This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Losing Traders

Jump to new

ajoz

Joined
17 February 2007
Posts
24
Reactions
0
I came across this on another forum and found it quite good so I thought I'd share it here:

The following is a direct quote from TradeGuider.

During a recent TradeGuider seminar I talked about the reasons that
traders are constantly on the losing side of the market and I
highlighted some of the common traits I find when I talk to these
losing traders. Here I have listed those traits and I have an article
I read from, by a long standing TradeGuider customer Rakesh Kumar, who
I thank for allowing me to use his document. If you would like a copy
email me back and I will send it to you. I hope you enjoy reading it
and I wish you good trading and constant profits.

1. Losing traders do not have a trading plan.

2. Losing traders do different things on different days, and totally inconsistent.

3. Losing traders have no BELIEF in their chosen strategy.

4. Losing traders think and act like gamblers.

5. Losing traders are always searching for the holy grail of trading, but it doesn't exist.

6. Losing traders often use too many systems and too many indicators, so they never know what the chart is really telling them. Tom Williams, inventor of Volume Spread Analysis and a former syndicate trader says "The chart never lies, if you know how to read it correctly".

7. Losing traders are often under capitalized, taking large trades with poor risk/reward ratio and no money management skills.

8. Losing traders do not understand how markets work, often believing that price moves markets, but it dos not. The forces of supply and demand and the trading of "Smart Money" causes prices to move.

9. Losing traders get confused by slick sales and marketing of trading systems that claim to have a high percentage of accuracy, so end up trying many systems that almost always result is losses.

10. Losing traders ALWAYS follow the herd, and get locked in to bad trades.
 
If there were no losing traders there would be no sucessful traders!

We need bad traders so that we can buy their shares cheap and sell them our dogs...
 
ideaforlife said:
Steven1234 tells the truth in stock market!
Click to expand...
But sometimes we sell our dogs and as soon as they leave our hands they become winners , so same goes for those that sell us their dogs that we think are cheap when we get them they become winners
Its a dog eat dog world
 
steven1234 said:
If there were no losing traders there would be no sucessful traders!

We need bad traders so that we can buy their shares cheap and sell them our dogs...
Click to expand...

A common misconception.
 
There are Losing Traders because they insist on Trading Losers. Cut the losers loose early and concentrate on riding the winners all the way to the finishing post......
 
Hi all,

If you are ready, maybe you will find this very useful.

At a core or heart level most people actually believe there is something fundamentally wrong with them. These are conditioned beliefs from other flawed models. To reinforce this 'shame' it is all played out in words, actions and whom we associate with.

If I told you there is nothing wrong with you but rather your 'modis operandi,' you would either believe me, see the truth in it, forgive yourself and everybody else and move forward, or do your utmost to prove me wrong. Why? because there is a lot of loyalty involved in supporting who we believe ourselves to be. Not to mention the grief you may feel when you realise you actually believed the lie.

Cheers
Happytrader
 
Ok Before I do.

"If there were no losing traders there would be no sucessful traders!"
Click to expand...

This is the statement which I believe is a glaring misconception.
So before I do would someone like to expalin WHY this has to be TRUE.
 
tech/a said:
Ok Before I do.



This is the statement which I believe is a glaring misconception.
So before I do would someone like to expalin WHY this has to be TRUE.
Click to expand...

If there were no losing traders, all traders would be successful.

Do I get a prize?
 
Pommiegranite said:
If there were no losing traders, all traders would be successful.

Do I get a prize?
Click to expand...
Grammatically correct but missing the point. Stevens meaning although grammatically inccorrect,speaks about the essence of markets.
 
as wealth is created it is accumulated. unless you are at the source of wealth creation (central bank, commodity producer etc.) then you only have access to wealth that is already in circulation. to obtain this public wealth, someone else has to give you theirs, either by bartering for a good / service (an advantageous trade) or by losing it through bad luck / management / stupidity (a disadvantageous trade).

so in the context of the stockmarket - the market is a finite public pool of wealth owned by entities, be it a corporation or an individual. to increase your share of this wealth someone elses share has to diminish. it can be said that those who increase their wealth are successful traders and those who decrease their wealth are unsuccessful traders. so traders who are successful do so, ultimately, at the expense of the unsuccessful. therefore if no one was losing, no one would be gaining.

over to you tech/a
 
steven1234 said:
If there were no losing traders there would be no sucessful traders!

We need bad traders so that we can buy their shares cheap and sell them our dogs...
Click to expand...

I don't think this is true at all. Its good practice and also good for the soul to leave something on the table for someone else. Actually, I don't mind at all when I see someone making a profit out of a stock I've just sold. They've taken the risk and so they're welcome to the profit. Plenty for everyone.


Cheers
Happytrader
 
Not so sure about the last comment eg if i buy a share at 5c and sell it for 9c to a person who then sits on it to 20c before selling again then obviously two people have gained without someone losing!
 
tech/a said:
Ok Before I do.



This is the statement which I believe is a glaring misconception.
So before I do would someone like to expalin WHY this has to be TRUE.
Click to expand...

Tech/A,

Are you hinting at the principle of the "zero-sum" game??

If so, this may be of interest:

"A situation in which one participant's gains result only from another participant's equivalent losses. The net change in total wealth among participants is zero; the wealth is just shifted from one to another.

Options and future contracts are examples of zero-sum games (excluding costs). For every person who gains on a contract, there is a counter-party who loses. Gambling is also an example of a zero-sum game.

A stock market, however, is not a zero-sum game because wealth can be created in a stock market."

(Above extract from Investopedia)
 
constable said:
Not so sure about the last comment eg if i buy a share at 5c and sell it for 9c to a person who then sits on it to 20c before selling again then obviously two people have gained without someone losing!
Click to expand...

It just depends on whether the 4-fold increase in share price accurately reflects an increase in the Real Value of the business concerned or whether it only relects an increase in the Perceived Value or Expected Future Value of the business.

Any increase in Real Value will be evidenced by a commensurate objective increase in the productivity of the business, according to however productivity is measured in that particular industry.

An increase in share price solely based on an increase in Perceived Value, which is unsupported, within a timeframe recognised and accepted within that industry, by any increase in Real Value will in due course be followed by a commensuarte reduction in Perceived Value and hence, share price.
 
constable said:
Not so sure about the last comment eg if i buy a share at 5c and sell it for 9c to a person who then sits on it to 20c before selling again then obviously two people have gained without someone losing!
Click to expand...

a "loss" can be a less significant win though in this respect. if it takes 5 years to go from 9c to 20c while in that time the market doubled that, that counts as an overall loss because the capital could have been put to better use elsewhere.

accumulating wealth at a slower rate in a constantly expanding pool can still be considered a loss for the purposes of this discussion.
 

I disagree. Underperformance in comparison to a benchmark is not a loss. Instead it would be just classified as Underperformance.

However, in accouning terms, a loss is only realised when the stock is sold at less than purchase price. Your scenario is a appreciation of an asset.

In economic terms there would be an Opportunity Cost of not having put the money to better use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The dynamics of money and TIME: crimping cashflow for a period
Replies
3
Views
860
TiminOz
  • Article
Resources for Systematic/Algorithmic Trading
Replies
12
Views
2K
Richard Dale
To Perth stock traders
Replies
12
Views
2K
Gunnerguy
G
R
Best Swing Trading Strategy
Replies
0
Views
2K
robertbanking
R
November 2024 DDD
2 3
Replies
53
Views
6K
ducati916
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...