Strategy/Edge poll
-
- Posts: 4327
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm
Your opinion counts for more than most, especially considering your lack of understanding in regards to price action... I'd love to hear your opinion on this topic.
Sorry, you can ask Dallas to edit the thread title to add (please vote before reading) or something.
But the results are as one would expect, with only 1 person voting "Yes". Maybe Luke is still lurking about
What was your meltdown about btw?
- ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
The ability to profit from someone else's profitable strategy is inversely proportional to the amount of subjectivity required. That's why Peter can explain everything he does but people continue to struggle and why the algo trading world is fiercely secretive.
I think (if it wasn't for your comment) that most people think a strategy is an edge.Kai wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:37 pmSorry, you can ask Dallas to edit the thread title to add (please vote before reading) or something.
But the results are as one would expect, with only 1 person voting "Yes". Maybe Luke is still lurking about
What was your meltdown about btw?
My meltdown was for that reason. Two people can trade the same strategy, one can be profitable the other not. The strategy isn't the edge & the miss conception that edges come.& go, or you lose them gets at me. You don't lose an edge, it doesn't just fall out of your brain... the edge is there as long as the strategy is there. It's strategies that lose their effectiveness & imo it leads people down the wrong path if you're portraying it any other way.
I wouldn't get bogged down in semantics and terminology too much James.
Obviously being in possession of a strategy that you've not built yourself is not enough, you'd also need the necessary skillset to execute on it. So to simplify everything, one could say that Edge = strategy + skillset. (I'm just spitballing here)
That being said, having been on both sides of the poll question several times, on both the receiving end and on the giving end, I would say it entirely depends on the strength of the edge in question and the skillset level of the recipient.
Meaning, if you give someone a smaller edge and he doesn't have large chunks of the required skillset in place already, then it's probably going to be a huge uphill battle for him and probably won't work out.
However, if you give someone a strong edge and he does have most of the skillset in place then it's possible that he can be profitable relatively fast, he clearly won't be very efficient with the execution to start with but since the edge is very strong then he has some room to work with. I think it's all just logic and common sense.
Also, not every edge would require the same level of skill to execute, goes without saying, but I can't imagine there being too many easy ones left after 20 years of market evolution.
Obviously being in possession of a strategy that you've not built yourself is not enough, you'd also need the necessary skillset to execute on it. So to simplify everything, one could say that Edge = strategy + skillset. (I'm just spitballing here)
That being said, having been on both sides of the poll question several times, on both the receiving end and on the giving end, I would say it entirely depends on the strength of the edge in question and the skillset level of the recipient.
Meaning, if you give someone a smaller edge and he doesn't have large chunks of the required skillset in place already, then it's probably going to be a huge uphill battle for him and probably won't work out.
However, if you give someone a strong edge and he does have most of the skillset in place then it's possible that he can be profitable relatively fast, he clearly won't be very efficient with the execution to start with but since the edge is very strong then he has some room to work with. I think it's all just logic and common sense.
Also, not every edge would require the same level of skill to execute, goes without saying, but I can't imagine there being too many easy ones left after 20 years of market evolution.
Don't think it would influence people much at all actually, they have their own opinions.
If they're using the same strategy then I'd say it's because one has the skillset for it and the other one doesn't, one can execute on it while the other sucks at the execution part. So one ends up having an edge and the other one doesn't.
I guess you can "lose an edge" for a number of reasons.
For one, the market skillset threshold increases over time (as the market becomes more competitive) and you can lose your edge that way, if you don't increase your skillset level along with it you can get left behind. Most common from my experience.
Or the market dynamics and behavior can shift slightly, which can stop creating the opportunities that were once being created in abundance and a once powerful edge can severely weaken.
Or the liquidity dries up, the market noise dries up, which kills an edge, and so on.
IMHO can't ever get too complacent, even when in possession of multiple "edges", it's likely some will die over time so you have to adapt and tweak accordingly, to replenish your portfolio and have a healthy supply of markets and opportunities at all times.
That comment contradicts the question you're asking. How can the strategy be profitable if one guy is losing and how can you call the strategy profitable if the key to success is execution?
That just proves the point! A strategy is not an edge. The edge is application & adaptation. People who tell others differently are lying or they don't understand.Kai wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 11:38 pmDon't think it would influence people much at all actually, they have their own opinions.
If they're using the same strategy then I'd say it's because one has the skillset for it and the other one doesn't, one can execute on it while the other sucks at the execution part. So one ends up having an edge and the other one doesn't.
I guess you can "lose an edge" for a number of reasons.
For one, the market skillset threshold increases over time (as the market becomes more competitive) and you can lose your edge that way, if you don't increase your skillset level along with it you can get left behind. Most common from my experience.
Or the market dynamics and behavior can shift slightly, which can stop creating the opportunities that were once being created in abundance and a once powerful edge can severely weaken.
Or the liquidity dries up, the market noise dries up, which kills an edge, and so on.
IMHO can't ever get too complacent, even when in possession of multiple "edges", it's likely some will die over time so you have to adapt and tweak accordingly, to replenish your portfolio and have a healthy supply of markets and opportunities at all times.
just picking this up...
no for the simple reason that a strategy is simply a conceptual property of and edge. execution is the liberal application of the edge (based on the strategy).
i think the objective of your question is good, but the execution of the intention is flawed - i think this pretty much sums up my gut feel on this.
no for the simple reason that a strategy is simply a conceptual property of and edge. execution is the liberal application of the edge (based on the strategy).
i think the objective of your question is good, but the execution of the intention is flawed - i think this pretty much sums up my gut feel on this.