If courses do not include the underlying assets required to trade profitably, then the trading coach can use their trading assets to give great advice during the course. However when the student attempts to replicate on their own, they will fail miserably. Having a profitable system is so helpful, and like a great teacher. Over time mine has trained me, and brought me away from bad habits that I acquired as a rookie. If you don't have access to a profitable system, any help a trading coach could give would likely be short lived and doomed. I would suggest researching as much as possible to find something that works, and then force yourself to follow this system until you reach profitability. Don't trade the markets without a system, and don't allow someone to sell you 1/3 of a system under the guise of teaching.
Brings up an interesting point re how do traders test trading ideas? Eg papertrading, backtesting etc to find out what works best.
Buy any education via PayPal and then ask for an immediate refund based on: 1. failure of information to education 2. you were prevented for assessing content prior to purchase 3. content is duplicative of pre-existing free materials 4. that course work is shoddy and of inferior content PayPal will go to the mat for you
False. • First, trading is not a game, it is accounting. The choice of when/how to trade is probabilistic, and subject to gaming. The actual trade is an accounting operation, or else it is subject to a nasty forensic exam. • Second, the actual "zero-sum" claim (like the "gaming" claim) is entirely misappropriated. It is a net-zero operation: for an equity worth $10, one side brings $10cash, the other bring the $10 stock. They are exchanged. The net is zero. No magic. No game. Accounting. • Third, chained, individual, trades may be constructively thought of as a continuous operation, as in the term "trading." Trading may end up net-zero, or net-positive, or net-negative, for the individuals and for the entire market (as when things are bid up in bubbles, or sold down in crashes). At this point, uncapitalized wealth can be marked above (below) the entry basis, and termed a gain (or a loss). But to make the observation that, in such (to borrow from gaming) tournament trading, gain created by one side must of necessity be matched with loss on the other, is to conflate arithmetic neatness of an individual trade, with the unknown bases from which stem long-term trades for individuals, *or* the massed trades which might comprise the overall market. That is a ridiculous prospect. Not to hijack a thread or anything, but this sort of (bullshit) comes up too regularly, and people who know better (or were taught better ) let it go by without comment.
Partially true: I don't think your comment is a sort of bullshit; maybe closer to a scratch and sniff opinion?
To simplify: A rising market attempts to lift all boats, worthy trading systems are seaworthy, and the inverse?
%%$ INVERSE?? Thats a bit more complex than '' a rising tide[market] lifts/attempts to lift all boats.'' LOL/good rebuke on ''trading is not a game''
So iregardless, their all lazy, all right. (Okay, so, I count 5 irritations right there. But that's just righting. What about the more pertinent? • "Zero-sum game." • Technical Analysis predicts the market. • HV v IV, oh GOD. But for that matter, • "Vega" is NOT a greek. • "Price Action". Period. • The market is random. • The market is rigged. Oh! And here it comes, • They're hunting my stops! • Those who can't, teach. • Simulated trading is worthless. • My platform sucks -- broker hates me. • ________________... ... ... ) Nerds? Perhaps, but then, NO. Having structural impediments to a sound theory/understanding means you're more subject to error, bad theory, even "magical" thoughts. Too much at stake for that. Each day; every trade.