1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

To Think or not to Think: The Trader’s Dilemma

Discussion in 'Forex Discussions' started by painofhell, Aug 15, 2016.

  1. painofhell

    painofhell Content Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2015
    Messages:
    995
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    morocco
    In 1969, when I made my first futures trade, thinking was fashionable. The 1960’s and 1970’s were good times for thinkers, free thinkers, thought-provoking issues, civil disobedience, and analytical traders. Thinkers thought great thoughts about the future of our nation, about our presence and purpose (if any) in Viet Nam, about domestic and international racial issues, about freedom and equality, about the poor and the homeless. Thinking prompted radical action by various political interest groups. There violent numerous anti-war protests, a variety civil disobedience events, draft card burnings, sit-ins and student protests. The stock and futures markets were studied closely. They were analyzed, scrutinized and theorized. Computer analysis of the markets was a new and promising science.

    The “Zeitgeist”

    Against the backdrop of this intellectual Zeitgeist, we were taught that if success was to be attainable to us as futures traders we would need to consider each trade carefully; all potential outcomes were to be critically evaluated in terms of risk and reward. Trading decisions, we were told, which were the result of intensive analysis were likely to be more correct than those which were the product of less intensive scrutiny. In fact, thinking about trades was so much in vogue that traders would frequently seek out numerous sources of information in order to validate each of their trades. There was no such thing as “too much information”. After all, how could there be too much information in the so-called Information Age?

    Edsel Trading

    Do you remember the story of the Edsel? In what seemed to be a reasonable approach, Ford Motor designed the Edsel to please the consumer. They did so by attempting to include everything that the buyer wanted to see in a car. The end result was a car that failed miserably. The simple truth is that “too many cooks spoil the pie”. Consider the following questions:

    How much information is enough?
    How can you decide when you have given a decision enough thought?
    Are there any objective measures for knowing when you have thought about something enough, or does the process end when things "feel right"?
    Is there a correlation between the amount of thought devoted to a trade and its end result?
    Can intensive analysis and thought really lead to success in trading?
    The questions are totally absurd. What is deep thought to one trader is either a mere pittance to another trader or totally worthless activity to another. There are no set standards, no guarantees, and no insurance policies. There is no firm correlation between the amount of thought and deliberation that gores into a trade and the outcome of that trade. In fact, there IS a correlation then it’s likely an inverse one.

    Decisions made seemingly off the cuff by some traders are often more successful than decisions made by committees. And, of course, computers have totally revolutionized the decision making process by doing our "thinking" for us. Once the computer has done the hard work there's really nothing left to do but to take the prescribed action. Any hesitation subsequent to the acquisition of knowledge is hesitation bound to lead to confusion, indecision, insecurity, ambivalence, and equivocation - none of which are constructive inputs in the formula for success.

    Why Bother?

    The purpose of my commentary here is to make a case for "simpler" and “less intelligent” trading. Once the facts are known and once the computer has decided the best course of action, there's no choice but to act. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract between you and the computer, but more importantly between you and yourself. I suggest that the failure to act on your system is the first indication that you have taken a wrong turn, which will eventually lead you down the road to ruin.

    The only way in which learning can develop is through action. Non-behavior, however, means that there will be no learning regardless of whether the action would have produced positive or negative results.

    Have you ever noticed the relationship between the success of a trader and his or her ability to take action, right or wrong? Traders who make decisions promptly and without fear most often come out ahead in the long run. Furthermore, it's been my observation that there's an inverse correlation between intellectual ability and market success - the smarter you are (or think you are), the more you'll think, and the less money you'll make.

    I'm not saying that you have to be stupid in order to trade well. What I am saying, however, is that you can't over analyze a trade or you will either be too late to make it or you'll talk yourself out of it. Traders who can act quickly, evaluating information and reacting to it on a gut level, are often traders who succeed. While I am not advocating irrational or impulsive behavior with your money, I am saying that ONCE THE FACTS ARE IN, THEY'RE IN.

    It is the fear of being wrong that inhibits action. But if this is the fear which keeps you from making decisions then you had better give up the game - there's no way you can play the game without taking some heat. You never know ahead of time whether your decision will be profitable or not. If you did, then there would be no game. There would be no losers to help sustain the winners.

    Feelings aren't Facts!

    Have you observed a relationship between your feelings about a given trade and its eventual success or failure? Consider this: the more a trade scares you, the more likely it is to be successful. The one's you're scared out of are often the one's that work. WHY? The human brain cannot think without being affected by external interference and influences.

    Any intellectual process designed to making a trading decision is subject to a thousand and one fears before the thought becomes translated into action. To give into those fears is to circumvent the system.
     
Loading...

Share This Page