|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1700"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>RTer's,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>As promised, here is the explanation of what I
meant this morning when I stated that gambling and trading are very different.
There are several differences, but probably the most important one is that
trading in the markets allows someone to be a <U><STRONG>passive</STRONG></U>
loser. In gambling, the player has to make a conscious choice to play and
decide before the hand or roll of the dice how much he will risk or wager.
The event will then begin and end according to the rules of the game, and the
risk of loss is limited to the original wager unless they double down, split
pairs, etc. But the risk is still defined clearly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>When the game/hand ends, the player knows what the outcome was
and then must make a conscious decision to play again. Therefore, the
structure in gambling forces the player to be an <STRONG><U>active</U></STRONG>
loser. He has to actively participate to lose any more, and do absolutely
nothing to stop losing. This is significantly different than trading where
you have to actively participate to end the losses you are incurring. You
don't have to do anything to continue to lose and the trade could go against you
indefinitely. If for some reason you decide not to stop the losses you
could lose everything you own and more. This situation is compounded by
the human tendency to <U>avoid</U> confronting issues that could be stressful,
unpleasant or painful, not to mention accepting responsibility for your original
decision to place the trade. The easiest decision to make is to do nothing
and put it off until later. Corporate America is full of this mentality,
not to mention government.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>There are other differences dealing with greed, revenge, etc,
but I am going to stop here. I know that some might think the above
difference is minor. But as someone who believes from experience that
trading is more psychological than anything else, I think this difference is
quite significant. And by the way, I love to play Blackjack.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Hope everyone trades well tomorrow!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Bob Heisler</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><A
href="http://www.rjhtrading.com";>www.rjhtrading.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Ira <ist@xxxxxx><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Cc:
</B>RealTraders Discussion Group <<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Wednesday, February 10, 1999 11:03 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: CL_Signal
OnLine & TimberHill down<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>I beg to contradict.
They are interchangeable. If you know what you are doing in either
venue it becomes a matter of probabilities. In dice, poker,
blackjack and most other games of chance the probability of winning change
with each hand or roll of the dice. If one understands this one can
win at any of these supposed games of chance by knowing what the
probabilities are in their favor or against. In stocks, futures and
options like in games of chance the odds are always the same but the
probabilities change with differing conditions. If one understands the
markets and what one is doing then one can be successful in this field
also. There is no black box system that will win in either field but
knowledge and understanding gives the trader and the gambler the same
chance. The casinos know how the odds work. It appears that the
major brokerage houses don't. Have you seen the results of their
trading accounts? Good trading, Ira.
<P>Bob Heisler wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE = CITE> I enjoyed your post, but would like to
comment that trading and gambling are two <B><U><FONT
color=#ff0000>very</FONT></U></B> different animals. Bob<A
href="http://www.rjhtrading.com";>www.rjhtrading.com</A> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>From: M. Edward Borasky <<A
href="mailto:znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>To: RealTraders Discussion Group
<<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999
12:19 AM</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Subject: Re:
CL_Signal OnLine & TimberHill down</FONT></FONT> <BR> >I
think I want to take advantage of this opportunity to engage in a
<BR>>minor rant. First of all, I should note that I am not a
"trader" as you <BR>>folks understand the term. I don't
have either the capital or the time <BR>>to do this sort of trading,
nor do I think I could handle the emotional <BR>>part of the game. I
lived in Las Vegas for nine years, so I've seen the <BR>>symptoms.
<BR>> <BR>>What I do for a living is computer performance
analysis. Along with the <BR>>art and the obvious required skills in
interpreting data, there is a <BR>>great deal of mathematics and
statistics involved. Trading and computer <BR>>performance analysis
have a great deal of common mathematics. And the <BR>>stories I am
hearing from Earl and others on this mailing list and in <BR>>some of
the Usenet groups lead me to believe that the current rage for
<BR>>electronic trading, especially browser clients and Windows N T
or UN IX <BR>>servers, presents us with a classic example of the
sorts of things that <BR>>can happen to you if you don't get your
computer performance analysis <BR>>and capacity planning right.
<BR>> <BR>>The math is pretty hairy, but fortunately some pretty
simple pictures <BR>>tell the story, and when I figure out how to
post them here I will. But <BR>>the basic concepts are throughput --
the number of transactions a system <BR>>is processing in a given
amount of time -- and response time -- the time <BR>>from when the
client submits a request to the server to when the client
<BR>>receives the response back from the server. And *any* system has
a <BR>>*finite* capacity in transactions per second. An idle system
(no <BR>>transactions) has a very fast response time. Add some load
-- increase <BR>>the throughput -- and the response time gets
longer. Exceed the <BR>>capacity of the system -- increase the
throughput beyond a certain <BR>>point -- and the response time
becomes essentially infinte. The system <BR>>can't handle the
transactions, and it either ignores them, or just <BR>>collapses in a
ragged heap. <BR>> <BR>>What Earl is describing, and what I've
heard about the E-trade problems <BR>>and to some extent certain
events during the 1987 stock market crash <BR>>sounds to me very much
like what happens when you try to pump 1000 <BR>>transactions per
second through a system that only has a capacity of 100
<BR>>transactions per second. I can't be sure, of course, without
looking at <BR>>NT PerfMon or UNIX 'sar' traces, but the educated
guess of this <BR>>performance analyst is that a number of the
computer systems that <BR>>high-freqency traders depend on are
operating dangerously near their <BR>>capacity limits. So on top of
all the other risks of high-frequency <BR>>trading, you should be
aware that all computers have a finite capacity <BR>>and that bad
things can happen to you when that capacity is exceeded. <BR>>--
<BR>>M. Edward Borasky <A
href="mailto:znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <A
href="http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb";>http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb</A>
<BR>> <BR>>If God had meant carrots to be eaten cooked, He would
have given rabbits <BR>>fire. <BR>> <BR>>-----Original
Message----- <BR>>From: Earl Adamy <<A
href="mailto:eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx";>eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx</A>> <BR>>To:
RealTraders Discussion Group <<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>>
<BR>>Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 08:54 <BR>>Subject:
CL_Signal OnLine & TimberHill down <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>>One
of those mornings where everything which can go wrong does.
<BR>>TimberHill <BR>>>price feed went down around 830 mountain
- if customers noticed no <BR>>price <BR>>>changes coming in
that was fine, otherwise tough s__t for some 15+ <BR>>minutes
<BR>>>until they sent out a bulletin about 5 minutes before they
got the feed <BR>>back <BR>>>up. Next Signal Online feeds went
down and now they won't stay down nor <BR>>will <BR>>>they stay
up. <BR>>> <BR>>>Earl <BR>>>
<BR>></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Ira <ist@xxxxxx><BR><B>To: </B><A
href="mailto:bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bheisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Cc:
</B>RealTraders Discussion Group <<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Wednesday, February 10, 1999 11:03 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: CL_Signal
OnLine & TimberHill down<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>I beg to contradict.
They are interchangeable. If you know what you are doing in either
venue it becomes a matter of probabilities. In dice, poker,
blackjack and most other games of chance the probability of winning change
with each hand or roll of the dice. If one understands this one can
win at any of these supposed games of chance by knowing what the
probabilities are in their favor or against. In stocks, futures and
options like in games of chance the odds are always the same but the
probabilities change with differing conditions. If one understands the
markets and what one is doing then one can be successful in this field
also. There is no black box system that will win in either field but
knowledge and understanding gives the trader and the gambler the same
chance. The casinos know how the odds work. It appears that the
major brokerage houses don't. Have you seen the results of their
trading accounts? Good trading, Ira.
<P>Bob Heisler wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE = CITE> I enjoyed your post, but would like to
comment that trading and gambling are two <B><U><FONT
color=#ff0000>very</FONT></U></B> different animals. Bob<A
href="http://www.rjhtrading.com";>www.rjhtrading.com</A> <FONT
face=Arial><FONT size=-1>-----Original Message-----</FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>From: M. Edward Borasky <<A
href="mailto:znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>To: RealTraders Discussion Group
<<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999
12:19 AM</FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=-1>Subject: Re:
CL_Signal OnLine & TimberHill down</FONT></FONT> <BR> >I
think I want to take advantage of this opportunity to engage in a
<BR>>minor rant. First of all, I should note that I am not a
"trader" as you <BR>>folks understand the term. I don't
have either the capital or the time <BR>>to do this sort of trading,
nor do I think I could handle the emotional <BR>>part of the game. I
lived in Las Vegas for nine years, so I've seen the <BR>>symptoms.
<BR>> <BR>>What I do for a living is computer performance
analysis. Along with the <BR>>art and the obvious required skills in
interpreting data, there is a <BR>>great deal of mathematics and
statistics involved. Trading and computer <BR>>performance analysis
have a great deal of common mathematics. And the <BR>>stories I am
hearing from Earl and others on this mailing list and in <BR>>some of
the Usenet groups lead me to believe that the current rage for
<BR>>electronic trading, especially browser clients and Windows N T
or UN IX <BR>>servers, presents us with a classic example of the
sorts of things that <BR>>can happen to you if you don't get your
computer performance analysis <BR>>and capacity planning right.
<BR>> <BR>>The math is pretty hairy, but fortunately some pretty
simple pictures <BR>>tell the story, and when I figure out how to
post them here I will. But <BR>>the basic concepts are throughput --
the number of transactions a system <BR>>is processing in a given
amount of time -- and response time -- the time <BR>>from when the
client submits a request to the server to when the client
<BR>>receives the response back from the server. And *any* system has
a <BR>>*finite* capacity in transactions per second. An idle system
(no <BR>>transactions) has a very fast response time. Add some load
-- increase <BR>>the throughput -- and the response time gets
longer. Exceed the <BR>>capacity of the system -- increase the
throughput beyond a certain <BR>>point -- and the response time
becomes essentially infinte. The system <BR>>can't handle the
transactions, and it either ignores them, or just <BR>>collapses in a
ragged heap. <BR>> <BR>>What Earl is describing, and what I've
heard about the E-trade problems <BR>>and to some extent certain
events during the 1987 stock market crash <BR>>sounds to me very much
like what happens when you try to pump 1000 <BR>>transactions per
second through a system that only has a capacity of 100
<BR>>transactions per second. I can't be sure, of course, without
looking at <BR>>NT PerfMon or UNIX 'sar' traces, but the educated
guess of this <BR>>performance analyst is that a number of the
computer systems that <BR>>high-freqency traders depend on are
operating dangerously near their <BR>>capacity limits. So on top of
all the other risks of high-frequency <BR>>trading, you should be
aware that all computers have a finite capacity <BR>>and that bad
things can happen to you when that capacity is exceeded. <BR>>--
<BR>>M. Edward Borasky <A
href="mailto:znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx</A> <A
href="http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb";>http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb</A>
<BR>> <BR>>If God had meant carrots to be eaten cooked, He would
have given rabbits <BR>>fire. <BR>> <BR>>-----Original
Message----- <BR>>From: Earl Adamy <<A
href="mailto:eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx";>eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx</A>> <BR>>To:
RealTraders Discussion Group <<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>>
<BR>>Date: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 08:54 <BR>>Subject:
CL_Signal OnLine & TimberHill down <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>>One
of those mornings where everything which can go wrong does.
<BR>>TimberHill <BR>>>price feed went down around 830 mountain
- if customers noticed no <BR>>price <BR>>>changes coming in
that was fine, otherwise tough s__t for some 15+ <BR>>minutes
<BR>>>until they sent out a bulletin about 5 minutes before they
got the feed <BR>>back <BR>>>up. Next Signal Online feeds went
down and now they won't stay down nor <BR>>will <BR>>>they stay
up. <BR>>> <BR>>>Earl <BR>>>
<BR>></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Wed Feb 10 23:15:34 1999
Received: from list.listserver.com (198.68.191.15)
by mail05.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.2) with SMTP id 8579
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:35:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id RAA02800;
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail2.fais.net (mail2.fais.net [204.214.94.251])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with ESMTP id RAA02631
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chmeyer..fais.net (port16.lgtch01.fais.net [204.214.94.166])
by mail2.fais.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA26773;
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 20:33:15 -0600
Message-Id: <199902110233.UAA26773@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 19:35:10 -0600
Reply-To: <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: "charles meyer" <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PSYCH HELP
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-To: <znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1161
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: 4afa12639611c3e8ae3ca3ba1d495b23.14
Group:
Good information in this post. Number 2 didn't work for me so I
can't suggest it. I can recommend Van Tharp's course but it is
only a start. Van Tharp introduces you to your problems; but you
have to solve them for yourself. Someone told me that they had
really been helped by Ruth Roosevelt but this is only one trader.
I know of someone who went to one of Van Tharp's seminars and
he's still the same guy he was before he went. Simply on an
intutive level (bias?<G>) something doesn't resonate with me that
Van Tharp is a great teacher when he doesn't even trade. And once
you are on his mailing list he will hound you till hell freezes over;
soliciting you to buy something or to attend one of his seminars.
Also went to Mark Douglas' seminar but feel I paid a lot of money for
precious little advice. Dont' forget the importance of number 3.
Restated, you can be an icon of psychological health and still
lose your butt if you trade a system that doesn't have a math-
matical edge.
Charles
----------
> From: znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: PSYCH HELP
> Date: Wednesday, February 10, 1999 3:39 PM
>
> [Quoth the POMPATIS@xxxxxxx:]
> >
> > Greetings:
> >
> > Do any of you know of a hypnotherapist in So. CA. that specializes in,
or is
> > at least familiar with, the challenges and trials of trading?
> >
> > I am ready to look into getting professional assistance, basicaly
behavior and
> > belief modification type of stuff; for which it seems, hypnotherapy is
well
> > suited.
> >
> > I am in the Santa Barbara area and there are plenty of therapists but
none
> > that I know of that know a lick about trading.
> >
> > Any guidance or info is greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Pompatis
> >
>
> 1. It might be worth your while to fly to New York for Ruth Roosevelt or
> North Carolina for Van Tharp's seminars.
>
> 2. Another approach might be to pick a hypnotherpist locally who also
> does Neuro-Linguistic Programming and have him or her do what the NLP
> folks call "modeling". You could also supply the therapist with books by
> Tharp, Schwager's "Market Wizards" and other books on the psychology of
> trading to seed their thinking.
>
> 3. Maybe you don't need a hypnotherapist or other psychological
> practitioner, but rather a mathematician/statistician. :-). In other
> words, maybe the reason you're trading is stressful is because you don't
> understand the mathematics of your approach, what kind of odds it is
> offering. Or maybe it doesn't have a winning edge, or maybe it has an
> edge but doesn't suit your personality. With all due repsect to those
> who work in the field of trader psychology, an awful lot of trading
> methodologies suck and just having the discipline through hypnosis to
> follow them better isn't going to turn you into a winning trader if
> youi're saddled with a mathematically worthless approach.
>
> I went out and learned a lot about NLP and hypnosis at one point, but
> never did any formal training and decided to focus on the mathematical
> aspects, which, given my 35 plus years experience in scientific and
> statistical computing should come as no great surprise. If you find a
> therapist who wants to work with you, I'd be happy to look at the
> mathematics of your methodology to see if there are any reasons you
> shouldn't be trading it.
> --
> znmeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx (M. Edward Borasky) http://www.teleport.com/~znmeb
>
> If God had meant carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits
> fire.
|