Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I was just randomly thinking about a book I must have read a few months ago. Called "Trading From Your Guy." It was mainly about tuning the fuzzy-logic in your brain to recognize trading opportunities. I remember it being a good read.
I figured I'd post in here instead of the OTHER thread.
I wish I had come to this realization a few years ago. In thinking about it, I have PAID for several discretionary methods. I think all of them had something valid in them, and had I traded one of them long enough, I probably would have been able to fill in the blanks to make it useful so that I could actually profit from it.
But..... when I get to where I want to be, and start giving out advice, I will trumpet how ABSOLUTELY STUPID it is to pay for any discretionary methodology!!! Seeing as how there are thousands of them laying around online for free, that will be just as effective as anything worth paying for.
As the real success probably won't come from the methodology itself, but rather the person being able to deploy it effectively. And the only thing that probably matters is whether or not an individual method suits one's personal tastes.
There is no such thing as a discretionary method, only discretionary concepts. A method implies that the process is concrete, consistent and repeatable by whoever applies the process. That is not the case of discretionary methods.
Sure, I agree with the sentiment of that. Probably just a matter of semantics, but your sentiment is definitely more precise.
Could we say:
Discretionary Concept = implies semi-objective guidelines for placing trades.
Discretionary System = implies hard fast rules.... could even be as loose as watching how squiggly lines behave around price. But it must be something that can be visually objectified in a manner that leaves no ambiguity for the trader when placing a trade. But I suppose this no longer makes it "discretionary."
Discretionary Method = somewhere in between the two above?
Traders that are successful and have been doing it for a while, I think psychology has little to do with it. At least in the way it is usually described. It's usually spoken about as if there is some "state of mind," or a 'ZONE' a trader achieves that allows them to make better trade decisions, or that what has been holding them back was simply them not accepting risk as Dalton describes.
Not that I think that is incorrect, but I think it is always explained a bit more mystical, or philosophical, or in a more grandiose manner than it needs to be.
I think there are essentially 2 parts to the success of that trader. Any book dealing with the psychology of trading could probably be broken down into the two parts below and explained in depth, not much else is needed.
1.) Removing AMBIGUITY from their trade decisions according to THEIR individual thought process. That trader knows exactly what to do given most situations. Or at least every situation they are willing to trade. The most uncomfortable feeling while trading isn't necessarily losing, imo it is NOT KNOWING what to do given a certain set of variables. This causes second guessing, being hesitant, shutting down trades for no reason. It is really an awkward feeling and I personally HATE IT. I have been temporarily comforted by a losing method of trading or backtesting, but knowing that I know exactly what to do in a given situation. Losing isn't so bad, because at least you eventually realize that what you're doing isn't working.
2.) Knowing their EXPECTANCY. If a trader had #1 figured out above, and knew their EXPECTANCY was positive, why wouldn't they take every setup they were supposed to trade? The answer is that they would take every setup! Unless they didn't have a basic understanding of math, and a high school education should be sufficient to conquer that.
Now the caveat to all that is that #2 could have the expectancy skewed so that a string of losers could make that difficult. But that simply means the trader doesn't REALLY KNOW or trust their expectancy.
I think too many times, discussions online go off on these tangents of all types of things that probably have little to do with good trading.
I think a successful trader could drill these two concepts into any aspiring trader's head. Repetitive drilling, or demonstrations of WHAT the trade signal looks like, with any possible variations of what to do given various situations........ along with longer term demonstration of expectancy given that signal...... how hard could it be?
I say that jokingly...... but for any successful trader, if you were locked in a house with an aspiring trader, and had nothing to do but trade, and teach someone to trade, I'm sure in most cases, that trader could learn the necessary skills to trade?
I think so often, trading discussions go off on these tangents of nonsense, because usually we are always figuring out those two things alone, in a less than controlled manner, and it takes a long time to figure these two things out.