|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You know I have been called a basher. But I am not. All I want to bring to
this list before i leave is that trading skills are more important than
trading systems. Trading skills will serve you better than software. That is
all I am trying to do.l When I see the frustration level of traders with
their software i wonder how they can trade at all.
If you are thinking of buying or selling,you should know how to put that
same position on as a Spread or an Option and no how to protect yourself
against over-note moves. Even Mark Brown trhat famous Confederate General
sells calls against a futures position.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Buss <sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Neal T. Weintraub <thevindicator@xxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
<omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Trading as a way to financial success (a reply)
>I can't quote Kase vertabim. But I think a concept from her book could add
>some light to this discussion.
>
>She argues that degree of account risk per trade and for any trading system
>is very much dependent on the price volatility of the specific timeframe
>bars one is trading. Assuming one has and implements money management
>techniques appropriate to the timeframe being traded one risks less trading
>30 minute bars than daily bars. This makes a great deal of sense to me.
>
>So, when a few folks state below that "there's no sense trading" with
>anything less than x dollars, I presume they have a particular trading
>timeframe in mind for which they believe x dollars is the equity one should
>have to trade the timeframe.
>
>If one were to trade a larger timeframe than they have in mind, the equity
>requirement would be higher. If one were to trade a smaller timeframe than
>they have in mind, the equity requirement would be lower.
>
>Isn't that right? If not, why do you think so?
>
>Steve Buss
>sbuss@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: xet73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <xet73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Neal T. Weintraub <thevindicator@xxxxxxxxxxx>; cpbow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
><cpbow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 8:53 AM
>Subject: Re: Trading as a way to financial success (a reply)
>
>
>>Peter:
>>
>>Well, perhaps they should do some very basic investigation into the
>business of
>>trading. The more informed they are before they begin, the more likely
they
>are
>>to go bust. And by informed, not just informed about a system, a quote
>system or
>>how to tune their computer.
>>
>>The markets have been around for thousands of years. many people now think
>that
>>something has 'changed' because computers are here and there is an
>internet.
>>Many of these same people think the stock markets can grow to the sky,
>because
>>the 'fundamentals' of economies have now changed--and we'll never need or
>have
>>recessions again. These people are naive.
>>
>>Trading is trading is trading. Learn a good solid foundation, not today's
>fad.
>>
>>Tim Morge
>>
>>Peter Kiefer wrote:
>>>
>>> o.k. they should invest in your workshops --- right
>>>
>>> ----------
>>> > From: Neal T. Weintraub <thevindicator@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > To: cpbow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Cc: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Subject: Re: Trading as a way to financial success (a reply)
>>> > Date: 03 August 1998 16:00
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for your response.
>>> > I wish more people were this direct. People tend to think all they
need
>>> is
>>> > software and a system and they are on their way to Easy Street with
>Easy
>>> > Language. Hey, maybe that could be a new slogan...Easy Street with
Easy
>>> > Language.
>>> > You know when you consider that the Vanguard Funds are up nearly 100%
>in
>>> > three years, it is hard to understand why people even fall prey to
>>> commodex.
>>> > The Merc has a course called before you trade. But I can tell you
this.
>>> > Anyone with less than 20,000 in trading cash should not be in Futures.
>>> > Period. End of Story. I am tired of hearing about people saving
$7500,
>>> then
>>> > buying software for $3500 and using the balance to trade.
>>> > And anyone with more than $10,000 in credit card debt can never trader
>>> > themselves out of debt.
>>> > Take the $7500.00 and buy a vending route.
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: Conrad Bowers <cpbow@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > To: Neal T. Weintraub <thevindicator@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > Cc: Omega List <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> > Date: Sunday, August 02, 1998 3:23 PM
>>> > Subject: Trading as a way to financial success (a reply)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > >Neal T. Weintraub wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> wHAT DO YOU THINK OF TRADING AS A WAY TO FINANCIAL SUCCESS.
>>> > >> PLEASE POST YOUR RESPONSE TO THE LIST.
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > > For a minute I thought this was a joke (in light of my very recent
>>> > >post) but I believe it's not so here goes:
>>> > >
>>> > > I think you have to have a method that actually makes money and the
>>> > >capital to withstand the drawdowns that will occur before you
succeed.
>>> > >That makes it not a very good way to go for someone of limited means
>or
>>> > >anyone who is emotionally attached to money. The brochures that
say,
>>> > >we have a great system, and then show it on 20 commodities, often go
>on
>>> > >to say, "you can trade this on a more limited portfolio with $5000".
>>> > >Even tho they may have been honest in their testing, I believe the
>>> > >chances of the smaller portfolio having acceptable results is much
>>> > >lower. Primarily because the drawdown numbers for a smaller
portfolio
>>> > >will be more prone to being inaccurate or the portfolio "cherry
>picked".
>>> > >
>>> > > It's not the easy street it's made out to be either. Unless it's a
>>> > >small portion of your net worth and NOT your way of making a living,
>>> > >it's hard to see how it could not be anything but stressful to some
>>> > >degree.
>>> > >
>>> > > For many of us who have other careers, it can become a second job in
>>> > >itself, maybe even supplanting our original one. In effect my
>original
>>> > >goal to pay off some debts has become a goal to succeed in trading.
>And
>>> > >that goal has distracted me quite a bit from my first career. I can
>>> > >tell you why I don't like my current job, but was the transition to
>>> > >spending a lot of time on trading well thot out? Nope, it evolved.
>For
>>> > >those of us who seek to make a transition (or by default are making
>the
>>> > >transition) from our current career to trading as a means of making a
>>> > >living or being sucessful, maybe we should step back partway along
the
>>> > >way and ask, was this the right thing to do?
>>> > >Even if it was a means to $ sucess for an individual with another
>>> > >career, it might not be right for them. I guess everyone has to ask
>>> > >themselves what success is.
>>> > >
>>> > > Also I think your emotions have to favor you being in it. If you
>have
>>> > >conflicting feelings about it, it's less likely you will succeed.
>>> > >Recently, I built up my small account from about 3K to 6K, patiently
>>> > >grinding out small losses and a few larger wins in options and
>>> > >mini-contracts. But a number of emotionally charged issues have come
>>> > >up, at times introducing frustration, discouragement, and even guilt
>>> > >into my thoughts. After being rigorous (perhaps too much so) about
>>> > >kicking back options that werent' making money, I suddenly stopped
>>> > >looking at options i had altogether, same with most potential new
>>> > >positions. What was going on? The only thing I can think of, is
that
>>> > >my ambivilence about some of my decisions, including getting into
>>> > >trding, was being manifest by actions that might take me out of it.
>I
>>> > >used to scoff at some of the stuff in M. Douglas book about how you
>may
>>> > >defeat yourself - seemed crazy, why would anyone do that? But now, I
>>> > >think I've seen it in my own trading.
>>> > >
>>> > > In short then I think it is a way to financial success for a few
>people
>>> > >- The ones who either find a method and/or have the talent to
succeed
>>> > >in this field. It's a low-probability route for someone who does not
>>> > >have a fair amount of capital already. I think its a way to
financial
>>> > >success for someone who:
>>> > >
>>> > >1. has a positive expectation system or talent, and has confidence in
>>> > >it.
>>> > >
>>> > >2. has the capital to back that up.
>>> > >
>>> > >3. has a risk mgmt plan consisntent with 1+2.
>>> > >
>>> > >4. Doesn't have conflicting emotions about the money at risk; doesn't
>>> > >have conflicting emotions about other issues or people that are in
any
>>> > >way impacted by the decision to trade.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >What % of people in this crazy arena do you think have all 4? For
>those
>>> > >it's a good way to financial success. For the rest, nope.
>>
>
|