skc
Goldmember
- Joined
- 12 August 2008
- Posts
- 8,277
- Reactions
- 329
Forgive me here, but I have never seen a "rookie pro". If you are "pro" at something, you have worked towards it, have the experience that is needed to KNOW what it takes for success. Know what, when, why, how etc. Therefore this "rookie pro" athlete you speak of should not be nervous, he knows what he must do, and he knows there are going to be winners and losers in his game, losing is a part of it. So I wouldn't think there would be much to be nervous about. imo, but what would I know
Sam,Forgive me here, but I have never seen a "rookie pro". If you are "pro" at something, you have worked towards it, have the experience that is needed to KNOW what it takes for success. Know what, when, why, how etc. Therefore this "rookie pro" athlete you speak of should not be nervous, he knows what he must do, and he knows there are going to be winners and losers in his game, losing is a part of it. So I wouldn't think there would be much to be nervous about. imo, but what would I know
Well it would seem to be a common form of entry into this game. Though for many reasons you don't see a lot of them surviving. Taking it as probable that most are under funded and don't stick to correct risk levels anyway adding to the mix that you are hoping to survive a less than perfect "education" is just another handicap. Its 'do able' of course but surely the most expensive form of education, in $ terms and physiological terms. Lots can come back from the $ damage. Few can shake the hit to the head. :bloated:Good post TH.
In the absence of any form of simulation experience would it be possible in your mind, considering skills - a money making aspect in the form of ability - and risk stipulation adherence, to be able to successfully turn an account into the positive?
Or is some form of simulation experience totally necessary?
Actually thats a classic example of backing up my approach not yours. How long has the rookie spent in a non-threatening simulation by the time she takes her first step onto the pro field? From what I know of pro athletes about 10 to 15 years!! Close to 75% of their life at that stage. Take a footballer for example from the age of under 10 you start playing to build skills gradually increasing task difficulty, from play to school to junior comp etc, and performance pressure from doing it purely as fun to increasingly becoming goal orientated, making the junior starting side, to making the state squad etc.Why does a rookie pro athlete get nervous before his first big game? Positive expectancy doesn't guarantee success anyway.
Sam,
Is it not possible to be a 'rookie' at the next level? I find it hard to give decent analogies to trading due to it's uniqueness.
The process for mastering anything is one that is centuries old. You start with the very basics and gradually master each step BEFORE moving onto the next harder one. To learn the basic without learning bad habits one must be free from performance pressures that don't hinder the actual chunked down skill you are trying to master.
So you recommended that first? Here's yet again another perfect example of that method,
Actually thats a classic example of backing up my approach not yours.
Forgive me here, but I have never seen a "rookie pro".
I don't have to assume. I already know you can do it all easily. You told us all about it, just haven't shown us(note - you haven't yet made a correct assumption about me, at least none that I've read.
Not true at all. I've always said that this game isn't about being an ICE man controlling your emotions nor the victims favorite excuse, discipline!!!!! Those that go on about that stuff just happen to also be the least prepared with skills. If they had skills that they could take to market and on balance win more than loose the emotional game becomes a million miles away from the BS you hear the punters sprout on forums and the like.It seemed to me that you were suggesting that anyone who experiences emotion has not prepared correctly.
f they had skills that they could take to market and on balance win more than loose the emotional game becomes a million miles away from the BS you hear the punters sprout on forums and the like.
Thanks for your thoughts. I forgot to mention funding in my question being that of well funded.Well it would seem to be a common form of entry into this game. Though for many reasons you don't see a lot of them surviving. Taking it as probable that most are under funded and don't stick to correct risk levels anyway adding to the mix that you are hoping to survive a less than perfect "education" is just another handicap. Its 'doable' of course but surely the most expensive form of education, in $ terms and physiological terms. Lots can come back from the $ damage. Few can shake the hit to the head. :bloated:
Yes, that's why I asked TH the question above.Well, good question. Being a rookie and being nervous are 2 different things though, and imo I don't believe there is a reason to be nervous, more so in the example of trading, with sports and athletes etc some might even approach it with confidence.
Well, good question. Being a rookie and being nervous are 2 different things though, and imo I don't believe there is a reason to be nervous, more so in the example of trading, with sports and athletes etc some might even approach it with confidence. But anyway, interesting topic, lets get back to reviewing
I followed tech/a advise from the Technical Analysis - Smoke & Mirrors? thread and looked up positive expectancy and thus found this online calculator that seems to do the job.
http://www.stockresearchpro.com/an-expectancy-calculator-to-monitor-forex-trading-strategies
And since i just finished imputing all my trades over the last 3 and a bit years into my expensive new stator software...thought it was probably worth while finding out what my expectancy is, and since im a discretionary punter though this thread was appropriate.
I'm guessing 20+% is pretty good?
~
20% is very good.
But your losing trades are nearly twice the size of your winning trades.
Your bottom line would increase considerably with even a slight decrease in your losing trade size.
STATOR should print out all the stats you need if you've input everything.
fantastic and thank-you.I followed tech/a advise from the Technical Analysis - Smoke & Mirrors? thread and looked up positive expectancy and thus found this online calculator that seems to do the job.
http://www.stockresearchpro.com/an-expectancy-calculator-to-monitor-forex-trading-strategies
And since i just finished imputing all my trades over the last 3 and a bit years into my expensive new stator software...thought it was probably worth while finding out what my expectancy is, and since im a discretionary punter though this thread was appropriate.
I'm guessing 20+% is pretty good?
~
Above winning and losing trades are in very small dollar amounts. Are these net of brokerage? Even then, is it really worth your trouble to bother with a couple of hundred dollars?
Not sure if your comments are directed at me or tech...perhaps both?
As for me the stats are closed trades only and im assuming Stator (the software that produced to numbers) has taken out brokerage :dunno: so its 40 winners averaging $501 = $20040 not a fortune but certainly better than a kick in the nuts.Must be a nice feeling to have some serious money hey Julia.
As for tech...from what i understand of high frequency trend following, its quite common to have many small winners...also the position sizing tends to be small per trade due to risk management, my position sizing is closer to 10% than 2% (another reason my losers can be large)
Above winning and losing trades are in very small dollar amounts. Are these net of brokerage? Even then, is it really worth your trouble to bother with a couple of hundred dollars?
Above winning and losing trades are in very small dollar amounts. Are these net of brokerage? Even then, is it really worth your trouble to bother with a couple of hundred dollars?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?