Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Hard to borrow fees in paper trading?
|
You still get to see the fees when you click through you just don't place the order (with a wildly different price that'll never fill so you don't mistakenly take something if you mistakenly click on something). Which brings me back to the biggest worry, which only one person has had a suggestion on, being the availably of shares by broker.
Swing trading must be super competitive if nobody in here is willing to offer anything of substance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19
I don’t see how it’s a winning strategy long term outside of getting lucky. The charts they show, to me, shows an extreme level of risk and basically “guessing” since these shifts need to occur in just a few days. How you would ever accurately predict the “trend” would reverse or if you were at the swing high or swing low is beyond me. It’s basically saying you can time a stock on a short leash...over and over.
|
Yeah, that's sort of what I thought before I started looking into it. When I'm position trading I try not to settle for anything less than 20%, which made the 5% to 20% you take (or less) in swing trading sound like a bad deal. Then I realized it was a large number of small trades that makes up the difference.
It's also more probabilistic & psychology driven. It's also more about risk control & small position size. It doesn't even seem to be about being right, but being right when you make more. Sort of a lose up to 6 time to win 4 times.
A few of the trades it sometimes suggests taking have just a 53% win rate!
Pretty much the opposite of what I'm trying to do with my position trading, which is to win a moderate to large sum at a high percentage.
Depending on how nuts you get with it you're talking level II info & following candles minute to minute. That part was probably the most off putting part of it so right away chasing breakouts was off the table for me. Did I mention this type of trading seems to instill a number of bad habits?
The closest I can really relate this style to is the modern version of counting cards at Blackjack.
Which if you're familiar with that you know that you have to expect losses are just part of it.
Another thing I've found that's difficult is just knowing when to ignore the news, how important volume is on any particular trade, what sort of probability you're getting from the current candle setup, and how important the past chart history of the chart is. Sort of a pot you're mixing all these elements together, ranking them, and then making a decision more or less in real time. It's also difficult to throw fundamentals out the window almost completely, but less frustrating then when you're talking longer term fundamental driven investing & people make the wrong call resulting in the stock to do what it should.
I think where people go wrong with this is when they get on a string of winners and the ego kicks in followed by a big losing bet.
Before I thought it was a lot of small wins followed by a big loss that basically puts you back to even. In practice it seems to be a lot of small wins that cancel out a lot of small losses with the occasional big win.
Before I assumed the price action was difficult to follow and that it was about timing. In practice the shorter time frames (up to a point) seem to be more predicable and it is less about timing and more about probability.
So far I'm either doing something right, am just getting lucky, or what the "pros" suggest with the 1-2% a day thing is like the long-term investing books that play it safe by suggesting way more stocks than necessary in actively traded portfolios. Probably a bit of all three. Sorta wish I didn't even bring up how I'm doing so maybe that way other more knowledgeable posters in this style would step up with constructive suggestions.