# Surely, it can't be this easy?!



## Nonchalant (11 September 2011)

Hey all

Just recently invested some funds in blue chip stocks, major 4 banks, BHP & the like with the express purpose of holding them long term. Watched them oscillate between minor losses and minor gains. Pretty uninspiring experience. So in my infinite wisdom (?) I thought I'd try this "trading" thing. Admittedly, I am apprehensive about the looming hit descending upon my stocks next week, and possibly beyond. My situation/ philosophy is follows. I haven't financed my initial foray into the stock market. I don't require the funds for incurred expenses for my day to day lifestyle. Consequently, I figured I'll leave the stocks as is, if they take a hit, they take a hit. I'll receive my dividends twice yearly and whatever capital loss on paper occurs, will be recouped long term. 

Getting back to my trading experience, I made a further purchase of one of the aforementioned stocks as I wanted to "participate" and ultimately have a measure of control over the profitability of my shares. Bought X stock at X price, shares went up approx 0.25 cents, sold them and made close enough to 1K. Thanks for coming! Surely it can't be this easy! I'm considering doing this full- time Just kidding. Question is, what sort of "run" have members had? Is this typical? The saying of "if it seems too good to be true, it isn't" is ringing in my head.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (11 September 2011)

*Re: Surely, it can't be this easy!*

No it is not that easy,

The market will test you, and if your principles are not sound you will lose.


----------



## tech/a (11 September 2011)

Yes it is pretty easy.
Total profit needs only to exceed total losses.
See how that goes over the next 50 trades.

Oh
A paper loss is a real loss--- it's what you can liquidate your holdings at NOW.
Just as aaper profit is a very real profit!


----------



## Nonchalant (11 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> Yes it is pretty easy.
> Total profit needs only to exceed total losses.
> See how that goes over the next 50 trades.
> 
> ...




Yup, thread title needs to taken in jest. Was meant to be more of an observation/comment as well as a genuine interest to read others experience in real day to day trading. 

Insofar as to paper losses. Each persons circumstance will dictate whether the losses are real or on paper. As you're well aware, the loss is only realised if you sell. Only other circumstance I can think where a paper loss would be pertinent is if you're looking to use the shares as collateral. 

Yep, I'm old enough and wise enough to know that you cannot make every post a winner and concede that not all trades will end up in my favour. Doesn't stop us from 
trying thou!

Good luck everyone with the trading day tomorrow.

Nonchalant


----------



## So_Cynical (11 September 2011)

Nonchalant said:


> Getting back to my trading experience, I made a further purchase of one of the aforementioned stocks as I wanted to "participate" and ultimately have a measure of control over the profitability of my shares. Bought X stock at X price, shares went up approx 0.25 cents, sold them and made close enough to 1K. Thanks for coming! Surely it can't be this easy! I'm considering doing this full- time Just kidding. Question is, what sort of "run" have members had? Is this typical? The saying of "if it seems too good to be true, it isn't" is ringing in my head.




Yes it is that easy, however the market is a 2 edged sword and its not consistently that easy....like i always say if you put alot of though into buying good shares cheap, have an accumulation strategy if they get cheaper and are prepared to wait for the market to re-price your shares to your advantage, then "big picture/long term" it really is easy to make good money following a few simple (reverse trend following) rules.


----------



## Muschu (11 September 2011)

Nonchalant said:


> Hey all
> 
> Just recently invested some funds in blue chip stocks, major 4 banks, BHP & the like with the express purpose of holding them long term. Watched them oscillate between minor losses and minor gains. Pretty uninspiring experience. So in my infinite wisdom (?) I thought I'd try this "trading" thing. Admittedly, I am apprehensive about the looming hit descending upon my stocks next week, and possibly beyond. My situation/ philosophy is follows. I haven't financed my initial foray into the stock market. I don't require the funds for incurred expenses for my day to day lifestyle. Consequently, I figured I'll leave the stocks as is, if they take a hit, they take a hit. I'll receive my dividends twice yearly and whatever capital loss on paper occurs, will be recouped long term.
> 
> Getting back to my trading experience, I made a further purchase of one of the aforementioned stocks as I wanted to "participate" and ultimately have a measure of control over the profitability of my shares. Bought X stock at X price, shares went up approx 0.25 cents, sold them and made close enough to 1K. Thanks for coming! Surely it can't be this easy! I'm considering doing this full- time Just kidding. Question is, what sort of "run" have members had? Is this typical? The saying of "if it seems too good to be true, it isn't" is ringing in my head.




Hi NC and welcome

I suspect you already know the answer to your question.  ASF is a "forum" of contributors and you'll get a variety of responses of course.  Many will naturally advocate their own strategy.  

For me there are many variables.  So you might want to backtrack the other posts of some really good people as to their risk profile, "age" [as in retired versus heading that way versus starting out], and investment platform [technical, fundamental, balanced, ...].

But, at the end of the day [as you know], the strategy and decisions are your own... and you can change them as you wish.

My only recommendation, particularly now, is to tread carefully.  

Regards

Rick


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

The stock market is not inherently easy or hard.  You make it easy/hard by your attitude (ie. dominant thoughts).  If it's easy for you now, maintain the attitude and you will maintain your profits.  If you let it drop, so go your profits.

Coming on here and asking if others find it easy/hard is already showing that you have doubts, or that you want or need your attitude reinforced by someone else.  You have to reinforce your own attitude daily.  If you can't do that, you have the option of paying someone to reinforce a positive attitude, by subscribing to a newsletter.  To be effective, the newsletter must use very persuasive language.  It must be unrelenting in its certainty and positivity.  Something like 'Diggers and Drillers' or 'Slipstream Trader' fits the bill here.  There's nothing inherently superior about the way they research their companies, but their attitude is quite encouraging, and that's what you're paying for.


----------



## Nonchalant (12 September 2011)

Hey all

Thanks for the sage advice. 

So Cynical, that's a nice set of stats!

Gringotts, nah, don't need affirmation. As stated, the thread title needs to be taken in jest. 

Boy, what a tumultuous day!!! You certainly require nerves of steel and it's definitely not for the fainthearted.


----------



## skc (12 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> The stock market is not inherently easy or hard.  You make it easy/hard by your attitude (ie. dominant thoughts).  *If it's easy for you now, maintain the attitude and you will maintain your profits.  *If you let it drop, so go your profits.




Your language seems to suggest that positive attitude is necessary *and sufficient *for maintaining profits!?

Or have I mis-interpreted that?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

skc, yeh I think it might be sufficient, strange as that might sound.  I don't expect anyone to buy this, because the psychology of trading is a bit of a taboo subject here on ASF.  

I base my claim on quite a number of experiments with my own trading, and observations of friends and family members with their trading.  I have looked at the influence of positive attitude and found it to be _*far *_more influential in determining profit than any other factor (including method or system, time in the market, experience, or phases of the market).  I also have a small but compelling bit of evidence to suggest that no knowledge of the market at all is necessary at all.


----------



## skc (12 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> skc, yeh I think it might be sufficient, strange as that might sound.  I don't expect anyone to buy this, because the psychology of trading is a bit of a taboo subject here on ASF.
> 
> I base my claim on quite a number of experiments with my own trading, and observations of friends and family members with their trading.  I have looked at the influence of positive attitude and found it to be _*far *_more influential in determining profit than any other factor (including method or system, time in the market, experience, or phases of the market).  I also have a small but compelling bit of evidence to suggest that no knowledge of the market at all is necessary at all.




I think it's ok for one to believe that positive attitude is *far more influential *than other factors (even though I disagree). But that doesn't make it *sufficient.*

All successful traders have the right psychology, but not all traders with the right psychology are successful traders.

It's a huge leap of logic here. Do share your compelling evidence if you don't mind.


----------



## Julia (12 September 2011)

skc said:


> It's a huge leap of logic here. Do share your compelling evidence if you don't mind.



I'm also fascinated to understand how being positive about an outcome in the market can necessarily bring success.
It rather reminds me of that awful book "The Secret" which I didn't read but enjoyed the satire The Chasers did of it where they 'envisaged that something they wanted became theirs".  It was very funny.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

I came across a person who 1. had amazing general confidence and self-esteem and 2. knew nothing about the market.  I thought he'd be a perfect subject for my continuing experiments, so I asked if he'd mind taking part.  I gave him my laptop, and after a little explanation about candle charts, told him to scroll through a list of sub $1 stock and asked him to pick the next day's top gainer.  First day he was successful in picking the highest gainer on the ASX for the day (and no, it wasn't one with a huge exponential run up).  The following day he had picked the 7th top gainer.  When i told him what had happened he was not at all interested, and I haven't seen him since.

On its own, this story means nothing.  But in conjunction with all the other little stories and observations I have made, adds up to quite a strong argument.  Such experiments are very easy to conduct yourself, if anyone wishes to do the work.  But you must be able to assess a person properly - tricky for some, easy for me!

If you want to try something even more random, go to a fundraiser function where they are selling raffle tickets.  Now _if you can be bothered_ identify the people who are having the most fun.  I've done this twice and correctly identified those who would later win.  You know how you hear people say "I never win raffles?".  Well, there are also people who _always _win raffles.

Now you can all laugh.  But are you laughing all the way to the bank?


----------



## Julia (12 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I came across a person who 1. had amazing general confidence and self-esteem and 2. knew nothing about the market.  I thought he'd be a perfect subject for my continuing experiments, so I asked if he'd mind taking part.  I gave him my laptop, and after a little explanation about candle charts, told him to scroll through a list of sub $1 stock and asked him to pick the next day's top gainer.  First day he was successful in picking the highest gainer on the ASX for the day (and no, it wasn't one with a huge exponential run up).  The following day he had picked the 7th top gainer.  When i told him what had happened he was not at all interested, and I haven't seen him since.
> 
> On its own, this story means nothing.  But in conjunction with all the other little stories and observations I have made, adds up to quite a strong argument.  Such experiments are very easy to conduct yourself, if anyone wishes to do the work.  But you must be able to assess a person properly - tricky for some, easy for me!



Pretty easy to read a philosophy into random anecdotal events if you are determined to so do.




> If you want to try something even more random, go to a fundraiser function where they are selling raffle tickets.  Now _if you can be bothered_ identify the people who are having the most fun.  I've done this twice and correctly identified those who would later win.  You know how you hear people say "I never win raffles?".  Well, there are also people who _always _win raffles.



Is it just remotely possible that those people 'having the most fun' are those who have purchased the most raffle tickets?  I don't imagine you know this, so cannot know whether those people had a greater than average chance because they were holding a big bunch of tickets.

These esoteric hypotheses are a bit of fun, GB, but you haven't at all justified the validity of the suggestion that a positive approach to a stock will bring success.

If, on the other hand, you carefully select a stock on either technical or fundamental basis, and then when you place the order, indulge yourself by thinking "I positively believe I will make money from this stock", carefully keeping it open ended so as not to be more likely to be disappointed, then probably there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## tech/a (12 September 2011)

Amazing.
I find winners of raffles and competitions buy more tickets or enter more times.
I've actually got quite a few friends who buy book after book year after year on all sorts of mental gymnastics.

What I've found is these guys ALL keep looking for direction from positive affirmations to listening to positive thinking tapes as they sleep.

They ALL have one thing in common.
They are GUNNAS they're GUNNA succeed in everything they do--- just you wait and see--- and wait and wait and wait.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

When it comes to making money, I have looked at every angle.  I don't rule things out because they sound odd.  *I test them*.  My tests are as rigorous and 'scientific' as I can make them, taking every care to remove extraneous variables where possible. I'm not fluffing around.  I document these things and I think them over and over for potential 'holes'.  

Having done an enormous amount of work on traditional methods of stock picking, I would prefer it if these traditional methods were more influential in determining success.  But my work says that's not true.

It ain't fun or esoteric for me Julia.  I want to know what works.

And tech, there's no need for books, tapes, lectures, seminars or any of that.  Mostly such things are counterproductive, IN MY _EXPERIENCE_.


----------



## Muschu (12 September 2011)

Any psychics here?

[Disclosure: I'm not one]


----------



## skc (12 September 2011)

Julia said:


> It rather reminds me of that awful book "The Secret" which I didn't read but enjoyed the satire The Chasers did of it where they 'envisaged that something they wanted became theirs".  It was very funny.




Exactly what I had in mind.



Gringotts Bank said:


> When it comes to making money, I have looked at every angle.  I don't rule things out because they sound odd.  *I test them*.  My tests are as rigorous and 'scientific' as I can make them, taking every care to remove extraneous variables where possible. I'm not fluffing around.  I document these things and I think them over and over for potential 'holes'.
> 
> Having done an enormous amount of work on traditional methods of stock picking, I would prefer it if these traditional methods were more influential in determining success.  But my work says that's not true.




Thanks for your response GB. It's hard to believe, not because I don't have an open mind (or that trading pyschology is taboo), but because it is completely irrational.

I don't know how much work you think you've put into your research... but no matter how much work you have done the best you can prove is that a positive attitude is "the most important" factor. You will never be able to prove, nor it will ever be true, that positive attitude is sufficient. You are still making a logical leap from what you've said.

So what happens if person A with a positive attitude longs a stock and person B with an equally positive attitude shorts the same stock?

The only argument one can come up with is that the loser did not have enough positive attitude.... then the whole reasoning become circular...

- Positive attitude is sufficient for trading success
- If a person with a positive attitude did not succeed, they were not positive enough!


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 September 2011)

I think Gb has loosely defined his theory here.

From what I can gather, and correct me if I'm wrong; do you mean to say that two individuals on equal grounds of knowledge, one positive (in what-ever sense positivity is percieved), another negative (percieved) would have the positive individual closing out more winning trades than the negative? So in reality, positivity can help bring about, as a key point indicator, success?

It certainly does remind me of secret quantum mechanistic Depak Chopra type theories about consciousness and its effect on reality.

GB; speaking from a purely philosophical basis - if you have closed out more winners than losers, and are ahead of the game, then I personally would attribute to the information and education you have aquiered and not a direct cause of your positivity. Perhaps your optimism is a strong ideal - though nothing more than optimism.

That _is_ certainly something to be positive about.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

skc said:


> Exactly what I had in mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have thought about that scenario (along with many others) skc.  Two people, one long, one short, both very strong winning attitudes _*at that specific moment in time. *_ One possible explanation is that this sort of situation would never occur.  Another possible explanation is that our understanding of one or both traders is flawed - we thought trader #1 was very positive, but he always got the wobbles after a huge winning streak.  His inner dialogue is "wow things are going well.... a little too well" and doubt has crept in just at that very moment.  Perhaps trader #2 has a brilliant attitude, but when placed under the microscope, falls to pieces.  A third possibility would involve the idea of parallel universes wherein whatever trader #1 believes will occur occurs, whatever trader#2 believes also occurs, and whatever you believe will occur, occurs, and whatever I believe will occur occurs, perhaps all in sych inside the one universe, perhaps in 4 separate universes, all identical apart from one factor - viz the outcome of the trade.  If the two traders had *absolutely identical* attitudes, then both would win in different universes.  The idea of "observer dependence" - read here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85553

By the way, parrallel universe theory isn't new age mumbo jumbo.   Lots of links on the web.


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 September 2011)

I think you have taken this new-age philosophy way too seriously.

Yes I do believe that the Mind (consciousness) does have an external effect on reality - but its effect is extremely miniscule.


----------



## skc (12 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I have thought about that scenario (along with many others) skc.  Two people, one long, one short, both very strong winning attitudes _*at that specific moment in time. *_ One possible explanation is that this sort of situation would never occur.  Another possible explanation is that our understanding of one or both traders is flawed - we thought trader #1 was very positive, but he always got the wobbles after a huge winning streak.  His inner dialogue is "wow things are going well.... a little too well" and doubt has crept in just at that very moment.  Perhaps trader #2 has a brilliant attitude, but when placed under the microscope, falls to pieces.  A third possibility would involve *the idea of parallel universes *wherein whatever trader #1 believes will occur occurs, whatever trader#2 believes also occurs, and whatever you believe will occur, occurs, and whatever I believe will occur occurs, perhaps all in sych inside the one universe, perhaps in 4 separate universes, all identical apart from one factor - viz the outcome of the trade.  If the two traders had *absolutely identical* attitudes, then both would win in different universes.  The idea of "observer dependence" - read here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85553
> 
> By the way, parrallel universe theory isn't new age mumbo jumbo.   Lots of links on the web.




At this point I shall leave the discussion (in this universe at least).


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> I think you have taken this new-age philosophy way too seriously.
> 
> Yes I do believe that the Mind (consciousness) does have an external effect on reality - but its effect is extremely miniscule.




When you investigate something, you do it properly.  You don't read one useless new age book and leave it there.

I found out recently that I had done over 2.5 million backetests on Amibroker!  How's that for dedication to traditional methods?  They were all stored in report explorer folder unbeknown to me.  Took an hour to delete.


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 September 2011)

Haha - well mate, if you're winning, you're winning. Keep it up


----------



## satanoperca (12 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When you investigate something, you do it properly.  You don't read one useless new age book and leave it there.
> 
> I found out recently that I had done over 2.5 million backetests on Amibroker!  How's that for dedication to traditional methods?  They were all stored in report explorer folder unbeknown to me.  Took an hour to delete.




Find that hard to believe but you may be correct.

2.5M backtest taking 1 minute each would have taken you 4.87 years working 24/7. hmmm correct me if I'm wrong. This maybe reduced if you were optimising some variables giving you more backtest per function.

Just keeping it real.

Cheers


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 September 2011)

I've been doing it 10 years.  Most are quite simple, taking about *10 seconds* to complete.  It's real.

Anyone with AB can check their own:  AA>Report>Report explorer.  If it takes more than a few minutes for the window to appear you may have many hundreds of thousands recorded.  Most system testers in here would have similar I imagine.


----------



## cynic (15 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I don't expect anyone to buy this, because the psychology of trading is a bit of a taboo subject here on ASF.
> 
> I base my claim on quite a number of experiments with my own trading, and observations of friends and family members with their trading.  I have looked at the influence of positive attitude and found it to be _*far *_more influential in determining profit than any other factor (including method or system, time in the market, experience, or phases of the market).  I also have a small but compelling bit of evidence to suggest that no knowledge of the market at all is necessary at all.




Whilst participating in this concept we call life, within this seemingly infinite universe, I find that it pays to keep an open mind about all possibilites whilst maintaining a healthy degree of skepticism about everything.

Having said that, I too have observed the significant impact that one's mind-set can have on one's trading activities (and other aspects of one's life for that matter). Some may ascribe the cited occurrences to being mere coincidence, or simply the human habit of only noticing events that coincide with one's personal viewpoint. 
I am fairly confident that this is rarely the case in the events that I've observed to date. So I'm not in the least surprised to hear you making similar claims, GB. 

I cannot conclusively prove that it is so, but the rate at which these experiences keep accumulating, would place the odds of these events being mere coincidence somewhere in the vicinity of the odds of winning a major lottery prize. So I am hardly about to ignore the evidence of my own eyes and bank balance. On the subject of proof, I've always been an advocate of the adage that "absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence". Generally when I encounter something that "behaves like a duck..." I consider it prudent to treat it as such until such time as its behaviour changes. In the meantime, I consider proof (or absence thereof) to be largely irrelevant to my trading activities. Whilst something continues to behave in a certain fashion, I can continue to profit from that behaviour, regardless of whether the theories behind that behaviour are proven or not. 

For those whom are comfortable with their various approaches to trading, whether that approach be technical, fundamental, intuitive, chaotic or otherwise, I say bravo!

For those whom are yet to discover a profitable trading strategy, I would highly recommend taking the open-minded skeptic approach until such time as you discover an approach that works for you and passes the test of time!


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I've been doing it 10 years.  Most are quite simple, taking about *10 seconds* to complete.  It's real.
> 
> Anyone with AB can check their own:  AA>Report>Report explorer.  If it takes more than a few minutes for the window to appear you may have many hundreds of thousands recorded.  Most system testers in here would have similar I imagine.




That's amazing GG
What can you tell us you've learnt from so much testing.
I know I found that most conventional trading "ideas" were useless.

But what have you learnt
What can you pass to those who are starting?


----------



## nomore4s (15 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> When you investigate something, you do it properly.  You don't read one useless new age book and leave it there.
> 
> I found out recently that I had done over 2.5 million backetests on Amibroker!  How's that for dedication to traditional methods?  They were all stored in report explorer folder unbeknown to me.  Took an hour to delete.




I find it a little bit ironic that you say all that is needed to succeed in the market is a positive attitude yet you have done 10 years worth of testing with Amibroker to understand what works in the market.

Maybe the people with the correct attitude do the correct things to succeed at life, trading or whatever. I've found the people with "winning" attitudes tend not to leave things to chance if they can help it, they work hard and find a way to succeed. Much like you have done with your backtesting efforts.


----------



## skc (15 September 2011)

cynic said:


> Having said that, I too have observed the significant impact that one's mind-set can have on one's trading activities (and other aspects of one's life for that matter).




Of course! There is never any debate about that! It has a huge impact... it may even be the MOST important factor.

But it is not SUFFICIENT on its own.

The only way to explain it is for your mindset to have the ability to alter other people's behaviour.

This is possible in some circumstance - social occassions, team sports etc etc. But the market?! How?!


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> That's amazing GG
> What can you tell us you've learnt from so much testing.
> I know I found that most conventional trading "ideas" were useless.
> 
> ...




1.  In general, the smaller the number of parameters in your system, the more robust it is.  (less degrees of freedom means that if it's profitable now then it should persist into the future).  Every extra parameter you add should cause you to test over one extra year of data.
2.  If you find something that works, shorten the time frame and see if it holds.  The shorter the time frame, the more profit potential, but on the flip side the more slippage will hurt you, especially in stocks outside the top 50 by MC.  Slippage is diabolical in small caps.    
3.  Momentum has been scientifically proven to work as a strategy, (in finance journals, Google it).
4.  If you can't get a steep equity curve, _but it's still really smooth_, using leverage is a very viable option of increasing returns.  Basically the higher the Sharpe ratio, the more leverage you can safely apply, since the Sharpe ratio can't be altered by leveraging.
6.  Keep a watch out for future-referencing code. 
7.  Don't discard every system that has a high drawdown.  If the run ups and draw downs are smooth, you can trade the equity curve very profitably.  To make any curve smooth requires a small time frame and high turnover.   
8.  Try to create a system that is 'organic', ie. an idea that you can translate into English and something that would make sense to a non-trader.  You can't translate "stochastic cross" very easily into English.  Organic systems need little (if any) optimizing.  If you like the idea of optimizing, make sure to walk it forward using multiple time frames, anchored and non-anchored.


----------



## waimate01 (15 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> A third possibility would involve the idea of parallel universes wherein whatever trader #1 believes will occur occurs, whatever trader#2 believes also occurs, and whatever you believe will occur, occurs, and whatever I believe will occur occurs, perhaps all in sych inside the one universe, perhaps in 4 separate universes, all identical apart from one factor - viz the outcome of the trade.  If the two traders had *absolutely identical* attitudes, then both would win in different universes.  The idea of "observer dependence" - read here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85553
> 
> By the way, parrallel universe theory isn't new age mumbo jumbo.   Lots of links on the web.




Fortunately there's an easy and foolproof test for this hypothesis. Go to the top of a tall building and take a $1 coin with you. Flip the coin, and if it comes up heads, jump off the building. Now in 50% of the infinite universes, it will come up heads and you'll cease to exist. In the other 50%, you'll still be there to see that it came up tails. Now half of infinity is still infinity, and since the observer controls the universe, you'll only end up in the universes where it came up tails. Try it! Half of the infinite you will plummet to your death, but an infinite number will be standing there looking at a tails, thinking "wow, he was right". If you do this experiment and survive to post back to this forum, then that proves the hypothesis beyond doubt.

PS. The reason this doesn't work in a casino with a red/black bet is that in both scenarios you survive to observe the outcome. Simple, really


----------



## Gringotts Bank (15 September 2011)

"...since the observer controls the universe, you'll only end up in the universes where it came up tails".
^
Not sure I follow what you're saying here.


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2011)

No I get it!

Now Is there a god!
Or Life after death
or consciousness after death

I'm 100% sure there is as no one one has come back from the dead to confirm there isn't.
I'm 100% sure there isn't as no one has come back from the dead to confirm there is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 September 2011)

Nonchalant said:


> Bought X stock at X price, shares went up approx 0.25 cents, sold them and made close enough to 1K. Thanks for coming! Surely it can't be this easy! I'm considering doing this full- time Just kidding. Question is, what sort of "run" have members had? Is this typical?



I remember having a good first up win but I now realise it was to draw me (the un-fleeced) into the game. Remember this next time you put your hard earned into shares. They can put it on but believe me they can take it off faster. The big stacks run the show.


----------



## LostMyShirt (15 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> No I get it!
> 
> Now Is there a god!
> Or Life after death
> ...




Best to say you are 99% sure - as 100% boasts certainty, and I am 99.99% sure you have not achieved certainty


----------



## Nonchalant (16 September 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I remember having a good first up win but I now realise it was to draw me (the un-fleeced) into the game. Remember this next time you put your hard earned into shares. They can put it on but believe me they can take it off faster. The big stacks run the show.




Hey W

You're intimating that there's some conspiracy or devious plot afoot. I personally don't believe that's the case. Do I have any proof, well no, I don't. I can't for a second imagine some guy/girl sitting behind a desk pursing their lips, rubbing their chin and thinking let's get this noob!. How on earth could he/she/they ascertain you're a first time investor or a relatively new investor  I apply common sense and logic to all situations and that scenario just ain't happening. 

Can the big wigs manipulate the market, I don't enough about the stock market to answer that. As a layman, I would hazzard a guess and say yes, they probably could. Could they identify and target an individual, no. 


Have a great weekend all.


----------



## nomore4s (16 September 2011)

Nonchalant said:


> Can the big wigs manipulate the market, I don't enough about the stock market to answer that. As a layman, I would hazzard a guess and say yes, they probably could. Could they identify and target an individual, no.




Not so much about big wigs targeting individuals, more about the market as a whole sucking newbies into the game and then spitting them out very quickly after sucking them dry.

The big problem is markets prey on human emotions like greed and fear, and the market is very efficient at exploiting these emotions - in both the experienced & inexperienced but it is the inexperienced that tend to get burnt.

Most individuals start out cautious and as such stick to good basic trading principles without actually realising what they are doing but after a few wins start chasing the market thinking it is easy and are very quickly in the red, this happens to a surprisingly high number of beginners. (This is a simplified version but you get the point).


----------



## Ves (16 September 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I have thought about that scenario (along with many others) skc.  Two people, one long, one short, both very strong winning attitudes _*at that specific moment in time. *_ One possible explanation is that this sort of situation would never occur.  Another possible explanation is that our understanding of one or both traders is flawed - we thought trader #1 was very positive, but he always got the wobbles after a huge winning streak.  His inner dialogue is "wow things are going well.... a little too well" and doubt has crept in just at that very moment.  Perhaps trader #2 has a brilliant attitude, but when placed under the microscope, falls to pieces.  A third possibility would involve the idea of parallel universes wherein whatever trader #1 believes will occur occurs, whatever trader#2 believes also occurs, and whatever you believe will occur, occurs, and whatever I believe will occur occurs, perhaps all in sych inside the one universe, perhaps in 4 separate universes, all identical apart from one factor - viz the outcome of the trade.  If the two traders had *absolutely identical* attitudes, then both would win in different universes.  The idea of "observer dependence" - read here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85553
> 
> By the way, parrallel universe theory isn't new age mumbo jumbo.   Lots of links on the web.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Something such as this, perhaps.

edit: What you are talking about has a lot to do with Quantum physics & String theory, from memory.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 September 2011)

Nonchalant said:


> Hey W
> 
> You're intimating that there's some conspiracy or devious plot afoot. I personally don't believe that's the case.



 What nm 4's posted below is what generally happens. 







> Could they identify and target an individual, no.



Well brokers are the only ones who know what stock you buy. I'm not a big stack but I do hear my stock purchases echoed from time to time. 


> Have a great weekend all.



You too. 


nomore4s said:


> Most individuals start out cautious and as such stick to good basic trading principles without actually realising what they are doing but after a few wins start chasing the market thinking it is easy and are very quickly in the red, this happens to a surprisingly high number of beginners. (This is a simplified version but you get the point).



Yes and that phase is what Tech/a and skc and skyquake (sorry if I left anyone out) have been through. There is a time to ease into the share market, a time to jump in boots and all into the share market and a time to close all positions and sit out of the share market.


----------



## waimate01 (17 September 2011)

If I make a gain in an alternate universe, but a loss in this universe, in which universe do I pay the tax?

Also, can I transfer losses from one universe to another for tax purposes?

Or, among the infinite number of parallel universes, do the gains and losses net each other out and, if so, can I be excused from paying taxes in any of them?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (17 September 2011)

Ves said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
> 
> Something such as this, perhaps.




Nice one.  My brain overheats at times trying to process that.

Some very clever people have stated that we create our own dream world through our attention and dominant thoughts (or observations, as they call it).  The clever ones are those who have lived and experienced it, not those who have written a book on it (generally).


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 March 2015)

No it isn't easy to be consistently proficient at trading. You can read the books, test the theories, real trade the markets for years and have some great runs but the market can remain irrational and frustrating enough to disrupt every(?) participants method. Like an entity controlling everyone's gains. Sure, you can control the amount of loss so the entity doesn't clean you out in several attempts  but the entity can if it so chooses see you die a slow death. 

So, experience teaches us that we will do better when in synchronisation with the entity. Being aware of its stop/start nature and its power to destroy you if you let it. You see, if it were easy everyone would be doing it.

:holysheep:


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 March 2015)

nomore4s said:


> The big problem is *markets prey on human emotions like greed and fear, and the market is very efficient at exploiting these emotions* - in both the experienced & inexperienced but it is the inexperienced that tend to get burnt.



It's in the bold.


----------

