Comments on: Forex is a scam!

By: Brad

Brad — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 22:56:00 +0000

Once you decide to start to day trading, don’t expect to learn everything about it in an instant. You will surely need to learn for some time, and you need to exert a lot of effort. Practice makes perfect, and forex trading requires a lot of it.

Before using real money, you can practice through simulated forex trading software and do a paper trade. Here you can incorporate all your trading techniques and see if they actually work.

Don’t be a scared to lose a certain amount of money, because any trade involves a lot of it. But it doesn’t mean that you should not limit your losses, you can make use of stop orders. And most importantly, you should learn from your past losses. Forex trading is serious business but it is fun and profitable.

A good trader by day should be disciplined. Make discipline a habit in order to make sound decisions, and act in accord with trading systems/strategies. This way, you can do your trade in a consistent and reliable manner. Certain situations require an individual to make decisions based on their pre-set criteria and parameters.

You should make it a point to habitually follow your forex trading system plan; this way you can effectively evaluate the results of your plan. If your expectations are not met, perhaps its time that you make certain adjustments and fine tuning, so that your plan will still be of good use in the future.

By: John

John — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 01:52:27 +0000

You apparently weren’t paying attention when I said a sample of one individual who has admitted to using all different kinds of time frames and trading styles over a year’s time is insufficient evidence of anything – good, bad, or otherwise – no matter how many trades. Of course, if he’s been trading with some no name, unregulated broker then I might allow for potential shenanigans. Otherwise, show me evidence that the employed methodology should have been profitable.

Of course the real question is why someone wouldn’t stop trading (at least live) after say the first hundred or so trades when the win % was so low.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 21:26:51 +0000

it’s still noteworthy that you’ve failed to address mr hertz’s principal contention –> nobody’s gonna be wrong 89% of the time. i’m no math teacher, nor do i possess a graduate degree in finance. however, i do have a phd in LIFE, and my decades of living tell me nobody (smart, dumb, expert or newbie) is getting snookered 89 times out of a 100 without someone else pulling strings. period.

By: John

John — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:16:34 +0000

You’re seriously comparing trading to baseball? Seriously? Talk about babble.

Wins in baseball are binary. You either win or you don’t. Your run differential doesn’t matter. In trading that run differential most definitely matters. If you win 99 times out of a 100 and that 100th trade wipes out all the profits from the rest of the trades then it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference that you won 99% of the time, does it? Flipping that around, if you lose 70% of the time but the other 30% are big enough winners that you’re well in the green, does it matter one iota that you only had a 30% win rate?

This is NOT me saying that the size of your winners is the determining factor. It’s me saying it’s a combination of win % and the relative sizes of your wins and losses that decide your performance.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 18:43:08 +0000

typical wall street crappola. dick hertz’s (great handle!) point is well taken. movement is ultimately up or down. u can’t be on the shitty side of a trade 89 times out of 100 with over 1000 trades executed without it being manipulated. winning % is not the determining factor? lol. ok, tell that to the red sox and the yankees. this moronic babble is why regular americans are totally fed up with wall street and the corrupt pirates doing the fleecing. lies, deception and then for a change a pace, more lies.

By: John

John — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:10:19 +0000

Seeing as I can demonstrate to you systems which have very high win % but very poor performance (and vice versa) – and you could probably think of some yourself – clearly win % is not the determining factor in profitability. It’s part of the equation to be sure, but not all of it. This is one of those things newbies fixate on, usually to their detriment.

By: John

John — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 02:00:42 +0000

I didn’t say reported by the CFTC. I said reported to. The brokers report the figures. Maybe you don’t want to trust them either. Fine. Whatever. I’m not going to get into a debate on that here. You are, however, a sample of one and your year’s worth of experience bouncing from method to method and time frame to time frame mean very little by way of proof. I’d say the same to someone claiming brilliance on the basis of one year’s great performance too.

By: Robin Latrell

Robin Latrell — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:36:29 +0000

Winning % is not the determining factor in profit?? Don’t tell me — you work for the Obama Administration, right? Up is down; debt is good; higher taxes mean greater revenue; some day, cars will run on farts. Don’t quit your day job. I hope it has nothing to do with finance. And if it does, let’s hope nobody listens.

By: dick hertz

dick hertz — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 21:30:27 +0000

LOL. Yeah, OK, let’s all believe what the government of the United Staes tells us. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission guys used to lunch with the SEC guys who conducted the Madoff audits for all those years, right? Wow, someone actually PAYS to write articles?

By: John

John — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:58:27 +0000

Nice handle. Since the reported statistics to the CFTC show that about 30% of retail forex traders make money each quarter, clearly it’s not impossible. Thus, your logic is flawed from the start. And that assumes win % is the determining factor in profitability, which it isn’t.