Trembling Hand
Can be found on the bid
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Posts
- 8,852
- Reactions
- 205
Now I have your attention the thread should be named "Your not smart enough for short Cuts because its not what counts"
From a discussion in the Beginners - Introduce yourselves! thread I thought I would start a discussion about something that I have always found a little strange. Why reasonable smart and logical people apply thinking that in my experience is illogical and must be unique to the trading field. It seems that the thinking and process of "I'm a sharp cookie at XYZ therefore I can jump in live with hard earned money and go up against pros and succeed" is unique to trading only.
If that logic is fine then it should work in reverse. That is a Pro trader should be able to jump in "live" at another profession. I have made some good money the last couple of years trading so does anyone want me to build them a house, run a school or perform open heart surgery????????
How much sense would it be for the surgeon to jump to Pro musician in 3 months of dubious training. Or the Builder to turn to electrician with 3 months of reading how-to become a sparkie journal's. It would be madness. YET thats is exactly how I would say 99% of people come to trading. They spend a couple of months "learning" the trade. And then get in all sorts of bother because they find it hard. I say WTF did you expect. Where or what else can you succeed at without a long and structured curriculum to acquire skills and correct processes?
No wonder a whole sub-industry has sprung up about trading psychology. When what is really needed is more SKILLS through correct development and feedback.
You obviously need some level of intelligence and motivation which success in one field may be an indication of possible success in another field but its the learning process that makes the diff in the end to those that have a chance (ability). In no other field outside of trading/investing does one try their hand at the task "live" without a LONG training period. Think surgery, nope years learning. Musician nope 10 years before they stand next to pro and perform. Sports, nope start in the back yard then junior sports then elite amateur then pro. Again about 10 years. Apprentice trade, you would never give an apprentice the hammer and saw to build a house without 3 years or probably more of supervision. Chess, same a period of learning against better and better opposition not grandmasters after 3 months.
The same should be for trading. What has the Musician, Surgeon, Pro sports person, Apprentice and Chess players all had before they went "live". Progressively harder results in simulation. The same should be for trading. No money down until you have results without risking real cash. No playing with the Pros until you have a positive expectancy system on sim or back-test. A "trading plan" is rubbish without the skills to go with it. And you only get the skills with progressive practice.
From a discussion in the Beginners - Introduce yourselves! thread I thought I would start a discussion about something that I have always found a little strange. Why reasonable smart and logical people apply thinking that in my experience is illogical and must be unique to the trading field. It seems that the thinking and process of "I'm a sharp cookie at XYZ therefore I can jump in live with hard earned money and go up against pros and succeed" is unique to trading only.
If that logic is fine then it should work in reverse. That is a Pro trader should be able to jump in "live" at another profession. I have made some good money the last couple of years trading so does anyone want me to build them a house, run a school or perform open heart surgery????????
How much sense would it be for the surgeon to jump to Pro musician in 3 months of dubious training. Or the Builder to turn to electrician with 3 months of reading how-to become a sparkie journal's. It would be madness. YET thats is exactly how I would say 99% of people come to trading. They spend a couple of months "learning" the trade. And then get in all sorts of bother because they find it hard. I say WTF did you expect. Where or what else can you succeed at without a long and structured curriculum to acquire skills and correct processes?
No wonder a whole sub-industry has sprung up about trading psychology. When what is really needed is more SKILLS through correct development and feedback.
You obviously need some level of intelligence and motivation which success in one field may be an indication of possible success in another field but its the learning process that makes the diff in the end to those that have a chance (ability). In no other field outside of trading/investing does one try their hand at the task "live" without a LONG training period. Think surgery, nope years learning. Musician nope 10 years before they stand next to pro and perform. Sports, nope start in the back yard then junior sports then elite amateur then pro. Again about 10 years. Apprentice trade, you would never give an apprentice the hammer and saw to build a house without 3 years or probably more of supervision. Chess, same a period of learning against better and better opposition not grandmasters after 3 months.
The same should be for trading. What has the Musician, Surgeon, Pro sports person, Apprentice and Chess players all had before they went "live". Progressively harder results in simulation. The same should be for trading. No money down until you have results without risking real cash. No playing with the Pros until you have a positive expectancy system on sim or back-test. A "trading plan" is rubbish without the skills to go with it. And you only get the skills with progressive practice.