Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading - Psychology and Money Management | futures io social day trading
futures io futures trading


Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading
Updated: Views / Replies:19,207 / 107
Created: by Anagami Attachments:7

Welcome to futures io.

(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)

futures io is the largest futures trading community on the planet, with over 90,000 members. At futures io, our goal has always been and always will be to create a friendly, positive, forward-thinking community where members can openly share and discuss everything the world of trading has to offer. The community is one of the friendliest you will find on any subject, with members going out of their way to help others. Some of the primary differences between futures io and other trading sites revolve around the standards of our community. Those standards include a code of conduct for our members, as well as extremely high standards that govern which partners we do business with, and which products or services we recommend to our members.

At futures io, our focus is on quality education. No hype, gimmicks, or secret sauce. The truth is: trading is hard. To succeed, you need to surround yourself with the right support system, educational content, and trading mentors Ė all of which you can find on futures io, utilizing our social trading environment.

With futures io, you can find honest trading reviews on brokers, trading rooms, indicator packages, trading strategies, and much more. Our trading review process is highly moderated to ensure that only genuine users are allowed, so you donít need to worry about fake reviews.

We are fundamentally different than most other trading sites:
  • We are here to help. Just let us know what you need.
  • We work extremely hard to keep things positive in our community.
  • We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts.
  • We firmly believe in and encourage sharing. The holy grail is within you, we can help you find it.
  • We expect our members to participate and become a part of the community. Help yourself by helping others.

You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community.  It's free and simple.

-- Big Mike, Site Administrator

Reply
 7  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 

Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading

  #51 (permalink)
Market Wizard
Las Vegas, NV
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: Abacus, Slide Rule, HP-65, Metastock, TOS, NT
Favorite Futures: Futures
 
aligator's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,424 since Aug 2010
Thanks: 1,053 given, 5,822 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


liquidcci View Post
For the same reason I would not blot all my personal info on my tax returns then mail it to all my neighbors.

But really it is a waste of time. I could quite easily create a fake statement and make every one oooh and ahhh. Point being any statement posted here by anyone cannot be proven to be real. So there is no reason to make effort to do so or request anyone else to do so.

I don't think @Anagami or @Fat Tails wasted time by posting some good studies. It does not have to be a broker's summary. It could be stats on let's say a year of trading or a few hundred trades or some kind of mathematical demonstration. It's usually obvious if the stats are bogus or real. People tend to believe what they see (religion aside).

Otherwise, it's like this guy who is selling his fakebars for $199 a month and has been telling the followers I can't legally give you stats (although he is not licensed in anything), but if you don't believe me go do your own stats (he used to post stats that showed miserable results, then he stopped doing that).

Reply With Quote
The following 3 users say Thank You to aligator for this post:
 
  #52 (permalink)
Elite Member
Austin, TX
 
Futures Experience: Master
Platform: ninjatrader, r-trader
Favorite Futures: CL, NG, TF, NQ, YM, GC, ES
 
liquidcci's Avatar
 
Posts: 862 since Jun 2011
Thanks: 609 given, 1,051 received


aligator View Post
I don't think @Anagami or @Fat Tails wasted time by posting some good studies. It does not have to be a broker's summary. It could be stats on let's say a year of trading or a few hundred trades or some kind of mathematical demonstration. It's usually obvious if the stats are bogus or real. People tend to believe what they see (religion aside).

Otherwise, it's like this guy who is selling his fakebars for $199 a month and has been telling the followers I can't legally give you stats (although he is not licensed in anything), but if you don't believe me go do your own stats (he used to post stats that showed miserable results, then he stopped doing that).

Aligator I never said what Anagami or Fat tails posted was a waste of time. What they posted is very different from someone being asked to post a brokerage statement as proof of results. It is a waste because it cannot be verified as being true. Even if a brokerage statement could be verified to be true it helps no one on board unless the method that goes with it is revealed as well. I am not selling anything here so it is moot.

However, I am going to bow out of this conversation because it is really not the intent of Anagami's thread and this just clutters up the original intent.

"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to liquidcci for this post:
 
  #53 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received



Fat Tails View Post
Correct.


The 20/20 system cannot take the same number of trades over the same time period, but I had already taken it into account! Based on the square root relationship between volatility and time, I had made an estimation that the 20/20 system will be able to enter only one trade, while the 10/10 system enters 4 trades. This assumption is realistic, you can compare the average true range from N-minute bars with the average true range from 4xN-minute bars, and will find that it is approximately the double.

If you read my post attentively you will also understand that I have not directly compared the 6302 trades needed by the 10/10 system with the 218 trades of the 20/20 system, but I have used the above approximation to state that the 10/10 system will be able to take about 872 trades while the 20 /20 system takes 218 trades.

But even after 872 trades (4-times as many as the 20 point system) the 10/10 system is far from reaching the target. I will take about 7 times (!) as long to achieve its target, as it has to generate 28 times as many trades.



The 20/20 system needs 28 times fewer trades (218 versus 6302), and will reach its target about 7 times faster. It is therefore both faster in terms of trades and in terms of time.


Have added the 15 min charts of ES 06-12 from last Friday with the ATR(256) calculated from the primary bars (red) and the ATR(25) calculated from 60 minutes bars (blue)=. The approximation which I have used postulates that the
ATR from the secondary bars should be about twice the size as the ATR from the primary bars, and this is indeed the case, as 3.16 is about the double of 1.64.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).

Thank you for your detailed and elucidating post, Harry (@Fat Tails).

Yes, 4 times the # of trades (10/10 system) for every 1 trade (20/20 system) is a reasonable modelling.

As a good empiricist, I plan to write some quick Java code to duplicate your results (not sure what sim you are using? Prop?).

Before that, however, maybe you can help me understand the formula for the Adjusted Win Loss Ratio in your simulation (I think you mean Loss / Win Ratio?). I tried factoring in commission and slippage but was unable to come up with the same ratios (0.83 and 0.69).

Thanks!

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #54 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,651 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,226 given, 25,600 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Anagami View Post
Thank you for your detailed and elucidating post, Harry (@Fat Tails).

Yes, 4 times the # of trades (10/10 system) for every 1 trade (20/20 system) is a reasonable modelling.

As a good empiricist, I plan to write some quick Java code to duplicate your results (not sure what sim you are using? Prop?).

Before that, however, maybe you can help me understand the formula for the Adjusted Win Loss Ratio in your simulation (I think you mean Loss / Win Ratio?). I tried factoring in commission and slippage but was unable to come up with the same ratios (0.83 and 0.69).

Thanks!

The excel model is just from the thread "Risk of Ruin". You can actually read through the stuff and download the excel model from post #65, as per link below:

https://futures.io/psychology-money-management/15602-risk-ruin-7.html#post207948


The ratios are calculated as follows:

winning trade = 20 points - 1.8 points slippage and commission = 18.2 points
losing trade = - 20 points - 1.8 points slippage and commission = -21.8 points

Then divide 18.2 (winning trade) by 21.8 (losing trade) and you get 18.2/21.8 = 0.83

Accordingly for the 10/10 system you would obtain 8.2/11.8 = 0.69


Last edited by Fat Tails; May 6th, 2012 at 11:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
The following 6 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #55 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received


Fat Tails View Post
The excel model is just from the thread "Risk of Ruin". You can actually read through the stuff and download the excel model from post #65, as per link below:

https://futures.io/psychology-money-management/15602-risk-ruin-7.html#post207948


The ratios are calculated as follows:

winning trade = 20 points - 1.8 points slippage and commission = 18.2 points
losing trade = - 20 points - 1.8 points slippage and commission = -21.8 points

Then divide 18.2 (winning trade) by 21.8 (losing trade) and you get 18.2/21.8 = 0.83

Accordingly for the 10/10 system you would obtain 8.2/11.8 = 0.69

Thanks again, Harry! (@Fat Tails) Much appreciated. You help me (and I'm sure many others) to correct certain distortions that have been ball and chain in our trading.

Just crunching some numbers with respect to the 20/20 and 10/10 system. Let's calculate trade expectations after factoring in vig (slippage and commission) as well as time (10/10 trades 4 times more often).

20/20 System @ 60% Winning
(0.6)(18.2) - (0.4)(21.8) = 10.92 - 8.72 = 2.2 points

10/10 System @ 60% Winning
(0.6)(8.2) - (0.4)(11.8) = 4.92 - 4.72 = 0.2 points.
Because this system trades 4 times more often, for the same time window, we get 0.2 * 4 = 0.8 points

Wow. The 20/20 has almost 3 times higher expectancy (even though 10/10 trades 4 times more often), because the vig is much less of a drag. This ratio is amplified with % position sizing. Essentially, the 20/20 gets ahead, stays ahead, and increases the lead more and more because it is dragged down less on every turn.

Now, does this effect continue? In other words, what happens if we create a 40/40 system (60% Winning)? Will it perform better than 20/20, just as 20/20 performed better than 10/10?

NO! It breaks down somewhere...

Let's take a look at math and then do a simulation.

40/40 System (60% Winning)
(0.6)(38.2) - (0.4)(41.8) = 22.92 - 16.72 = 6.2

The expectation for 20/20 system was 2.2. Keeping that same assumption about the number of trades when we double, the system at 20/20 level would be taking 4 times as many trades.
So, for the purposes of comparison, we get 2.2 * 4 = 8.8

20/20 has better theoretical expectancy than 40/40!! Why??

Let's look at the simulation.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


Ouch! It doesn't perform better anymore than the previous step up. Why not?
20/20 was better than 10/10.
But 40/40 is not better than 20/20.

It took us less trades at 40/40 (112), BUT by the time we get to 112, the 20/20 system already finished (remember, it takes 4 times as many trades. So by the time 40/40 finished 112 trades, 20/20 would have completed 448 trades... but it finished in only 218).

I think the answer lies in the fact that once vig (commission/slippage) has become sufficiently small (how do we calculate this without going through every case?), what becomes more important is the number of trades taken at 60% winning.

It seems there's a 'saddle' transition point somewhere. Vig becomes relatively small, and leveraged compounding multiple times within a fixed timeframe becomes more paramount.

Any thoughts? Harry?

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following 8 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #56 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received

Now that thanks to Harry I have access to a quick and dirty simulator , I want to go back to the original question. Which is the best:
1) 40% @ 1:2 RR ('trend model')
2) 60% @ 1:1 RR ('low R-multiple model')
or
3) 75% @ 1:0.5 RR ('scalping')

As Harry already posted simulations for the first two, here's a simulation for scalping.

75% @ 1:0.5 RR
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


UGLY. It took us 991 trades to reach the target.

75% @ 1:0.5RR seems worse than 60% @ 1:1 RR.

What if we improve by 'only' 5%?

80% @ 1:0.5 RR

Surprising!! Improving from 75% to 80%, the time to reach our target was reduced by a factor of 10!!! This confirms my initial thesis, that trading edges are small, and 'small' improvements have very large consequences.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


All of a sudden, MUCH better than 60% at 1:1 RR!! It took us only 99 trades instead of 218 (or 450 or 991). And optimal f is significantly higher than any of the other simulations.

So, scalping seems like a great choice at 1:0.5 RR, BUT you must bat 80% (on a reasonable timeframe where your vig is 10% or less of your SL).

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #57 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,651 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,226 given, 25,600 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Anagami View Post
Thanks again, Harry! (@Fat Tails) Much appreciated. You help me (and I'm sure many others) to correct certain distortions that have been ball and chain in our trading.

Just crunching some numbers with respect to the 20/20 and 10/10 system. Let's calculate trade expectations after factoring in vig (slippage and commission) as well as time (10/10 trades 4 times more often).

20/20 System @ 60% Winning
(0.6)(18.2) - (0.4)(21.8) = 10.92 - 8.72 = 2.2 points

10/10 System @ 60% Winning
(0.6)(8.2) - (0.4)(11.8) = 4.92 - 4.72 = 0.2 points.
Because this system trades 4 times more often, for the same time window, we get 0.2 * 4 = 0.8 points

Wow. The 20/20 has almost 3 times higher expectancy (even though 10/10 trades 4 times more often), because the vig is much less of a drag. This ratio is amplified with % position sizing. Essentially, the 20/20 gets ahead, stays ahead, and increases the lead more and more because it is dragged down less on every turn.

Now, does this effect continue? In other words, what happens if we create a 40/40 system (60% Winning)? Will it perform better than 20/20, just as 20/20 performed better than 10/10?

NO! It breaks down somewhere...

Let's take a look at math and then do a simulation.

40/40 System (60% Winning)
(0.6)(38.2) - (0.4)(41.8) = 22.92 - 16.72 = 6.2

The expectation for 20/20 system was 2.2. Keeping that same assumption about the number of trades when we double, the system at 20/20 level would be taking 4 times as many trades.
So, for the purposes of comparison, we get 2.2 * 4 = 8.8

20/20 has better theoretical expectancy than 40/40!! Why??

Let's look at the simulation.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


Ouch! It doesn't perform better anymore than the previous step up. Why not?
20/20 was better than 10/10.
But 40/40 is not better than 20/20.

It took us less trades at 40/40 (112), BUT by the time we get to 112, the 20/20 system already finished (remember, it takes 4 times as many trades. So by the time 40/40 finished 112 trades, 20/20 would have completed 448 trades... but it finished in only 218).

I think the answer lies in the fact that once vig (commission/slippage) has become sufficiently small (how do we calculate this without going through every case?), what becomes more important is the number of trades taken at 60% winning.

It seems there's a 'saddle' transition point somewhere. Vig becomes relatively small, and leveraged compounding multiple times within a fixed timeframe becomes more paramount.

Any thoughts? Harry?

@Anagami: First of all, I agree with your findings. The 40/40 system only requires 112 trades as compared with 218 trades of the 20/20 system. Based on volatility expectations, however the 20/20 system should still achieve its target first. This suggests that there is an optmimum size, as

-> commissions and slippage destroy any system that has too narrow stops and targets
-> the trade frequency is low and drawdowns are high for systems which have wide stops and targets

In this case the risk adjusted Optimal F is slightly higher for the 40/40 system (4.22% versus 3.14%), but as your stop is wider, you are only allowed to trade 20 contracts with the 40/40 system, while you may trade 29 contracts with the 20/20 system - a 20 point stop on 29 contracts equals $ 2,900 and is less than a 40 point stop on 20 contracts, which equals $ 4,000.

The narrow stop of the 20/20 system allows you to trade more contracts, but at a lower value for Optimal F with the same risk of ruin.

Your conclusion is correct, there is an optimum size which of course relies on all the dubious assumptions, such as the relationship between time and volatility, slippage and commissions, and the model parameters such as the 1:1 win/los ratio. The model tell us that the optimum size to trade is 18/18, that is a profit target of and a stop loss of 18 points.

But it is only a model based on a Bernoulli Distribution.... so do not take this as the ultimate wisdom.

Reply With Quote
The following 5 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #58 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,651 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,226 given, 25,600 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary


Anagami View Post
Now that thanks to Harry I have access to a quick and dirty simulator , I want to go back to the original question. Which is the best:
1) 40% @ 1:2 RR ('trend model')
2) 60% @ 1:1 RR ('low R-multiple model')
or
3) 75% @ 1:0.5 RR ('scalping')

As Harry already posted simulations for the first two, here's a simulation for scalping.

75% @ 1:0.5 RR
Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


UGLY. It took us 991 trades to reach the target.

75% @ 1:0.5RR seems worse than 60% @ 1:1 RR.

What if we improve by 'only' 5%?

80% @ 1:0.5 RR

Surprising!! Improving from 75% to 80%, the time to reach our target was reduced by a factor of 10!!! This confirms my initial thesis, that trading edges are small, and 'small' improvements have very large consequences.

Please register on futures.io to view futures trading content such as post attachment(s), image(s), and screenshot(s).


All of a sudden, MUCH better than 60% at 1:1 RR!! It took us only 99 trades instead of 218 (or 450 or 991). And optimal f is significantly higher than any of the other simulations.

So, scalping seems like a great choice at 1:0.5 RR, BUT you must bat 80% (on a reasonable timeframe where your vig is 10% or less of your SL).

@Anagami: Very dangerous conclusion: You have a nice system and you hope to make a win rate of 80%. If the win rate drops by 10% to 72%, your expectancy drops to zero.

Expectancy at 80% : 0.8 * (10 - 1.8) * $ 5 - 0.2 *(20 +1.8) * $5 = $ 32.80 - $ 21.8 = $ 11
Expectancy at 72%: 0.72 * (10-1.8) * $5 - 028 *(20 + 1.8) * $5 = $ 29.52 - $ 28.00 = 0.52 $

The problem is that the model calculates the fixed fractional amount based on the assumption that you have a known edge. This would hold true for card games, at least over the period during which the rules of those games are not changed. Trading is a game with ever changing rules, so there is an additional risk that the backtested or assumed edge does not exist.

No model covers the model risk, and here the model risk is huge, as it includes the assumption of a known and stable edge. Also there is an operational risk. Would you feel happy if you ran a position of 64 contracts of YM with an account of $ 100,000? The favorable results with the win rate of 80% heavily rely on leverage. The leverage is suggested by the Optimal F model, because it ignores model and operational risks.

Models simplify, so they should not be applied to reality without care. If I was to trade anything like this, I would rather rely on a Monte Carlo Simulation of a backtest and a forward test then a model. The model should only be used for understanding the basic mechanisms, for example it is certainly interesting if a model postulates that there could be an optimum size for trades.

Reply With Quote
The following 11 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:
 
  #59 (permalink)
Live Your Bliss
Canary Islands, Spain
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: OA
Favorite Futures: What Moves
 
Anagami's Avatar
 
Posts: 701 since Dec 2010
Thanks: 474 given, 1,398 received


Fat Tails View Post
@Anagami: Very dangerous conclusion: You have a nice system and you hope to make a win rate of 80%. If the win rate drops by 10% to 72%, your expectancy drops to zero.

Expectancy at 80% : 0.8 * (10 - 1.8) * $ 5 - 0.2 *(20 +1.8) * $5 = $ 32.80 - $ 21.8 = $ 11
Expectancy at 72%: 0.72 * (10-1.8) * $5 - 028 *(20 + 1.8) * $5 = $ 29.52 - $ 28.00 = 0.52 $

If the win rate in the 60% 1:1 RR model drops by 10%, then one's expectancy is much worse than zero.


Fat Tails View Post
The problem is that the model calculates the fixed fractional amount based on the assumption that you have a known edge. This would hold true for card games, at least over the period during which the rules of those games are not changed. Trading is a game with ever changing rules, so there is an additional risk that the backtested or assumed edge does not exist.

No model covers the model risk, and here the model risk is huge, as it includes the assumption of a known and stable edge. Also there is an operational risk. Would you feel happy if you ran a position of 64 contracts of YM with an account of $ 100,000? The favorable results with the win rate of 80% heavily rely on leverage. The leverage is suggested by the Optimal F model, because it ignores model and operational risks.

Models simplify, so they should not be applied to reality without care. If I was to trade anything like this, I would rather rely on a Monte Carlo Simulation of a backtest and a forward test then a model. The model should only be used for understanding the basic mechanisms, for example it is certainly interesting if a model postulates that there could be an optimum size for trades.

Thinking about it, I have to agree with you. Yes, the results with the 80% scalping do rely heavily on leverage, and no, I would not be comfortable with 64 cars of YM with a 100K account.

There seem to be much greater unstated risks in the 80% 1:0.5 RR model (scalping) than in the 60% 1:1 RR model (low R-multiple).

You make a strong case against scalping, one that I cannot argue with.

"...the degree to which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader." - Mark Douglas
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users say Thank You to Anagami for this post:
 
  #60 (permalink)
Elite Member
Berlin, Europe
 
Futures Experience: Advanced
Platform: NinjaTrader, MultiCharts
Broker/Data: Interactive Brokers
Favorite Futures: Keyboard
 
Fat Tails's Avatar
 
Posts: 9,651 since Mar 2010
Thanks: 4,226 given, 25,600 received
Forum Reputation: Legendary



Anagami View Post
If the win rate in the 60% 1:1 RR model drops by 10%, then one's expectancy is much worse than zero.



Thinking about it, I have to agree with you. Yes, the results with the 80% scalping do rely heavily on leverage, and no, I would not be comfortable with 64 cars of YM with a 100K account.

There seem to be much greater unstated risks in the 80% 1:0.5 RR model (scalping) than in the 60% 1:1 RR model (low R-multiple).

You make a strong case against scalping, one that I cannot argue with.


The case against scalping is a case based on commissions, slippage and the spread. There is no argument against scalping if

-> you do not pay retail commissions, but have an exchange seat and lower rates
-> you trade a highly liquid instrument, where you do not experience slippage
-> you enter via limit orders in order to avoid to pay the bid-ask spread (market maker strategies)

But being a retail trader and paying the commissions that I have mentioned, I am not in this game for good.

Reply With Quote
The following 4 users say Thank You to Fat Tails for this post:

Reply



futures io > > > Why 7% is the Difference between Failure and Success in Trading

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Upcoming Webinars and Events (4:30PM ET unless noted)

Linda Bradford Raschke: Reading The Tape

Elite only

Adam Grimes: TBA

Elite only

NinjaTrader: TBA

January

Ran Aroussi: TBA

Elite only
     

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Success and Opportunities wh Psychology and Money Management 9 February 16th, 2016 06:18 PM
Bizman70 The Journey to success of Trading Live bizman70 Elite Trading Journals 88 September 15th, 2014 10:22 AM
Is there a big difference between trading long and trading short ? kittyan Traders Hideout 16 July 30th, 2010 07:19 AM
Key To Success George Psychology and Money Management 1 December 27th, 2009 01:12 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 AM.

Copyright © 2017 by futures io, s.a., Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama, +507 833-9432, info@futures.io
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice.
There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
no new posts
Page generated 2017-12-12 in 0.21 seconds with 20 queries on phoenix via your IP 54.90.92.204