[Cory2679]

Originally Posted by Gabe2004 »

I like to see some losing trades and i am looking for losing setups jsut so that my are trained to see the condition that is there when i enter into a trade that is a losing one.
If the setup looks identical to the winning trade setup then I understand that the loss was not due to a bad setup but because of the statistical nature of this business.

Gabe

Nothing's really every "identical," in my opinion. It may seem like it, but there may be other things on the chart that make the situation different that you might not notice. I think a practice like that could be dangerous.

Just my

[Gabe2004]

Originally Posted by Cory2679 »

Nothing's really every "identical," in my opinion. It may seem like it, but there may other things on the chart that make the situation different that you might not notice. I think a practice like that could be dangerous.

Just my

A setup can mean not just the immediate chart formation but things outside of the timeframe of the trading chart or it could be another instrument.
Gabe

[Gabe2004]

Originally Posted by Gabe2004 »

There is another person whith whom I discussed different trading strategies and eventhough he was very open in explaining his method (verbal, charts etc) I do not, to this day, understand what he does (to the point of making money, that is).

We had a chat online with the above mentioned person.
This time I was looking at one of his charts and he was explaining to me (again) what he was doing.
The difference was that this time some things clicked.
The interaction in realtime with the ability to ask and respond immediately made the difference.
What I realized was that J (we'll call him J) did in his head some background proccessing that he never mentioned when he tried to explaing things to me in the past.
It was those things that to him were trivial and he skipped during our chats without the charts that made the difference.

Gabe

[Cory2679]

Originally Posted by Gabe2004 »

A setup can mean not just the immediate chart formation but things outside of the timeframe of the trading chart or it could be another instrument.
Gabe

Yeah, but STILL, even if you consider everything you know to consider, I doubt you can find two truly identical situations (EDIT: ie, specific news that's coming out, the time of day/year, players in the market, which players are on the sidelines, how big they are, infinite number of timeframes of charts that may indicate different things, certain indicators that are giving signals, and the list goes on forever).

If someone were to do what you're talking about, and decide that such and such trade was a loser BECAUSE of this and that (lets say you've had 2 losing trades on a seemingly identical setup), I think that will lead to filtering trades which overall may be a mistake.

For example, if one of those trades that Thales posted as "trying to get a loser" was a loser, you might say "Oh, that was a loser BECAUSE OF such and such on that chart, and I won't take a trade like that.", when really it may have been just fine to get into.

Basically, EVERY situation/setup you get into has a chance of being a loser, and if you filtered out every potential losing trade, you'd end up with NO valid setups in the end...

This is an extreme example and I'm sure you wouldn't take it that far, but I was just trying to make my point.

I'm not trying to argue or anything, and I know you have a lot more experience that I do, but that's just what I thought when I read that so I thought I'd share.

-Cory

[Gabe2004]

Originally Posted by Cory2679 »

Nothing's really every "identical," in my opinion. It may seem like it, but there may be other things on the chart that make the situation different that you might not notice. I think a practice like that could be dangerous.

Just my

There is no IDENTICAL in trading (at least i don't think so) but SIMILAR there is.
Maybe I should have used the word SIMILAR instead.
When we look at patterns there has to be some wiggle room in pattern recognition.
Look up FUZZY LOGIC as opposed to CRISP/BINARY logic for a clearer explanation.
Trading requires FUZZY logic.

Gabe

[Cory2679]

Talking about similiar/identical situations makes me think of the Paul Tudor Jones movie, "Trader," and the correlation between the 1980's charts and the 1920's charts...over 90% correlation. Crazy.

I've been lucky enough to meet PTJ via video conference, by the way!

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by forrestang »

Not as though this is a big deal, but whether or not one says 'predict' the future, or 'anticipate' a certain thing happening, or an 'educated guess' is just a matter of semantics. In that it's just how one chooses to phrase a phenomenon.

The point is that we ALL take some guess as to where we think price is going to move, and place a trade based on that belief. That's the ONLY way we can make a profit. Whether you call it a 'prediction' or an 'educated guess' or 'anticipation' has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a profit is made or if the trade selection was logical.

I think it just sounds cool to say things like, "I don't predict where the market is going, I just react to what it does," is just one of those trader cliches that sounds awesome and mystical.

I note that forrestang has already clarified understandings of anticipate and predict.

I'd just like to add another one. In our brains, when we say a word to ourselves it has linkages (groups of neurons fire). Predict has some very strong linkages and because primitive hunters were biased towards recognizing weak patterns (tiger in the grass) because spotting them 15 times wrongly didn't hurt much and 1x right saved your life, predict generates a sense of certainty that we logically know to be invalid. But the brain still has it.

So choosing words that the brain doesn't trigger on is important (humans are not logical especially when risk is involved). I now use anticipate or "think it might" or state odds like:

I think theres a 60/40 chance of a move in this direction ... and I can stop it there if it triggers so if it does move the win is likely to be X times the loss.

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by Don4 »

"If price actually does break above then the move up is often powerful."

I guess I could say the same thing for a short. But you have no way of knowing. Any body could guess. But the truth is everybody here is only guessing! Even Thales. OK back to the program.

Don

Originally Posted by Cory2679 »

Educated guesses...the same way meterologists, in their prediction of the weather, can only make educated guesses.

On this subject I'd add to Thales comment. Ask yourself why a pattern works. And ask "what are other traders seeing and doing here?"

In an ascending tightening flag people are saying "three little indians" and " the thrust is weakening" and stochs are flattening and macd's are showing divergence. So people are starting to dump to take profit or go short.

So, what happens if the pattern either fails to trigger or ticks the trigger then breaks back?

A much more powerful situation! Now the profit takers think about reentry and the shorts must exit. So all the people who saw pattern a) are wrong-sided and the ones who move back fuel the move up. Which is why, when they fail, obvious patterns can be strong ... and the better the R:R of the failure the stronger they are likely to be.


Ask not what the market will do for you ... but what you will do if it does.