There's a fine line between a debate (which involves people putting forward differing opinions) and an argument. The thread is at least debating what the question means, the definition of 'edge', now we're arguing over whether or not we're arguing.
Strategy/Edge poll
Nope, the question is what the question is. Bending it or coming at it from other angles is strictly against my rules (which I haven't stipulated)... I'm a dictator and I won't have it any other waygreenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:16 pmSurely the question is why would anyone share a profitable strategy? At best (if you both execute it the same way) you would halve your profits. And if you share with someone with greater resources, wouldn't you risk being squeezed out completely?
Share to get access to another strategy maybe? So, the only plausible reason to share a strategy is to create a network of similarly talented traders. But I'm still struggling to see why anybody would.
Although I am aware there are syndicates out there, so perhaps it is a reasonable thing to do.
My tuppenneth
Imo the two need to be clearly defined, a strategy is not an edge and I think it's a popular opinion that it is. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to being so. Clearly though if syndicates exist then sharing a strategy won't lose you an edge. The same Strategies have been around in trading for as long as I can remember, nobody is re inventing the wheel to get an edge. Once you've got it, you've got it, it doesn't just cease to exist or you lose it on your way home. A strategy can fluctuate in profitability, maybe it comes and goes through seasonal changes or maybe it stops being profitable altogether... that is the strategy that's coming & going/losing it's effectiveness, it's not the edge. A strategy or the strategy is not any one person's edge & from my reading of people (in general) people search for a strategy thinking that. "What system do you use", "What strategy is best" etc etc
An edge is something theoretical and of several kinds. The most common way to be defined is probably something that puts you ahead of others.
I consider an edge to be the inefficiencies in the markets, so it's not mine, and it's there whether someone takes advantage of it or not, but there are also edges that belong entirely to you representing the way you look at things and how you react, and much more. That's why I think some edges can be transmitted and others can't, but you can definitely teach someone how to make money trading by giving clear instructions just like when you build a bot.
If you have a strategy that you can't automate then most likely you can't pass it on to someone else so they can have results comparable to yours.
I consider an edge to be the inefficiencies in the markets, so it's not mine, and it's there whether someone takes advantage of it or not, but there are also edges that belong entirely to you representing the way you look at things and how you react, and much more. That's why I think some edges can be transmitted and others can't, but you can definitely teach someone how to make money trading by giving clear instructions just like when you build a bot.
If you have a strategy that you can't automate then most likely you can't pass it on to someone else so they can have results comparable to yours.
If you gave someone a profitable strategy. Your edge would be diminished and theirs would be infinitely improved. Because, until you shared your strategy they would have nothing. But if both of you operating in the same area was enough to alert the market to your activities, you would both lose out.jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:49 pmNope, the question is what the question is. Bending it or coming at it from other angles is strictly against my rules (which I haven't stipulated)... I'm a dictator and I won't have it any other waygreenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:16 pmSurely the question is why would anyone share a profitable strategy? At best (if you both execute it the same way) you would halve your profits. And if you share with someone with greater resources, wouldn't you risk being squeezed out completely?
Share to get access to another strategy maybe? So, the only plausible reason to share a strategy is to create a network of similarly talented traders. But I'm still struggling to see why anybody would.
Although I am aware there are syndicates out there, so perhaps it is a reasonable thing to do.
My tuppenneth
Imo the two need to be clearly defined, a strategy is not an edge and I think it's a popular opinion that it is. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to being so. Clearly though if syndicates exist then sharing a strategy won't lose you an edge. The same Strategies have been around in trading for as long as I can remember, nobody is re inventing the wheel to get an edge. Once you've got it, you've got it, it doesn't just cease to exist or you lose it on your way home. A strategy can fluctuate in profitability, maybe it comes and goes through seasonal changes or maybe it stops being profitable altogether... that is the strategy that's coming & going/losing it's effectiveness, it's not the edge. A strategy or the strategy is not any one person's edge & from my reading of people (in general) people search for a strategy thinking that. "What system do you use", "What strategy is best" etc etc
That is simply not true (imo). For that to happen every single variable of the markets & the way those sharing a strategy would have to be consistent every time. As Shaun pointed out, traders aren't yes/no people & we all interpretate situations differently, conflict of opinion is a fundamental part of the market. Even with automation there is a manual aspect, which markets do I apply it to, what stake is suitable, how much of my bank do I risk... each variable differs for each person.greenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:15 pmIf you gave someone a profitable strategy. Your edge would be diminished and theirs would be infinitely improved. Because, until you shared your strategy they would have nothing. But if both of you operating in the same area was enough to alert the market to your activities, you would both lose out.jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:49 pmNope, the question is what the question is. Bending it or coming at it from other angles is strictly against my rules (which I haven't stipulated)... I'm a dictator and I won't have it any other waygreenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:16 pmSurely the question is why would anyone share a profitable strategy? At best (if you both execute it the same way) you would halve your profits. And if you share with someone with greater resources, wouldn't you risk being squeezed out completely?
Share to get access to another strategy maybe? So, the only plausible reason to share a strategy is to create a network of similarly talented traders. But I'm still struggling to see why anybody would.
Although I am aware there are syndicates out there, so perhaps it is a reasonable thing to do.
My tuppenneth
Imo the two need to be clearly defined, a strategy is not an edge and I think it's a popular opinion that it is. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to being so. Clearly though if syndicates exist then sharing a strategy won't lose you an edge. The same Strategies have been around in trading for as long as I can remember, nobody is re inventing the wheel to get an edge. Once you've got it, you've got it, it doesn't just cease to exist or you lose it on your way home. A strategy can fluctuate in profitability, maybe it comes and goes through seasonal changes or maybe it stops being profitable altogether... that is the strategy that's coming & going/losing it's effectiveness, it's not the edge. A strategy or the strategy is not any one person's edge & from my reading of people (in general) people search for a strategy thinking that. "What system do you use", "What strategy is best" etc etc
If you are having to make decisions such as when to apply it, which markets, how much to stake etc, then you haven’t been given a profitable strategy/edge in the first place. You’ve just been given some pointers, or guidelines, which is what you often see given out on this forum.
If you are given a direct profitable strategy, with clear instructions of what to do and when to do it, then you have been given a clear edge.
For example, if someone told you to watch the favourite, and if the favourite drifts from 3.5 to 4, without any retraction, then put in a lay at 3.75 for up to £500, then if it gets matched, it is far more likely to carry on drifting back to 4, than shorten to 3.5 again. Dont put in any more than £500 in, or you are in danger of getting of only getting filled when the market moves against you, which will wipe out your edge.
If you are given clear instructions to a profitable strategy like that, then you have a clear edge. However, the more people you share that with, the quicker that edge will erode, as more people in the queue means you are not even going to get your £500 matched until the price starts to move again.
And clear edges like that can be easily automated , which would also mean someone else is now going to be faster than you too. Eventually, your edge will be gone, and so will the persons who has shared it with you.
The markets are too thin to be sharing stuff. Of course there are edges and examples that have been around for years, though the fact remains, that the more people trying to do it, the harder it is to profit from.
Unless you are being given clear “ if this happens, then do this “ instructions, then you are not really being told anything. And if you are being given “ if this happens, then do this” instructions, then the edge will soon disappear as more people are told about it and more people try to do it, which will change market behaviour.
If you are given a direct profitable strategy, with clear instructions of what to do and when to do it, then you have been given a clear edge.
For example, if someone told you to watch the favourite, and if the favourite drifts from 3.5 to 4, without any retraction, then put in a lay at 3.75 for up to £500, then if it gets matched, it is far more likely to carry on drifting back to 4, than shorten to 3.5 again. Dont put in any more than £500 in, or you are in danger of getting of only getting filled when the market moves against you, which will wipe out your edge.
If you are given clear instructions to a profitable strategy like that, then you have a clear edge. However, the more people you share that with, the quicker that edge will erode, as more people in the queue means you are not even going to get your £500 matched until the price starts to move again.
And clear edges like that can be easily automated , which would also mean someone else is now going to be faster than you too. Eventually, your edge will be gone, and so will the persons who has shared it with you.
The markets are too thin to be sharing stuff. Of course there are edges and examples that have been around for years, though the fact remains, that the more people trying to do it, the harder it is to profit from.
Unless you are being given clear “ if this happens, then do this “ instructions, then you are not really being told anything. And if you are being given “ if this happens, then do this” instructions, then the edge will soon disappear as more people are told about it and more people try to do it, which will change market behaviour.
Sorry, somehow didn't see that Peter already commented just a few minutes before that.
That's an interesting take and a very efficient summary, this combination of all the above is what I like to just call "skillset", for lack of a better term, even though I know the right spelling would be "skill set" but 2 words are less convenient.
Terminology aside, I've found that most traders fully agree on most things since they eventually mostly reach the same conclusions, since all roads ultimately lead to Rome after all, and those that run into any dead ends don't last very long in the markets.
I say it's an interesting take because those that have been in the market over a longer period do not necessarily think that a short term edge that an aspiring trader may have over the market is a real (long term) edge, as ultimately every trader has to stand the test of time, I'm sure we all agree on that one.
So to try and expand a bit more on that, in other words it would suggest that an aspiring trader with a profitable strategy or two does not yet technically have an edge over the market, until he proves to himself that he can adapt to market changes and quantify his edge and attack markets from different angles and ultimately survive.
And to any newbies following this thread that are working towards their first strategy, I would suggest that the job does not end there, it would only really begin. Yes, the terminology can easily get mixed up and meanings lost, but soon as you gain a foothold in a market it does not necessarily mean that you already have an edge and can become relaxed or complacent about it.
Would agree with that as well rik, the little edges/strategies I already lost in the short(ish) 5 years I've been active have basically all been on smaller markets, it does make sense since it doesn't take much for market dynamics to shift, any bigger players would have a substantial impact etc. And I see others have lost all sorts of edges, big or small markets, one really has to stay vigilant.
Nonsense. Why do traders use terms like likely, possibly & probability?Mr.Teeny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:44 pmIf you are having to make decisions such as when to apply it, which markets, how much to stake etc, then you haven’t been given a profitable strategy/edge in the first place. You’ve just been given some pointers, or guidelines, which is what you often see given out on this forum.
If you are given a direct profitable strategy, with clear instructions of what to do and when to do it, then you have been given a clear edge.
For example, if someone told you to watch the favourite, and if the favourite drifts from 3.5 to 4, without any retraction, then put in a lay at 3.75 for up to £500, then if it gets matched, it is far more likely to carry on drifting back to 4, than shorten to 3.5 again. Dont put in any more than £500 in, or you are in danger of getting of only getting filled when the market moves against you, which will wipe out your edge.
If you are given clear instructions to a profitable strategy like that, then you have a clear edge. However, the more people you share that with, the quicker that edge will erode, as more people in the queue means you are not even going to get your £500 matched until the price starts to move again.
And clear edges like that can be easily automated , which would also mean someone else is now going to be faster than you too. Eventually, your edge will be gone, and so will the persons who has shared it with you.
The markets are too thin to be sharing stuff. Of course there are edges and examples that have been around for years, though the fact remains, that the more people trying to do it, the harder it is to profit from.
Unless you are being given clear “ if this happens, then do this “ instructions, then you are not really being told anything. And if you are being given “ if this happens, then do this” instructions, then the edge will soon disappear as more people are told about it and more people try to do it, which will change market behaviour.
Who in the right mind would dictate someone else's stake? Are we suggesting that each and every bank is fixed, each and every market has the same liquidity flowing through? Money management is unique to each individual.
Your made up situation just points towards the ABC mentality. The markets don't work that way.
Edit: if two people are automating a shared strategy how does one become faster than the other? It's automated, does one person trigger theirs a second before the other? If so the situation is different and they aren't trading the same thing anymore.
Last edited by jamesg46 on Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Is it untrue? And I'm not arguing, just discussing. Isn't there a pool of ineffiency in any market. It's finite. If you have spotted that inefficiency, why not exploit it to the maximum. Or are you suggesting there are inefficiencies that are deep pools that several/many people can exploit?jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:26 pmThat is simply not true (imo). For that to happen every single variable of the markets & the way those sharing a strategy would have to be consistent every time. As Shaun pointed out, traders aren't yes/no people & we all interpretate situations differently, conflict of opinion is a fundamental part of the market. Even with automation there is a manual aspect, which markets do I apply it to, what stake is suitable, how much of my bank do I risk... each variable differs for each person.greenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:15 pmIf you gave someone a profitable strategy. Your edge would be diminished and theirs would be infinitely improved. Because, until you shared your strategy they would have nothing. But if both of you operating in the same area was enough to alert the market to your activities, you would both lose out.jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:49 pm
Nope, the question is what the question is. Bending it or coming at it from other angles is strictly against my rules (which I haven't stipulated)... I'm a dictator and I won't have it any other way
Imo the two need to be clearly defined, a strategy is not an edge and I think it's a popular opinion that it is. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to being so. Clearly though if syndicates exist then sharing a strategy won't lose you an edge. The same Strategies have been around in trading for as long as I can remember, nobody is re inventing the wheel to get an edge. Once you've got it, you've got it, it doesn't just cease to exist or you lose it on your way home. A strategy can fluctuate in profitability, maybe it comes and goes through seasonal changes or maybe it stops being profitable altogether... that is the strategy that's coming & going/losing it's effectiveness, it's not the edge. A strategy or the strategy is not any one person's edge & from my reading of people (in general) people search for a strategy thinking that. "What system do you use", "What strategy is best" etc etc
-
Trader Pat
- Posts: 4327
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:50 pm
You seem to have an issue with certain people on the forum specifically me for some reason so whatever it is spit it out or stop talking about me in the 3rd person as if I'm Beetlejuice and I'm going to appear if you say my name enough times. You seem a little obsessed, do I need a restraining order? .
I'm a pretty direct person, If I have a problem with someone I'll say it to them or I'll steer clear of them, you don't seem capable of doing either.
For the record regarding sly comments you were the first person on this thread to make one:
jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:44 pmYour 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.
As I said to you on another thread its all pretty childish but I'm glad others are starting to see through your bullshit.
Try to be original in your response, remember you've already used "I didn't realise you were so sensitive...." & " I didn't know you could be triggered so easily..."
That is true (and I get that you're not arguing & that this isn't an argument) but for one person to lose out to another by sharing a strategy, they would have to be entering & exiting precisely together in pools of ineffeciencies that aren't big enough and those pools of ineffeciencies would have to be consistently less than there needs in every single market. Unless they & the markets are robotic i don't see that happening.greenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:01 pmIs it untrue? And I'm not arguing, just discussing. Isn't there a pool of ineffiency in any market. It's finite. If you have spotted that inefficiency, why not exploit it to the maximum. Or are you suggesting there are inefficiencies that are deep pools that several/many people can exploit?jamesg46 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:26 pmThat is simply not true (imo). For that to happen every single variable of the markets & the way those sharing a strategy would have to be consistent every time. As Shaun pointed out, traders aren't yes/no people & we all interpretate situations differently, conflict of opinion is a fundamental part of the market. Even with automation there is a manual aspect, which markets do I apply it to, what stake is suitable, how much of my bank do I risk... each variable differs for each person.greenmark wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:15 pm
If you gave someone a profitable strategy. Your edge would be diminished and theirs would be infinitely improved. Because, until you shared your strategy they would have nothing. But if both of you operating in the same area was enough to alert the market to your activities, you would both lose out.
Nonsense. Why do traders use terms like likely, possibly & probability?
Who in the right mind would dictate someone else's stake? Are we suggesting that each and every bank is fixed, each and every market has the same liquidity flowing through? Money management is unique to each individual.
Your made up situation just points towards the ABC mentality. The markets don't work that way.
[/quote]
I’m not sure I understand your point? You come across a bit naive, like someone who either isn’t yet profitable, or somebody who has only been doing this for a relatively short amount of time.
Nobody is going to dictate anyone else’s stake, the made up example was exactly that, an example I made up to illustrate a point. The point being that edges aren’t unlimited, and you have to control your stake to some extent.
Of course everyone is dealing in probabilities, possibly’s and probably’s, that’s the whole game.
But if you are being given vague instructions like that, then you aren’t really being given any sort of an edge/ profitable strategy in the first place, you are just being given pointers/ guidelines.
If you are going to automate it, of course you need to be told things like how much to stake, when to bet, which markets, there can’t be any grey areas. And that’s why nobody ever shares anything like that, as it can be easily copied and replicated, thus destroying the edge.
And if it can’t be automated, then you aren’t really being given a profitable strategy. You’re just being given something to think about, something you have to interpret yourself, and there is plenty of that sort of advice out there already.
I don't have an issue with you. I've already told you on another thread & I'll repeat it again. I think very highly of you.Trader Pat wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:04 pmYou seem to have an issue with certain people on the forum specifically me for some reason so whatever it is spit it out or stop talking about me in the 3rd person as if I'm Beetlejuice and I'm going to appear if you say my name enough times. You seem a little obsessed, do I need a restraining order? .
I'm a pretty direct person, If I have a problem with someone I'll say it to them or I'll steer clear of them, you don't seem capable of doing either.
For the record regarding sly comments you were the first person on this thread to make one:
As I said to you on another thread its all pretty childish but I'm glad others are starting to see through your bullshit.
Try to be original in your response, remember you've already used "I didn't realise you were so sensitive...." & " I didn't know you could be triggered so easily..."
That wasn't a sly comment, it was true or as you say direct. I've not said a bad word about you, either in private or indirectly through comments, no bullshit.
Like I said, my perception of our last conversation in that previous thread was banter, we've approached each other similarly many times before that & I've always enjoyed your humour and character.
Anyway, I'd love to aid turning this thread into it being about you but maybe the topic Is of more interest to others.
Mr.Teeny wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 2:12 pmNonsense. Why do traders use terms like likely, possibly & probability?
Who in the right mind would dictate someone else's stake? Are we suggesting that each and every bank is fixed, each and every market has the same liquidity flowing through? Money management is unique to each individual.
Your made up situation just points towards the ABC mentality. The markets don't work that way.
I’m not sure I understand your point? You come across a bit naive, like someone who either isn’t yet profitable, or somebody who has only been doing this for a relatively short amount of time.
Nobody is going to dictate anyone else’s stake, the made up example was exactly that, an example I made up to illustrate a point. The point being that edges aren’t unlimited, and you have to control your stake to some extent.
Of course everyone is dealing in probabilities, possibly’s and probably’s, that’s the whole game.
But if you are being given vague instructions like that, then you aren’t really being given any sort of an edge/ profitable strategy in the first place, you are just being given pointers/ guidelines.
If you are going to automate it, of course you need to be told things like how much to stake, when to bet, which markets, there can’t be any grey areas. And that’s why nobody ever shares anything like that, as it can be easily copied and replicated, thus destroying the edge.
And if it can’t be automated, then you aren’t really being given a profitable strategy. You’re just being given something to think about, something you have to interpret yourself, and there is plenty of that sort of advice out there already.
[/quote]
Ooh here we go, let's start with some personal digs, subtle choice using the naive card.
My point is a strategy isn't an edge & sharing a strategy won't lose an edge. Application, adaptation & money management is an edge and those things are unique to everyone... that is probably why we aren't all Peter Webb & why everyone is at different levels and the biggie why some people win & some people lose.
This has been my point from the start, my gripe or whatever. I'm not trying to get personal or argue with anyone, be it that's some peoples perception.
Simply interested in gathering thoughts and talking about them.
I think you're talking nonsense and you think I am. Let's leave it at that, there is no need to go down the insult path.