New posts

Reply to thread

Message

Hello Prime,

Welcome to ASF, I hope you find some worthwhile information in your travels here.

I kind of disagree with this approach, in that it’s excluding a range of approaches, and I’d suggest that all of us must develop an approach which suits our trading style, which in itself begs many questions. Of course ice’s approach may suit you, but it may not.

A lot will depend on the type of analysis you are using, what your risk profile is like (where in the spectrum you are from aggressive to conservative), the type of instrument (shares trade very differently to options, warrants, futures, CFDs, bonds, indexes, Forex and a whole plethora of structured financial instruments), the type of market you want to trade (small caps, blue chips, indexes etc).

Then you’ve got to think about issues such as position size, entry criteria, exit criteria (on profit, stop loss, partial exits, partial entries, pyramiding/adding to positions, hedging, etc).

As you can imagine, if you use a range of instruments like I do, hedge, use options etc, the trading plan can become quite complex compared to the simple “back of the envelope” style like ice. Ice I suspect was referring to their trading approach possibly using straight shares with an entry and exit criteria probably without partial entry or exit criteria, or any kind of adding to positions, and possibly without any time based refinements.

My view is it’s horses for courses. Trade what you understand, and develop what you feel comfortable with, but also consider that whatever you develop delivers realistic results based on your ability. If you develop plans that either don’t’ work, or could be improved as you learn, don’t feel like they are set in concrete.

There are many different approaches that can be effective, why not look at the various traders on this site, and compare and contrast their approaches. It may be worthwhile every so often to pioneer different approaches, either on paper or in reality to find which is more effective as you develop.

Me, I develop fairly involved “battle plans” like a campaign, which can actually be a couple of pages long combined with graphical points on charts. But I use a range of approaches and instruments, hence I need to do this. You may not if you’re just trading straight shares with an entry and exit criteria.

constable’s suggestion about tech/a’s advice is worthwhile if you’re using a moving average based technical analysis (I don’t), it would be worthwhile examining how he sets up his approach.

stevo’s advice is also worthwhile in that Van Tharp “Trade your way to financial freedom” is not a bad place to start when it comes to concepts such as positive expectancy, but you may find in time you out grow the conceptual rigidity and narrowness of this work, but it is an excellent starter.

Regards

Magdoran

<blockquote data-quote="Magdoran" data-source="post: 92226" data-attributes="member: 3955">Hello Prime,Welcome to ASF, I hope you find some worthwhile information in your travels here.&nbsp; I kind of disagree with this approach, in that it’s excluding a range of approaches, and I’d suggest that all of us must develop an approach which suits our trading style, which in itself begs many questions.&nbsp; Of course ice’s approach may suit you, but it may not.A lot will depend on the type of analysis you are using, what your risk profile is like (where in the spectrum you are from aggressive to conservative), the type of instrument (shares trade very differently to options, warrants, futures, CFDs, bonds, indexes, Forex and a whole plethora of structured financial instruments), the type of market you want to trade (small caps, blue chips, indexes etc).Then you’ve got to think about issues such as position size, entry criteria, exit criteria (on profit, stop loss, partial exits, partial entries, pyramiding/adding to positions, hedging, etc).As you can imagine, if you use a range of instruments like I do, hedge, use options etc, the trading plan can become quite complex compared to the simple “back of the envelope” style like ice.&nbsp; Ice I suspect was referring to their trading approach possibly using straight shares with an entry and exit criteria probably without partial entry or exit criteria, or any kind of adding to positions, and possibly without any time based refinements.My view is it’s horses for courses.&nbsp; Trade what you understand, and develop what you feel comfortable with, but also consider that whatever you develop delivers realistic results based on your ability.&nbsp; If you develop plans that either don’t’ work, or could be improved as you learn, don’t feel like they are set in concrete.&nbsp; There are many different approaches that can be effective, why not look at the various traders on this site, and compare and contrast their approaches. It may be worthwhile every so often to pioneer different approaches, either on paper or in reality to find which is more effective as you develop.Me, I develop fairly involved “battle plans” like a campaign, which can actually be a couple of pages long combined with graphical points on charts.&nbsp; But I use a range of approaches and instruments, hence I need to do this.&nbsp; You may not if you’re just trading straight shares with an entry and exit criteria.constable’s suggestion about tech/a’s advice is worthwhile if you’re using a moving average based technical analysis (I don’t), it would be worthwhile examining how he sets up his approach.stevo’s advice is also worthwhile in that Van Tharp “Trade your way to financial freedom” is not a bad place to start when it comes to concepts such as positive expectancy, but you may find in time you out grow the conceptual rigidity and narrowness of this work, but it is an excellent starter.RegardsMagdoran</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Magdoran, post: 92226, member: 3955"] Hello Prime, Welcome to ASF, I hope you find some worthwhile information in your travels here. I kind of disagree with this approach, in that it’s excluding a range of approaches, and I’d suggest that all of us must develop an approach which suits our trading style, which in itself begs many questions. Of course ice’s approach may suit you, but it may not. A lot will depend on the type of analysis you are using, what your risk profile is like (where in the spectrum you are from aggressive to conservative), the type of instrument (shares trade very differently to options, warrants, futures, CFDs, bonds, indexes, Forex and a whole plethora of structured financial instruments), the type of market you want to trade (small caps, blue chips, indexes etc). Then you’ve got to think about issues such as position size, entry criteria, exit criteria (on profit, stop loss, partial exits, partial entries, pyramiding/adding to positions, hedging, etc). As you can imagine, if you use a range of instruments like I do, hedge, use options etc, the trading plan can become quite complex compared to the simple “back of the envelope” style like ice. Ice I suspect was referring to their trading approach possibly using straight shares with an entry and exit criteria probably without partial entry or exit criteria, or any kind of adding to positions, and possibly without any time based refinements. My view is it’s horses for courses. Trade what you understand, and develop what you feel comfortable with, but also consider that whatever you develop delivers realistic results based on your ability. If you develop plans that either don’t’ work, or could be improved as you learn, don’t feel like they are set in concrete. There are many different approaches that can be effective, why not look at the various traders on this site, and compare and contrast their approaches. It may be worthwhile every so often to pioneer different approaches, either on paper or in reality to find which is more effective as you develop. Me, I develop fairly involved “battle plans” like a campaign, which can actually be a couple of pages long combined with graphical points on charts. But I use a range of approaches and instruments, hence I need to do this. You may not if you’re just trading straight shares with an entry and exit criteria. constable’s suggestion about tech/a’s advice is worthwhile if you’re using a moving average based technical analysis (I don’t), it would be worthwhile examining how he sets up his approach. stevo’s advice is also worthwhile in that Van Tharp “Trade your way to financial freedom” is not a bad place to start when it comes to concepts such as positive expectancy, but you may find in time you out grow the conceptual rigidity and narrowness of this work, but it is an excellent starter. Regards Magdoran [/QUOTE]

Verification