Thanks Al (for the all soros all the time).
To al and other readers once again i would just suggest that independent of any (1) political/social/economic differences or (2) any technical vs fundi trading concerns--that the real value of guys like soros drukenmiller and livermore is their thought process and approach to trading. if you look carefully at statements (such as the ones made by druckenmiller in the video referenced a few pages back) made by these guys--
they are very simple absolute and actionable.
what is most notable is the absence of stats or modeling. i am not saying none is used--
i am saying the emphasis is on something else.
as an example--consider einstenin's gedanken experiments (in this context gedenken is usually translated to "thought" so thought experiments however in this context really "story experiments" works even better really). soros makes the point over and over that "the market is not predictable". his approach to this to have "multiple scenarios". put another way he makes up multiple stories about possible future outcomes.
the object of this exercise is obviously not just one purpose. first there is the idea he is forced by doing this to confront multiple conflicting outcomes. this forces him to stay more open minded in the middle of things. Second he is literally feeling out the outcomes.
as an example of second point. Soros is known for making multiple trades which lose money. it used to drive various people working with him nuts. however the stated object to the trades was "to see how the market reacted". the other side of this (again as you can find in the whole back pain thing) is to see how soros himself reacted to the feeling of the trade. from soros' perspective--there is not that much difference between the two.
i keep bringing this stuff up every few months hoping people will respond a bit. i don't see technical trading as being in conflict with these sorts of ideas. generally in trading people are advised to pick up learn or develop some sort of system that "fits their character". so we have 1000s of approaches. my experience after looking at many ideas over 20 years--is that it's fairly easy to construct something that will more or less function 60-80% of the time. my guess is most people who are on this site actually trading for say 3-5 years can easily fit into this %. so the problem then becomes how to get the best return.
everyone agrees that this comes from "holding winners and bailing losers" yet not often discussed is how to amplify the winning trades.
to date i had one response to this directly from this site--and would love more. that one response was from a guy named cougar who mentioned that he added to wining positions to encourage himself to think along these lines. this idea was mentioned by livermore and generally is the idea in soros/druckenmiller trading with the caveat that often the soros position are fairly outsized at the "start". the quotes come from the point that soros also entered multiple trades that failed sometimes and thus figured out where to start in part by doing this.
i will fade back into the woodwork for a few months but just three thoughts.
(1) if there are so many approaches that work to a reasonable (6-8 out 10) degree--
doesn't the determining factor have to be how they are implemented as opposed to the specific construction of the system model or idea?
(2) what is the limiting factor in the ecosystem of thought and action involved in implementing the ideas or trading systems etc?
(3) if there is a limiting factor (as there seems to be for many people)--why is is there? eg is it unnoticed--minimized--ignored or what have you--and if so why?
thanks for the effort al and others and have a good week trading