TMBTC

It's true........

I thought you of all people would have appreciated this! You're the one who keeps demanding people present "math." Oh wait...I get it...if the "math" begins with assumptions that are different than yours, it's not math...it's BS. :rofl:

Business 101 would probably be way over my head, because I'm still not convinced. What's "fact," what's "realistic," what's "possible," etc. is (normally) all relative. This conversation could go on forever, which is why I'm decidedly "tapping out." What's true for one person may not be true for another...however, often the attitude is "if it's true for me, then it's true for everyone...and I must convince everyone that my truth should in fact be their truth...and if I have a hard time at it, I will get angry/emotional..." The only real wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

IMHO, the "math" you keep speaking of is minor details...any monkey can run the numbers...come up with hypothetical examples/scenarios for this and that with Excel... How does having a specific target yield in any way affect slippage, commission, etc.? Then why have it? What purpose does it serve other than as a potential limit (whether intentional or not)?

Here's an example of one way... And of course, you can do the math if the trader averages 10R or greater per week and compounds monthly, weekly, or continuously.

Your point is valid and I agree with you, although I would propose that your question is perhaps of equal importance. Different strokes for different folks...there's no "truth" in the markets...the truth is what works. No one has THE way, etc... However, I would only propose that creating "new and effective indicators" is generally unnecessary/often isn't really anything "new" at all. I want to refer to thalestrader's great post here (post #29) on the subject, as he has articulated the point better than I ever could.

Who says one has to be an original trader to be a great trader? (I'm not saying brownsfan is original or great...I have no way of knowing...I'm just responding to the quote).

All right, MM...you've convinced me that your conclusion was not totally unreasonable. I guess the fact that I agree with 99% of what he's saying for my own trading caused me to perceive it differently than you.

First, I admit, I do enjoy disagreeing with you MM. I only disagreed with how you perceived the poster's intent...I felt there was no good reason to doubt that the poster was genuinely trying to help and offering what he felt was sound advice. I never got the impression that the guy thought he walked on water, etc. I suppose anyone offering advice could be perceived as arrogant, because it's implied that the person giving the advice believes that he or she may know something that the person receiving advice does not. However, beyond the fact that the poster was giving advice, I didn't think he came across as particularly arrogant. I enjoyed the post's perspective, most of which I tend to agree with concerning my own trading...I just thought it was a little much to call it THE TRUTH...not sure if the title was from the OP of this thread or the OP of the quoted post...

Oh, MM...always so negative! Your posts remind me so much of ET... I thought the article was very good, however, my only criticism would be the title of this thread...the truth of trading...THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN THE MARKET (or, in my opinion, in life). The "truth" is whatever works (think about that). That's a problem with a lot of traders/people...since it's this way for me, it's this way for everybody... If you just read Market Wizards (any of the 3 books), you will read about a selection of highly successful traders, some of whom disagree on virtually everything...and for each common trait/advice/method you find, there is almost always an extreme exception...yet they are all extremely successful. I thought it was a very good post, and I disagree with MM's post...but I think it's a little much to call it the truth...

You do if it takes you 20-25 years...that's an average of $3,800-$4750 per year...and that's average...the trader would start with a substantially smaller income in the beginning of the period. EDIT: Of course, it goes without saying that if you have a much much larger account and could produce the same returns, you'd be all right...

Well, it sounds like you've got it all figured out. Good luck. Sorry to have bothered you with my nonsense.

You can't compare traders/fund managers managing millions of dollars with trading a $5k account. I don't want to spend time arguing. We can just agree to disagree.

Nice to see MM is back to his old self. MM -- if you truly believe that, then why do you waste your time on trading? The way you put it, it doesn't seem all that lucrative to me... ---------- I believe this type of negative attitude (the type you see flooding trading forums) is some sort of psychological defense mechanism. It goes without saying that if people don't believe that certain levels of performance are achievable without being extremely lucky, then those people haven't come close to achieving sustained performance like that themselves. So, the natural response to cope with this perceived "failure" is to not take responsibility for it...it's not my fault I that can't do it, it's impossible...anyone who does do it is just lucky...etc. That way you don't have to take responsibility for your performance, because it's out of your hands. This really wasn't directed at MM...just thoughts on the overall negative attitudes I see overwhelming trading forums. For the record, I consider it very reasonable to turn a $5k account to $100k in one year for a great trader. Of course, as the account size grows, the yearly returns diminish proportionally for obvious reasons (ie turning $500k to $10 mil in one year is a different story).

Live and let live, everyone!