Is it easy to make a lot of money?

[tomorton]

The board seems to be peppered with a lot of threads asking, can I make 2% a day? / $150 a day? / 100% a year? / and so on.

If you have to ask such questions, you're still an apprentice. When you're an apprentice, trading isn't about what you can make from trading, it's about how well you can execute each trade. One day at a time, one trade at a time. When each one is pefect, the question will have answered itself. Then you're not an apprentice any more.

 

[Chartsy]

i agree, in that if you have something worth trading you wouldn't be asking the questions...you'd know the answers...

 

[meanreversion]

Can you tell me where I can buy the system that makes me 2% a day, so I can skip being an apprentice? Thanks!!

 

[wackypete2]

Can you tell me where I can buy the system that makes me 2% a day, so I can skip being an apprentice? Thanks!!

ODT has several :clap:

Peter

 

[Jt112790]

Haha.. Meanreversion, That my friend is the million dollar question! All it takes is a little hard work and a lot of research.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Haha.. Meanreversion, That my friend is the million dollar question! All it takes is a little hard work and a lot of research.

im glad can do it, perhaps you would like to enlighten us on how you do it

 

[Black Swan]

The board seems to be peppered with a lot of threads asking, can I make 2% a day? / $150 a day? / 100% a year? / and so on.

If you have to ask such questions, you're still an apprentice. When you're an apprentice, trading isn't about what you can make from trading, it's about how well you can execute each trade. One day at a time, one trade at a time. When each one is pefect, the question will have answered itself. Then you're not an apprentice any more.

Been said before (in many fields not just trading) but don't aim for perfection aim for excellence..

 

[oildaytrader]

Can you tell me where I can buy the system that makes me 2% a day, so I can skip being an apprentice? Thanks!!

It really is very simple,but do not expect me to give you a free road map map to holygrail gold mine.If I was dying of thirst in a desert , I would expect the mean lot to charge for water.

 

[meanreversion]

Been said before (in many fields not just trading) but don't aim for perfection aim for excellence..

You've been coming out with some nice sayings recently ... turning into a bit of an Ed Seykota eh?

 

[meanreversion]

It really is very simple,but do not expect me to give you a free road map map to holygrail gold mine.If I was dying of thirst in a desert , I would expect the mean lot to charge for water.

Planning on a long trip through a desert anytime soon? (we wish)

 

[Jt112790]

Can you tell me where I can buy the system that makes me 2% a day, so I can skip being an apprentice? Thanks!!

Meanreversion, I'm sorry I checked my E-mail and it said you had replied to my post, it seems as if it has been deleted. To answer your question regarding the Canadian stock market. Yes, but FAIRLY LITTLE. I could dig up some stuff and play around in the Canadian stock market and probably get a couple nice buys.

 

[Traderesq]

It's very doable to make nice consistent money each month but I definitely wouldn't label it as 'easy.' Rarely can you do it without a lot of work either actively trading each day or developing and testing auto-trading strategies. The bonus is that If you're very passionate about trading then the hard work will be pretty enjoyable and not feel much like work.

 

[meanreversion]

Traderesq, I know where you are coming from (whence you are coming?) and I used to think like that, i.e. the hard work is in developing the system, backtesting, automating etc.

To an extent, this is true, it is hard work doing all these things (if you do them properly), but I found out over time that the most difficult aspect is sticking to the system. I was recently re-reading the Van Tharp book (..Financial Freedom).. his assertion is that trading is 10 pct the system, 30 pct money management and 60 pct psychological. I think it's probably more like 75 pct psychological.. positive expectancy systems are fairly easy to design, but sticking to them? That's another matter..

 

[Prawnsandwich]

Traderesq, I know where you are coming from (whence you are coming?) and I used to think like that, i.e. the hard work is in developing the system, backtesting, automating etc.

To an extent, this is true, it is hard work doing all these things (if you do them properly), but I found out over time that the most difficult aspect is sticking to the system. I was recently re-reading the Van Tharp book (..Financial Freedom).. his assertion is that trading is 10 pct the system, 30 pct money management and 60 pct psychological. I think it's probably more like 75 pct psychological.. positive expectancy systems are fairly easy to design, but sticking to them? That's another matter..

Hmmm.... there seems to be an almost inbuilt mental mechanism to want to improve, change, or do something different......almost like a guilt complex that if something simple is working, then its too easy or boring.....

 

[tomorton]

Hmmm.... there seems to be an almost inbuilt mental mechanism to want to improve, change, or do something different......almost like a guilt complex that if something simple is working, then its too easy or boring.....

I agree with that observation. I don't believe that well-based systems make money for a while, then 'stop working'. More likey they rely on market environment or cycles, which certainly do change, but will just as surely change back again to make the system 'start working again'. Of course, by that time, the trader has either moved on to another system, re-commencing the cycle of cycles, or they went broke trying to get the original system to work in an environment in which it could not be used. This is referred to by Mark Douglas, when he talks about the in-built factors that make us fail. It also reminds me of the people (female, mostly) who go on repeated new diets and eating fads, all of which eventually 'stop working'......

 

[meanreversion]

The reason women (or men) don't lose weight when they are on a "diet" is because they lie to themselves. First of all, whether you have a fast or slow metabolism really makes little difference to your ability to lose weight.. it might help slightly to have a fast metabolism, but it's not a deal breaker.

The dieter starts off full of hope and embarks on a regime for losing weight. However, after a couple of days they start to lose patience, and also, being hungry all the time, will quickly eat small snacks (but these don't count as calories of course).

There are parallels between this and trading, with the major difference that traders are trying to put ON pounds, or dollars, or euros etc.

I would hazard a guess that 90 pct of diets work if followed properly. Same with simple breakout or trend systems. Sticking to it ---- as we already discussed --- that's the tough bit.

Patience and fortitude are required in both instances.

(I just re-read all that, I'm starting to sound a bit like ODT, eek)

 

[wallstreetwarrior87]

I agree with that observation. I don't believe that well-based systems make money for a while, then 'stop working'. More likey they rely on market environment or cycles, which certainly do change, but will just as surely change back again to make the system 'start working again'. Of course, by that time, the trader has either moved on to another system, re-commencing the cycle of cycles, or they went broke trying to get the original system to work in an environment in which it could not be used. This is referred to by Mark Douglas, when he talks about the in-built factors that make us fail. It also reminds me of the people (female, mostly) who go on repeated new diets and eating fads, all of which eventually 'stop working'......

Therefore, is it not wise to ditch systems on the head and begin to work out what really matters, i.e the environment.

I believe its an evolution process, if you can stay in the game long enough you will come to realise that having a system or trying to devise one is not the most logical way forward, and it is extremely limiting.

Understanding the environment means you adapt quickly to changes, systems cant and never will be able to do this.

 

[wallstreetwarrior87]

The reason women (or men) don't lose weight when they are on a "diet" is because they lie to themselves. First of all, whether you have a fast or slow metabolism really makes little difference to your ability to lose weight.. it might help slightly to have a fast metabolism, but it's not a deal breaker.

The dieter starts off full of hope and embarks on a regime for losing weight. However, after a couple of days they start to lose patience, and also, being hungry all the time, will quickly eat small snacks (but these don't count as calories of course).

There are parallels between this and trading, with the major difference that traders are trying to put ON pounds, or dollars, or euros etc.

I would hazard a guess that 90 pct of diets work if followed properly. Same with simple breakout or trend systems. Sticking to it ---- as we already discussed --- that's the tough bit.

Patience and fortitude are required in both instances.

(I just re-read all that, I'm starting to sound a bit like ODT, eek)

Again, what happens if there is no trend or there are no break outs for a prolonged period of time. Do traders really want to sit on their hands when they can switch to channel trading, taking trades on both sides of the market?

This comes down to understanding the environment, and yes, if you dont understand it is wise to stay away. But to not try because the system says no is a poor effort, especially if you can see the opportunities that are available.

This is once again another great example of why systems are so limiting.

 

[meanreversion]

Again, what happens if there is no trend or there are no break outs for a prolonged period of time. Do traders really want to sit on their hands when they can switch to channel trading, taking trades on both sides of the market?

This comes down to understanding the environment, and yes, if you dont understand it is wise to stay away. But to not try because the system says no is a poor effort, especially if you can see the opportunities that are available.

This is once again another great example of why systems are so limiting.

When you refer to systems, are you referring to mechanical trading? The big advantage of using a "system" is that one can easily look at many different markets, whereas the "gut" trader is restricted to the few for which he has a feel. At any rate, systems are discretionary .. you choose the markets to trade, the parameters and so on. I fail to see why system trading is "limiting" unless I mis-understand your interpretation of "system".

 

[wallstreetwarrior87]

When you refer to systems, are you referring to mechanical trading? The big advantage of using a "system" is that one can easily look at many different markets, whereas the "gut" trader is restricted to the few for which he has a feel. At any rate, systems are discretionary .. you choose the markets to trade, the parameters and so on. I fail to see why system trading is "limiting" unless I mis-understand your interpretation of "system".

Yes in terms of mechanical.

I would class been able to look at many different markets as more of a scanner based on defined parameters. Thats just a personal term used by myself, everyone to their own.

My definition of a system is one where rigid rules apply, if any discretion is used then it becomes a methodology.

So if a system has rigid rules and is trend based then it can only be deployed should the user of the information deem the market to be in a trend. The reason why I say it is limiting is down to the fact that there will be no trades should there be no trend, even though there maybe ample other opportunities to be exploited.

In essence my post was more to do with observation that so many whom come into this arena are very tunnel visioned, when there is a wide open field of opportunity.

By no means a criticism, just an observation.