Reply to thread

1. Is it possible? Yes, almost anything is possible.

However this is the issue:

The aim of trading is to become profitable. To do so you need: (i) a methodology that has a positive expectancy and (ii) the ability to execute that methodology.

As regards (i): since there are no 100% win methodologies out there [not that I know anyway] then it by definition can be stated that at some point the methodology will incur a loss. Some, based on their style/design are far more aggressive, requiring greater execution, than others.

Re. (ii): the more aggressive the methodology, say day-trading futures, the greater the requirement for execution. Day-trading futures could be as simple as a coin toss to go long/short and then ruthlessly manage the trade. All the emphasis is on execution, the methodology I can teach you in about 30 seconds.

If however the methodology is more complex, a mechanical system such as Skate has provided on this forum. Then the situation is different. The donee of the system needs to really understand the system and have confidence in the system, otherwise, execution will be poor and will likely deteriorate in any period of drawdown.

I have already highlighted the issue re. the turtle experiment.

So Steenbarger is operating in two quite distinct fields: he is in both (i) and (ii). He must therefore assess whether the failure of 'X' is due to (i), (ii) or both in some proportion to one another.

From what I remember and have seen recently, Steenbarger's trading style was day-trading. It could be argued that (i) carries little to zero importance and success lies 100% in (ii). In which case 'psychology' has a large impact.

Taking the coin toss of (i), could/can Steenbarger [himself] make that profitable over a period of time other than a few minutes? Let us say a year. If he can, then he is qualified to coach. The reason I say that is because in theory...in should work. In reality, the mental exhaustion of trading this way would be significant and someone stating theoretically what is required, is simply unrealistic.

The above example is for someone who is more at the novice level.

Steenbarger does not operate at that level. He operates at Hedge Fund/Quant Shop/etc. These guys can already trade and have a positive expectancy model. They may be in a drawdown/slump and need some motivation.

Motivation is a different beast from becoming profitable in the first instance. Steenbarger is not teaching them how to become profitable via (i) and (ii), he is [or should be] re-motivating them to trade [execute] well [better] on an already proven model, viz predominantly (ii).

I therefore question how applicable Steenbarger is to the novice/experimental trader.

Here however is the dichotomy. In the previous examples in this thread, Steenbarger emphasises or deals largely with (i). This infers that he is coaching not execution (ii), but methodology (i). To coach methodology, you need to have positive expectancy models. To trade (i) successfully, you need (ii).

The question therefore is: does/did Steenbarger trade profitably? If yes, then he has at least 1 version of (i) and (ii).

If he doesn't have 1 version of (i), then all the brilliance in (ii) will not help with (i). He will net, net, lose money. To be profitable, both (i) and (ii) must be present. If only one of them is present, you will lose money over time.

2. Which brings us to your position in [2] which is: we are mostly on the same page. Your friend TH was already a good trader. He found benefit in Steenbarger to re-motivate, remind himself of basics, possibly learn some new techniques.

jog on

duc