Why do 95% of traders lose? - page 16
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There is no proper TS - that's why they merge. Everything else (psychology, etc., etc.) is secondary. No TS -- hence the twitching -- psychology, discipline, etc. - and as a result, you're dumped.
But the root cause of the drain is the lack of TS.
No discipline, MM, psychology, deposit, broker, software, character, health, etc. No discipline, no psychology, no deposit, no broker, no software, no temperament, no health, etc...
What is a normal TS? What is its criterion? How can you be sure that normal now will not turn into pathology tomorrow?
If I'm not busy, then my hands are stretched to trade, albeit using my own ATC, but taking into account human logic (processing patterns that were not included in the ATC logic, because of the complexity of description and lack of reliable statistics), and the whole bouquet of psychology (greed, aggression, attention fatigue, etc., etc.). That's where the MM violation comes in, because it's not profitable for me to trade for a profit of a couple of cents - to waste my time.
What is normal TC? What are its criteria? How can I be sure that normal now will not turn into pathology tomorrow?
If I'm not busy, then my hands reach out to trade, albeit using my ATS, but taking into account human logic (processing patterns that were not included in the ATS logic, due to complexity of description and lack of reliable statistics), and the whole bouquet of psychology (greed, aggression, attention fatigue, etc., etc.). That's where the MM violation comes in, because it's not profitable for me to trade for a profit of a couple of cents - to waste my time.
When will you be able to answer these questions for yourself?
Have you already answered them? Then can you share your thoughts, or is this from the realm of the sacred-individual?
You're being ironic...
The problem can only be solved if it is formulated. Otherwise there is no problem. And if there is no problem, not only is there no problem, there can't be a solution. Do you understand?
You're being ironic...
The problem can only be solved if it is formulated. Otherwise, there is no task. Do you understand?
I'm not being ironic at all, and I agree that the task can be solved if...
But what is this "if", I would also like to hear your opinion.
Is it worth supposing that a correctly formulated problem will lead to a description of the problem, capable of creatingthe Grail?
I'm not being ironic at all, and I agree that the problem can be solved if...
But what is this "if", I would like to hear your opinion.
Is it worth supposing that a correctly formulated problem will lead to a description of the problem, capable of creating the Grail?
Before you catch a crane, catch a tit.
Is it worth assuming that a properly formulated task will lead to a task description capable of creating the Grail?
To the tester grail is bound to lead.
Does this mean that the task must not be formulated correctly, but mistakenly (accidentally)?
That's an idiotic question.
It all depends on what the objective was set before.