The Moment Of Victory

[cmomalesix]

Dear All,

I think this will be the most exciting moment in your trading life once you realize you've got the advantage with full confidence.

I wonder if anyone is kind enough to leave a description of your feeling at the moment.

I think this is something great to thousands of individuals trying to find them to picture their own achievement.

Any Sort volunteer(s)?

cheers,

[cmomalesix]

This sharing is excellent. My route might not be exactly the same as you, but I do share your expertise in some manner.

My expertise is that I heard (actually still learning) trading methods on FF, and that I knew the method works (with a border ) on its own, as others use it successfully (using their discretion), but when I used it and customized it to suit my style. I felt pressure and the edge wasn't apparent to me. Why it did not work in the moment, I didn't know. (Now I can see that I wasn't edued myself enough and chances played a role to blur the edge). I think emotional was a issue for me to manage.

I seriously agree that plogical detachment is very important, without a level of detachment, I cannot even engage my thoughts effectively to practise and understand, and the ups and downs can easily prevent me out from the journey.


I think that it depends how many years you have been at it. Then you'll still be emotional about it, In the event you find about what works and what does not.
But if you are like me who had many imitation eureka moments early on just to discover that these moments were false and did not turn you into profitability, you will either end with trading or get emotionally detached to new discoveries and only see if your new discovery ends up.
In the end, after I knew exactly that I had an edge, I did not feel that excited. I just apply my edge each and every...

[COGOXXUGO78]

My experience is that I learned (actually still studying ) trading methods on FF, and I knew the approach works (with an edge) on its own, as others use it successfully (using their discretion), but when I used it and customized it to suit my own style. I think most folks here are lying around their profitability. Just imagine you are still not successful and are years at it. It requires a character to acknowledge that you still staying with trading and are still losing. I think most simply go the easy road and say yes I am successful, cause they know that nobody will be able to verify their promises.

Just my opinion.

[cmomalesix]

I believe most folks here are lying about their profitability. Just imagine you are a long time at it and are not profitable. It requires a character to admit that you are currently losing and staying with trading. I think go the street and say yes I am powerful, cause they know that nobody will have the ability to verify their promises.

Only my view. Don't you believe BillyRayValentine are powerful trader (you've vouched for him, perhaps he's lied for many years and spent hours from time to time to submitted and whined?) . Keep daily, lying for face is not for many people, I presume, although lying is not surprising. (Keeping self-deceiving for many years is an art of persistence ).

Furthermore, if one is not too idle, he can check the validity of somebody's method with forward data. An individual can distinguish fact against ficition.

[COGOXXUGO78]

Don't you believe BillyRayValentine are powerful trader (you have vouched for him, maybe he's lied for years and spent hours from time to time to posted and lied?) . Lying is not surprising, but maintain daily, lying only for confront is not for many people, I think. (Maintaining self-deceiving for years is an art of persistence ).

Furthermore, if a person is not very idle, he can assess the validity of someone's method with forward data. One can distinguish reality against ficition. Well, like I said, it is difficult to verify people's claims, so I don't wanna remark on one's personal performance.

However, I agree with your point about not being idle. I generally try to code every new thought I read and then backtest it on many years of data. Regrettably ideas don't endure that backtest. That's why I believe many are lying about their profitability or just had a streak.

And before you edited your post you thought I suggested that you weren't profitable, but actually if you look at my post I was referring to your statement that others were claiming to successfully utilizing a method. (I indied that in bold on my post, so I thought it was clear that I referred to thenigeriaforextradingpeople ).

[cmomalesix]

Thank you for reply. I think I eventually got everything you tried to say after reading .

Of course not everyone honest in the world, but people can generally distinguish between who's who, even if they spend enough work.

For someone who would just like to save face to lie, then he wouldn't post their trading achievement frequently on a forum. If he had been asked questions, then he wouldn't answer things with logic and reasoning.

For your backtesting, if you backtested like an EA, you'd generally be unable to loe edge. A lot of discretions generally involved.

Do not know how much you might agree with my own words.

Cheers,


Well, as I said, it's difficult to verify people's claims, thus I do not wanna remark on one's individual performance.

However, I agree with your point about not being idle. I generally try to code every new idea I read and then backtest it on many years of information. Most ideas do not survive that backtest. That's the reason why I think most are lying about their profitability or just had a series.

And before you edited your post you believed I implied that you weren't profitable, but actually if you look at my article I was speaking...

[COGOXXUGO78]

Thank you for reply again. I believe I finally got what you attempted to say after studying .

Of course not everyone fair in the world, but individuals can generally distinguish between who's who, even if they spend enough effort.

For somebody who just want to save face to lie, then he would not post their trading success frequently on a forum. If he had been asked questions, he would not answer things with logic and rationale.

For your backtesting, if you backtested to be an EA, you'd generally be unable to find advantage. To get high-probability trading, a lot... nicely, everybody has a goal. Some not successful individuals have the desire to at least be applauded by from individuals in a forum to find some sort of success which they overlook in real trading.

It depends upon which approaches people choose, but in general almost everything could be programmed, except possibly trendlines (at least I haven't found the logic nonetheless, with which it could be programmed).
Discretion are just rules that have not been devised yet. Thus, in which points they are discretionary one normally if somebody can tell me could program that into rules.
I think it's a lot more challenging to find advantages when not using a program. You will see a border in different procedures, make your sample size will be rather small. Any method may have a few hundred trades before being whiped out. There are quite a couple of trading methods that seem like they've got an advantage and will have a few lucky streaks. However there are only.
Now it is my opinion that for loing those that really supply an advantage, you need more trades than any ordinary human being can perform manually to reach statistical significance. That's the reason I use a schedule to be able to state with a certain likelihood that a system has an advantage.

Just my opinion.

[Jllelegamcay]

A sense of relief.

[cmomalesix]

A sense of relief. Would you head elaborate a little more? Say.

[cmomalesix]

Thanks,

About people, I personally don't know the kind of people you described. There are, but might not be many.

Concerning programming, based on the approach you choose, should you choose a qualitative approach, yes I believe programming is critical. If you are a chartist, there is a saying A picture worth a million words. To program a technique, you want to interpret a chart visual position into words. Until you can fully program the method next, you need to measure the parameters. You can't actually backtest a trading method if the logic of this programming isn't complied enough to describe a situation.

Compared a qualitative approach into a chartist egy, I personally believe that the later create more high-probability setups. In general, I don't believe high-probability installation is given set by an EA, exception is extremely rare. You may be given an advantage by an EA but might not be a strong one.



nicely, everybody has a goal. Individuals have the desire to be applauded by from people in a forum to find.

It depends upon what approaches people choose, but generally almost everything could be programmed, except possibly trendlines (at least that I haven't found the logic nevertheless, together with which it can be programmed).
Discretion are rules that have not been devised yet. So, normally if somebody can tell me where things they're discretionary you can...

[Jllelegamcay]

Would you mind elaborate a bit more? Say, 20-30 words. Following years of study and money spent on eduion (softwares, trading-related losses, etc) you get to the point at which you understand the price you've forfeited, gets high. The time could probably have gotten another Bachelor-degree when it comes to costs and effort to me.

Thats why it was a fantastic relief for me personally. Many believe that the job is done when you finally got a profitable system, its not. It's merely the beginning.

[COGOXXUGO78]

Thanks,

About people, I personally don't understand the kind of people you described. Perhaps there are, but might not be many.

Concerning programming, depending on the approach you choose, should you choose a qualitative approach, yes I think programming is important. But if you're a chartist, is a saying an image worth a million words. To program a method, you want to first translate a chart visual position. Until you can fully program the method you have to measure the parameters. If the logic of this programming is not... well, I do have another opinion. But I really don't feel that either of us is incorrect.

[cmomalesix]

Following years of research and cash spent on eduion (softwares, trading-related losses, etc) you reach the point where you realize the price you have sacrificed, gets high. The time could probably have gotten me another Bachelor-degree when it comes to effort and prices.

Thats why it was a wonderful relief for me personally. Many think the job is completed when you got a profitable system not. It is only the beginning. Thanks, I had the exact same sense as you at some stage. Still after a while when I realize some talented persons (very few indeed) becomes profitable within 1 year, I feel jealous.

[cmomalesix]

well, I do have another opinion. But I really don't feel that either of us is wrong. cheers! .

[saangmaamgwz]

Yes

the stage is there is no moment of victory, we all begin confused and hunting for this particular moment but we realize that the fact

it will be routine think me

great trade OK
bad trade OK
no difference at all

no memory

no need for extra focus like the early days no need to see what others doing and no need for anything whatsoever, no anticipation, only open you station scan the charts and also wait for your setup

in regards, Ok, if it wont OK,
and while this find a movie/TV to watch, a match to play
and at EOD review your job, and maintain the log,... Well said, spot on.

[Gouglas]

Compared a quantitative approach into a chartist egy, I believe that the later produce more high-probability installations. In general, I don't think installation that is high-probability is given set by an EA, exclusion is rare. You actually don't need a high probability of a winning trade to succeed. You could have as as for example 20% win percentage and still be profitable, given that your win is large and your losses are small. Here EAs and back-testing may be useful, I think. Evrey now then you may have a winning streak and a loosing streak, but in case you have a large data and you're on ordinary profitable, it is good news.

[cmomalesix]

You really do not need a high likelihood of a winning transaction to succeed. You could have as low as for example win percent and be profitable, provided your win is big and your losses are modest. Here EAs and back-testing can be helpful, I presume. Evrey you can have a winning series and also a loosing streak, but in case you've got a large data set and you're on average profitable, it's excellent news. 1. A system required large number of installations with a small-edge
2. A method with low likelihood of success but good RRR

Both of above, even profitable, isn't my cup of tea!

And I must have stated that I do not think an EA creates good borders, rather than high-probability setups (there could be hardly any exceptions).

[cmomalesix]

True, benssol's sharing is really good.

Well said, spot on.