|
I believe trading is far more an art than a science.
Answer: I disagree.
For one thing, if trading were a science, then we should all be able to enter the same trade at the same time, and exit at the same time, getting identical results.
Answer: Correct
We all know that just isn’t so.
Answer: Incorrect
Yet if trading were scientific, we should be able to get identical results by doing the same thing.
Answer: Correct
I believe such expectation describes the “scientific method.”
Answer: Correct
In addition, if trading were scientific, we should be able to come up with a “get rich” formula that would work all the time.
Answer: Both correct and incorrect
We could then all retire and never have to work again.
Answer: possible
We all know this isn’t so either.
Answer: you mean, you believe it isn't so.
When we, as traders, make a trading decision, most of the time we do not fully know why we are making that decision.
Answer: Incorrect
You look at a market, you think about taking a trade in that market, and at some point you pull the trigger. You have thought of dozens of things in the time interval leading up to your entry. If I were to ask you, "Exactly why are you buying what you are, or why are you selling what you are?" you would probably not be able to give an accurate answer.
Answer: Incorrect
You may be able to give a few reasons, but it will most likely not be the full answer.
Answer: Incorrect
A lot of your decision to enter is subconscious.
Answer: Incorrect
You do not really know why you entered, especially if you are day trading. To that extent it is more an art than a science, because you cannot fully demonstrate why you are doing what you are doing.
Answer: Incorrect
But you could say, "I fully know what I'm doing. I am taking the trade because I am following the signals of my method or system."
Answer: Correct
Wonderful, you have just proved my point.
Answer: Incorrect
When you are blindly trading signals from a method or system, you truly don't know why you are taking the trade.
Answer: Incorrect
You are essentially acting like a robot,
Answer: correct
pre-programmed to follow signals whether or not they make sense.
Answer: Science has proven them to "make sense" or be successful at least 85-90%.
I am not disparaging trading that way.
Answer: Yes, you are. Since you cannot figure it out, you try and find ways in your brain to prove it incorrect.
If a method or system produces winning results, then what you are doing is following a statistically proven plan.
Answer: Correct
All methods and all systems are based on statistics.
Answer: Correct.
The odds on any single trade are never more than 50% win or lose.
Answer: Incorrect
However, the probability for a succession of trades is quite another story.
Answer: ok, what's your point?
If you are trading a method that wins seven out of ten times that you enter, and the method has produced a loser three or four times in a row, then the probability for a successful trade increases each time you enter the market.
Answer: Incorrect
Sooner or later, over a series of trades, you are going to have the result of seven winners against 3 losers.
Answer: Incorrect, science has proven a system to more profitable than not, regardless of number of trades or any particular ratio you intend to use.
That is statistically valid; however, it is not exactly rocket science.
Answer: Incorrect, it is scientifically proven.
You will have proven that trading is an art — the art of following a statistically valid plan. |
|