Stock market collapse in November

[BrilloPad]

Nice piece by Roger Bootle in Telegraph today.

Effectively blames stock market rise on QE. Once QE is reversed stocks are going to fall back.

So thats about 2015 then......

[sasguru]

And as we know, there are pro gamblers too.

There are? Name me one.
(I don't count Poker players as there is an element of skill there)

Actually that statement right there suggests to me that you don't understand the nature of probability - you cannot be a pro gambler, say, in a casino because every system in the casino is designed to have an edge for the casino.
If you gamble for long enough in a casino you WILL lose, END OF.
Because the system is designed that way.

[sasguru]

Yep, round numbers have a reaction.

Now combine the round numnbers with a level on the higher timeframes where price has rejected 3 times and a fibonacci retracement or two and the odds are stacked much higher in your favour.

Then use a 15minute entry technique to get you into the trade and aggresive risk management to get your risk out of the trade quickly.

Aim for a profit target at least two or three times what you have risked (based again on support/resistance levels).

And only take trades that present the above opportunities, stalking them like a hunter.

And thats how you do it! But of course, with years of practice and a little intuition.

You admit to losing money for 4 years and say you made money in the fifth.
And you assume that the change is due to your learning something. But it could be that you made money in the 5th through sheer luck - in fact that is more probable, don't you think?

[EternalOptimist]

You admit to losing money for 4 years and say you made money in the fifth.
And you assume that the change is due to your learning something. But it could be that you made money in the 5th through sheer luck - in fact that is more probable, don't you think?

The way he described it, and the way you described it, reminded me of something.

It reminded me of one of those games where there is an element of luck involved like RISK. The skilful players can play for ages and not win, but still be recognised as skilful players Then, given time , they eventually perform better than the average.
Those without skill always blame their luck.

[Moscow Mule]

There are? Name me one.
(I don't count Poker players as there is an element of skill there)

Actually that statement right there suggests to me that you don't understand the nature of probability - you cannot be a pro gambler, say, in a casino because every system in the casino is designed to have an edge for the casino.
If you gamble for long enough in a casino you WILL lose, END OF.
Because the system is designed that way.

There are countless pro gamblers in the horse racing world - I would say there are the same attached to any sport where there is a betting culture.

Some casino games, such as Roulette, are stacked against the punter but you can win at blackjack if you count cards (in your head - using a computer is illegal).

[SantaClaus]

There are? Name me one.
(I don't count Poker players as there is an element of skill there)

Actually that statement right there suggests to me that you don't understand the nature of probability - you cannot be a pro gambler, say, in a casino because every system in the casino is designed to have an edge for the casino.
If you gamble for long enough in a casino you WILL lose, END OF.
Because the system is designed that way.

There are a number of court cases involving HMRC against Pro gamblers. HMRC tried to claim that winnings were taxable. Are you saying these people werent profitable?

For some games in a casino, the odds are constant, like on Roulette, fruit machines, etc. So yes you will lose and the house will win in the long run.

I am trading when the odds are in my favour, I pick a moment in time when I can be the house!

IF you dont understand that, I suggest you read tghe "pop psychology" trading book by Mark Douglas.

Anyway, I am not going to spell this out for you, do some of the homework yourself.

[SantaClaus]

You admit to losing money for 4 years and say you made money in the fifth.
And you assume that the change is due to your learning something. But it could be that you made money in the 5th through sheer luck - in fact that is more probable, don't you think?

No, its because I changed my attitude to risk management and trading psychology.

[sasguru]

There are countless pro gamblers in the horse racing world - .

I'm sure there are people who call themselves pro gamblers - but are they actually successful over a long period of time?

[sasguru]

The way he described it, and the way you described it, reminded me of something.

It reminded me of one of those games where there is an element of luck involved like RISK. The skilful players can play for ages and not win, but still be recognised as skilful players Then, given time , they eventually perform better than the average.
Those without skill always blame their luck.

Well its a fascinating question - but I still have no evidence that day trading is not completely random, and in fact from the statistics, that is is biased against the day trader since 70% of day-traders lose over the long run
I am also well aware of the human propensity to see patterns where none exist (its built into us from an evolutionary perpective).

[sasguru]

Anyway, I am not going to spell this out for you, do some of the homework yourself.

I did some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk_hypothesis

Interestingly the jury seems divided.
However I note that none of those who support the non-random hypothesis have grown rich, which is the bottom line.