Is it a shame not to know how to make money in the forex market after 8 years of experience? - page 2

New comment
 
webgopnik:
Isn't there a theoretical basis in forex/business? It's extensive too. But the difference is that in trading, unlike in medicine, it is enough to learn and follow just a few principles - and money will pour into your pocket.
Nooooo)
 
Maxim Romanov:
The difference between medicine and forex is that in medicine there is a theoretical basis. You learn in 6 years what scientists have been accumulating for centuries. But in Forex there is no theoretical basis, only speculations, fallacies and unsubstantiated statements. Having studied that, you will realise that it is nonsense and you need to start your own developments.
It's more like saying that before you can do knee surgery, you need to understand from scratch what a human being is made of in the first place and then learn how to do knee surgery yourself. And if you judge it that way, a surgeon just needs to know how to cut with a knife (similar to pushing buttons).
I studied to be an electronics engineer for 5 years and I can design and assemble a TV completely by myself from scratch, ordering all the components on alike. Now imagine that you need to build a TV set without knowledge. You can't get it anywhere and have no electronic components (you can't order it on eBay), you have to do everything yourself. This is probably the situation a beginning trader finds himself in.
But it's fair to say that it's easier with the exchange. You can at least find some adequate knowledge there.

In particular, if not to take seriously stochastic description with a dummy and Livermore's worldly wisdom as a theoretical base. There is a lot of information "about trading", but in reality it is almost all useless, and the percentage of survivors in this business is lower than anywhere else.

 
webgopnik:

What's so unspecific about Livermore's principles, for example? As far as I'm concerned, people (and I especially) fail not because they don't have methods and tools, but because they don't follow logically, practically and statistically verified methods and rules.

Jesse Livermore's rules of thumb

  1. Trade with the trend - buy on a bull market and sell on a bear market.
  2. Do not enter the market when no clear trading opportunities exist.
  3. Trade using major turning points.
  4. Wait for your assumption to be confirmed before entering the market.
  5. Enter the market as soon as major turning points are in play.
  6. Allow profits to grow. Close trades that show losses (good trades usually show profits immediately).
  7. Trade with stop orders determined before you enter the market.
  8. Exit trades if the prospect of further profits becomes uncertain (the trend has ended or weakened).
  9. Trade the leading instruments in each market - trade the strongest stocks in a bull market and the weakest stocks in a bear market.
  10. Let price determine your actions.
  11. Do not average losing positions.
  12. Do not wait for a forced closure of positions by your broker(margin call), and close unprofitable positions in a timely manner and on your own.
All the principles are nonsense except the last one. What I've written before. Baseless assertions and water like: just make a perpetual motion machine.
From the first: not all markets are trending, there are flat, if you are interested, see Kamaz stock. Trading trending on such paper is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
I can refute every point and prove why this is not true with examples. Already showed in one of the threads how you can make money on gbpusd since 2008 with counter-trend strategy. But to be honest I'm too lazy to describe more than one point.
But some rules like: don't hit your finger with a hammer, it hurts. It's like people hit their finger with a hammer on purpose when they're working.

Anyway, that's the point, to understand that it's nonsense, you have to be good at it. But to understand it, you have to dig through a ton of this nonsense, drop it and start your own research.
 
Maxim Romanov:
All principles are nonsense except the last one. What I wrote before. Baseless assertions and water like: just make a perpetual motion machine.
From the first: not all markets are trending, some are flat, see Kamaz stock. Trading a trend on such paper is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
I can refute every point and prove why this is not true with examples. Already showed in one of the threads how you can make money on gbpusd since 2008 with counter-trend strategy. But honestly I'm too lazy to describe more than one point.
But some rules like: don't hit your finger with a hammer, it hurts. It's like people hit their finger with a hammer on purpose when they're working.

Anyway, that's the point, to understand that it's nonsense, you have to be good at it. But to understand it, you have to dig through a ton of this nonsense, drop it and start your own research.

Interesting said.)))

Only after all the research, your work will become just as stupid.)))

 
vladavd:

These are nothing at all: too abstract, too vague principles, something like "do well and it will be OK". They only make sense when one has more or less reliable criteria to define "trend", "pivot point" and so on. Don't forget that Livermore wrote this 100 years ago, when the market was much less technological, liquid, knowledge-intensive and competitive. Livermore himself wrote his quotes with chalk on the board by specially trained people. Chalk! On the chalkboard! To hope for success upon Livermore's advice now would be like going up against an opponent with a modern firearm.Who would spend a lot of years trying to get into trading if they could just quickly grasp a dozen simple theses and go out and make a buck? But they do, and obviously not out of the goodness of their lives.

So unlike in Livermore's time, we are armed with firearms - sitting at home at a computer at a convenient terminal or even a smartphone away from home. We get quotes faster than we can blink, handy charts and indicators. In Livermore's time people could not think about any charts, they could only read the feed, i.e. the stream of quotes. And it means that they couldn't use all the advantages of charts. Because the charts clearly show where the bottom is and where the top is visually. In Livermore's time the liquidity was much worse, and therefore the spreads were bigger. You had to wait at least a few hours to get just the spread back. There were no computers, let alone smartphones - you had to go to a brokerage house and submit orders from there.

So we were not in the market with our fists, but with firearms.

So one learns the talking points (or maybe not and just ignores them, acts illogically), but then acts completely differently from what the rules say. For example, instead of letting profits flow, they let losses flow. Trading against the trend, averaging to a losing position, etc.

 
that's a fiasco, bro)
Exchange your roubles for the Indian rupee (the exchange rate is almost 1 to 1, hmm, conspiracy, deliberately high) and go to India, on foot.
Sorry, they lowered the exchange rate just for you bro.)


 
Maxim Romanov:
All the principles are stupid, except the last one. What I wrote before. Baseless assertions and water like: just make a perpetual motion machine.
From the first: not all markets are trending, some are flat, see Kamaz stock. Trading a trend on such paper is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.
I can refute every point and prove why this is not true with examples. Already showed in one of the threads how you can make money on gbpusd since 2008 with counter-trend strategy. But honestly I'm too lazy to describe more than one point.
But some rules like: don't hit your finger with a hammer, it hurts. It's like people hit their finger with a hammer on purpose when they're working.

Anyway, that's the point, to understand that it's nonsense, you have to be good at it. But to understand it, you have to go through a ton of this nonsense and do your research.

:) well that's why they are losing, because they are so smart and refute the obvious laws of trading.

It's funny about the KAMAZ. It's clearly stated in the rule - trade on the trend. If the Kamaz is in a flat, then don't trade it.

 
webgopnik:

So unlike in Livermore's time we are armed with firearms - sitting at home at a computer at a handy terminal or even a smartphone not at home. We get quotes faster than we can blink, handy charts and indicators. In Livermore's time people could not think about any charts, they could only read the feed, i.e. the stream of quotes. And it means that they couldn't use all the advantages of charts. Because the charts clearly show where the bottom is and where the top is visually. In Livermore's time the liquidity was much worse, and therefore the spreads were bigger. You had to wait at least a few hours to get just the spread back. There were no computers, let alone smartphones - you had to go to a brokerage house and submit orders from there.

So we were not in the market with our fists, but with firearms.

So one learns the talking points (or maybe not and just ignores them, acts illogically), but then acts completely differently from what the rules say. For example, instead of letting profits flow, they let losses flow. they don't set stop-losses and let huge losses flow in. Trading against the trend, etc.

You are not trading against an abstract market, but against other market participants - your competitors who are in the same basic conditions. The speed of quotes is not your personal advantage - it is the same for everyone, and some are even faster than you. The flip side of liquidity is a maximally complex, unobvious price movement trajectory that will shake out the maximum left-handed passengers. A century ago you could effectively trade on crossing muwings - back then it was a "gunshot" against those who listened to the ora in the stock pit and traded on gut feeling; go trade on crossing muwings now - the outcome is clear.

Livermore's talking points are like saying "to fly into space, just build a cylindrical shape flying machine and equip it with an engine powerful enough to overcome the Earth's gravity". And for that you have a fifth grade physics textbook, a bucket of nails and a hammer and hacksaw. Go ahead and do well, it's clear what you have to do, everything has been explained to you.

 

Trading can be systematic or unsystematic.

In the first case, you can write an Expert Advisor and quickly select the necessary parameters and generally delegate the trading to a robot. You can quickly check the stability of the strategy or vice versa. It is enough to be a very bad programmer.

In the second case it is virtually impossible to write a trading robot and expect constant results. That is why you can make profit only from time to time.

However, the market throws some surprises. And sometimes it changes the rules of the game so that the experience can't help.

Generally speaking, Forex trading is fishing in troubled waters.

 

I read a rule somewhere: buy at the low, sell at the high. I should give it a try.

And here's another one: let the profits grow, cut the losses. Has anyone tried it? Share it.

123456789...25
New comment
Reason: