "small" trader can make a very nice living simply by perceiving the flow and entering it, then exiting it at some usually predetermined point, like Nemo with the East Australian Current. (This approach is also far easier on the nerves.) In this scenario, "fittest" is, in part, he who is the most sensitive to what traders are doing, regardless of the "weapons" they are using.
Of course, if you want "everything", then you probably have issues that will interfere with your reaching your goal.
fxmarkets
Established member
- Messages
- 834
- Likes
- 50
Charlton said:
yes, see your point, I'm generalising here en masse, individuation late 20's 30's onwards , what % of people even begin to question any aspect in great detail ? chronologically maybe this time of life is best or most likely for this to happen, due to life expsoure/experience. In short ,people may be more enquiring at this time in their life, due to exposure to natural life events., yet also maybe at this time they are also very well conditioned by the same.(time exposure) conflicts? raised eyebrows.. ( awareness if your lucky?)
character.......? sure its a quality in there maybe... is that nature/nurture though? If we push a button that says "on" then..... ?
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
fxmarkets said:
Yes....yes....you are approaching it questioningly......tentatively...... but you are on target, I will comment. That is why there is a sort of self selection mechanism at work here, only that it is so subliminal that for the individual it is difficult to spot, unless he is willing and able to ruthlessly self reflect deeply.
Conduct is also very relevant in this regard.
Wrong conduct = failure, guaranteed.
charliechan
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,008
- Likes
- 119
i would say that most newbies fail because they spend too much time reading dross on chat boards and silly books rather than doing the right exercises to get in shape (fitness.....)
dbp - 10/10 for not mentioning the old 'having a plan'. i cant believe you let this opportunity go!!!!
if i were to give 1 reason/word for why people succeed, it would be.....
discipline.
dbp - 10/10 for not mentioning the old 'having a plan'. i cant believe you let this opportunity go!!!!
if i were to give 1 reason/word for why people succeed, it would be.....
discipline.
charliechan
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,008
- Likes
- 119
...anyway, why is everyone focusing on whay people fail?
winners are only interested in winning, and how to. so everyones thought process is the reverse of what it should be. have the discipline to see the world upsidedown. hard, but you will get there eventually and realise up means down and down up.
winners are only interested in winning, and how to. so everyones thought process is the reverse of what it should be. have the discipline to see the world upsidedown. hard, but you will get there eventually and realise up means down and down up.
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
You don't have to take my word for it.fxmarkets said:
You only have to observe individuals trying to force their way along according to their "opinions" that they persist in clinging to, despite all the evidence presented to them to the contrary, and to see how they succeed in ultimately frying themselves.
The worst part is that they succeed in preventing anyone saving them from themselves.
Wrong conduct is a like a frying pan. once fried, no unfrying is possible, sadly.
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Yes, that's right.Finlayson said:
This brings the agenda to the topic of Merit.
What is Merit ?
And those who know everything there is to know in order to be the Gladiator who survives and finally wins his freedom, why should they share it with everybody ?
Does everybody have an automatic right to this freedom ? Why so ?
What do you need to be, how do you need to behave, in order to be entitled to earn the right to it ?
That is where Merit comes in.
SOCRATES
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,966
- Likes
- 136
Yes, Contrakt, quite correct.contrakt said:
And so far we have only touched on three preliminary requirements only.....
They are Merit , Ability and Conduct.
It is only the very absolute beginning, not anywhere near the end of the beginning, and certainly not the beginning of the end.
dbphoenix
Guest Author
- Messages
- 6,954
- Likes
- 1,266
Millano said:
Very astute, Millano, though it's considerably more than half. A great many traders don't know how to lose. They've never come to terms with the fact of it, much less the inevitability of it. Therefore, they have trouble handling it, or can't handle it at all. And that creates a multitude of problems, from entering too late to exiting too early to betting too much to betting too little, all with at least a low-grade fearfulness permeating everything.
Learning how to lose doesn't make you a loser. It's a critically important step toward becoming a winner.
Bigbusiness
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,408
- Likes
- 23
I think there are a lot of similarities between poker and trading. The ratio of winners to losers is about the same. Unlike trading, it is possible to see the winners and losers in action and work out what they are doing differently.
My observations are that In general, the winners are more selective with their starting hands and are more aggressive than the losers. They also find it easier to fold a hand when they are behind and don't mind throwing away the best hand every now and then. They are prepared to make a stand if a player is trying to push them around. They are good at extracting as much money as possible when they have the best hand and will not lose too much if they have the worst hand. They observe everything that is going on at the table they are playing at and have good concentration. They have a large enough bank roll to see them through the losing streaks that all players experience. They don't play at a level that is too high for their bankroll.
The losing players are less selective with their starting hands, not as aggressive when betting and find it harder to fold their cards when they could be losing. They often do not make as much money as they could when they hold the best hand and lose to much when they hold the worst hand. Sometimes they will not make a stand against an aggressive player when they need to. They do not observe everything that is going on at the table they are playing at and are easily distracted. Some losing players would be winners if they had a large enough bank roll to see them through the losing streaks that all players experience. They might be playing at a level that is too high for their bankroll. They might just not have enough skill to compete with better players.
This is just a general observation and there are some winners who play too many starting hands or are not as aggressive but have enough skill to make a profit.
If this is applied to trading, I think that some losers might be entering a trade when their odds of winning are not as good as they could be. Being more selective might improve things. They might be holding on to too many bad trades in the hope they will come good, rather than letting them go and looking for a better opertunity. There are times when they are not taking trades through fear, when they should be. They might not be able to take as many small loses as they should do. They might not be able to extract as much from winning trades as they should be. They might not have enough money to see through a losing streak. They might not be observing everything that they should be while in a trade and they might be too easily distracted. They might just not have the skills required to make a profit.
My observations are that In general, the winners are more selective with their starting hands and are more aggressive than the losers. They also find it easier to fold a hand when they are behind and don't mind throwing away the best hand every now and then. They are prepared to make a stand if a player is trying to push them around. They are good at extracting as much money as possible when they have the best hand and will not lose too much if they have the worst hand. They observe everything that is going on at the table they are playing at and have good concentration. They have a large enough bank roll to see them through the losing streaks that all players experience. They don't play at a level that is too high for their bankroll.
The losing players are less selective with their starting hands, not as aggressive when betting and find it harder to fold their cards when they could be losing. They often do not make as much money as they could when they hold the best hand and lose to much when they hold the worst hand. Sometimes they will not make a stand against an aggressive player when they need to. They do not observe everything that is going on at the table they are playing at and are easily distracted. Some losing players would be winners if they had a large enough bank roll to see them through the losing streaks that all players experience. They might be playing at a level that is too high for their bankroll. They might just not have enough skill to compete with better players.
This is just a general observation and there are some winners who play too many starting hands or are not as aggressive but have enough skill to make a profit.
If this is applied to trading, I think that some losers might be entering a trade when their odds of winning are not as good as they could be. Being more selective might improve things. They might be holding on to too many bad trades in the hope they will come good, rather than letting them go and looking for a better opertunity. There are times when they are not taking trades through fear, when they should be. They might not be able to take as many small loses as they should do. They might not be able to extract as much from winning trades as they should be. They might not have enough money to see through a losing streak. They might not be observing everything that they should be while in a trade and they might be too easily distracted. They might just not have the skills required to make a profit.
