|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
BelAirCap wrote:
> Don't worry too much about them. Those daytraders will blowup before the year
> 2000 anyway.
Hmmm...
I don't have any idea why anyone would think this. 5-10% a week returns in ANY
environment (instead of the chump change investors seek) with virtually NO risk
sounds pretty good to me. Working WITH the market and taking advantage of it
instead of *hoping* it won't go against you. Capitalizing on volatility (the more
the better) instead of wanting to avoid it. Going to bed at night flat instead of
having to worry about suffering large gaps against you the next day. NOT EVEN
CARING about the environment at any given time, since this doesn't really affect
your ability to make money in the market anyway.
As a matter of efficiency, it is always best to be out of something when the odds
of a significant pullback (or rally, if you are short) are favorable.
"Significant" here can be interpreted pretty narrowly, as one can exit and
re-enter a trade for less than 1/16. Of course, this small move wouldn't qualify
as significant, but whatever this variable would be, one could take advantage of
it without having to worry about trading costs.
In this sense, "day trading" is more efficient than position or swing trading, and
FAR more efficient than "investing". Therefore, we may expect skilled
practitioners to do much better with shorter-term time frames. Take technology
issues, for example. They have been all over the place the last while, and I
wouldn't expect longer-term players to have done well at all over this period,
perhaps even suffering losses. On the other hand, these issues provided a
fantastic opportunity to day traders over the same period, who could care less
about their overall direction.
While day trading may be more difficult to master, and many new players fail to
make it, the rewards are FAR greater. As a trading strategy, not only will it
continue to be around, it is immeasurably superior to other strategies.
As far as the possibility of TS becoming obsolete in 2000, while I can understand
how some might be upset at this, I figure that since the program will have paid
for itself hundreds of times over at this point - having to pay a few grand more
wouldn't be significant. Being down, however, would be. However, since I
generally only use 4 days worth of data, if I have to start fresh as far as data
is concerned, I'm not going to be too upset.
Regards,
A.J.
|