Out of interest, how would you reply to Euler?
Big deviation from two heavyweights. A synergy could be incredibly insightful to a lot of people
Out of interest, how would you reply to Euler?
Definitely interesting. Here's my view:stueytrader wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:15 pmInteresting post, which I really wanted to reply to, due to an earlier discussion I had on here.JollyGreen wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:31 pm
Another reply on this subject. You are correct in that there is a fair bit of intuitive behaviour but you need to be aware of why a move is happening. As I said, experience plays a part and I cannot give that to new or novice traders. A lot lose money because their entry point is wrong for most of their activity. They see a move and jump on it without asking why it moved. If they waited and checked why it moved they may prevent themselves from creating an instant loss and then chasing their tails. They may actually spot the true reason (or the wrong reason) and then take advantage of it. They may catch the ongoing drift/steam based on a proper move or they may catch a reversion due to a false move.
I remember a similar discussion about the 'why' in market moves, many posters suggested that market moves were often impossible to know a 'why' behind market moves - are we now suggesting that is wrong?
Personally, I agree with the principle that all traders should have an underlying view for why a market drifts or shortens a selection, but I guess we may be discussing fundamentals vs technical analysis here - do we mean a 'fundamental' why or a technical (it's all in the stats) why?
Definitely interesting. Here's my view:
As traders we're intending to place bets that have a probability of making us money over a period of time. That means you need to have some foundation of logical reasoning behind any bets you place. Because however in any one particular case the market can produce a very wildly deviating result from any expectancy you have on the trade -- someone can decide to violently push the price in your favour or against your favour randomly. As such the 'real' why for any one particular market can not be known nor should carry too much weight.
If we can identify a concept or idea behind why the market may have moved such as where price broke below 2.0 for the first time, matched heavy volume between 1.99-1.90 before ultimately failing, returning back above 2 then violently carrying on drifting to the upside: We can have the idea that trader's who tried to take the breakout are trapped holding back positions at decent size. Regardless of whether the drift happens or not after price returns back above 2.00, because of the random element, never can we definitively say that we were "right" or "wrong" on our judgment on that particular market. It's about approaching things from a probabilistic mindset and accepting that your view may have be wrong and you may have taken a profit and similarly your view may have been correct and taken a loss.
Doesn't this discount the use of proving "why"?JollyGreen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:09 pmthe stats say it is not profitable
I know what I am looking for and know long term I will profit
The problem is your strategies are probably taking a very simplistic view and not taking in even half the data available to a manual trader who would be looking at the market as a whole rather than what one runner is doing. Your stats may well say it's not profitable but those stats are made up of lots of individual wins/losses that can always be drilled down further.ruthlessimon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:31 pmDoesn't this discount the use of proving "why"?JollyGreen wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:09 pmthe stats say it is not profitable
I know what I am looking for and know long term I will profit
The way I've read this (& correct me if I'm wrong) so long as it's profitable; that's all that matters (& the why is labelled as "experience"). I do find that uncomfortable though
I take the line that a strategy must be proven in data 1st; then discretion can be overlaid & compared to the "baseline" - but this avenue is extremely limited - because hardly anything gets through the 1st stage (proven in data)
I do agree with this; & that is what I'm doing everyday - trying my best to drill down into certain trades - sucking out new objective ideas/improvements.spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:19 pmThe problem is your strategies are probably taking a very simplistic view and not taking in even half the data available to a manual trader who would be looking at the market as a whole rather than what one runner is doing. Your stats may well say it's not profitable but those stats are made up of lots of individual wins/losses that can always be drilled down further.
I had you down as a quant guru; not a defender of instinctual manual trading!!spreadbetting wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:03 pmWith trading there are far too many variables that manually you'll register but coding them in would probably make things far too restrictive.