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)
Here I lost you. On one hand you say that its a game of probabilities, but then you say that each day is different and you trade different because of it.
As I see it or you are very good statistician and can calculate probabilities in more sophisticated manor than I can, or you call a strategy (setup) your entry criteria, and you draw your probabilities from your discretionary back performance.
For me a strategy/setup is a combination of entry point, stop loss and PT. Of course I try to test that my setup doesn't break if I change my stop or PT by a few ticks, but the same goes to my entries.
Unfortunately with my limited statistical knowledge I can get probabilities, on which I can relay, only from a complete setup.
Can you help answer these questions from other members on NexusFi?
Poker shows cherry pick exciting hands and don't give you an idea of what it's like to play at that table.
What you are describing sounds like a "pump it or dump it" method of betting based on current hand strength.
In no limit, these people would be easy to shake out of a hand when weak and easy to limit losses against with when strong, because they are so easy to read.
Each flop, turn and river isn't a role of the dice because the percentages don't reset to a fixed ratio as the hand progresses.
Sure, it doesn't take much of an analysis, in hindsight, but to trade this way, in real time, is nearly impossible and I suspect only a few of the best can really do this on a consistent basis. That's based on nothing other than my own experience that trading is hard enough just to get into a position, and be able to hold that position for a profit, much less get out with a profit, reverse bias on the spot, take that profit, reverse again, and so on. It sounds so easy and looks so easy that you would have taken profit here, re-entered here, and on and on. As I said I know some people are successful at this, but what you are essentially describing is not only being right in a direction, but predicting turns in the market. No one can do this, not consistently anyway. Anyone who says they called a bottom or top over and over, market after market, is lying, plain and simple. It's too hard, and to think you can do it on anything other than sheer luck is to delude yourself, IMHO. Trading probabilities is one thing, to be an oracle in trading is to be a liar.
First off, I am not throwing down a challenge and I am quite certain that you are far better at calculating probabilities on the fly but try to keep things in context, brotherman, as my "probability" comment was regarding you speaking of trading as "gambling" if "discretionary" trading (a point on which i pointed out that it is usually not just based on a blind hunch but experience).
And yes, each day is different, are you saying it is not? If a system trading CL does not also consider that 6E is RIGHT NOW, not yesterday's similar price action, hitting its uber strong resistance and you are long CL, you then, from experience of seeing such before, consider the PROBABILITY of what is going to happen, maybe slightly less bullish and see what happens. If back in March, there is news that Kadaffi is killed or today's oil report showed 4k build across the board, I am not using time calculating probabilities, i am immediately short or out. This is based on experience and from that experience, we determine our probabilities of what will happen, looking then at the chart to see where next support line is, etc. Again, probability that it may hold that line but we look and see what it will do.
I am not saying your system doesn't work or that there is anything wrong with AIAO or entering purely on backtested probabilities (obviously:-) I am just trying to put forth the argument that flexibility, with scaling out (and in) and getting lots of production using the trader's own discretion is also a possible profitable angle. As for fairly successful discretionary traders, look up Jesse Livermore or more recently, Paul Tudor Jones.
LOL Trading is definitely difficult and sure, there are no oracles of trading, picking every bottom and top (unless you are fading my trades on some days;-)
I was merely trying to make the point that there is not only one correct way to trade, i.e. buy once and sell once.
It is also possible to buy at strong support, sell some at minor resistance, buy a bit more if it comes off that price, sell when it hits (and holds) minor resistance again or when it breaks through to next magnet resistance. The thread is about scaling in so I am putting forth a method which involves scaling in (after scaling out). For some people, it works. If something else works for you, that's good too
I was just throwing out an analogy dude, perhaps a weak one, that trading is gambling just like poker/blackjack is gambling and the "loaded" dice are your strong edge in the trade. Anyway, high probability trading setup=pair of J in the hole and a 2d, 6h and Js comes out on the flop. I really don't know poker all that well but you get the idea.
One good book is "Optimizing your trading edge" by Bo yoder. It speaks a lot about payback cycle( ie. you redge has a +ve expectancy). Basic idea is that either the market is is payback mode or it is not. If it is not , then you take conservative approach. If it is then you go aggressive. These cycles repeat periodically for evey edge. How a trader recognizes the state of the current cycle is a little vague though ( more of a feel thing).
Just a thought. But maybe this concept can be used to decide if scaling in is advisible or not.