shadowninja
Legendary member
- Messages
- 5,524
- Likes
- 644
Gaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrr!
rathcoole_exile
Guest Author
- Messages
- 3,925
- Likes
- 767
I'm a trader. I have no emotions.
niceguy777
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 2
"if you can't accept that only 2 or 3 trades out of 10 will be small winners, and that 2 or 3 will be scratched for even and that 3 or 4, even 5 will be losers, with possibly only 1 in 10 trades being "payday" then you shouldn't even consider trading"
True, but you can do better than that!
True, but you can do better than that!
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
But I have beer and drugs for that
niceguy777
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 2
Why do I bother......
:0)
:0)
rathcoole_exile
Guest Author
- Messages
- 3,925
- Likes
- 767
Yep the aim is to do better, but an important key to success is being able to accept the losing days.
and also to accept that you CAN survive as a trader with only 10% trades winning big
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
Perhaps the wider issue is - you can survive with positive expectancy - that's all you really need - regardless of your personal style of trading.
I personally like a lot of reasonable winners with a few, very small losers. Home runs and milking it for all it’s worth just don’t ‘work’ for me. And I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable with expectations of 1 in 10 coming really good and muddling through in an average mist of break-even on the rest. But…I can totally understand that there very likely are those that are.
There is a spectrum as wide as anything else in degrees of personal comfort in trading. I’m not saying you couldn’t trade a system with a positive expectancy that you weren’t happy with – but I think the majority of long-term consistently profitable traders probably have both.
arabianights
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,721
- Likes
- 1,380
positive expectancy is necessary* but not sufficient; at least if one intends to take ones income from trading one also needs to be winning enough to pay oneself. Initially at least this would have to be every month.
*not strictly necessary - if you find a strategy that blows you up every 500 years, then do it! Or if you find a strategy that blows up every 5 years but otherwise will make you a billionaire and you're in a position to use bankruptcy as a put, then do that as well - then stop once you're a billionaire!
*not strictly necessary - if you find a strategy that blows you up every 500 years, then do it! Or if you find a strategy that blows up every 5 years but otherwise will make you a billionaire and you're in a position to use bankruptcy as a put, then do that as well - then stop once you're a billionaire!
niceguy777
Member
- Messages
- 95
- Likes
- 2
You probably can, but why suffer that ratio? I am just saying that you don't need to 'suffer' those odds. This kind of thinking has become a common belief in trading. It simply isn't true.
You can do better.
You can do better.
blancspa
Established member
- Messages
- 814
- Likes
- 35
blancspa
Established member
- Messages
- 814
- Likes
- 35
Similar threads
