If 90% of traders fail, why not just do the opposite?

[mohan.sic]

trading is not about entries and exits, its about trade management and psychology.

"Mann jeete jag jeet" - the one who wins over his mind can win the world.

Yes, Trade management is very important and psychology also plays very vital role. But these are very misunderstood concepts. Because Trade management is very subjective and it cant be explained. Its is not a strategy with rules. Every Trade should be managed differently depending on the type of trade/stock and market conditions.

Now a days we see every Tom lecture on this psychology and they do lengthy copy paste works on this subject but no one helps with a example.

Entries and Exits (price levels ) are important. They are very very important.
Entries and Exits ( Timing ) decides your success/failure.

---------------------------------------------------------

About trading the opposite way why 90% traders fail:


" If 90% traders fail , why not do opposite " - This idea itself is wrong. How can we know what 90% of traders are doing ? Can we imply that in a trade where price went up: 90% of traders are in short position and 10% of traders are in long position ? There is no basis for this idea.

Instead you may ask " If 90% of signals of a strategy fail, why not trade opposite way to the given signals" This makes sense.

mastermind007 has given a good reason why its not worth even the opposite way. It wont work even if you trade opposite way to that 90% failed strategy, Because there is no such 90% failed strategy ( consistently ).

 

[emoheal]

In trending market, almost all indicators will give good buy & sell signals. And most of them would be profitable. So no sense in trading against

And in range bound market almost all indicators will fail. (Only options writers may tend to profit)

 

[RISK_REWARD]

I think that if traders trade exact opposite way they are trading would turn the 90% losing traders into winners? ie instead of going long, short, and vice-versa.

It seem that the best way to trade would be to share real time strategies (with bad, or really bad traders) and simply do the opposite of them? Seems a great way to make money!

Or do the opposite of what you intend to do..i know it would have worked for me atleast on paper..

I did it crude oil ,I was fail back to back 3 months. So next month I did opposite with my indicator.Result is I fail back to back 4 month:lol:

 

[umeshmandal]

The captions of the Thread says it all !

"Re: If 90% of traders fail, why not just do the opposite?"

Even if you do the opposite, the main factor remains unchanged: "traders" !

Had you asked : Re: If 90% of trades fail, why not just do the opposite?
Still the answer would be same, because the 'traders' still remain constant.

Results will change when the trader changes himself/herself !

 

[CommoBro]

I think that if traders trade exact opposite way they are trading would turn the 90% losing traders into winners? ie instead of going long, short, and vice-versa.

It seem that the best way to trade would be to share real time strategies (with bad, or really bad traders) and simply do the opposite of them? Seems a great way to make money!

Or do the opposite of what you intend to do..i know it would have worked for me atleast on paper..

What ever you are proposing has worked in past. Chicago based trading firm owner had new recruits to trade on commodity futures. He would take exactly opposite position of what the new recruit would propose, and 90% of time he would make profits. This went on well for some time, unless one of his trader took huge short position in silver and fall ill. During that time "Hunt brothers" happened (In case you don't know about Hunt brothers silver trade, you can find on google). Trader waited for the new recruit to return and take exit, while the market just shot up and he lost huge amount. He stopped trading and disclosed his strategy to market.