Having an edge.

[SOCRATES]

For clarity, I think it important to underline that when I talk of an edge, I mean a real edge that goes out into the market, makes a nuisance of itself with other traders and makes you a profit over a period of time, i..e more than once.

What an edge wouldn't be, for instance, is a one-off 3rd party failed options write on a mythical exchange for which no known feed or visibilty exists that merely goes out into the ether and makes a nuisance of itself generally. That wouldn't be an edge in my book. Or more correctly, it IS an edge, but not one you or I would necessarily want.

LondonUSTrader - the permanent edges are there as I mentioned, the good old trends, S&R etc. for sure, but so few remain happy to use them in their classic form. Which is just fine by me. The thing with 'current' edges is that it's unlikely most traders who have them couldgive them away. There's usually a lot of unconsciously unexplicated mechanics involved.

And now is your turn, Bramble, so here goes...

No edge that any battle hardened really experienced trader has can make a nuisance of itself with other traders, but it can cause other traders to make a nuisance of themsleves with regard to it and particularly by their responses as a consequence of emotionally driven reactions.

You now go on to mention options, and mythical exchanges and visibility of datafeeds and so on.

A case in point is my thread "Plain Vanilla", which succeeded in stimulating rage and envy when it ought to have stimulated learning and decorum.

You ought to read again the first five posts and the last five posts on that thread and you will see that I set out to prove a point and I did it.

That thread was plagued by off topic interruption, insults, aggression, and irrelevant comment, to the extent that I got bored to tears with it, closed my positions at a profit and left everyone and anyone willing to argue right there to do so, but without me.

It is an edge, in fact it is a killer edge, that you might want it or not is irrelevant, because to be approved as a writer of naked obligations involves the aquisition of a status to which very few qualify.

As for the edges you mention to follow on...good old trends, S+R etc., these are nonsense at the level I have in mind, really kindergaten stuff, I am sorry to have to tell you....but there again, absolute beginners have to start somewhere..

 

[the blades]

As for the edges you mention to follow on...good old trends, S+R etc., these are nonsense at the level I have in mind, really kindergaten stuff, I am sorry to have to tell you....but there again, absolute beginners have to start somewhere..

keep the tea leaves secret Soc - my Gran would have to kill you

UTB

 

[JTrader]

keep the tea leaves secret Soc - my Gran would have to kill you

UTB

No-one quite has an edge as sharp as your's Yorkie boy .

 

[PKFFW]

I am sorry to have to tell you but you are wrong.

There are two meanings to the word "we".

One is the Royal we and the other is the Proleteriat we.

The Royal we is a contradiction in terms, and the Proleteriat we is harmonic in it's meaning, which goes beyond collective identity and stretches to unity of purpose, sharing of posture, homogenuity of viewpoint, sharing of opinion, sympathy with emotion, and in all this sharing that takes place, we now have a crowd, and this crowd which previously was composed of individuals each able to think for themselves, now supresses and subjugates the thinking of individuals and collectivises them into the thought and actions of the crowd, the herd if you like.

But one must totally disregard the opinions of the herd, the crowd, you see, because this morass of shared thinking is nearly always wrong, at least from a professional viewpoint devoid of all emotion and ego, which is what counts. Nothing else matters, hence "the herd is the Goat"...not my words, but those of a very experienced trader of long ago, who coined the phrase.

That's not inflammatory is it ?

But what happens next is that the herd, having abdicated individual responsibility with regard to individual thought, now becomes a gang.

No, I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong.

In both your examples the meaning of the word we is the denotion of a group as a singular unit. The royal we is used to denote the monarch and his/her subjects as a singular unit and the proletariat we does the same for the speaker and those he/she is claiming as part of the group. Your esoteric musings on the subject not withstanding, the meaning of the word remains the same in both your examples.

Language is funny like that. Words have meanings dependant upon their context. No amount of musing about the hidden subtext will change those meanings. That is not to say your musings on said hidden subtext are incorrect. Merely your assertion that 1: there are only 2 meanings to the word we and 2: that your example shows these two different meanings.

I believe you have mistaken the idea that the author/speaker of certain words in certain context may be attempting to express a certain meaning with the meaning of the words themselves. The meaning of the words themselves will not change. The meaning attempting to be put across may be interpreted and changed.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[SOCRATES]

No, I'm afraid you are the one who is wrong.

In both your examples the meaning of the word we is the denotion of a group as a singular unit. The royal we is used to denote the monarch and his/her subjects as a singular unit and the proletariat we does the same for the speaker and those he/she is claiming as part of the group. Your esoteric musings on the subject not withstanding, the meaning of the word remains the same in both your examples.

Language is funny like that. Words have meanings dependant upon their context. No amount of musing about the hidden subtext will change those meanings. That is not to say your musings on said hidden subtext are incorrect. Merely your assertion that 1: there are only 2 meanings to the word we and 2: that your example shows these two different meanings.

I believe you have mistaken the idea that the author/speaker of certain words in certain context may be attempting to express a certain meaning with the meaning of the words themselves. The meaning of the words themselves will not change. The meaning attempting to be put across may be interpreted and changed.

Cheers,
PKFFW

It is very simple.

If you want to understand the meaning of a word...look to its use..that's all.

You cannot complain I do not tell you everything.

 

[PKFFW]

My original post, if you read it carefully, asked:

"If a trader has an edge that they have discovered through assiduous study and practice (as opposed to a weekend of curve fitting), an edge that consistently wins money on balance and withstands the test of time, why would they give it away simply because the person asking isn’t making enough money from their own system?

If you have an edge, why don't you tell us all what it is?

The fact that you disagree with SOCRATES means you really haven't got an edge, you're right, I don't KNOW if you do or don't, but it's highly unlikely. The way you keep arguing...

It is now clear to me you are being deliberately obtuse. You commented on a reply I made to Socrates. This reply had nothing to do with your original post. When I very clearly outlined how you had seemed to misunderstand my post you have returned and completely disregarded this explaination. You have chosen to not even continue to discuss the matter you replied to me about. Instead you choose to make a personal attack on me about whether I have an edge or not.

Further to that your logic is astoundingly lacking. Please explain, logically, how if I disagree with Socrates that "means I haven't got an edge"? By your logic and reasoning it would be just as valid for me to say the fact you started a thread about edges shows you have no edge. However, I realise that logic does not support that kind of leap in reasoning. I do not know if you have edge or not. Nor do I care. I was interested in something Socrates posted and so replied. I then responded to you on the assumption that you had genuinely misunderstood me. No where did I personally attack you or even make claims about your trading ability or edge. Logic did not and does not support such assertions. I do hope for your sake you show more aptitude for trading than you do for logical and reasoned thinking.

You have shown yourself to be the type who resorts to personal attacks when logic and reason fails him. I see that this thread is really just another attempt at trolling on your part and so will cease replying to you after this post.


Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

The reply is negative.

This is because if you have to ask to have it explained to you then you cannot be a battle hardened, really experienced trader.

The problem is that it is a chicken and egg situation.

In order to be able to understand and accept the concept you have to have evolved to become a battle hardened, really experienced trader.

By that time no explanation is necessary.

Therefore discussion of it is pointless, unless it takes the form of a discussion between equals.

Curiously, the stage at which a really experienced, battle hardened trader arrives at this plateau of proficiency is as a result of his or her individual effort.

This is because sharing the effort does not work, as sharing it does not teach the lesson that has to be learnt, realised and accepted.

Therefore you are wrong again, I am sorry to have to tell you.

There is no mysticism as such with regard to Merit, Ability and Conduct.

It is just that so few have the correct faculties in harmony that it is as if it were mystical, because it is not mainstream.

Therefore a permanent edge is not mainstream.

A minor edge (temporary) may or may not be.

The true edge is the one that is permanent, and for the reasons above, (which are some and not all) the holders are not willing to share. They are not transferable via the mainstream route.

This is another reason why sharing does not work.

The right to an edge is earned and not given.

I regret if this is frustrating to you, but it is a fact, and one of a cluster of facts.

All that you have posted is not frustrating to me in the least. Nothing in your post actually contradicts my view point in the slightest. I have not mentioned the sharing of an edge at all. I mentioned the creating of an edge. I think you realise that though and have(much like new_trader likes to do) deliberately ignored that fact and waffled on about something I have made no comment on.

I agree with your premise that an edge can't be shared. It is for the reasons you outline, among others, that buying an off the shelf trading strategy rarely works for anyone. What I disagree with, and what you have failed to comment on in your reply, is that an edge can not be jointly created/discovered by more than one person working together.

You see a couple I know began trading a number of years ago. They went the route of attending seminars, reading books, all the usual things. It didn't work for them, they couldn't find a way to be consistently profitable by that route. So they went back to the drawing board and applied all they had learnt, discussed with eachother new ideas, tried new things and now, 8 years later, they are consistently profitable. They both use the same trading account, the same strategy, trades are placed based solely on who is near the computer at the time and has the time to do the analysis. They both follow exactly the same rules that they both created together. Therefore I know for a fact that an edge can[b/] be created by two people working together. Your assertion that it can't be is simply wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[SOCRATES]

It is now clear to me you are being deliberately obtuse. You commented on a reply I made to Socrates. This reply had nothing to do with your original post. When I very clearly outlined how you had seemed to misunderstand my post you have returned and completely disregarded this explaination. You have chosen to not even continue to discuss the matter you replied to me about. Instead you choose to make a personal attack on me about whether I have an edge or not.

Further to that your logic is astoundingly lacking. Please explain, logically, how if I disagree with Socrates that "means I haven't got an edge"? By your logic and reasoning it would be just as valid for me to say the fact you started a thread about edges shows you have no edge. However, I realise that logic does not support that kind of leap in reasoning. I do not know if you have edge or not. Nor do I care. I was interested in something Socrates posted and so replied. I then responded to you on the assumption that you had genuinely misunderstood me. No where did I personally attack you or even make claims about your trading ability or edge. Logic did not and does not support such assertions. I do hope for your sake you show more aptitude for trading than you do for logical and reasoned thinking.

You have shown yourself to be the type who resorts to personal attacks when logic and reason fails him. I see that this thread is really just another attempt at trolling on your part and so will cease replying to you after this post.


Cheers,
PKFFW

It is obvious, as Pod G says...It is literally...screaming at you....it is just that you do not seem to have the right frame of reference.

To attain the right frame of reference you have to evolve.

This evolvement involves a long arduous and painful process that serves to frighten 99.9% silly, frantic with fear and pain, anxiety and discomfort, that is why very few are able to hack it, despite promises and aspirations.

There is no trolling here. He has pinned it in one go, all credit to him.This is much more than can be said of more than 75,000 members plus.

But there is no point in me trying to bring you to a framework of reality as all of it is experiential and has to do with work on SELF, that the majority are either unable or unwilling to do.

All the majority want, is to clamber on board in a scramble to gain the edge.

I have told you before, in another post what is involved, and yet you persist in closed loop circular argument.

 

[PKFFW]

It is very simple.

If you want to understand the meaning of a word...look to its use..that's all.

You cannot complain I do not tell you everything.

Finally, on this subject, you are correct.

As I stated in my post, words have meaning dependant on their context.

The meaning of the word remains the same. You can philosophise on the ideas the author of said words is trying to convey all you like, that does not change the meaning of the individual words though.

Glad you agree with me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[PKFFW]

It is obvious, as Pod G says...It is literally...screaming at you....it is just that you do not seem to have the right frame of reference.

To attain the right frame of reference you have to evolve.

This evolvement involves a long arduous and painful process that serves to frighten 99.9% silly, frantic with fear and pain, anxiety and discomfort, that is why very few are able to hack it, despite promises and aspirations.

There is no trolling here. He has pinned it in one go, all credit to him.This is much more than can be said of more than 75,000 members plus.

But there is no point in me trying to bring you to a framework of reality as all of it is experiential and has to do with work on SELF, that the majority are either unable or unwilling to do.

All the majority want, is to clamber on board in a scramble to gain the edge.

I have told you before, in another post what is involved, and yet you persist in closed loop circular argument.

Once again your reply to me, even though the post you have quoted was not directed at you nor has anything to do with you, does not in any way pertain to the post quoted. I would ask that you not quote me unless you intend actually replying to the quote in a way that is meaningful and relevant to the post quoted.

Since you do wish to reply to that post, I will ask you the same. Please explain logically how if I disagree with you that in and of itself proves I have no edge. Further to that, please explain how new_trader has "pinned it in one go" by asserting as such.

I made no comment on the original post and new_trader's hypothesis about traders sharing edges. The reply you have quoted relates specifically to comments new_trader made about myself. new_trader did not pin anything in his reply to me, which is what I was commenting on. All he did was make a personal assumption about me that he has no way of backing up. He showed that when he can not logically respond to something he resorts to personal asspersions. Further to that, many of his replies to others have not been comments about the original topic but rather more assumptions and asspersions against any who disagree with him. This shows me that whilst he may or may not be correct in his original hypothesis, his main aim of this thread is to be a vehicle for personal comments on others.

In closing I will, again, ask that you not bother replying to me any further unless you intend to actually comment in a relevant way to the posts I have made. I too tire of the "closed loop circular argument" that is happening. If you refuse to actually enter into reasoned debate but rather insist on circularly repeating ideas that do not in any way relate to the comments I have made then I will simply refrain from replying to you in future on this topic.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[SOCRATES]

Finally, on this subject, you are correct.

As I stated in my post, words have meaning dependant on their context.

The meaning of the word remains the same. You can philosophise on the ideas the author of said words is trying to convey all you like, that does not change the meaning of the individual words though.

Glad you agree with me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Yes, good, I am pleased.

Now going back to these two you mention working together...

What they have done is to develop a method of working which is an edge of sorts.

But the route to a true edge is not like that, because sharing blunts self development and yields limited results which are misunderstood or misrecognised as edges.

The only valid edge is the permanent one. All others are temporary luxuries.

 

[PKFFW]

Yes, good, I am pleased.

Now going back to these two you mention working together...

What they have done is to develop a method of working which is an edge of sorts.

But the route to a true edge is not like that, because sharing blunts self development and yields limited results which are misunderstood or misrecognised as edges.

The only valid edge is the permanent one. All others are temporary luxuries.

So your entire argument is based around your personal definition of "edge". If I asked you to give, in concise clear language, your personal definition of edge would you? I'm going to assume not as that would then bind you to rationally and logically argue your point in a way that you can not change at will to suit your current need which is something you seem unwilling to do. So basically what it comes down to is that anything I logically bring up you can discount as not conforming to your own secret personal definition of edge. Yet you claim I'm the one being circular and closed loop in my arguing!

So, here is what I know of your personal definition of edge from comments you have made;
1: It must be permanent
2: It must be created/discoverd by a single person working alone

Now, working with just point one I would argue that nothing can be defined as an edge. This is because nothing in this world is permanent. Scientifically and logically speaking everything is in a constant state of change. So that alone discounts anything as being a true edge. Further to that as one has no way of knowing if their edge will continue to work till the end of time itself one can not know if the edge is "permanent" or not and hence would be unable to define it as and edge in the present time. Now I know your feelings on everything being known in advance and all that but as you have been unwilling/unable to actually prove that we can only debate it logically and your assertion is unsupported by logic.

So point one of your own definition means that there are no true edges to be had at all and this entire debate is worthless.

Now working with point two, You have stated before there are many edges in the markets. True edges that you personally have given the tick of approval as being a major edge I'm talking about here. I'm going to make an assumption here, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe you know of every single major edge in existence. Therefore you can not logically argue or prove that every single major edge conforms to your personal definition of major edge. You simply do not know if there are any major edges out that there were created by more than one person working together. Of course you can always claim that if it was created by more than one person then it doesn't conform to your own secret personal definition of major edge and therefore isn't a major edge at all I guess.

So I see that nothing I write will work now because you will discount everything as not conforming to your own secret persoanl definition of major edge. Therefore I will wont bother replying any more.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[new_trader]

PKFFW,

If you read through all of your own posts again you will see that it is you who is being illogical. You have contradicted yourself and it's obvious, at least to me, and I'm not going to point out why.....the answers are there. As for being obtuse (unfeeling, tactless, insensitive), you are right and I apologise. You are not the first person to tell me this on a forum or in real life. I am not as eloquent as you or indeed many posters here, so I have trouble expressing my thoughts in words. I don't have the "make it sound nice" filter that many seem to possess. There isn't a problem in my understanding of concepts; instead, the problem lies in the transmission of my understanding. That's why I try to keep my posts short and to the point and which often results in a sacrifice of important protocol. English was not my best subject at school, I preferred maths. I like numbers me. They are far more fascinating and interesting than words.

As for answering your posts, I will leave that to SOCRATES. He is an EXPERT in the transmission of understanding, truly gifted, a genius.

 

[barjon]

mmm, it seems to me that there is an apples and pears argument going on.

On the one hand there is an "edge" that comes from developing a sound and profitable system with solid rules and conditions.This is the route that most of us follow and such a system could be developed and pursued in collaboration, as PK's couple have done.

On the other hand is an "edge" that comes from developing the ability to read the market and trade with an innate sense of what will unfold. This route is personal and probably cannot be acquired and pursued in collaboration other than initial mentoring.

My twopennywoth anyway.

good trading

jon

 

[the blades]

I will leave that to SOCRATES. He is an EXPERT in the transmission of understanding, truly gifted, a genius.

do you ever come out for air, or do you just like the smell?

UTB

 

[Priceman]

Part of my edge is knowing who to listen to and who not to listen to. If you want to be something then you have to get the advice from someone who's already there and doing it.

I am not here to prove anything to anyone on this site. That's already been done by many others, it didn't get them any thanks.

 

[rols]

I suggest that the term 'edge' is a misnomer brought about by the false premise that the world is just as we perceive it to be, and that inside the brain there is a strictly isomorphic representation of the world around us.

Socrates has alluded to this many times in reference to trading and anybody interested may find the darkside threads of interest.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=10672&highlight=darkside

We wrongly assume the world is as we perceive it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sensory perception creates the illusion that the world outside of our heads is mirrored inside them, when in fact these perceptions are the end result of a long chain of neural events, quite often arrived at through the process of incorrect inference.

The most alarming thing about this mechanism is that even when we know about it is extremely difficult to switch it off and hence fall for the same illusions time and time again. This process is perfectly illustrated in our trading endeavours and for some the ever desperate desire to find that one edge which will save us from the loop of despair.

Furthermore; trying to define an edge as a serial process (how computors work) evolved by a machine (our brains) which works through inference and parallel processing will result in another cul-de-sac of futility.

If anybody can think of an alternative word for 'edge' then please suggest one. I cannot.

I suspect we may be trying to define the indefinable.

 

[PKFFW]

PKFFW,

If you read through all of your own posts again you will see that it is you who is being illogical. You have contradicted yourself and it's obvious, at least to me, and I'm not going to point out why.....the answers are there.

Of course you will not point out any of my contradictions of myself because there are not any and you know it. The mere fact you disagree with me does not mean I am being illogical or contradicting myself.

As for being obtuse (unfeeling, tactless, insensitive), you are right and I apologise. You are not the first person to tell me this on a forum or in real life. I am not as eloquent as you or indeed many posters here, so I have trouble expressing my thoughts in words. I don't have the "make it sound nice" filter that many seem to possess. There isn't a problem in my understanding of concepts; instead, the problem lies in the transmission of my understanding. That's why I try to keep my posts short and to the point and which often results in a sacrifice of important protocol. English was not my best subject at school, I preferred maths. I like numbers me. They are far more fascinating and interesting than words.

Apology accepted.

Merely explaining your rudeness does no good though. For your apology to truly mean anything though it should be backed up by action. If you are aware of your own tactless, insensitve and rude behaviour then you can change it. The fact you choose not to speaks volumes about your values and character as a person.

As for answering your posts, I will leave that to SOCRATES. He is an EXPERT in the transmission of understanding, truly gifted, a genius.

When I direct a post towards an individual I am usually interested in their response, not in a response by another individual. In this case, I am no longer interested in a response from either of you.

As for your claim of Socrates genius in the transmission of understanding........well everyone has their own definition of genius I guess just as they seem to have their own definition of edge.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[SOCRATES]

I suggest that the term 'edge' is a misnomer brought about by the false premise that the world is just as we perceive it to be, and that inside the brain there is a strictly isomorphic representation of the world around us.

Socrates has alluded to this many times in reference to trading and anybody interested may find the darkside threads of interest.

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=10672&highlight=darkside

We wrongly assume the world is as we perceive it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sensory perception creates the illusion that the world outside of our heads is mirrored inside them, when in fact these perceptions are the end result of a long chain of neural events, quite often arrived at through the process of incorrect inference.

The most alarming thing about this mechanism is that even when we know about it is extremely difficult to switch it off and hence fall for the same illusions time and time again. This process is perfectly illustrated in our trading endeavours and for some the ever desperate desire to find that one edge which will save us from the loop of despair.

Furthermore; trying to define an edge as a serial process (how computors work) evolved by a machine (our brains) which works through inference and parallel processing will result in another cul-de-sac of futility.

If anybody can think of an alternative word for 'edge' then please suggest one. I cannot.

I suspect we may be trying to define the indefinable.

May I ?....OK, here goes...

About darksiding:~

It is like being able to read music. And when you are able to read music you can anticipate what the next note and indeed the next phrase is going to be, because it is part of musicianship.

Anybody can hum a tune and in the correct key if they are not tone deaf, and this tune can be hummed to a beat, that is in time, and loudness and softness can be introduced, and pauses and phrases inserted.....but reading from sheet music and doing this is true musicianship....which is what darksiding at base level really is.

When you look at a string of numbers, say for example on a credit card but you do not consciously make the effort to recognise them, that is what they are, just a string of numbers...a jumble.

When you put your attention on them, that is, you look at them properly, suddenly these numbers have names that appear silently in your head, and this allows you to properly identify them and to voice them to someone at the end of a telephone waiting to hear them when you buy something on the phone, for example.

These numbers now have an identity, they have meaning that they did not have before. The same happens with price bars or candles and volume bars. It is like reading music off a sheet.

The thing is, that darksiding does not start until the charts "talk" or "sing" u c ?

And like musicianship, the next note and the next phrase can be intuitively anticipated accurately, often many bars ahead of the present bar. We are not yet talking about futurology, that is much further down the line, but you can already see that at a purely mechanical level chart reading in advance of the event is possible.

What I have just explained is a rock bottom basic skill that a trader using charts has to develop. If these attempts are cluttered by signals, and lines and other harnesses it makes the progression very difficult because all this ironmongery serves to distract.

Much further down the line....and as a consequence of becoming an expert....the loom of an edge begins to form.....this is as a consequence of having many realisations at a very high level of awareness about what one is in...and this edge becomes honed and refined and improved and finally perfected, and this is the permanent edge I talked about earlier...sorry action stations, back later :cheesy:

 

[jacinto]

that is a very good post Socrates. thank you.