Does the Market Respond to Karma?

[higherSelfishness]

Well if he think it's happening then it's happening. The reality needn't interfere with what's in the mind. We can all be billionaires this minute, if we just use our imagination. Close your eye's and apply your mind.

I know where the OP is coming from and where he's going. Like I said, I have my own things to do than try to join his journey or wake him up.

I can tell I'm hitting home with you, Joe. Accept responsibility.

Tell me, what would you do be doing RIGHT NOW if you were nice and successful on the MKTS? (No snide answer, like "watching my next trade win.")

. . . Then, DO IT.

BE that you ARE successful (how can you have any beef with that?) Changes abound.

 

[higherSelfishness]

But what is the evidence corroborating your 'karma' moving the markets?

Sorry for delay - my car was stolen yesterday, so that kept me pretty busy with probably a couple dozen phone calls. (Yes, very ironic that we're discussing karma here and my car gets stolen, but I've already had some good things come of it.)

Anyways, Shakone, the evidence, albeit anecdotal, is very clear (at least to me.)

Stipulations (and chronology) are as follows:

1) The system is mechanical. There is no ambiguity.

2) My behavior did not reflect that of a winner - again, I was doing the things I knew I probably shouldn't be doing - overindulgence, procrastinating, justifying laziness, sleeping until 12 etc . . .

3) System tests worked, system live failed.

4) "Integrated" that nothing was changing because I, in fact, was not changing.

5) Began behaving like a successful individual and began doing the things I had always told myself (and others) I would do "if I were rich."

6) System tests worked, system live . . . worked.

In my experience, my behavior was the common denominator. Don't get me wrong, I'm not perfect (even humans "retrace"), but there remains an uncanny correlation between my behavior and MY system's performance (notice, I'm not saying, my behavior and the MKT.) I do not have a high enough perspective to claim to you now it IS IN FACT THE CAUSE, but I can tell you they are very closely related - and after applying my own intellectual analysis, I have concluded FOR MYSELF, (not for you) that "Karma" (no, not "giving to charity" so the "market will give back" - that's not Karma, that's baseless rubbish - it is simply how honest you are being with yourself), indeed, has a lot to do with how you fare on the MKT. You decide for yourselves.

SO - The ONLY question left here and now is - Am I completely full of it or not? Am I making this up? My personal experiences would ring very relevant to other people, "If only they knew I was telling the truth." It is a shame that the world is full of liars and my declaration here to you holds less bearing. Inasmuch, even if all of this is loads of crap, there is nothing - NOTHING - I have suggested, of which if you took heed, that would bring you any harm whatsoever . . . in fact, you WILL be met with reward.

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

SO - The ONLY question left here and now is - Am I completely full of it or not? Am I making this up? My personal experiences would ring very relevant to other people, "If only they knew I was telling the truth." It is a shame that the world is full of liars and my declaration here to you holds less bearing. Inasmuch, even if all of this is loads of crap, there is nothing - NOTHING - I have suggested, of which if you took heed, that would bring you any harm whatsoever . . . in fact, you WILL be met with reward.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/trading-psychology/151908-winners-win-discuss.html

 

[forexkunta]

But just think about it, Joe, c'mon man . . . You won't be successful unless you actually believe, thick and through, that you DESERVE to be successful - and it all starts with behaving "successfully." The more you believe you deserve it (which you do), the easier it is to have confidence and poise in your trading decisions. There is less fog. Less baggage. Less believing there's nothing you can do because some bully is always gonna take your money.

WOW! I hate to tell you this, but the ideas that you are trying to convey are very old techniques used in this industry and the insurance industry for many, many years.

"Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill is one of many on the subject, and it was published in 1937. I have attached a copy of it for your reading pleasure. There are many more on this subject available.

The other thing is the fact that live trading is completely different, emotionally, than demo trading. Experience in the live trading markets cannot be gained by demo trading. When you pull that trigger in the live markets, does your heart start beating fast and your palms get sweaty? If that is indeed the case, then your real education in trading is just beginning. You have several years of losses to go before you start winning. This has been my experience, not to be confused with anyone else's experience.

 

[Trader333]

The market operates on a simple formula: on aggregate, sell high, buy low. A counter-strategy to that isn't possible, or at best unreliable.

One of the most effective strategies is counter intuitive to this and that is:

Buy high sell even higher
Sell low buy back even lower

Most people cannot do it because they have been taught exactly what you are saying above and yet it is highly effective if used correctly.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

One of the most effective strategies is counter intuitive to this and that is:

Buy high sell even higher
Sell low buy back even lower

Most people cannot do it because they have been taught exactly what you are saying above and yet it is highly effective if used correctly.

Most people are not taught. They naturally buy high and get trapped high. Once taught an expensive lesson by the market, they proceed to pick the bottoms, resulting in no better fate.

But the point in my earlier post was that the more capable counterparty to a retail gambler always sell high and buy low. For the gambler to beat his counterparty is not possible majority of the time regardless of what strategy the gambler uses, because the counterparty would not deviate from their simple strategy.

 

[Trader333]

But the point in my earlier post was that the more capable counterparty to a retail gambler always sell high and buy low

That depends entirely on what phase a market is in as it is not possible to use the same strategy for all market conditions. It is those that stick to the same approach when a market has changed that causes ongoing losses.

 

[BeginnerJoe]

That depends entirely on what phase a market is in as it is not possible to use the same strategy for all market conditions. It is those that stick to the same approach when a market has changed that causes ongoing losses.

My market view is best illustrated with a simple scenario.

The game:
Making monies

Players:
BeginnerJoe - large institution professional counterparty
Trader333 - Retail gambler number 1
GamblerX - Retail gambler number 2

Game begins:

1. Price at 100
2. Trader333: buy 100, stop 98
3. BeginnerJoe: sell 100, start moving price to 98 and make 2 lovely point of guaranteed profit.
4. Price at 99
5. GamblerX: Sell 99, stop 105
6. BeginnerJoe: Buy 99, continuing price move to 98
7. Price at 98
8. Trader333 knocked out, BeginerJoe up 2 points of lovely profit
9. BeginnerJoe: move price to 105 for 6 points of lovely guaranteed profit
10. Price at 103
11. GamblerX: panic sell at 103
12. BeginnerJoe up 2 + 4 = 6 points of profits
13: The gamblers are loose, the counterparty is win

Of course this is just a simple example. In real life things are more complex and at a faster pace. But the precise direction BeginnerJoe will move the price and by how much is determined using a super computer calculating the net effect of all the currently open bets. In other words, BeginnerJoe will always win no matter which way the gamblers bet using whatever strategy. There will be times when a gambler or 2 will win when their bets happen to align with BeginnerJoe's price move, while BeginnerJoe is chasing someone else's stop. But that would be more luck than anything else, although it would look like their strategies have succeeded.

 

[random12345]

That depends entirely on what phase a market is in as it is not possible to use the same strategy for all market conditions. It is those that stick to the same approach when a market has changed that causes ongoing losses.

Trader, what are your views in market phases shifting visibly to heavy testing? I tend to backtest and walk forward my automated systems every two weeks in respect of 5 year information and make minor changes when the optimum has shifted (for example the parameters right now favour, mathematically, longs in the EURJPY and this is returning thanks to the recent action). As the PA flattens out on that pair, you would expect to see the SE (short entry rules) coming back into equilibrium. Such an approach has yet to fail me in any significant way.

My systems don't think much of karma or anything else for that matter.

 

[random12345]

My market view is best illustrated with a simple scenario.

The game:
Making monies

Players:
BeginnerJoe - large institution professional counterparty
Trader333 - Retail gambler number 1
GamblerX - Retail gambler number 2

Game begins:

1. Price at 100
2. Trader333: buy 100, stop 98
3. BeginnerJoe: sell 100, start moving price to 98 and make 2 lovely point of guaranteed profit.
4. Price at 99
5. GamblerX: Sell 99, stop 105
6. BeginnerJoe: Buy 99, continuing price move to 98
7. Price at 98
8. Trader333 knocked out, BeginerJoe up 2 points of lovely profit
9. BeginnerJoe: move price to 105 for 6 points of lovely guaranteed profit
10. Price at 103
11. GamblerX: panic sell at 103
12. BeginnerJoe up 2 + 4 = 6 points of profits
13: The gamblers are loose, the counterparty is win

Of course this is just a simple example. In real life things are more complex and at a faster pace. But the precise direction BeginnerJoe will move the price and by how much is determined using a super computer calculating the net effect of all the currently open bets. In other words, BeginnerJoe will always win no matter which way the gamblers bet using whatever strategy. There will be times when a gambler or 2 will win when their bets happen to align with BeginnerJoe's price move, while BeginnerJoe is chasing someone else's stop. But that would be more luck than anything else, although it would look like their strategies have succeeded.

I know this was a basic example as you say, but you make it sound so easy for a bank. The institution are not up 6 pts of profit in this example if you're claiming they moved or assisted moving the market to generate those 6 pts (as you are). They are only up 6 pts on the neutral cts they dealt before moving the market as they're buying back at 98 to fill a lot of their own previous offers and vice versa, which is a neutral move. It is not so simple as moving the market = money else banks would never have drawdowns or reductions in profits. Again, see their quarterlies.

And when you start moving the market... you start to run into people just as big as you are who disagree with you. That does not = win win win. Bruno.

 

[tp247]

Karma!
Karma means action. If you follow right actions(trade with a plan/risk mm/discipline) you get results(win/$). If you donot follow(no trading plan/no risk mm/ no discipline), you are bound to fail (which is the result of your improper action).

 

[BeginnerJoe]

They are only up 6 pts on the neutral cts they dealt before moving the market

Any profit is good profit. My research indicates they will go for profits as small as 0.0001 pence. Essentially anything above 0 is interesting to them. So it's logical to conclude moving prices is essentially a cost free exercise for them.

And when you start moving the market... you start to run into people just as big as you are who disagree with you.

They are unlikely to fight when they can get tons of guaranteed profit from gambler joes. In any case, each instrument is probably specialised by a single bank/company. Therefore, there is no competition or conflict of interest. If another bank disagrees with the specialist bank, the other bank will be subject to the same games the gambler joes suffer.

Moving prices by the asset inventory holder (aka the instrument specialist) is extremely easy and close to 100% profitable. This is why 90% of the retail joes plus a significant number of professionals loose, yet a lot of them don't know who is taking their money and think their own psychology is responsible for their misfortune.

 

[Shakone]

Any profit is good profit. My research indicates they will go for profits as small as 0.0001 pence. Essentially anything above 0 is interesting to them. So it's logical to conclude moving prices is essentially a cost free exercise for them.




They are unlikely to fight when they can get tons of guaranteed profit from gambler joes. In any case, each instrument is probably specialised by a single bank/company. Therefore, there is no competition or conflict of interest. If another bank disagrees with the specialist bank, the other bank will be subject to the same games the gambler joes suffer.

Moving prices by the asset inventory holder (aka the instrument specialist) is extremely easy and close to 100% profitable. This is why 90% of the retail joes plus a significant number of professionals loose, yet a lot of them don't know who is taking their money and think their own psychology is responsible for their misfortune.

I think that despite the hyperbole associated with banks trying to take down bets of 1 pence and rigging the game against you and so on, that amongst your posts there is one thing that is very true and useful about the nature of the market.

 

[Trader333]

The market is not made up of one trader vs institutional banks and your example would only work in that scenario. It does not factor in longer term trading where it is impossible to manipulate a market. It also does not account for basket trading where an institution would have to move against multiple positions at the same time against one individual. The simplified view given does not reflect reality and if it were that simple then why do many institutions make less than they could with a buy and hold approach investing in blue chip stocks ?

 

[Pat494]

OK I have read the entire thread. So.................

Interesting points made by OP, BJ and others.

Have you ever read the Rockefeller story ? No ? Well throughout his huge fortune making career he always gave 10% to his local church.

Think on it guys before reaching for your blasting irons

 

[Pat494]

This thread has some relevence imho http://www.trade2win.com/boards/usercp.php

Members are making their best guess as to what the S&P 500 cash will be next friday's close. So what you might say. Well I introduced a weighting system of those predictions and Atilla kindly called it the Pat Index. The reason I mention it here is that it has been spectacularly successful. Karma ? well not really. A bit of a Bayes affect maybe.

 

[Lax_Van_Dumb]

The only Karma type laws I am aware of are:
IF YOU WANT TO THINK WHAT THE MARKET WILL DO THEN YOU WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG.
IF YOU RISK MORE THAN YOU STAND TO GAIN THEN YOU WILL BE CRUSHED
IF YOU ARE AN AIR HEADED BIMBOLIC FEMALE PLEASE TELL US YOUR STRATEGY SO WE CAN TAKE THE OTHER SIDE OR YOUR TRADES.

 

[higherSelfishness]

WOW! I hate to tell you this, but the ideas that you are trying to convey are very old techniques used in this industry and the insurance industry for many, many years.

I have read the book and many more like it. Very kind of you to attach it for us. I very much like it, and other similar works - though on their most fundamental level, they are a romantization of cause and effect.

I am designating my own anecdotal evidence that I may adduce some very curious properties of the market and reality, which have all but eschewed scrutiny. That is to say, that the effect is not always preceded by what you may conclude is the most "rational" cause.

I am citing, and addressing what most traders - namely those having a difficult time - would never deem to salute in troubleshooting their endeavors. Notwithstanding, this is an idea most traders, successful and unsuccessful alike, would scoff at, and the idea has slipped through my reparations and declarations throughout this discussion:

There is a metaphysical aspect at play, adjoined quite intimately - actually, inextricably - with the laws of macro- and quantum-physics.

Many, who have applied the intellectual assessment necessary when encountering "extraordinary" claims, will find this to be one of the ultimate "Trade Secrets." Your behavior off the market is equally, if not more important, than your system. Virtue = Success.

 

[Shakone]

I have read the book and many more like it. Very kind of you to attach it for us. I very much like it, and other similar works - though on their most fundamental level, they are a romantization of cause and effect.

I am designating my own anecdotal evidence that I may adduce some very curious properties of the market and reality, which have all but eschewed scrutiny. That is to say, that the effect is not always preceded by what you may conclude is the most "rational" cause.

I am citing, and addressing what most traders - namely those having a difficult time - would never deem to salute in troubleshooting their endeavors. Notwithstanding, this is an idea most traders, successful and unsuccessful alike, would scoff at, and the idea has slipped through my reparations and declarations throughout this discussion:

There is a metaphysical aspect at play, adjoined quite intimately - actually, inextricably - with the laws of macro- and quantum-physics.

Many, who have applied the intellectual assessment necessary when encountering "extraordinary" claims, will find this to be one of the ultimate "Trade Secrets." Your behavior off the market is equally, if not more important, than your system. Virtue = Success.

I don't think many would doubt that behaviour away from the markets is important. For example it is not a good idea to have substance abuse problems or have destructive people around you. It's important to get a good nights sleep most of the time, to eat healthily, to exercise etc. There are good reasons for these, it's nothing new. And that would apply to most skills, not just trading.

Your experiences are your own, and nobody can take that from you, and you're entitled to believe what you do or want. As I said, if it's helpful, even better. But you did at the beginning mention honesty with yourself. This seems to be in conflict with your most recent statements, for example when you start suggesting metaphysics and discussing physics and quantum physics, you're on shakey ground. The latter isn't about your experience. The latter requires experimental evidence, not personal experience, and you don't have that.

I'm not sure I agree with your understanding of quantum physics, and how things are affected by observation. For example this:

"This reminds me very much of the "double-slit experiment" famous in quantum mechanics. When you're testing the system, you see it as a wave of probability, and it is only a probability because your "test" does not account for one thing - YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY DOING IT. "

seems to me at least to be a misunderstanding.

 

[scose-no-doubt]

tldr

dunno why 333 bothers