|
So, I like stocks and currencies.
PZZA is Papa John's, and I've got a prediction. The price will gap down on Monday, and head down towards $35. (within the week)
On the 18th, I believe, there was enough volume to break an EMA of 13. This means institutions and banks sold near the high of that day. The price itself is also about $10 above the 200 EMA, and hasn't touched it in a while. There hasn't been any correction yet on it's gap up on 2nd of May, and combined with the candle pattern of the Wed., Thur., and Fri, there should be a big jump down Monday.
Also, PZZA correlates a lot with it's peers. CMG, or Chipotle, just had a nasty drop of almost 22%. They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well.
I haven't played SC2 much since I've started getting into the markets.
Note: Don't take this advice. Do your own research if you partake in any investing or trading activies.
  
|
what's happening in the market that's causing fast food to drop?
|
Investors trying to outguess other investors
|
On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors
Exactly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis
The weak EMH is relevant here.
It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing.
If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
|
I thought this would be about pizza T_T
|
16969 Posts
They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well.
I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen.
|
United States24637 Posts
On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen.
It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due!
|
If something is "due" to happen in the stock market, then it would have already happened.
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
would you like to play some poker with me.
|
On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time.
Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
|
On July 23 2012 05:23 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time. Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
The point is not whether you have a talent, but whether that talent is socially useful and whether we should be paying you so much for it.
|
On July 23 2012 03:11 Rinny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:42 TheKwas wrote:Exactly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesisThe weak EMH is relevant here. It's amazing how much 'research' people who try to 'play' the markets do, but the most obvious and consistent research shows that picking stocks at random is equally as profitable as experts picking and choosing. If you do manage to outguess all the other guessers, it's not because you were smarter or did more research. it's because you were luckier at that point in time. would you like to play some poker with me.
Poker=/=stocks. You totally missed the point if you thought the two had some sort of relation with each other. They are two totally different games and there's no market in poker.
It's been shown repeatedly and consistently that stocks picked at complete random will perform just as good on average as stocks picked by so-called experts on average. That's not to say that investers are useless, since they are the ones largely causing the stock market to be mostly efficient, but it does show that specific predictive statements that suggest the market can be beaten with research--like the OPs--are largely useless.
Can I see your portfolio? Can we play poker? Could you school me on game theory?
*sigh*
It's odd how this is such a reliable stereotype about finance men. "I've done so much research and worked really hard, I MUST be able to beat the market!". It's largely a field made up of smart, but arrogant men who will always embrace success as their own doing and failure as unpredictable acts of god.
Poker is not finance, and although I don't know who is more knowledgeable in game theory, in this case simple statistics is all that is needed to make my point: random walk investers do just as good as expert investors, and even the distribution of successful 'expert' investers follow statistical distributions that suggest primarily luck as the cause rather than the success of better analysis techniques.
Source: http://www.ifa.com/pdf/FalseDiscoveriesinMutualFundsSSRN.pdf
There's a lot more studies in the literature that say essentially the same thing which I can cite if you have access to pay-wall academic journals.
The best investing advice out there is to not bother paying 'experts' to invest your money for you.
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
Plot your success against the market average over your entire career/life. Are you really doing significantly better than market average? Even if you're doing better, are you doing significantly better? On average, roughly 50% of investors will be slightly above the average (more than 50% of career investors, since those that lose out early tend to go through the revolving finance door, while the bigger winners stick around).
If you really are doing significantly better than the market, congrats, you are in fact lucky.
|
On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due!
It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world.
|
On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors
Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
TheKwas, I'm taking it that you don't actually have a single clue what you are talking about. Have you ever done anything concerning trading? I'm not an investor, something that clearly shows ignorance on your part. I am a trader. I rarely hold any position for more than a day. (The time frame noted in the OP should've given you an idea.)
You can take a lot from poker and apply it to the markets and vice versa.
When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence? On the link you have provided, they just simply come up with a formula to predict how many truly skilled fund managers there are in any given population. They can't actually get any real data, and they even say that.
If you look at OP, the scenario is actually very similar to another scenario I missed. GURE had a 20 and 50 SMA cross, where the 20 crossed above the 50. This is usually taken as a signal relative to what price has been doing. This happened on a Friday, and so for three entire days, the US market was able to see this. On Monday, the price gapped up too much for me to get in. This was around March.
I may show you a picture of my recent forex trades, which will show you a high percentage of being "lucky" as you like to say. It's not a big account by any means, but I'm sticking within the confines of money management. Then again, do you have any idea what the forex markets are?
|
On July 23 2012 15:39 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 00:22 sam!zdat wrote:
Investors trying to outguess other investors Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros. Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
I'm not the one making the point about success over random walk...
I don't disagree about the gamic quality of the market. My point is that it's not in the interests of society to run things in the way we do now, although parts of it are very good ideas.
|
On July 23 2012 12:03 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +
I guess my job is just me getting lucky all the time then
Damn i'm one lucky motherfucker
Plot your success against the market average over your entire career/life. Are you really doing significantly better than market average? Even if you're doing better, are you doing significantly better? On average, roughly 50% of investors will be slightly above the average (more than 50% of career investors, since those that lose out early tend to go through the revolving finance door, while the bigger winners stick around). If you really are doing significantly better than the market, congrats, you are in fact lucky.
lol
I'm a trader, i don't invest. I scalp futures spreads.
You're pretty much a moron if you believe any part of EMH, but unfortunately as far as actually making money from trading goes academia is SO behind the level of the market it's ridiculous
I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky"
As with every prop firm, not everyone makes it, some guys come and go, but the ones who stay and really clean up do it because they slave their asses off staring at numbers 12 hours a day every single day.
If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. Also, psychologically algorithms and market players can be very predictable and thus abused in these particular areas of markets since the primary players are other prop firms trying to take advantage of hedgers in the market.
|
United States24637 Posts
On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world.
I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are!
|
Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money.
Flash has dominated the BW scene for years now. He probably has a good degree of luck, but he has a lot of skill to back it up. In a contest of BW skill where Flash has to face a monkey 100 or 1000 times in a row, Flash will win 100% of the time. BW (or even sc2!) doesn't produce results we would expect from random walks.
In a case where expert investors have to face monkeys throwing darts at the finance section, the monkeys will win just under 50% of the time (if i remember correctly studies say there's something like 2.5-3% average difference between actively managed funds and index funds, which is less than the fees you pay for the average managed fund). One game is based on luck a HELLALOT more than the other.
Monkeys aside, very, very few actively managed funds match or beat indexes consistently in the long run. The ones that do aren't doing anything significantly different than the others: take a few hundred guys flipping coins, and a few of them are bound to flip 25 heads in a row. The performance of managed funds can be plotted according to a normal distribution, exactly how we would it expect it to if the most determining factor in success was random chance.
When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/22stra.html?_r=1
I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky"
That's hardly an insult. Hell, I wish i was lucky! An insult would be to say that most of the wall street industry has evolved into a bloated parasite on society. That's an insult, not at you individually, but at your industry.
Insults aside, humans are evolved to look for patterns in randomness. Superstitious of all kinds evolve from that human tendency.
If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. I like to rub my monkey's belly before he throws the dart. That seems to help.
|
On July 23 2012 18:36 TheKwas wrote:Show nested quote +Bw pros trying to outguess other Bw pros.
Face it, SC2 and BW and most other RTS's are just a game of paper rock scissors. There are certainly builds that certainly dominate the fuck out of other certain builds. Trying to figure out what your opponent is akin to trying to figure out what the institutions and the banks are doing. They are your opponents, they are trying to take your money. Flash has dominated the BW scene for years now. He probably has a good degree of luck, but he has a lot of skill to back it up. In a contest of BW skill where Flash has to face a monkey 100 or 1000 times in a row, Flash will win 100% of the time. BW (or even sc2!) doesn't produce results we would expect from random walks. In a case where expert investors have to face monkeys throwing darts at the finance section, the monkeys will win just under 50% of the time (if i remember correctly studies say there's something like 2.5-3% average difference between actively managed funds and index funds, which is less than the fees you pay for the average managed fund). One game is based on luck a HELLALOT more than the other. Monkeys aside, very, very few actively managed funds match or beat indexes consistently in the long run. The ones that do aren't doing anything significantly different than the others: take a few hundred guys flipping coins, and a few of them are bound to flip 25 heads in a row. The performance of managed funds can be plotted according to a normal distribution, exactly how we would it expect it to if the most determining factor in success was random chance. Show nested quote +When you say that picking a random stock is just as good as choosing a specific one, where's your evidence? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/your-money/stocks-and-bonds/22stra.html?_r=1Show nested quote +I'm not even sure if i should bother humouring you after you basically insult me and everyone in my building by calling us "lucky" That's hardly an insult. Hell, I wish i was lucky! An insult would be to say that most of the wall street industry has evolved into a bloated parasite on society. That's an insult, not at you individually, but at your industry. Insults aside, humans are evolved to look for patterns in randomness. Superstitious of all kinds evolve from that human tendency. Show nested quote +If you want me to quantify my personal edge, i basically take advantage of illiquidity in back spreads and the inability to effectively price extremely hedged intra product spreads. I like to rub my monkey's belly before he throws the dart. That seems to help.
Lmao, dude, you can't use a fucking NYT article as evidence. Even then, we aren't talking about holding a position for 20 fucking years. We aren't even talking about holding a position, as it may be too late to even get in as there could very be a gap down. Much reading comprehension?
You keep trying to pick something that is completely off topic. Learn the difference between trading and investing. Don't even respond to this until you have, because you know you don't know the difference.
Have you ever heard of the Golden Ratio? If you think there's a lot of randomness in the universe, you'd be very surprised.
|
The difference is just in the time period you hold stocks. Both investors and traders, on average, don't beat the market average consistently in the long run. Managed mutual and hedge funds will often engage in short-run trading where they think they can beat the market. The distinction doesn't invalidate any of my claims.
Lmao, dude, you can't use a fucking NYT article as evidence.
I can't use studies by "Mark Kritzman, president and chief executive of Windham Capital Management of Boston"? I'm just using the NYTs as a quick proxy (aka a secondary source, aka a perfectly valid and acceptable source of evidence by all scholarly standards). The primary source is "Feb. 1 issue of Economics & Portfolio Strategy", as stated in the article.
Are you really quoting the golden ratio as proof of non-randomness in the universe? Are you going to start talking about how the number 23 is related to everything else while you're at it?
|
Ok look seriously
Most investors/traders suck and are flipping coins. It's absolutely no different from poker, where the vast majority of players suck
Markets are made of humans, and fortunately for me, if you lie within the top %ile required to win, then you can transfer money from other traders to your bank account.
This is the simplest way i can explain it, and if you can't get that then sorry.
If you think poker is all luck without an edge then you're sorely mistaken, trading is no different.
This is just considering futures, but you got wilder cases such as stocks which isn't even a zero sum game...
If you want i can even quantifiably prove to you there is money in the market just by giving examples of the kinds of trades that even the most junior prop traders with a lot of discipline can do, such as data trading or scalps when spreads move out of line
And if you still think theres no edge in that well, then you're just wrong :x I'm sitting right now in a building full of millionaires who have done exactly what i described
|
On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are!
Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful.
|
Lemme guess... I only got "lucky".
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JKoZE.png)
|
On July 23 2012 20:33 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm sitting right now in a building full of millionaires who have done exactly what i described
And now you see the problem...
|
On July 24 2012 03:16 DigiGnar wrote:Lemme guess... I only got "lucky".
I can't see the image because I am at work.
But didn't you say it would go down toward $35
I see it opened at $50.44 and currently with 15 min left till close it is at $50.18. Grated that is down $1 or so from previous close, but still you said it would go to the 30s and it didn't even break into the $40s
Really wish I could see the picture because I fear I am making an ass of myself.
|
On July 24 2012 02:29 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are! Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful.
Any price action scalper worth their salt can make very short term calls (like, i'm talking a period of 30 seconds to a minute or even less)
There are absolute classics, but in general the idea is that the mugs in the market all usually have similar opinions/levels, and the smart money generally push it the other way to squeeze out the dumb money and take profit when they stop out
So yes, reversals can be "due", and tops form when all the idiots who were short get squeezed and stop out.
But hey, i'm just using common sense, logic and thousands of hours of seeing the same shit over and over. You can believe whatever you want.
On July 24 2012 03:31 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 20:33 BrTarolg wrote:
I'm sitting right now in a building full of millionaires who have done exactly what i described And now you see the problem...
It's evidence enough there are people out there who can beat the market, consistently and in a completely crushing manner. You will of course, never hear about them, and it is likely you will never hear about me. I'll certainly never be making any papers, prop is a quiet bunch for a reason.
edit: FYI i don't use any charts, and thus it would be very difficult for me to show this to you because you need to basically be right there to watch it happen in front of you. Charts are only good at telling you what's happened and are generally a red herring - if you want to make any money you need to see what's happening NOW, and watch the price action.
But next time you see a bunch of retail investors (or your "monkeys" as it were, because the average investor sucks shit) all complaining they had a stoploss and they got taken out at the top, if only they held on a "little bit longer", it's obvious that the smart money has deliberately pushed the market to a point where they run over all the dumb money stops
|
On July 24 2012 04:47 Smancer wrote:I can't see the image because I am at work. But didn't you say it would go down toward $35 I see it opened at $50.44 and currently with 15 min left till close it is at $50.18. Grated that is down $1 or so from previous close, but still you said it would go to the 30s and it didn't even break into the $40s Really wish I could see the picture because I fear I am making an ass of myself.
The price will gap down on Monday, and head down towards $35. (within the week)
Well, you kinda made an ass out of yourself. The first part is the gap down on monday. I may be wrong on when the price will hit $35, but price will reach $35 sooner or later.
I did make a prediction about the Eur/Usd and how it would hit 1.2000, in the euro thread in general. Price hasn't hit that level specifically, but price has traded in that hundred pip range this week. I was wrong about when since there was a pretty good correction that happened.
|
Hey DigiGnar,
I'm looking to get into trading on the side while working. Any tips or advice on how I should start out researching and getting into it? There are a lot of courses for it, but I get the feeling most of the people teaching those courses are crooks.
|
On July 24 2012 07:12 Callandor wrote:
Hey DigiGnar,
I'm looking to get into trading on the side while working. Any tips or advice on how I should start out researching and getting into it? There are a lot of courses for it, but I get the feeling most of the people teaching those courses are crooks.
Babypips.com
Take their little course. You will learn the basics. Start a demo account and start utilizing what you are learning. Keep at it, because you will lose many demo accounts before you start getting the hang of it.
Look at forexfactory.com and their forums. They have some brilliant people on there, and a lot of dumbasses. You'll learn more about money management here, I believe.
Oh, start out with demo accounts. This is very important. Which broker you use doesn't matter, but once you get into real money, the broker then really does matter.
And then, take this thought:
Would you buy a TV that just jumped up 100$ or just dropped 100? Would you sell a TV if it jumped up 100$ or dropped 100$?
|
On July 24 2012 07:12 Callandor wrote:
Hey DigiGnar,
I'm looking to get into trading on the side while working. Any tips or advice on how I should start out researching and getting into it? There are a lot of courses for it, but I get the feeling most of the people teaching those courses are crooks.
My advice: don't
I think forex is a death trap (i know some guys who do it, but they work in a hedge fund with a team of very highly paid quants and some very sophisticated models and algorithms at work)
Long term investing is simple, but most people (especially funds and retail investors) manage to fuck it up really badly, because in the end investors just have bad psychology
Not most, ALL of the people teaching these courses are crooks. I've seen some genuine guys who started off trying to teach something useful, but in the end they realise
a> the money from selling seminars is too good (seriously, risk free money is very attractive to a trader)
b> the realisation that every single person who goes to their courses will never be able to trade for shit, so there's no point teaching them anything useful
If you really want to trade, go work for a bank as a trader (ultra competitive, good luck getting in, become a market maker basically)
Best option is to find someone who has been in the industry a long time and has consistently made money over a long period of time who is willing to teach you personally for whatever reason (family friend, he likes you, who the fuck knows)
You can take my path and join a prop firm and basically slave your ass of every day for several years (and a large portion of that with zero pay until you actually make money, which usually takes most traders about a year to do) in an ultra competitive market and basically work harder than everyone else so that at the end of it you have an edge over all the other market participants (i.e the other players).
Generally in these firms they cut people who wont make it VERY quickly, generally about 5-10% of the guys who get in will end up making anything decent. It's not a diceroll as to "who's good and who's bad" some people just have it, some people don't. Try to work out whether you do early on
And honestly, if you really REALLY want to be a trader, you probably wan't it so badly that anything i say doesn't matter, the best guys always find a way in somehow because the best always rise to the top no matter how shit the circumstances are.
|
On July 24 2012 06:27 BrTarolg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are! Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful. Any price action scalper worth their salt can make very short term calls (like, i'm talking a period of 30 seconds to a minute or even less) There are absolute classics, but in general the idea is that the mugs in the market all usually have similar opinions/levels, and the smart money generally push it the other way to squeeze out the dumb money and take profit when they stop out So yes, reversals can be "due", and tops form when all the idiots who were short get squeezed and stop out. But hey, i'm just using common sense, logic and thousands of hours of seeing the same shit over and over. You can believe whatever you want.
Eh? I wasn't talking to you.
|
On July 24 2012 11:36 UniversalSnip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 06:27 BrTarolg wrote:On July 24 2012 02:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are! Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful. Any price action scalper worth their salt can make very short term calls (like, i'm talking a period of 30 seconds to a minute or even less) There are absolute classics, but in general the idea is that the mugs in the market all usually have similar opinions/levels, and the smart money generally push it the other way to squeeze out the dumb money and take profit when they stop out So yes, reversals can be "due", and tops form when all the idiots who were short get squeezed and stop out. But hey, i'm just using common sense, logic and thousands of hours of seeing the same shit over and over. You can believe whatever you want. Eh? I wasn't talking to you.
In texas hold em, getting pocket aces should happen once about every 256 hands or so. Doesn't mean that it will always happen, but knowing that, you will know when you are getting lucky and when you are running dry. Knowing if you are running lucky can let you prevent getting a high from winning so that you can make better decisions. I don't like flipping coins, but sometimes I'll go all in with pocket 8s preflop with just one guy.
Just because I'm willing to gamble doesn't mean the other guy is. This is where game theory comes in and makes poker a different game from a game like craps. I'm playing against other peole and am trying to take their money.
In the markets, the banks and institutions are the big stacks trying to take the retail trader's money, while the retail trade is trying to make money. The difference in just a letter makes a world of difference.
Btw, there are some rules in the markets. When there is a descending triangle, there's a good chance that price will break down. Even if it's a lower time frame making the chances slimmer, you use other techniques to increase your overall chance. In a game of craps, all you can do is throw the dice. There isn't a special way of throwing them or anything, you just throw them.
There's also the rules of supply and demand, and support and resistance. You can draw out shapes and connect multiple key areas and draw out where the price of a dollar is just too much for people to buy or whatever.
Remember, it's humans that I'm playing agaisnt, not a casino.
Oh, btw, that drop that was due from McDonalds... The stock gapped down today as well.
|
On July 24 2012 13:05 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 11:36 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 24 2012 06:27 BrTarolg wrote:On July 24 2012 02:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are! Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful. Any price action scalper worth their salt can make very short term calls (like, i'm talking a period of 30 seconds to a minute or even less) There are absolute classics, but in general the idea is that the mugs in the market all usually have similar opinions/levels, and the smart money generally push it the other way to squeeze out the dumb money and take profit when they stop out So yes, reversals can be "due", and tops form when all the idiots who were short get squeezed and stop out. But hey, i'm just using common sense, logic and thousands of hours of seeing the same shit over and over. You can believe whatever you want. Eh? I wasn't talking to you. In the markets, the banks and institutions are the big stacks trying to take the retail trader's money, while the retail trade is trying to make money. The difference in just a letter makes a world of difference.
Can you explain? I don't understand.
|
On July 24 2012 13:21 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 13:05 DigiGnar wrote:On July 24 2012 11:36 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 24 2012 06:27 BrTarolg wrote:On July 24 2012 02:29 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 18:10 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 12:35 UniversalSnip wrote:On July 23 2012 01:49 micronesia wrote:On July 23 2012 01:42 Empyrean wrote:They have been due for such a drop. McDonalds is due for a drop, as well. I cringe every time someone says an event is "due" to happen. It bothers me much less in cases affected by human motion, than games of chance. When black comes up 3 times in a row in roulette, lots of people actually believe that red is due! It's worse than saying the same thing in a game of chance because in a market you don't know the rules. In a market if black comes up three times in a row it might increase the chance of it coming up again, or decrease it, or something else, you really have no way of telling because there are a million other incomprehensible factors that make the influence of black impossible to determine. In a game you can confidently say "it doesn't do anything", in a market you know even less than that. Then you get a confluence of these weird factors that can't be rigorously parsed and they do something that would be impossible in a game of chance, like causing black to come up one hundred times a row. So it's really not analogous, because you know the limits of probability in a game and you don't in the real world. I don't see it as worse... just because they are probably full of crap doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong, whereas in my example they are! Is it worse for it to be exruciatingly difficult (or even impossible) to prove some predictive dipshit wrong, or for it to be easy? In the case of the former the dipshit will be able to argue, strenously and with conviction, that their personal experience validates their theory and that since you cannot prove him wrong he must be right. That sounds awful. Any price action scalper worth their salt can make very short term calls (like, i'm talking a period of 30 seconds to a minute or even less) There are absolute classics, but in general the idea is that the mugs in the market all usually have similar opinions/levels, and the smart money generally push it the other way to squeeze out the dumb money and take profit when they stop out So yes, reversals can be "due", and tops form when all the idiots who were short get squeezed and stop out. But hey, i'm just using common sense, logic and thousands of hours of seeing the same shit over and over. You can believe whatever you want. Eh? I wasn't talking to you. In the markets, the banks and institutions are the big stacks trying to take the retail trader's money, while the retail trade is trying to make money. The difference in just a letter makes a world of difference. Can you explain? I don't understand.
Think of poker. Sharks try to take the fish's money while the fish try to make money playing cards.
|
Is there a non-poker analogy? I don't play.
|
On July 24 2012 13:34 sam!zdat wrote:
Is there a non-poker analogy? I don't play.
Think of a car salesman. He tries to sell his cars above value while trying to buy cars below value. Why does he do this? To make money. Who is he making money off of? The people who don't actually know the value of the car they are buying.
Car salesman = Banks and institutions
New car owner = Retail trader
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
