How much would you give away on here?

[Trader Pat]

I remember back in the early 90’s and the full screw was teaching us how to make an improvised claymore in the classroom… it wasn’t until that I actually had hands in that my brain remembered how to do it.

I would be in that 20%, you are correct. I have heard it before too.

Once i’ve done it though. Boom

Remind me never to piss you off!

[gazuty]

Opened source my python API wrapper and have recently open sourced a fully functional trading framework, benefits have included:

- Regular communication with betfair, API and premium team
- Opportunities with new API features (streaming/gps/inplay feeds etc.)
- 1k+ member slack group
- Regular PR's / improvements to the code base
- Worked with numerous syndicates and other professionals who have found me because of the above

The final point has been the most valuable and taken me from hobby to pro, without open sourcing I would never be where I am now.

Liam's post is very important - well done.

A few years ago I read a book while on holiday about the history of innovation. Innovation is directly correlated to the number of human interactions and the size of human communities over time. Hence the arrival of agricultural communities and then cities lead to increased innovation. In addition, there is a power law at play (ie innovation is not a linear correlation to the population of community, its exponential). What made sense to me in the book was the concept of the "adjascent possible". The adjascent possible are the thoughts and ideas that each of us have after having an interaction (whether that be reading, conversation etc) with another human that we would not have had without the interaction. All new knowledge is an incremental innovation that relies on predecessor knowledge and interaction. Some people wait for some kind of blinding insight (road to Damascus style). That doesn't happen, rather all innovation proceeds from the adjascent possible.

What Liam has done is impressive and also his recognition that being part of a community enhances rather than detracts from opportunity. Communities literally create between them the adjascent possible.

The internet, social networks etc is taking (and has taken) what was previously possible in human to human contact and physical libraries and expanded human networks and interaction enormously and so the pace of change will be even more rapid in the future. It's already very obvious to anyone born in the pre mobile phone, pre personal pc era. We have literally observed right in front of our own faces huge advances in the adjascent possible. The fixed phone becomes mobile phone, huge clunky things, then nokia, to motorolla to blackberry to iphone. We didn't go from rotary dialling phones straight to iphones There were lots of adjascent steps. What anyone who has been around for a while can see is the speed of change picking up.

Finally, something else that should be sufficiently obvious. There is not "one" edge in markets the sucessful traders have discovered or that is whispered softly between those in the know. There are many edges that are (at the end of the day) all doing the same thing, exploiting inefficiencies in the market. If we all pursued the same strategy, the same edge - the market structure would be completely different and that strategy/edge would not exist. I've posted before, for each strategy there is max amount available in profit from the market - go too far and then you are not exploiting a market inefficiency, you become the inefficiency and someone else is exploiting you.

[decomez6]

.

. Innovation is directly correlated to the number of human interactions and the size of human communities over time. Hence the arrival of agricultural communities and then cities lead to increased innovation. In addition, there is a power law at play (ie innovation is not a linear correlation to the population of community, its exponential

the persian region (mesopotamia) , India , China ... are by default the mother of human agricultural innovations.
china introduced a one child poicy to curb the population growth and still underwent an exponential growth with a 1/3 of the global overal population being chinese.

history of the INDUS valley is of great interest especially when it comes to human settlement , literacy (recitation,reading,writing, numeracy....) .
ofcourse other civilisations had thier own ways of doing things , but it is the ability to preserve and passing on of the knowledge that worked so well in that part of the world .

the indians sanscrits and religious freedom (pantheist, atheist, polytheist,monotheist etc ) gave way to such a diversefied way of thinking that allowed mathematics/ arithematics to thrive .as a matter fact the abrahamic faiths (jews,christians and muslims) have indus valley to thank for thie orirgins . the buddhists and many more are direct descendants too.
Religion was super important in helping to galvanise the masses by giving an identinty with a common goal which promised a divine rewarding life so long as they did what was asked of them and for the common good of the community. (if you BUILD it they shall COME)...and they shurely came with thier heads on the ground ready to be laed and easy to govern.

this folks domesticated the elephant and made it do the physically heavy lifting while they occupied themselves with the heavy Mathematical mental gymnastics, which gave way to great innovations in human development. dont forget they had cities with functioning drainage systems and yet the modern day dubai with all its sky scrappers still need trucks on the road to transport sewer , they luck a sewage system , unbelievable !
mesopatamian discoverd the wheel and domesticated the ox (cows) to do the digging ... the chinese are known to discover the paper we all write on ,silk...etc
....and on...and on..on...

fast forward >>
the west took all those inventions ,perfected it and sent it back to the sender , selling it to them for a profit .....the chinese said
" we invented the gun powder for fun , and you western countries took it and made guns out of it , which you then sold it to us and now we can do whatever we want , you do not have enough footsoldiers to stop us! "

no wonder china is a wonder child.. they are the second largest economy !
all within short time

[Crazyskier]

In my opinion trading ability is pretty non-transferable even through videos and calls never mind text, it would be like reading a book on how to play tennis better and then not actually being any better in reality.

I actually randomly read somewhere that 65% of people are visual learners, they retain 80% of what they see, but just 20% of what they read (!) and only 10% of what they hear. Sounds about right I think. So it's not exactly the same to visualize something from a wall of text, compared to P&L images or ladder clips etc.

This is the same reasoning that accounts for the best salespeople using visual aids and slide decks, etc - it creates a more powerful and compelling story, as well as people retaining the information longer.

CS

[stueytrader]

In my opinion trading ability is pretty non-transferable even through videos and calls never mind text, it would be like reading a book on how to play tennis better and then not actually being any better in reality.

I actually randomly read somewhere that 65% of people are visual learners, they retain 80% of what they see, but just 20% of what they read (!) and only 10% of what they hear. Sounds about right I think. So it's not exactly the same to visualize something from a wall of text, compared to P&L images or ladder clips etc.

But as difficult as trading is mentally and as challenging as penetrating the apparent market efficiency is, there are still far more difficult challenges and puzzles around that would make trading feel like a walk in the park. For example 5D Chess with multiverse time travel, where you play with temporal, spatial and parallel dimensions. It's basically a chess variant where you can move pieces back in time or send them to other dimensions and your goal is to protect your kings (plural) in both the present and the past. Maybe even normal chess would improve one's decision-making and end result, or it may encourage over-thinking, don't know.

Anyway, sharing some of your work is one thing but not sure I'm convinced about the concept of active teaching/mentoring, by doing that you set that person on a pre-determined path and you could be denying them that journey of self-discovery, who knows where they could find their niche and what market would suit them best, plus I'm sure no self-respecting person would want to be served every detail by someone else as that would take all the wonder out of the trading journey and it wouldn't feel as satisfying or fulfilling overall. I think casual mentoring is fine, you can give out rough guidelines and encourage people to explore the markets and to try things out and to be creative and make all the mistakes etc, but within a few core trading foundations to make sure they don't go off in wrong directions.

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I haven't really found a lot of crossover with trading, though perhaps areas such as concentration and analysis do have some similarity. The problem solving aspects feel very different to me at least. In chess you can make very precise calculations, so I guess the biggest difference I find is the uncertainty elements in trading.

I agree about being able to 'find your own way' - I feel that's exactly what has eventually helped my trading. Many strict principles (even those I have been told on here) I've basically ignored - sometimes that went badly for me, but I also found some ways that seemed to click and work for me. Interestingly, that was what stimulated my post here - I wondered how much of my own methods I should discuss openly, when I felt they were consistently profitable...

[wearthefoxhat]

In my opinion trading ability is pretty non-transferable even through videos and calls never mind text, it would be like reading a book on how to play tennis better and then not actually being any better in reality.

I actually randomly read somewhere that 65% of people are visual learners, they retain 80% of what they see, but just 20% of what they read (!) and only 10% of what they hear. Sounds about right I think. So it's not exactly the same to visualize something from a wall of text, compared to P&L images or ladder clips etc.

But as difficult as trading is mentally and as challenging as penetrating the apparent market efficiency is, there are still far more difficult challenges and puzzles around that would make trading feel like a walk in the park. For example 5D Chess with multiverse time travel, where you play with temporal, spatial and parallel dimensions. It's basically a chess variant where you can move pieces back in time or send them to other dimensions and your goal is to protect your kings (plural) in both the present and the past. Maybe even normal chess would improve one's decision-making and end result, or it may encourage over-thinking, don't know.

Anyway, sharing some of your work is one thing but not sure I'm convinced about the concept of active teaching/mentoring, by doing that you set that person on a pre-determined path and you could be denying them that journey of self-discovery, who knows where they could find their niche and what market would suit them best, plus I'm sure no self-respecting person would want to be served every detail by someone else as that would take all the wonder out of the trading journey and it wouldn't feel as satisfying or fulfilling overall. I think casual mentoring is fine, you can give out rough guidelines and encourage people to explore the markets and to try things out and to be creative and make all the mistakes etc, but within a few core trading foundations to make sure they don't go off in wrong directions.

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I haven't really found a lot of crossover with trading, though perhaps areas such as concentration and analysis do have some similarity. The problem solving aspects feel very different to me at least. In chess you can make very precise calculations, so I guess the biggest difference I find is the uncertainty elements in trading.

I agree about being able to 'find your own way' - I feel that's exactly what has eventually helped my trading. Many strict principles (even those I have been told on here) I've basically ignored - sometimes that went badly for me, but I also found some ways that seemed to click and work for me. Interestingly, that was what stimulated my post here - I wondered how much of my own methods I should discuss openly, when I felt they were consistently profitable...

I'm around 1400 elo. Could improve with practice, but not by much.

On chess.com https://www.chess.com/ you can play against the computer or on-line.

For me the comparison is that trading is like speed chess. I'd have an opening strategy in trading, but must adapt when the opponent (market), does something different or wild. It could have been something that was expected, but then making an exchange of pieces to clear the board, (trading out) to reset again, can work too..

[Kai]

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

Well done. And well done on spawning a decent discussion, which is arguably more difficult

This is the same reasoning that accounts for the best salespeople using visual aids and slide decks, etc - it creates a more powerful and compelling story, as well as people retaining the information longer.

CS

It's kinda why I can't really do books, even though I'd like to, and I don't think it's for the lack of imagination, they just seem too dry and bland as a medium and I get no real learning stimulus, similar to data. But give me the right video material and I could watch all day with laser eye focus, I can cut clips of the most important bits and extract the key parts, narrate over them for future reference like with my own clips and so on. This particular medium has been the direct source of most of my learning.

Similarly to kinesthetic learning, I'm definitely a big advocate of "learning by doing", although I do borrow elements of observational learning in terms of mimicking others to a certain extent, to get those "rough guidelines" in place. But not sure if breaking down the science of learning is too helpful, I think it's more about learning about yourself first and foremost and then learning how to learn via whatever medium suits you best, because having to force something is usually not a good sign overall, while if you create a rock solid methodology that works for you then I believe you can learn virtually anything.

Goes without saying obviously that understanding how something works or how someone else trades doesn't mean you can actually do it and that you've actually learned. Since I think many do understand how they should trade and where a particular edge is, they just can't execute on it yet. For example, if you extract a viable strategy from a random video with a good concrete trading example that's just the first part and doesn't mean you can replicate it that effectively yet, you have to re-learn it yourself by actually doing and executing it, if you're missing a few parts of the required skillset for it then I'm sorry but you have to build those yourself.

[Derek27]

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I used to play chess a lot on a computer, not you your level though. One thing chess has in common with trading is the commonly used phase, "5 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".

[stueytrader]

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I used to play chess a lot on a computer, not you your level though. One thing chess has in common with trading is the commonly used phase, "5 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".

Very good comparison point - always learning!

[Kai]

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I used to play chess a lot on a computer, not you your level though. One thing chess has in common with trading is the commonly used phase, "5 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".

In the context of trading you could maybe say you've learned if you're able to be consistently profitable, but that would take more than 5 minutes as it's not enough to learn the software and the difference between the back and lay side

While mastering something by definition implies you've acquired the complete knowledge or skill of trading, which can also be relative as it's subjective to your opinion. For an activity as complex as trading with that many different facets it very well may require a lifetime!

Some may argue that profitable trading requires you to first master all of these different facets, but I think it's more about striking the right balance overall, between being too risk averse and too gung ho. In my case I can say I've learned a thing or two but I feel I've yet to master anything, so there's still plenty to learn and I'm very much looking forward to it, to the actual journey first and foremost.

[Derek27]

I'm actually a chess player myself - around 1750 elo (which is basically a reasonably fair club player level).

I used to play chess a lot on a computer, not you your level though. One thing chess has in common with trading is the commonly used phase, "5 minutes to learn, a lifetime to master".

In the context of trading you could maybe say you've learned if you're able to be consistently profitable, but that would take more than 5 minutes as it's not enough to learn the software and the difference between the back and lay side

While mastering something by definition implies you've acquired the complete knowledge or skill of trading, which can also be relative as it's subjective to your opinion. For an activity as complex as trading with that many different facets it very well may require a lifetime!

Some may argue that profitable trading requires you to first master all of these different facets, but I think it's more about striking the right balance overall, between being too risk averse and too gung ho. In my case I can say I've learned a thing or two but I feel I've yet to master anything, so there's still plenty to learn and I'm very much looking forward to it, to the actual journey first and foremost.

I've just looked up how long it takes to learn chess and it says 30 minutes.

In the context of the saying, I would say learning how the chess pieces move, how to checkmate, stalemate, castle, en passant, draw by repitition, 50-move rule and touch move/fingers off (I think that's the lot) equates to simply knowing what a back bet and lay bet is, and how to calculate the p/l.

Greening-up, closing for a free bet, learning which way the market moves in a footy match equates to learning how to mate with a lone queen or rook, stuff you can figure out yourself if you didn't have anyone to teach you it.

Learning all the common openings, their variants and how to handle them comes with experience, like the experience Peter often alludes to in his videos when he says "I've seen this sort of market before".

Reaching a satisfactory level of success but struggling to make progress in a new sport reminds me of queen v rook endings, one that I failed to crack when I was last playing chess.

[LinusP]

Opened source my python API wrapper and have recently open sourced a fully functional trading framework, benefits have included:

- Regular communication with betfair, API and premium team
- Opportunities with new API features (streaming/gps/inplay feeds etc.)
- 1k+ member slack group
- Regular PR's / improvements to the code base
- Worked with numerous syndicates and other professionals who have found me because of the above

The final point has been the most valuable and taken me from hobby to pro, without open sourcing I would never be where I am now.

Liam's post is very important - well done.

A few years ago I read a book while on holiday about the history of innovation. Innovation is directly correlated to the number of human interactions and the size of human communities over time. Hence the arrival of agricultural communities and then cities lead to increased innovation. In addition, there is a power law at play (ie innovation is not a linear correlation to the population of community, its exponential). What made sense to me in the book was the concept of the "adjascent possible". The adjascent possible are the thoughts and ideas that each of us have after having an interaction (whether that be reading, conversation etc) with another human that we would not have had without the interaction. All new knowledge is an incremental innovation that relies on predecessor knowledge and interaction. Some people wait for some kind of blinding insight (road to Damascus style). That doesn't happen, rather all innovation proceeds from the adjascent possible.

What Liam has done is impressive and also his recognition that being part of a community enhances rather than detracts from opportunity. Communities literally create between them the adjascent possible.

The internet, social networks etc is taking (and has taken) what was previously possible in human to human contact and physical libraries and expanded human networks and interaction enormously and so the pace of change will be even more rapid in the future. It's already very obvious to anyone born in the pre mobile phone, pre personal pc era. We have literally observed right in front of our own faces huge advances in the adjascent possible. The fixed phone becomes mobile phone, huge clunky things, then nokia, to motorolla to blackberry to iphone. We didn't go from rotary dialling phones straight to iphones There were lots of adjascent steps. What anyone who has been around for a while can see is the speed of change picking up.

Finally, something else that should be sufficiently obvious. There is not "one" edge in markets the sucessful traders have discovered or that is whispered softly between those in the know. There are many edges that are (at the end of the day) all doing the same thing, exploiting inefficiencies in the market. If we all pursued the same strategy, the same edge - the market structure would be completely different and that strategy/edge would not exist. I've posted before, for each strategy there is max amount available in profit from the market - go too far and then you are not exploiting a market inefficiency, you become the inefficiency and someone else is exploiting you.

I think you have summed it up very well, almost every time I have met up with someone I have made a leap, there is only so much that you can pickup from videos/blogs/forums etc. As far as I am aware I don't think there has ever been a BA meetup, this surprises me, sometimes just knowing what is possible is enough motivation to find it.

[ShaunWhite]

sometimes just knowing what is possible is enough motivation to find it.

And seeing they're just regular people with the standard number of heads.

Sure they know a lot about their subject, but we all know a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff, they just happen to know this stuff. And with the greatest respect to those who do well, common sense and hard work do seem to be as useful as having a towering intellect, so meeting people gives you a healthy dose of "if he can, I can". Impressed and full of admiration, but not intimidated and definately motivated.

[footysystems]

I am a big believer in collaboration, definitely the way forward. For people who work hard.

[andy28]

It's all down to personalities, as the video showed, the person couldn't follow a simple instruction. If we were all the same then there would be no gambling, trading or anything like that as we would all think and act the same. People see, read, hear the same thing but will all form different opinions.

People learn better if they are interested in it, I have watched all the video's but some of the video's like tennis I find myself struggling with because I have never bet on tennis nor am I likely too, but I still watched because there are things I saw and heard that made me go hmmmm, how can I use that in pre off horse racing.

I wouldn't expect anyone to offer up any of their secrets on the forums for a number of reasons. One it's more than likely a multi layered thing that I couldn't fully grasp, which would in turn mean that if it needed tweaking over time I couldn't make those changes as I don't fully understand how it works or what it looks for. If you build it yourself it yourself you know why you did something and if it needed a tweak you would know where to make that change and what that would have on the strategey as a whole.

For me personally I would take far more satisfaction from something I did myself than from being given something. It may take longer to do but I think you learn more being hands on and by trial and error than by any other way. That's just me tho, each to their own