Why do so few succeed?

[charliechan]

Tunnel, I'm not arguing with anybody, either you or Douglas. But I'm talking about a book, not a passage.

Try to focus here. You do not have a consistently profitable system or strategy or plan or whatever one wants to call it. Therefore, if you're unsuccessful with it, all the self-examination in the world isn't going to improve your results if you do not also change your strategy.

If this makes no sense to you now, then perhaps it will make sense before you go bankrupt.

but here in my dear friend lies the problem. often, it is not the system that is broken, but the operator. therein lies the answer to this rather lengthy thread!

self examination could well reveal why one isnt able to follow a-b-c.

a good trader with a poor plan will make more money than a poor trader with a great plan ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!!



if one could earn £100000000 a year flipping burgers, i almost guarantee that flipping burgers would be perceived as the most difficult career choice one could make! we would all be arguing here over whether rare, or well done is the correct way to cook a burger, and of course the choice of relish would be a nightmare! dont get me started on the pickles please. how many people here would have lost a fortune by dropping burgers from the fridge to the hot plate as their nerves get the better of them while thinking of all that filthy lucre they are about o make or lose?

 

[scotty_dog]

Dear Sheffield,

thank you very much indeed. It is very kind and considerate of you to offer.

But it is best if you operate your system and get all the benefits for yourself.

I am not as fortunate as you to have so many gadgets.

All I know, is how to press buttons and make showers of points every time, and, although it is embarrasing as I feel others ought to have a chance as well, I don't want to change what I have, lest I become contaminated with mainstream ideas, and become like everybody else.

Merit, Ability and Conduct is for the few, only for the very few, who can resist all the temptations that lead to being ordinary.

KInd Regards.

Merit, Ability and Conduct for the few?
Against whose criteria?
Do you know much about moral philosophy, Socrates?

Is the nature of this thread why most people fail as traders?
Ego over Observation?

 

[SOCRATES]

I used to think that there was something fishy going on in the various markets. How could I be so close, so "unlucky" so often, very nearly on the edge of a regular profit, but never quite being given enough to survive, yet still the carrot that was dangled before oneself hypnotised me into maintaining market participation. Now I'am absolutely certain there's something fishy going on! There's so many aspect's to consider along the road to achieving market resonation that I cannot bear to think about them all. Well I can actually, its who I am now, know the drill boys ?

Now you really ought not to say these things to people because it will only frighten them or put them off.

Up till now I have been completely mistaken.

All of it is very easy, and anyone, absolutely anyone, is welcome.:cheesy:

 

[dbphoenix]

but here in my dear friend lies the problem. often, it is not the system that is broken, but the operator. therein lies the answer to this rather lengthy thread!

self examination could well reveal why one isnt able to follow a-b-c.

a good trader with a poor plan will make more money than a poor trader with a great plan ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!!!!!

We're not talking about the general and the theoretical and the philosophical. We're talking about a particular individual who is neither a "good" trader nor trades a "good" system. The only "self-examination" called for in this case is to determine the reasons for the reluctance to develop a consistently profitable system.

 

[SOCRATES]

Merit, Ability and Conduct for the few?
Against whose criteria?
Do you know much about moral philosophy, Socrates?

Is the nature of this thread why most people fail as traders?
Ego over Observation?

No, because to quote consensus.com..".the many are smarter than the few."

Have a look at the advert on the Homepage, and have a good look at their faces....
see what you can glean from that idea.

 

[TheBramble]

tunnel1x1,

I’m not questioning Bramble’s intentions to help you, but advising you to “throw away your system and take on another one” may be shortsighted advice – unless he knows things about you and the system that all the rest of us don’t.

ZDO - I know nothing about tunnel or his system. And my advice might be shortsighted. But only hindsight (short or otherwise) will confirm or negate that piece of advice. Hindsight requires time, and I don't know that tunnel has that time with his current trading performance.

You don't need to be able to see into the future too far to understand why I was suggesting tunnel consider the option of ditching his current methods. Any system where "the majority of trades are losers" and the loss per losing trade is 2-3% isn't going to work. The math is against it.

Such advice could be likened to “tunnel, take off your pants and put my bramble pants on”.

Don't know where you're going with that one ZDO, but I like the sound of it. Especially as I go commando...

 

[tunnel1x1]

Tunnel, I'm not arguing with anybody, either you or Douglas. But I'm talking about a book, not a passage.

Try to focus here. You do not have a consistently profitable system or strategy or plan or whatever one wants to call it. Therefore, if you're unsuccessful with it, all the self-examination in the world isn't going to improve your results if you do not also change your strategy.

If this makes no sense to you now, then perhaps it will make sense before you go bankrupt.

DB - I understand what you are saying. Trading a losing system with all the discipline in the world is not going to make it a profitable system. Therefore, do not keep beating your head against the wall trading that system. Modify it or get another. If it's a mechanical system that does not require discretion, then follow it to the letter and if it's profitable, you will be a winner.

However, there are many very successful traders who follow a "methodology" that requires discretion about entry and exit. For those types of traders, psychology and mind set are important. Correct? Therefore, if one is trading a methodology that uses discretion, the lack of profitability may not be attributable to the methodology, but to the mind exercising the discretion to enter/exit at the wrong times. That same methodology may be wonderful, sound and very profitable in the hands of one who has overcome the psychological barriers. Thus, it is not the methodology that should be worked on in that case, but the mind.

 

[tunnel1x1]

ZDO - I know nothing about tunnel or his system. And my advice might be shortsighted. But only hindsight (short or otherwise) will confirm or negate that piece of advice. Hindsight requires time, and I don't know that tunnel has that time with his current trading performance.

You don't need to be able to see into the future too far to understand why I was suggesting tunnel consider the option of ditching his current methods. Any system where "the majority of trades are losers" and the loss per losing trade is 2-3% isn't going to work. The math is against it.

Don't know where you're going with that one ZDO, but I like the sound of it. Especially as I go commando...

Bramble,

I'll give you a concrete example. A couple years ago, I was trading a discretionary methodology. Initially, I was consistently losing with it. However, I stayed with it, turned the corner, and in a period of 4 months, increased my account by 100%. Shortly thereafter, trading the same methodology, I began losing consistently and eventually lost all my gains. Now, given that the methodology increased my account by 100%, I don't think it could be argued that it was crap. But, I started losing and eventually quit using that methodology. Wouldn't you say that the problem was emotional/psychological as opposed to the system being junk?

Jack Schwager relates the same experience. He several times ran a very small account up to $100,000 but could never get it beyond that amount and eventually gave a lot of it back. Again, wouldn't you say the problem was not with the method but with the mind behind the method?

 

[SOCRATES]

Agreed.

That is why it is not a good idea to read too many books on the subject.

I will never forget a comic I read as a child, and the subsequent experience that I had.

In it was a cartoon illustrating a fictional conversation being held between an alligator and a tortoise.

The tortoise said to the alligator..."My mother says...if it's in a book...it's true".

I was only 7 or 8 at the time, and the idea gave me serious conceptual problems. It took me months to work out the absolute truth.

The same can apply to people who persist in reading silly books about the market. It is so easy for them to take a wrong turning, and to stay there for a very long time indeed.

 

[dbphoenix]

DB - I understand what you are saying. Trading a losing system with all the discipline in the world is not going to make it a profitable system. Therefore, do not keep beating your head against the wall trading that system. Modify it or get another. If it's a mechanical system that does not require discretion, then follow it to the letter and if it's profitable, you will be a winner.

However, there are many very successful traders who follow a "methodology" that requires discretion about entry and exit. For those types of traders, psychology and mind set are important. Correct? Therefore, if one is trading a methodology that uses discretion, the lack of profitability may not be attributable to the methodology, but to the mind exercising the discretion to enter/exit at the wrong times. That same methodology may be wonderful, sound and very profitable in the hands of one who has overcome the psychological barriers. Thus, it is not the methodology that should be worked on in that case, but the mind.

I suggest you have a fundamental misunderstanding of "discretionary" trading.

Be that as it may, if you're convinced that your methodology is sound, even though you really don't have a methodology, and that the reason why your entries are so poor is that you have some sort of psychological difficulty, then I hope you discover what that difficulty is.

All told, however, this little arc has been an object lesson with regard to the subject of the thread.

 

[Charlton]

People don't like having their lives made difficult, they want their lives made easier.

As a consequence of this realisation, I am now beginning to see the merit myself in not persisting with unpopular ideas.

They create a lot of controversy and don't change the status quo one iota.

Socrates
I thought some of your recent posts were rather "relaxed". You are right most do not want difficult lives, but this is a failure of perception of reality. One can lie in bed all day - that's easy, but what does it achieve ? Only when the barrier of overcoming obstacles has been passed can the easier life begin.

There is of course merit in not persisting with unpopular ideas - a peaceful life, but I somehow think that this is your calm before the storm.

The market is "controversial" - it's them and us, that's the long and short of it.

The status quo as a mass of people may not change, but individuals will.

Charlton

 

[dbphoenix]

I'll give you a concrete example. A couple years ago, I was trading a discretionary methodology. Initially, I was consistently losing with it. However, I stayed with it, turned the corner, and in a period of 4 months, increased my account by 100%. Shortly thereafter, trading the same methodology, I began losing consistently and eventually lost all my gains. Now, given that the methodology increased my account by 100%, I don't think it could be argued that it was crap. But, I started losing and eventually quit using that methodology. Wouldn't you say that the problem was emotional/psychological as opposed to the system being junk?

If you traded the system, then, yes, it was junk across the timeframe you were trading it. If whatever you were trading went through several transitions during the time you traded it, then your system may or may not have had value depending on whatever phase your trading vehicle and/or the market was in at the time.

Discretionary trading is not trading what seems like a good idea and hoping for the best. That you've been at it for several years and still haven't nailed it suggests that you consider being a bit more "rigorous" in your approach.

 

[Charlton]

Now you really ought not to say these things to people because it will only frighten them or put them off.

Up till now I have been completely mistaken.

All of it is very easy, and anyone, absolutely anyone, is welcome.:cheesy:

Several more posts on I feel an overwhelming sense of irony descending

Charlton

 

[SOCRATES]

Socrates
I thought some of your recent posts were rather "relaxed". You are right most do not want difficult lives, but this is a failure of perception of reality. One can lie in bed all day - that's easy, but what does it achieve ? Only when the barrier of overcoming obstacles has been passed can the easier life begin.

There is of course merit in not persisting with unpopular ideas - a peaceful life, but I somehow think that this is your calm before the storm.

The market is "controversial" - it's them and us, that's the long and short of it.

The status quo as a mass of people may not change, but individuals will.

Charlton

How perceptive of you. You are right.

It is the eye of the hurricane, dead flat calm it is in here.

I might even get to like it.:idea:

 

[dbphoenix]

Nothing like threads in stereo

 

[RUDEBOY]

Tunnel, DB is right. Look, kid, what exactly do you need to know? You seem very helpless and lost. Tell me, Tunnel. Do you have to pay for a system?

 

[Charlton]

How discretionary is discretionary ?

I'll give you a concrete example. A couple years ago, I was trading a discretionary methodology.

. Wouldn't you say that the problem was emotional/psychological as opposed to the system being junk? ?

tunnel
I agree that the mind aspects are a significant part of the problem. However it can be other factors as well. It depends on your definition of a discretionary methodology.

A discretionary system contains elements of the mechanical. Granted there is no automatic "beep", no automated trade, but the same rules that may have been built into a purely mechanical system have been internalised within your thought patterns, such that some aspect of the methodology is not purely psychological but more logical. The problem is that the logical underpinning may have altered - the market may have altered, even though your emotional and pscyholical state has not.

It is difficult to see how one can banish the logic altogether resorting to pure randomness and, then, the emotional and psychological would have little to play with. It could only say I will continue to play this random game or stop.

Charlton

 

[SOCRATES]

Several more posts on I feel an overwhelming sense of irony descending

Charlton

Well it's true, isn't it ? People don't want to listen to things they don't want to hear do they ?

As they are in command of their own listening, they have the right to listen selectively regardless of what it is they are told or they hear, don't they ?

If they are told what it is they have to listen to, they don't like it do they ?

It is better if they are told what they want to hear and what it is they are predisposed to listen to, it is much more amenable is it not, and constitutes considerably less effort, does it not ?

And not forgetting the blessings of peace and harmony and agreement.....

Well then, as the majority are smarter than the few,
from now on, that is that can be offered in the menu........:cheesy:

Now.....how do you view ?

 

[dbphoenix]

Several more posts on I feel an overwhelming sense of irony descending

Charlton

Actually, that would be imperiousness, fringed perhaps with disdain. Given Bertie's delivery, it can be confused with irony. The sense that it's overwhelming and descending, like molasses, provide a clue to its true character.

 

[tunnel1x1]

If you traded the system, then, yes, it was junk across the timeframe you were trading it. If whatever you were trading went through several transitions during the time you traded it, then your system may or may not have had value depending on whatever phase your trading vehicle and/or the market was in at the time.

Discretionary trading is not trading what seems like a good idea and hoping for the best. That you've been at it for several years and still haven't nailed it suggests that you consider being a bit more "rigorous" in your approach.

Point taken. I could stand to be more rigorous in my approach.