Datasets:

ksrepo

/

trading_in_the_zone_edited

like 2

c183962d949df56a7bde9e584eac8205

Title

SHAPING YOUR MENTAL ENVIRONMENT

0857e9fc0663635d9abf18eada274ec1

NarrativeText

The tools you will use to create this new version of yourself are your willingness and desire to learn, fueled by your passion to be successful. If the willingness and desire to learn are your primary tools, then what is your medium? An artist creating a sculpture can choose to work in a number of mediums—clay, marble, or metal, for example— but if you want to create a new version of your personality that expresses itself as a consistently successful trader, you have only your beliefs and attitudes. The medium for your artistic endeavor will be your mental environment, where with your desire to learn, you can restructure and install the beliefs and attitudes that are necessary to achieve your ultimate goal. I am assuming your ultimate goal is consistency. If you're like most traders, you don't realize the fullest potential of the opportunities available to you. To realize more and more of that potential, to make it more and more of a reality in your life, your primary goal has to be to learn how to think like a consistently successful trader. Remember, the best traders think in a number of unique ways. They have acquired a mental structure that allows them to trade without fear and, at the same time, keeps them from becoming reckless and committing fear-based errors. This mind-set has a number of components, but the bottom line is that successful traders have virtually eliminated the effects of fear and recklessness from their trading. These two fundamental characteristics allow them to achieve consistent results. When you acquire this mind-set, you, too, will be able to trade without fear. You will no longer be

1b37957c82f7135bbc226ef169802eb7

NarrativeText

susceptible to the multitude of fear-based errors that come from rationalizing, subconsciously distorting information, hesitating, jumping the gun, or hoping. Once the fear is gone, there just won't be a reason to make these errors and, as a result, they will virtually disappear from your trading. However, eliminating fear is only half the equation. The other half is the need to develop restraint. Excellent traders have learned that it is essential to have internal discipline or a mental mechanism to counteract the negative effects of euphoria or the overconfidence that comes from a string of winning trades. For a trader, winning is extremely dangerous if you haven't learned how to monitor and control yourself. If we start from the premise that to create consistency traders must focus their efforts on developing a trader's mind-set, then it is easy to see why so many traders don't succeed. Instead of learning to think like traders, they think about how they can make more money by learning about the markets. It's almost impossible not to fall into this trap. There are a number of psychological factors that make it very easy to assume that it's what you don't know about the markets that causes your losses and lack of consistent results. However, that's just not the case. The consistency you seek is in your mind, not in the markets. It's attitudes and beliefs about being wrong, losing money, and the tendency to become reckless, when you're feeling good, that cause most losses—not technique or market knowledge. For example, if you could choose one of the following two traders to manage your money, which one would you pick? The first trader uses a simple, possibly even mediocre trading technique, but possesses a mind-set that is not susceptible to subconsciously distorting market information, hesitating, rationalizing, hoping, or jumping the gun. The second trader is a phenomenal analyst, but is still operating out of the typical fears that make him susceptible to all of the psychological maladies that the other trader is free of. The right choice should be obvious. The first trader is going to achieve far better results with your money. Attitude produces better overall results than analysis or technique. Of course, the ideal situation is to have both, but you really don't need both, because if you have the right attitude—the right mind-set— then everything else about trading will be relatively easy, even simple, and certainly a lot more fun. I know for some of you this may be difficult to believe, or even distressing especially if you've been struggling for years to learn everything you can about the market. Interestingly, most traders are closer to the way they need to think when they first begin trading than at any other time in their careers. Many people begin trading with a very unrealistic concept of the inherent dangers involved. This is particularly true if their first trade is a winner. Then they go into the second trade with little or no fear. If that trade is a winner, they go into the next trade with even less concern for what would otherwise be the unacceptable possibility of a loss. Each subsequent win convinces them that there is nothing to fear and that trading is the easiest possible way to make money. This lack of fear translates into a carefree state of mind, similar to the state of mind many great athletes describe as a "zone." If you've ever had the occasion to experience the zone in some sport, then you

d71b9914e062c18aff012f7d3eafd4a0

NarrativeText

know it is a state of mind in which there is absolutely no fear and you act and react instinctively. You don't weigh alternatives or consider consequences or second-guess yourself. You are in the moment and "just doing it." Whatever you do turns out to be exactly what needed to be done. Most athletes never reach this level of play, because they never get past the fear of making a mistake. Athletes who reach the point where there is absolutely no fear of the consequences of screwing up will usually, and quite spontaneously, enter into "the zone." By the way, a psychological zone is not a condition you can will yourself into, the way you can will yourself into a feat of endurance. It is a state of mind you find yourself in that is inherently creative, and usually if you start thinking about your actions at a rational or conscious level, you pop right out of it. Even though you cannot force or will yourself into a zone, you can set up the kind of mental conditions that are most conducive to experiencing "the zone," by developing a positive winning attitude. I define a positive winning attitude as expecting a positive result from your efforts, with an acceptance that whatever results you get are a perfect reflection of your level of development and what you need to learn to do better. That's what the great athletes have: a winning attitude that allows them to easily move beyond their mistakes and keep eoine. Others get bogged down in negative self-criticism, regret, and selfpity. Not many people ever develop a positive winning attitude. The curious anomaly of trading is that, if you start with a winning trade, you will automatically experience the kind of carefree mind-set that is a by-product of a winning attitude, without having developed the attitude itself. I know this may sound a bit confusing, but it has some profound implications. If a few winning trades can cause you to enter into the kind of carefree state of mind that is an essential component to your success, but is not founded on the appropriate attitudes, then -what you have is a prescription for extreme misunderstanding about the nature of trading that inevitably results in both emotional and financial disaster. Putting on a few (or more) winning trades does not mean you have become a trader, but that's the way it feels, because it taps us into a state of mind that only the most accomplished people experience on a consistent basis. The fact is, you don't need the slightest bit of skill to put on a winning trade, and if it's possible to put on one winning trade without the slightest bit of skill, it is certainly possible to put on another and another. I know of several people who started their trading careers with fairly substantial strings of winning trades. When you're feeling confident and unencumbered by fears and worries, it isn't difficult to put on a string of winning trades because it's easy to get into a flow, a kind of natural rhythm, where what you need to do seems obvious or self-evident. It's almost as if the market screams at you when to buy and when to sell, and you need very little in the way of analytical sophistication. And, of course, because you have no fear, you can execute your trades with no internal argument or conflict. The point I am making is that winning in any endeavor is mostly a function of attitude. Many people are certainly aware of this, but at the same time, most people don't understand the significant part attitude plays in their results. In most sports or other competitive activities, participants must develop

56bee15810279547b4041bac33268099

NarrativeText

physical skills as well as mental skills in the form of strategies. If opponents are not evenly matched in the skills department, the one with superior skills usually ("but not always) wins. When an underdog beats a superior opponent, what's the determining factor? When two opponents are evenly matched, what's the factor that tips the balance one way or the other? In both cases, the answer is attitude. What makes trading so fascinating and, at the same time, difficult to learn is that you really don't need lots of skills; you just need a genuine winning attitude. Experiencing a few or more winning trades can make you feel like a winner, and that feeling is what sustains the winning streak. This is why it is possible for a novice trader to put on a string of winning trades, when many of the industry's best market analysts would give their right arms for a string of winning trades. The analysts have the skills, but they don't have the winning attitude. They're operating out of fear. The novice trader experiences the feeling of a winning attitude because he's not afraid. But that doesn't mean he has a winning attitude; it only means he hasn't experienced any pain from his trading activities to make him afraid. Eventually, our novice trader will experience a loss and being wrong, regardless of how positive he's feeling. Losing and being wrong are inevitable realities of trading. The most positive attitude imaginable coupled with the best analytical skills can't prevent a trader from eventually experiencing a losing trade. The markets are just too erratic and there are too many variables to consider for any trader to be right every time. What happens when the novice trader finally does lose? What effect will it have on his carefree state of mind? The answers will depend on his expectations going into the trade and how he interprets the experience. And how he interprets the experience is a function of his beliefs and attitudes. What if he is operating out of a belief that there's no possible way to avoid a loss, because losing is a natural consequence of trading — no different from, let's say, a restaurant owner incurring the expense of having to buy food? Furthermore, suppose that he has completely accepted the risk, meaning that he has considered and accounted for all of what would otherwise be the unacceptable possibilities in the market's behavior, both financially and emotionally. With these beliefs and expectations, it is unlikely that he would experience a deterioration of his attitude, and would simply go on to the next trade. By the way, this is an example of an ideal set of trading beliefs and attitudes. Now suppose that he hasn't completely accepted the risk. What if his expectations didn't take into account any market behavior other than what he wanted? From this mental perspective, if the market doesn't do what he wants, he is going to feel pain—emotional pain. Expectations are our mental representations of how some future moment in the environment is going to look, sound, feel, smell, or taste. Depending upon how much energy is behind the expectation, it can hurt a lot when it isn't fulfilled. Of the two different perspectives I just described, which one is likely to be held by our novice trader? The latter, of course. Only the very best traders have acquired the perspective described in the first scenario. And, as I indicated in Chapter 1, unless these very best traders grew up in successful trading families or had super traders for mentors (where appropriate

846b09d7623c6230b036f4a0824f11df

NarrativeText

attitudes about risk and loss were instilled in them from the very beginning of their careers), virtually every one of them had the common experience of losing one or more fortunes before they realized how they needed to think in order to be consistently successful. It's a fundamental shift in attitude that accounts for their success, not some brilliant realization about the market, as most people erroneously assume. This erroneous assumption is prevalent among traders simply because very few of them really understand, at the deepest levels, just how critical a component attitude is in determining one's success. We can safely assume that after a loss, our novice trader will be in a state of emotional pain. As a result, his trading will take on a whole new quality. He'll definitely lose that carefree state of mind, but more important, he will feel that the market did this to him: The market caused him to feel the pain he is experiencing; the market took away his winning feeling by subjecting him to a loss. Notice how our trader is blaming the markets for losing or what he didn't get. Notice, too, how natural it is to feel the way he does. Think about how many times in our lives, especially as children, we were doing something we really enjoyed, like playing with a toy or with our friends, and someone with more power and authority forced us to stop what we were doing and do something we didn't want to do. All of us have lost things, had things taken away from us, been denied things we wanted or believed we deserved, been prevented from continuing an activity we were in the middle of, or been blocked from pursuing an idea we were passionate about. The point is that in many of these situations, we did not need to take personal responsibility for what happened to us or for the pain we experienced, because we were powerless to do anything about it. We didn't choose to be forced out of a state of joy and happiness, into a state of emotional pain. The decision was out of our hands, against our will, and usually quite abrupt. Even though we may have been told we were responsible for what was happening to us, we may not have believed it or understood what it meant. What's tangible, and what we can most easily relate to, is that we were having fun, and someone or something took us out of that fun and into pain. It wasn't our choice. The cause of our pain came to us from the outside; therefore, whatever force acted upon us in that moment was to blame. We learned not only that feeling good can instantly be replaced with feeling bad through no fault of our own; we also learned about betrayal. We felt betrayed because many of these situations were completely unexpected or unanticipated, meaning, we were unprepared for how some people in our lives had the potential to behave. If their behavior caused us to flip into a state of emotional pain, then we quite naturally would have felt betrayed. As a side note, I feel it is important to say that many of our past, emotionally painful experiences were the result of well-meaning parents, teachers and friends, many of whom were only doing what they K/^lie»i7QH of fho fimo ix7oc Vv^ct fcir nc Trip nn<;t pyamrtle is a child playing with a toy that is inherently dangerous. Take the toy away, and the child will cry to express the emotional pain he is experiencing, and, if we are dealing with a very young or immature child, in all likelihood he will not listen to anything reasonable that we say about why he cannot play with that toy.

3320a97f99e8fc4d4825a60ae56930f2

NarrativeText

But, at the same time, many people are born to immature and unreasonable parents, or encounter emotionally disturbed teachers, coaches, and employees who subconsciously or intentionally inflict their personal problems on anyone they perceive as having less power. What's even worse is many of the people who have a tendency toward victimizing others are also clever enough to do it in a way that makes their victims believe they caused their own pain. In any case, whether our painful experiences are the result of an act of love or intentionally inflicted is something each of us will have to determine for ourselves. The bottom line is that, as adults when we get into a trading mode, we don't realize how natural it is to associate the instantaneous shift from joy to pain that we experienced so often as children with the same instantaneous shift from joy to pain that occurs when we trade. The implications are that if we haven't learned to accept the inherent risks of trading and don't know how to guard against making these natural connections between our past and the present, we will end up blaming the market for our results instead of taking responsibility for them. Even though most people who trade consider themselves responsible adults, only the very best traders have reached a point where they can and do accept complete responsibility for the outcome of any particular trade. Everyone else to one degree or another assumes they are taking responsibility; but the reality is that they want the market to do it for them. The typical trader wants the market to fulfill his expectations, his hopes, and dreams. Society may work this way but the markets certainly don't. In society, we can expect other people to behave in reasonable and responsible ways. When they don't, and if we suffer as a result, society makes remedies available to rectify the imbalance and make us whole again. The market, on the other hand, has no responsibility to give us anything or do anything that would benefit us. This may not be the way markets are advertised and certainly not the impression they want to project, but the reality is, every trader who participates in the markets does so for his own benefit. The only way one trader can benefit is if some other trader loses, whether the loss is in actual dollars as in a futures trade, or lost opportunity as in a stock trade. When you put on a trade, it is in anticipation of making money. Every other trader in the world who puts on a trade does so for the same reason. When you look at your relationship with the market from this perspective, you could say that your purpose is to extract money from the markets, but, by the same token, the market's sole purpose is to extract money or opportunity from you. If the market is a group of people interacting to extract money from one another, then what is the market's responsibility to the individual trader? It has no responsibility other than to follow the rules it has established to facilitate this activity. The point is, if you have ever found yourself blaming the market or feeling betrayed, then you have not given enough consideration to the implications of what it means to play a zero-sum game. Any degree of blaming means you have not accepted the reality that the market owes you nothing, regardless of what you want or think or how much effort you put into your trading. In the market, typical social values of exchange do not come into play. If you don't understand this and

14fd33354fdfee1182f2e653739d740c

NarrativeText

find a way to reconcile the differences between the social norms you grew up with and the way the market works, you will continue to project your hopes, dreams, and desires onto the market believing it's going to do something for you. When it doesn't, you'll feel angry, frustrated, emotionally distraught, and betrayed. Taking responsibility means acknowledging and accepting, at the deepest part of your identity, that you—not the market—are completely responsible for your success or failure as a trader. Granted, the market's purpose is to separate you from your money; but in the process of doing so, it also provides you with an endless stream of opportunities for you to take money from it. When prices move, that movement represents the collective actions of everyone narticioating at that moment. The market also generates information about itself, and makes it extremely easy to enter and exit trades (depending, of course, on the number of people participating). From the individuals perspective, price movement, information, and the ability to enter and exit trades represent opportunities to see something and to act on what you perceive. During each moment the markets are open, you have an opportunity to enter a position, lighten up a position, add to a position, or exit a position. These are all opportunities to enrich yourself by taking profits or, at least, cutting your losses. Let me pose a question. Do you feel responsible for fulfilling some other traders expectations, hopes, dreams, and desires? Of course you don't. It sounds absurd to even ask. However, if you ever find yourself blaming the market and feeling betrayed, that is essentially what you are doing. You are expecting the collective actions of everiyone participating in the market to make the market act in a way that gives you what you want. You have to learn for yourself how to get what you want out of the markets. The first major step in this learning process is taking complete and absolute responsibility. Taking responsibility means believing that all of your outcomes are self-generated; that your results are based on your interpretations of market information, the decisions you make and the actions you take as a result. Taking anything less than complete responsibility sets up two major psychological obstacles that will block your success. First, you will establish an adversarial relationship with the market that takes you out of the constant flow of opportunities. Second, you will mislead yourself into believing that your trading problems and lack of success can be rectified through market analysis. Let's consider the first obstacle. When you project any degree of responsibility onto the market for giving you money or cutting your losses, the market can all too easily take on the quality of an adversary or enemy. Losing (when you expected the market to do something different from what it did) will tap you into the same childlike feelings of pain, anger, resentment, and powerlessness that all of us felt when someone took something away from us, didn't give us what we wanted, or wouldn't let us do what we wanted. No one likes to feel denied, especially if we believe that getting what we want will make us happy. In each of these situations, something or someone outside of us prevented us from expressing ourselves in

875ec504dd07377b21712875c86313f2

NarrativeText

some particular way. In other words, some outside force was acting against the inner force of our desires and expectations. As a result, it feels natural to assign the market the power of an outside force that either gives or takes away. But consider the fact that the market presents its information from a neutral perspective. That means the market doesn't know what you want or expect, nor does it care, unless, of course, you trade the kind of position that can have a major impact on prices. Otherwise, each moment, each bid, and each offer gives you the opportunity to do something. You can put on a trade, take profits, or take off a loser. This is also true for those of you who are floor traders and are personally known to other floor traders, who may also know your position and, to your detriment, purposely take advantage of that knowledge. It just means that you have to be faster and more focused, or take whatever limitations you have in these areas into consideration and trade accordingly. From the market's perspective, each moment is neutral; to you, the observer, every moment and price change can have meaning. But where do these meaning exist? The meanings are based on what you've learned, and exist inside your mind, not in the market. The market doesn't attach meanings or interpret the information it generates about itself (although there are always individuals who will offer an interpretation if you're willing to listen). Furthermore, the market doesn't know how you define an opportunity or a loss. The market doesn't know whether you perceive it as an endless stream of opportunities to enter and exit trades for both profits and losses at each and every moment, or whether you perceive it as a greedy monster ready and willing in any given moment to devour your money. If you perceive the endless stream of opportunities to enter and exit trades without self-criticism and regret, then you will be in the best frame of mind to act in your own best interest and learn from your experiences. On the other hand, if what you perceive in market information is painful in some way, then you will naturally try to avoid that pain by either consciously or subconsciously blocking that information from your awareness. In the process of blocking that information, you'll systematically cut yourself off from any number of opportunities to enrich yourself. In other words, you cut yourself off from the opportunity flow Furthermore, it will feel like the market is against you but only if you expect it to do something for you, or if you believe that it owes you something. If someone or something is against you and causes you pain, how are you likely to respond? You'll feel compelled to fight, but what exactly are you fighting? The market is certainly not fighting you. Yes, the market wants your money, but it also provides you with the opportunity to take as much as you can. Although it may feel as if you are fighting the market, or it is fighting you, the reality is you are simply fighting the negative consequences of not fully accepting that the market owes you nothing; and that you need to take advantage of the opportunities it presents by yourself, 100 percent and not one degree less. The way to take maximum advantage of a situation where you are being offered unlimited opportunities to do something for yourself is to get into the flow. The market does have a flow. It is often erratic, especially in the shorter time frames, but it does display symmetrical patterns that repeat themselves over and over again. Obviously, it's a contradiction to flow with something you are against. If you want to start sensing the flow of the market, your mind has to be relatively free of fear, anger,

71e3ae0da3757a5ecb3c65b8c6b16145

NarrativeText

regret, betrayal, despair, and disappointment. You won't have a reason to experience these negative emotions when you assume absolute responsibility. Earlier, I said that when you don't take responsibility, one of the major psychological obstacles that can block your success is that you will mislead yourself into believing that your trading problems and lack of consistency can be rectified through market analysis. To illustrate this point, let's go back to our novice trader who started out with a carefree state of mind until he experienced his first loss. After winning with such ease and effortlessness, the abrupt shift to emotional pain can be quite shocking—not shocking enough, however, to quit trading. Besides, in his mind the situation wasn't his fault anyway; the market did it to him. Instead of quitting, the great feeling that he experienced when he was winning will be fresh in his mind, and will inspire him with a sense of determination to continue trading. Only now he's going to be smarter about it. He's going to put some effort into it and learn everything he can about the markets. It's perfectly logical to think that if he can win not knowing anything, he'll be able to clean up when he does know something. But there's a big problem here that very few, if any, traders will have any awareness of until long after the damage is done. Learning about the markets is fine and doesn't cause a problem in itself. It's the underlying reason for learning about the market that will ultimately prove to be his undoing. As I said a moment ago, the sudden shift from joy to pain usually creates quite a psychological shock. Very few people ever learn how to reconcile these kinds of experiences in a healthy way. Techniques are available, but they aren't widely known. The typical response in most people, especially in the type of person attracted to trading, is revenge. For traders, the only way to extract that revenge is to conquer the market, and the only way to conquer the market is through market knowledge, or so they think. In other words, the underlying reason for why the novice trader is learning about the market is to overcome the market, to prove something to it and himself, and most important, to prevent the market from hurting him again. He is not learning the market simply as a means to give himself a systematic way of winning, but rather as a way to either avoid pain or prove something that has absolutely nothing to do with looking at the market from an objective perspective. He doesn't realize it, but as soon as he made the assumption that knowing something about the market can prevent him from experiencing pain or can help satisfy his desire for revenge or to prove something, he sealed his fate to become a loser. In effect what he has done is set up an irreconcilable dilemma. He is learning how to recognize and understand the market's collective behavior patterns, and that's good. It even feels good. He's inspired because he assumes he's learning about the market in order to become a winner. As a result, he will typically go on a knowledge quest, learning about trend lines, chart patterns, support and resistance, candlesticks, market profiles, point and line charts, Elliott waves, Fibonacci retracements, oscillators, relative strength, stochastics, and many more technical tools too numerous to mention.

4ed22537c1d83e2cfc20d951d7c2b44b

NarrativeText

Curiously, even though his knowledge has increased, he now finds that he's developed problems executing his trades. He hesitates, second guesses himself, or doesn't put on a trade at all, in spite of any number of clear signals to do so. It's all frustrating, even maddening, because what's happened doesn't make sense. He did what he was supposed to do—he learned—only to find that the more he learned, the less he took advantage of. He would never believe that he did anything wrong by devoting himself to learning; he simply did it for the wrong reasons. He won't be able to trade effectively if he is trying to prove something or anything for that matter. If you have to win, if you have to be right, if you can't lose or can't be wrong, you will cause yourself to define and perceive categories of market information as painful. In other words, you will view as painful any information the market generates that is in opposition to what will make you happy. The dilemma is that our minds are wired to avoid both physical and emotional pain, and learning about the markets will not compensate for the negative effects our pain-avoidance mechanisms have on our trading. Everybody understands the nature of avoiding physical pain. Accidentally set your hand on a hot burner, and your hand moves away from the heat automatically; its an instinctive reaction. However, when it comes to avoiding emotional pain and the negative consequences it creates, especially for traders, very few people understand the dynamics. Its absolutely essential to your development that you understand these negative effects and learn how to take conscious control in a way that helps you fulfill your goals. Our minds have a number of ways to shield us from information that we have learned to perceive as painful. For example, at a conscious level, we can rationalize, justify, or make a case for staying in a losing trade. Some of the more typical ways we do this are to call our trading buddies, talk to our broker, or look at indicators we never use, all for the express purpose of gathering nonpainful information in order to deny the validity of the painful information. At a subconscious level, our minds will automatically alter, distort, or specifically exclude information from our conscious awareness. In other words, we don't know at a conscious level that our pain-avoidance mechanisms are either excluding or altering the information being offered by the market. Consider the experience of being in a losing trade when the market is making consistently higher highs and higher lows or lower highs and lower lows against your position, while you refuse to acknowledge you are in a losing trade because you have focused all your attention on the tics that go in your favor. On the average, you are only getting one out of four or five tics in your direction; but it doesn't matter because every time you get one, you are convinced the market has reversed and is coming back. Instead the market keeps going against you. At some point, the dollar value of the loss becomes so great that it cannot be denied and you finally exit the trade. The first reaction that traders universally have when looking back at such a trade is, "Why didn't I just take my loss and reverse?" The opportunity to put on a trade in the opposite direction was easily recognized once there was nothing at stake. But we were blinded to this opportunity while we were in the trade, because at that time the information indicating it was an opportunity was defined as painful, so we blocked it from our

02474f67e615eaae61b9cc64d2821761

NarrativeText

awareness. When our hypothetical trader first started trading, he was having fun; he was in a carefree state of mind; he had no personal agendas and nothing to prove. As long as he was winning, he put his trades on from a "let's see what will happen" perspective. The more he won, the less he considered the possibility of ever losing. When he finally did lose, he was probably in a state of mind where he least expected it. Instead of assuming that the cause of his pain was his erroneous expectation about what the market was supposed to do or not do, he blamed the market, and resolved that by gaining market knowledge, he could prevent such experiences from recurring. In other words, he made a dramatic shift in his perspective from carefree to preventing pain by avoiding losses. The problem is that preventing pain by avoiding losses can't be done. The market generates behavior patterns and the patterns repeat themselves, but not every time. So again, there is no possible way to avoid losing or being wrong. Our trader won't sense these trading realities, because he is being driven forward by two compelling forces: (1) he desperately wants that winning feeling back, and (2) he is extremely enthusiastic about all of the market knowledge he is acquiring. What he doesn't realize is that, in spite of his enthusiasm, when he went from a carefree state of mind to a preventand-avoid mode of thinking, he shifted from a positive to a negative attitude. He's no longer focused on just winning, but rather on how he can avoid pain by preventing the market from hurting him again. This kind of negative perspective isn't any different from the tennis player or golfer who is focused on trying not to make a mistake, the more he tries not to make a mistake, the more mistakes he makes. However, this mode of thinking is much easier to recognize in sports because there's a more discemable connection between one's focus and one's results. With trading, the connection can be obscured and more difficult to recognize as a result of the positive feelings being generated from discovering new relationships in market data and behavior. Since he is feeling good, there's no reason to suspect that anything is wrong, except that the degree to which his focus is weighted toward pain-avoidance is the same degree by which he will create the very experiences he is trying to avoid. In other words, the more he has to win and not lose, the less tolerance he will have for any information that might indicate he is not getting what he wants. The mor information that he has the potential to block, the less he will be able to perceive an opportunity to act in his own best interests. Learning more and more about the markets only to avoid pain will compound his problems because the more he learns, the more he will naturally expect from the markets, making it all the more painful when the markets don't do their part. He has unwittingly created a vicious cycle where the more he learns, the more debilitated he becomes; the more debilitated he becomes, the more he feel compelled to learn. The cycle will continue until he either quits trading in disgust or recognizes that the root cause of his trading problems is his perspective, not his lack of market knowledge.

6fc60155bf510482e74576d24b5a3ad1

Title

WINNERS, LOSERS, BOOMERS, AND BUSTERS

fb178725188c4d44ea1c3614cd51c35e

NarrativeText

It takes some time before most traders either throw in the towel or find out the true source of their success. In the meantime, some traders manage to get enough right about trading to enter into what is commonly referred to as the "boom and bust cycle." Contrary to what some of you may have inferred from the example of the novice trader, not everyone has an inherently negative attitude and is therefore doomed to lose consistently. Yes, it is true that some traders do consistently lose, often until they lose everything or quit trading because they can't tolerate any more emotional pain. However, there are also many traders who are tenacious students of the market and have a sufficiently winning attitude going into trading so that, in spite of the many difficulties, they eventually learn how to make money. But, and I want to emphasize this, they learn how to make money only on a limited basis; they haven't yet learned how to counteract the negative effects of euphoria or how to compensate for the potential for self-sabotage. Euphoria and self-sabotage are two powerful psychological forces that will have an extremely negative effect on your bottom line. But, they are not forces you have to concern yourself with until you start winning, or start winning on a consistent basis, and that's a big problem. When you're winning, you are least likely to concern yourself with anything that might be a potential problem, especially something that feels as good as euphoria. One of the primary characteristics of euphoria is that it creates a sense of supreme confidence where the possibility of anything going wrong is virtually inconceivable. Conversely, errors that result from self-sabotage have their root in any number of conflicts that traders have about deserving the money or deserving to win. It's when you're winning that you are most susceptible to making a mistake, overtrading, putting on too large a position, violating your rules, or generally operating as if no prudent boundaries on your behavior are necessary. You may even go to the extreme of thinking you are the market. However, the market rarely agrees, and when it disagrees, you'll get hurt. The loss and the emotional pain are usually significant. You will experience a boom, followed by the inevitable bust. If I were to classify traders based on the kind of results they achieve, I would put them into three broad categories. The smallest group, probably fewer than 10 percent of the active traders, are the consistent winners. They have a steadily rising equity curve with relatively minor drawdowns. The drawdowns they do experience are the type of normal losses that any trading methodology or system incurs. Not only have they learned how to make money, but they are no longer susceptible to the psychological forces that cause the boomand-bust cycle. The next group, which consists of between 30 and 40 percent of the active traders, are consistent losers. Their equity curves are mirror images of the consistent winners' curves, but in the opposite direction— many losing trades with an occasional winner. Regardless of how long they have been trading, there's much about it that they haven't learned. They either have illusions about the nature of trading or are addicted to it in ways that make it virtually impossible for them to be winners.

1120991d638a01f50640ef660085293d

NarrativeText

The largest group, the remaining 40 to 50 percent of the active traders, are the "boom and busters." They have learned how to make money, but they haven't learned there s a whole body of trading skills that have to be mastered in order to keep the money they make. As a result, their equity curves typically look like roller-coaster rides, with a nice, steady assent into a steep dropoff, then another nice, steady assent into another steep dropoff. The roller-coaster cycle continues on and on. I have worked with many experienced traders who have put together incredible winning streaks, sometimes going months without a losing day; having fifteen or twenty winning trades in a row is not unusual for them. But for the boom and busters, these streaks always end the same way—in huge losses that are the result of either euphoria or self-sabotage. If the losses are the result of euphoria, it really doesn't matter what form the streak takes—a number of wins in a row, a steadily rising equity curve, or even one winning trade. Everyone seems to have a different threshold for when overconfidence or euphoria starts to take hold of the thinking process. However, the moment euphoria takes hold, the trader is in deep trouble. In a state of overconfidence or euphoria, you can't perceive any risk because euphoria makes you believe that absolutely nothing can go wrong. If nothing can go wrong, there's no need for rules or boundaries to govern your behavior. So putting on a larger than usual position is not only appealing, it's compelling. However, as soon as you put on the larger-than-usual position, you're in danger. The larger the position, the greater the financial impact small fluctuations in price will have on your equity. Combine the largerthan- normal impact of a move against your position with a resolute belief that the market will do exactly as you expect, and you have a situation in which one tic in the opposition direction of your trade can cause you to go into a state of "mind-freeze" and become immobilized. When you finally do pull yourself out of it, you'll be dazed, disillusioned, and betrayed, and you'll wonder how something like that could have happened. In fact, you were betrayed by your own emotions. However, if you're not aware of or don't understand the underlying dynamics I just described, you'll have no other choice but to blame the market. If you believe the market did this to you, then you'll feel compelled to learn more about the market in order to protect yourself. The more you learn, the more confident you will naturally become in your ability to win. As your confidence grows, the more likely that at some point you will cross the threshold into euphoria and start the cycle all over again. Losses that result from self-sabotage can be just as damaging, but they're usually more subtle in nature. Making errors like putting in a sell for a buy or vice versa, or indulging yourself in some distracting activity at the most inopportune time are typical examples of how traders make sure they don't win. Why wouldn't someone want to win? It's really not a question of what someone wants, because I believe that all traders want to win. Yet, there are often conflicts about winning. Sometimes these conflicts are so powerful that we find our behavior is in direct conflict with what we want. These conflicts could stem from religious upbringing, work ethic or certain types of childhood trauma. If these conflicts exist, it means that your mental environment is not completely aligned with your goals.

1e235de32aff112ae984f48e25e30816

NarrativeText

In other words, not all parts of you would argue for the same outcome. Therefore, you can't assume that you have the capacity to give yourself an unlimited amount of money just because you have learned how to trade and the money is there for the taking. A futures broker at one of the major brokerage firms once commented that when it comes to his customers, he lives by the motto that all commodity traders are terminal, and it is his job to keep them happy until they're gone. He said this facetiously, but there is a lot of truth to his statement. Obviously, if you lose more money than you make, you can't survive. What's less obvious, and one of the mysteries of being successful, is that if you win, you may still be terminal; that is, if you win and you haven't learned how to create a healthy balance between confidence and restraint, or you haven't learned how to recognize and compensate for any potential you have to self-destruct, you will sooner or later lose. If you are among those in the boom-and-bust cycle, consider this: If you could redo every losing trade that was the result of an error or recklessness, how much money would you have now? Based on these recalculated results, what would your equity curve look like? I'm sure many of you would fall into the category of consistent winners. Now think about how you responded to your losses when they occurred. Did you assume complete responsibility for them? Did you try to identify how you might change your perspective, attitude, or behavior? Or did you look to the market and wonder what you might learn about it to prevent such a thing from happening again? Obviously, the market has nothing to do with your potential for recklessness, nor does it have anything to do with the errors you make as a result of some internal conflict about deserving the money. Probably one of the hardest concepts for traders to effectively assimilate is that the market doesn't create your attitude or state of mind; it simply acts as a mirror reflecting what's inside back to you. If you are confident, it's not because the market is making you feel that way; it is because your beliefs and attitudes are aligned in a way that allows you to step forward into an experience, take responsibility for the outcome, and extract the insight that's been made available. You maintain your confident state of mind simply because you are constantly learning. Conversely, if you're angiy and afraid, it's because you believe to some degree that the market creates your outcomes, not the other way around. Ultimately, the worst consequence of not taking responsibility is that it keeps you in a cycle of pain and dissatisfaction. Think about it for a moment. If you're not responsible for your results, then you can assume there's nothing for you to learn, and you can stay exactly as you are. You won't grow and you won't change. As a result, you will perceive events in exactly the same way, and therefore respond to them in the same way, and get the same dissatisfying results. Or, you might also assume the solution to your problems is to gain more market knowledge. It is always virtuous to learn, but in this case if you don't take responsibility for your attitudes and perspective, then I vou're learninc* snmpfhinff valuaVilp fnr wrnnrr that will cause you to use what you've learned in inappropriate ways. Without realizing it, you'll be using your knowledge to avoid the responsibility of taking risks. In the process, you end up creating the veiy things you are trying to avoid, keeping you in

c2dd3cf62183a6918c3135bd3a10f82e

NarrativeText

a cycle of pain and dissatisfaction. However, there is one tangible benefit to be gained from blaming the market for what you wanted and didn't get. You can temporarily shield yourself from your own harsh self-criticism. I say "temporarily" because, when you shift responsibility, you cut yourself off from whatever you needed to learn from the experience. Remember our definition of a winning attitude: a positive expectation of your efforts with an acceptance that whatever results you get are a perfect reflection of your level of development and what you need to learn to do better. If you shift the blame in order to block the painful feelings that result from beating yourself up, all you've done is put an infected Band-Aid on the wound. You may think you have solved the problem, but the problem is only going to resurface later, worse than before. It has to, simply because you haven't learned anything that would cause you to make the land of interpretations that would result in a more satisfying experience. Did you ever wonder why leaving money on the table is often more painful than taking a loss? When we lose, there are any number of ways in which we can shift the blame to the market and not accept responsibility. But when we leave money on the table, we can't blame the market. The market didn't do anything but give us exactly what we wanted, but for whatever reason, we weren't capable of acting on the opportunity appropriately. In other words, there's no way to rationalize the pain away. You are not responsible for what the market does or doesn't do, but you are responsible for everything else that results from your trading activities. You are responsible for what you have learned, as well as for everything you haven't learned yet that's waiting to be discovered by you. The most efficient path to discovering what you need to be successful is to develop a winning attitude, because it's an inherently creative Dersoective. Not onlv does a winnin? attitude onen vou un to what you need to learn; it also produces the land of mind-set that is most conducive to discovering something no one else has experienced. Developing a winning attitude is the key to your success. The problem for many traders is that either they think they already have one, when they don't, or they expect the market to develop the attitude for them by giving them winning trades. You are responsible for developing your own winning attitude. The market is not going to do it for you, and, I want to be as emphatic as I can, no amount of market analysis will compensate for developing a winning attitude if you lack one. Understanding the markets will give you the edge you need to create some winning trades, but your edge won't make you a consistent winner if you don't have a winning attitude. Certainly one could argue that some traders lose because they don't understand enough about the markets and therefore they usually pick the wrong trades. As reasonable as this may sound, it has been my experience that traders with losing attitudes pick the wrong trades regardless of how much they know about the markets. In any case, the result is the same—they lose. On the other hand, traders with winning attitudes who know virtually nothing about the markets can pick winners; and if they know a lot about the markets, they can pick even more winners. If you want to change your experience of the markets from fearful to confident, if you want to change your results from an erratic equity curve to a steadily rising one, the first step is to embrace the responsibility and

4cf6ec855827295f786fbe94d18b5b8c

NarrativeText

stop expecting the market to give you anything or do anything for you. If you resolve from this point forward to do it all yourself, the market can no longer be your opponent. If you stop fighting the market, which in effect means you stop fighting yourself, you'll be amazed at how quickly you will recognize exactly what you need to learn, and how quickly you will learn it. Taking responsibility is the cornerstone of a winning attitude. CH APTER

2358771a1cd163ce162ed13f1251dab3

Title

CHAPTER 4

01e7019a0b1ea8b0c9fe152aaa74eb4d

Title

4 CONSISTENCY: A STATE OF MIND

8ed6c114770d4ad1e014aaf590dae914

NarrativeText

I hope that after reading the first three chapters you are getting die idea that just because you are acting in the capacity of a trader, doesn't mean that you've learned the appropriate ways to think about what you do. As I have already stressed several times, what separates the best traders from everyone else is not what they do or when they do it, but rather how they think about what they do and how they're thinking when they doit. If your goal is to trade like a professional and be a consistent winner, then you must start from the premise that the solutions are in your mind and not in the market. Consistency is a state of mind diat has at its core certain fundamental thinking strategies that are unique to trading. Experiencing a few or more winning trades can convince almost anyone that trading is easy. Recall your own experiences; think back to those trades that brought a stream of money flowing into your account when all you had done was make a simple decision to buy or sell. Now, combine the extremely positive feeling you get from winning and getting money with no effort, and it's almost impossible not to conclude that making money as a trader is easy. But if that's the case, if trading is so easy, then why is it so difficult to master? Why are so many traders at their wits' end, grappling with the obvious contradiction? If it is true that trading is easy — and traders know it is because they've had the direct experience of how easy and effortless it is — then how can it also be possible that they can't make what they've learned about the markets work for them over and over again? In other words, how do we account for the contradiction between what we believe about trading and our actual trading results over time?

414be0908e449fb21bc06f623c702a18

Title

THINKING ABOUT TRADING

fdcedc18b818a1e22adedf4b36111f4d

NarrativeText

The answers are all in the way you think about it. The irony is that trading can be as much fun and as effortless as your experience of it has been on occasion; but experiencing these qualities consistently is a function of your perspective, your beliefs, your attitudes, or your mindset. Choose the term you are most comfortable with; they all refer to the same thing: Winning and consistency are states of mind in the same way that happiness, having fun, and satisfaction are states of

4a5dc01ed9feba2aa3e9049b6373962d

NarrativeText

mind. Your state of mind is a by-product of your beliefs and attitudes. You can try to create consistency without having the appropriate beliefs and attitudes, but your results won't be any different than if you tiy to be happy when you're not having fun. When you're not having fun, it can be very difficult to change your perspective to one where you, all of a sudden, start enjoying yourself. Of course, the circumstances of your situation could suddenly shift in a way that causes you to experience joy. But then your state of mind would be the result of an external shift in conditions, not a result of an internal shift in your attitude. If you depend on outside conditions and circumstances to make you happy (so that you always are enjoying yourself), then it is extremely unlikely that you will experience happiness on a consistent basis. However, you can greatly increase the possibility of your being happy by developing fun-type attitudes and, more specifically, by working on neutralizing the beliefs and attitudes that prevent you from having fun or enjoying yourself. Creating consistent success as a trader works the same way. You can't rely on the market to make you consistently successful, any more than you can rely on the outside world to make you consistently happy. People who are truly happy don't have to do anything in order to be happy. They are happy people who do things. Traders who are consistently successful are consistent as a natural expression of who they are. They don't have to try to be consistent; they are consistent. This may seem like an abstract distinction, but it is vitally important that you understand the difference. Being consistent is not something you can try to be, because the very act of trying will negate your intent by mentally taking you out of the opportunity flow, making it less likely that you will win and more likely you will lose. Your veiy best trades were easy and effortless. You didn't have to try to make them easy; they were easy. There was no struggle. You saw exactly what you needed to see, and you acted on what you saw. You were in the moment, a part of the opportunity flow. When you're in the flow, you don't have to try, because everything you know about the market is available to you. Nothing is being blocked or hidden from your awareness, and your actions seem effortless because there's no struggle or resistance. On the other hand, having to try indicates that there is some degree of resistance or struggle. Otherwise, you would just be doing it and not have to try to be doing it. It also indicates that you're trying to get what you want from the market. While it seems natural to think this way, it's a perspective fraught with difficulties. The best traders stay in the flow because they don't try to get anything from the market; they simply make themselves available so they can take advantage of whatever the market is offering at any given moment. There's a huge difference between the two perspectives. In Chapter 3, I briefly illustrated how our minds are wired to avoid both physical and emotional pain. If you trade from the perspective of trying to get what you want or what you expect from the markets, what happens when the market doesn't behave in a way that will fulfill your expectations? Your mental defense mechanisms kick in to compensate for the difference between what you want and what you're not getting, so that you don't experience any emotional pain.

49c458a75c60fadaa490b8a21b0aa088

NarrativeText

Our minds are designed to automatically block threatening information or find a way to obscure that information, in order to shield us from the emotional discomfort we naturally feel when we don't get what we want. You won't realize it in the moment, but you will pick and choose information that is consistent with what you expect, so that you can maintain a pain-free state of mind. However, in the process of trying to maintain a pain-free state of mind, you also take yourself out of the opportunity flow and enter the realm of the "could have," the "should have," the "would have," and the "if only." Everything that you could have, should have, or would have recognized in the moment appeared invisible, then all becomes painfully evident after the fact, after the opportunity is long gone. To be consistent, you have to learn to think about trading in such a way that you're no longer susceptible to conscious or subconscious mental processes that cause you to obscure, block, or pick and choose information on the basis of what will make you happy, give you what you want, or avoid pain. The threat of pain generates fear, and fear is the source of 95 percent of the errors you are likely to make. Certainly, you can't be consistent or experience the flow if you're consistently making errors, and you will make errors, as long as you're afraid that what you want or what you expect won't happen. Furthermore, everything you attempt to do as a trader will be a struggle, and it will seem as if you are struggling against the market or that the market is against you personally. But, the reality is that it's all taking place inside your mind. The market doesn't perceive the information it makes available; you do. If there's a struggle, it is you who are struggling against your own TV^^oT*n 11 T-acic^onoo /">r^T- iTlir»l-c anri r^avc Now, you may be asking yourself, how can I think about trading in such a way that I'm no longer afraid and, therefore, no longer susceptible to the mental processes that cause me to block, obscure, or pick and choose information? The answer is: Learn to accept the risk.

05147998a6c6d0988a7149aafecfd04b

Title

REALLY UNDERSTANDING RISK

f7276513c60b2e0b919c9888fab64542

NarrativeText

Other than the many issues surrounding responsibility that we discussed in Chapter 3, there isn't anything about trading that is more central to your success and also more misunderstood than the concept of accepting the risk. As I mentioned in the first chapter, most traders erroneously assume that because they are engaged in the inherently risky activity of putting on and taking off trades, they are also accepting that risk. I will repeat that this assumption couldn't be further from the truth. Accepting the risk means accepting the consequences of your trades without emotional discomfort or fear. This means that you must learn how to think about trading and your relationship with the markets in such a way that the possibility of being wrong, losing, missing out, or leaving money on the table doesn't cause your mental defense mechanisms to kick in and take you out of the opportunity flow. It doesn't do you any good to take the risk of putting on a trade if you are afraid of the consequences, because your fears will act on your perception of information and your behavior in a way that will cause you to create the very experience you fear the most, the one you are trying to avoid. I am offering

dc3bc8f6627fc9028d1912c625714fba

NarrativeText

you a specific thinking strategy composed of a set of beliefs that will keep you focused, in the moment, and in the flow. With this perspective, you will not be trying to get anything from the market or to avoid anything. Rather, you will let the market unfold and you will make yourself available to take advantage of whatever situations you define as opportunities. When you make yourself available to take advantage of an opportunity, you don't impose any limitations or expectations on the market’s behaviour. You are satisfied to let the market do whatever it's going to do. However, in the process of doing something, the market will create certain conditions you define and perceive as opportunities. You act on those opportunities to the best of your ability, but your state of mind is not dependent upon or affected by the market's behavior. If you can learn to create a state of mind that is not affected by the market's behavior, the struggle will cease to exist. When the internal struggle ends, everything becomes easy. At that point, you can take full advantage of all your skills, analytical or otherwise, to eventually realize your potential as a trader. Here's the challenge! How do you accept the risks of trading without emotional discomfort and fear, when at the moment you perceive the risk, you simultaneously feel discomfort and fear? In other words, how do you remain confident and pain-free when you are absolutely certain you can be proved wrong, lose money, miss out, or leave money on the table? As you can see, your fear and feeling of discomfort are completely justified and rational. Each of those possibilities becomes real the moment you contemplate interacting with the market. However, as true as all of these possibilities are for every trader, what isn't true or the same for every trader is what it means to be wrong, lose, miss out, or leave money on the table. Not everyone shares the same beliefs and attitudes about these possibilities and, therefore, we don't share the same emotional sensitivities. In other words, not everyone is afraid of the same things. This may seem obvious, but I assure you it is not. When we're afraid, the emotional discomfort we feel in the moment is so real that it's beyond question, and it's natural to assume that everyone shares our reality. I will give you a perfect example of what I am talking about. I recently worked with a trader, who was deathly afraid of snakes. As far as he was concerned, he had always been afraid of snakes because he couldn't recall a time when he wasn't. Now he is married and has a three-year-old daughter. One evening, while his wife was out of town, his daughter and he were invited to a friend's house for dinner. Unbeknownst to my client, his friends child had a pet snake. When the friends child brought out the snake for everyone to see, my client freaked and practically leapt to the other side of the room to get as far away from the snake as possible. His daughter, on the other hand, was completely enthralled with the snake, and wouldn't leave it alone. When he related this story to me, he said that he was not only shocked by the unexpected confrontation with the snake, but that he was just as shocked by his daughter's reaction. She wasn't afraid and he assumed that she would be. I explained to him that his fear was so intense and his attachment to his daughter was so great that it was inconceivable to him that his daughter would not automatically share his reality about snakes. But then I pointed out, there really wasn't any way she could have shared his experience, unless he

f4a0789f17d6c7324fcd53a63fc1e52c

NarrativeText

specifically taught her to be afraid of snakes or she had had her own painful frightening experience. Otherwise, without anything to the contrary in her mental system, the most likely reaction to her first encounter with a living snake would be pure, unadulterated fascination. Just as my client assumed that his daughter would be afraid of snakes, most traders assume the best traders, like themselves, are also afraid of being wrong, losing, missing out, and leaving money on the table. They assume that the best traders somehow neutralize their fears with an inordinate amount of courage, nerves of steel, and self-control. Like many other things about trading, what seems to make sense, just isn't the case. Certainly, any one or all of these characteristics may be present in any top trader. But what is not true is that these characteristics play any role in their superior performance. Needing courage, nerves of steel, or self- control would imply an internal conflict where one force is being used to counteract the effects of another. Any degree of struggle, trying, or fear associated with trading will take you out of the moment and flow and, therefore, diminish your results. This is where professional traders really separate themselves from the crowd. When you accept the risk the way the pros do, you won't perceive anything that the market can do as threatening. If nothing is threatening, there's nothing to fear. If you're not afraid, you don't need courage. If you're not stressed, why would you need nerves of steel? And if you're not afraid of your potential to get reckless, because you have the appropriate monitoring mechanisms in place, then you have no need for self-control. As you contemplate the implications of what I am saying, I want you to keep something in mind: Very few people who go into trading start out with the appropriate beliefs and attitudes about responsibility and risk. There are some who do but it's rare. Everyone else goes through the same cycle I described in the example of the novice trader: We start out carefree, then become scared, and our fears continually diminish our potential. The traders who break through the cycle and ultimately make it are the ones who eventually learn to stop avoiding and start embracing the responsibility and the risk. Most of those who successfully break the cycle don't make the shift in thinking until they have experienced so much pain from large losses that it has the positive effect of stripping away their illusions about the nature of trading. With respect to your development, the how of their transformation is not that important, because in most cases it happened inadvertently. In other words, they weren't completely aware of the shifts that were taking place inside their mental environment until they experienced the positive effects their new perspective had on the ways in which they interacted with the market. This is why very few top traders can really explain what accounts for their success, except to speak in axioms like "cut your losses" and "go with the flow." What is important is that you understand it is completely possible to think the way the professionals do and to trade without fear, even though your direct experience as a trader would argue otherwise.

4e3fe2ac3011b849f6361bc348a83b38

Title

ALIGNING YOUR MENTAL ENVIRONMENT

3ac04f1e3259e428122cd23018437684

NarrativeText

Now we're going to start zeroing in on exactly how you can align your mental environment in order to accept the risk and function like a professional trader. Most of what I've discussed up to this point was designed to get you ready to do the real work. I'm going to teach you a thinking strategy that has, at its core, a firm belief in probabilities and edges. With this new thinking strategy, you'll learn how to create a new relationship with the market, one that disassociates your trading from what it typically means to be wrong or to lose, and that precludes you from perceiving anything about the market as threatening. When the threat of pain is gone, the fear will correspondingly disappear, as will the fear-based errors you are susceptible to. You will be left with a mind that is free to see what is available and to act on what you see. Getting to this carefree, fearless state of mind, in spite of being burned over and over again, will take some work, but it's not going to be so difficult as you may think. In fact, by the time you've finished reading this book, most of you will be amazed at how simple the solutions to your problems really are. In many respects, a state of mind or perspective is like software code. You could have several thousand lines of perfectly written code, with only one flawed line, and in that one flawed line there might be only one character out of place. Depending on the purpose of the software and where that flaw is in relation to everything else, that one misplaced character could ruin the performance of an otherwise perfectly written system. You see, the solution was simple: Fix the misplaced character, and everything runs smoothly. However, finding the error or even knowing it exists in the first place can take considerable expertise. When it comes to the ideal trading mentality, everybody is a certain psychological distance away. In other words, virtually everyone starts out with flawed software code. I use terms like clicks or degrees to indicate psychological distance but these terms don't imply a specific distance. So, for example, many of you will find that you are only, let's say, one click away in perspective from the ideal mind- set. That one click could represent one or two erroneous or misplaced assumptions you have about the nature of trading. As you reflect upon some of the ideas presented in this book, your perspective may shift. To use the analogy of software code, that shift would be equivalent to finding the flawed line in your mental system and replacing it with something that works properly. People normally describe this kind of internal mental shift as an "ah, ha" experience, or the moment when the light goes on. Everyone has had these kinds of experiences, and there are some common qualities associated with them. First, we usually feel different. The world even seems different, as if it had suddenly changed. Typically, we might say at the moment of the breakthrough something like, "Why didn't you tell me this before?" or, "It was right in front of me the whole time, but I just didn't see it" or, "It's so simple; why couldn't I see it?" Another interesting phenomenon of the "ah, ha" experience, is that sometimes within moments,

734abc91551067f48f094cada026ceae

NarrativeText

although the amount of time can vary, we feel as if this new part of our identity has always been a part of who we are. It then becomes difficult to believe that we were ever the way we were before we had the experience. In short, you may already have some awareness of much of what you need to know to be a consistently successful trader. But being aware of something doesn't automatically make it a functional part of who you are. Awareness is not necessarily a belief. You can't assume that learning about something new and agreeing with it is the same as believing it at a level where you can act on it. Take the example of my client who is afraid of snakes. He is certainly aware that not all snakes are dangerous, and that learning how to make a distinction between the ones that are dangerous and the ones that aren't would not be difficult. Will learning how to make these distinctions suddenly cause him not to be afraid of "non-dangerous snakes"? Can we assume that his awareness will drop down to a level in his mental environment where he can now interact with snakes without fear or immobility? No, we cannot make this assumption. His awareness that some snakes aren't dangerous and his fear of snakes can exist side by side in his mental environment, as a contradiction to each other. You could confront him with a snake and he might readily acknowledge that he knows the snake is not dangerous and wouldn't hurt him; but, at the same time, he would still find it extremely difficult to touch the snake, even if he wanted to. Does this mean that he is doomed to be afraid of snakes for the rest of his life? Only if he wants to be. It's really a matter of willingness. It's certainly possible to neutralize his fear, but he will have to work at it, and working at anything requires sufficient motivation. Many of us have what we know to be irrational fears and simply choose to live with the contradiction because we don't want to go through the emotional work that is necessary to overcome the fear. In this example, the contradiction is obvious. However, in my many years of working with traders, I have uncovered several typical contradictions and conflicts surrounding the issues of risk and responsibility, where holding two or more conflicting beliefs can easily cancel out your positive intentions, no matter how motivated you are to be successful. The problem is that none of these contradictions are really obvious, at least not at first glance. Contradictory beliefs, however, aren't the only problems. What about assertions like "I'm a risk taker," that traders typically assume have dropped down to the functional level of a belief when, in fact, the underlying dynamics of the way they perceive the market indicates they are doing everything possible to avoid risk. Contradictory beliefs and nonfunctional awareness represent flawed mental software code; code that destroys your ability to stay focused and accomplish your goals; code that makes it seem as if you simultaneously have one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake; code that gives learning how to trade a mysterious quality that will be challenging in a fun way at first, but usually turns into pure, unadulterated exasperation. When I was in college in the late 1960s, one of my favorite movies was Cool Hand Luke, starring Paul Newman. It was a very popular movie back then, so I'm sure some of you have seen it on late-night TV. Luke was in a Georgia chain gang. After he escaped and was caught for the second time, the warden

c16b40768b4b56d463689fe342b6e23e

NarrativeText

and guards were determined not to let Luke make fools of them a third time. So while forcing him to do an inordinate amount of work with no rest and giving him intermittent beatings, they kept asking, "Have you got your mind right yet, Luke?" Eventually, after considerable suffering, Luke finally told the prison bosses that he had his mind right. They said that if he didn't, and tried to escape again, they'd kill him for sure. Of course, Luke attempted another escape, and true to their word, the guards killed him. Like Luke, many traders, whether they realize it or not, are trying to have it their way by beating the market; as a result, they get financially and emotionally killed. There are easier, infinitely more satisfying ways of getting what you want from the market, but first you have to be willing to "get your mind right." CHAPTER 5

17b73b43c26a7694475bd10268179e61

Title

CHAPTER 5

39df426122d93164c861bfb6a58dd0a4

Title

THE DYNAMICS OF PERCEPTION

603520b3e6c2feebd92e0dc46e933881

NarrativeText

One of the primary objectives of this book is to teach you how to take the threat of pain out of market information. The market doesn't generate happy or painful information. From the markets perspective, it's all simply information. It may seem as if the market is causing you to feel the way you do at any given moment, but that's not the case. It's your own mental framework that determines how you perceive the information, how you feel, and, as a result, whether or not you are in the most conducive state of mind to spontaneously enter the flow and take advantage of whatever the market is offering. Professionals don't perceive anything about the markets as painful; therefore, no threat exists for them. If there's no threat, there's nothing to defend against. As a result, there isn't any reason for their conscious or subconscious defense mechanisms to kick in. That's why professionals can see and do things that mystify everyone else. They're in the flow, because they're perceiving an endless stream of opportunities, and when they're not in the flow, the very best of the best can recognize that fact and then compensate by either scaling back or not trading at all. If your goal is to be able to trade like the professionals, you must be able to see the market from an objective perspective, without distortion. You must be able to act without resistance or hesitation, but with the appropriate amount of positive restraint to counteract the negative effects of overconfidence or euphoria. In essence, your objective is to be able to create a unique state of mind, a traders mentality. When you've accomplished this, everything else about your success as a trader will fall into place. To help you achieve that objective, I'm going to give you a way to redefine your relationship to market information so that there will be little or no potential to perceive any of it as threatening. By "redefine," I mean to change your perspective and operate out of a mental framework that keeps you focused on the opportunities available instead of tapping you into emotional pain.

068fecebe71b7215ef792889b961c4e8

Title

DEBUGGING YOUR MENTAL SOFTWARE

d693d7f3e5bf4de84694237a64191bf8

NarrativeText

In other words, we want to get the bugs out of our mental software code and get our minds right. Doing this effectively will require an understanding of the nature of mental energy and how you can use that energy to change a perspective that is generating an unwanted, negative, emotional response to market information. There's much to learn, but I think you will be amazed at how some simple changes can make a huge difference in your trading results. The process of trading starts with perceiving an opportunity. Without the perception of an opportunity, we wouldn't have a reason to trade. So I think it is only fitting that we start our examination of mental energy by breaking down the process of perception. What are the underlying dynamics of perception? What factors determine how we perceive information or what we perceive in relationship to what is available? How is perception connected with what we experience at any given moment? Probably the easiest way to understand the dynamics of perception and answer these questions is to think of everything (and I do tion of forces—forces that generate information about the properties, characteristics, and traits that make them uniquely what they are. Everything that exists outside of our bodies—all plants and all categories of life; all planetary phenomena in the form of weather conditions, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions; all active and inert physical matter; and all noncorporeal phenomena such as light, sound waves, microwaves, and radiation—generates information about the nature of its existence. That information has the potential to act as a force on one of our five physical senses. Before we go any further, notice that I use the verb "generate" in an all-inclusive way implying that everything is in an active state of expression, including inanimate objects. To illustrate why I do that, let's look at something as simple as a rock. It's an inanimate object, composed of unique atoms and molecules expressing themselves as a rock. I can use the active verb "expressing" because the atoms and molecules that make up the rock are in constant motion. So, even though the rock doesn't appear active except in the most abstract sense, it has characteristics and properties that will act as forces on our senses, causing us to experience and make distinctions about the nature of its existence. For example, a rock has texture, and that texture acts as a force on our sense of touch if we run our fingers across the rock's surface. A rock has shape and color, which act as a force on our vision; the rock takes up space that no other object can occupy, so that we see it instead of an empty space or some other object. A rock can also have an odor that acts as a force on our sense of smell, or taste like something, although I haven't licked any rocks lately to find out. When we encounter anything in the environment that expresses its properties and characteristics, an exchange of energy takes place. Energy from the outside, in the form of whatever is expressing itself, gets transformed by our nervous system into electrical impulses and then gets stored in our inner, mental environment. To be more specific, whatever we are seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, or feeling through our senses gets transformed into electrical impulses of

5503a813fab3962d07796938349048c5

NarrativeText

energy and stored in our mental environment as a memory and/or dis- I think all of this is fairly self- evident to most people, but there are some profound implications here that aren't self-evident, and we typically take them completely for granted. First of all, there's a cause-and-effect relationship that exists between ourselves and everything else that exists in the external environment. As a result, our encounters with external forces create what I am going to call "energy structures" inside our minds. The memories, distinctions, and, ultimately, the beliefs we acquire throughout our lives exist in our mental environment in the form of structured energy. Structured energy is an abstract concept. You might be asking yourself, "How does energy take shape or form?" Before I answer this question, an even more fundamental question needs to be addressed. How do we know that memories, distinctions, and beliefs exist in the form of energy in the first place? I don't know if it's been scientifically proven or completely accepted by the scientific community, but ask yourself in what other form could these mental components exist? Here's what we know for sure: Anything composed of atoms and molecules takes up space and, therefore, can be observed. If memories, distinctions, and beliefs existed in some physical form, then we should be able to observe them. To my knowledge, no such observations have been made. The scientific community has dissected brain tissue (both living and dead) examined it at the level of the individual atom, mapped various regions of the brain in terms of their functions, but nobody, as yet, has observed a memory, distinction, or belief in its natural form. By "in its natural form" I mean that although a scientist can observe the individual brain cells that contain certain memories, he can't experience those memories first hand. He can only experience them if the person to whom the memories belong is alive and chooses to express them in some way. If memories, distinctions, and beliefs don't exist as physical matter, then there really isn't any alternative way for them to exist except as some form of energy. If this is in fact the case, can this energy take on a specific shape? Can it be structured in a way that reflects the external forces that caused it to come into existence? Most definitely! Is there anvthing in the environment that is analogous to energy having shape Thoughts are energy. Because you think in a language, your thoughts are structured by the limitations and rules that govern the particular language in which you think. When you express those thoughts aloud, you create sound waves, which are a form of energy. The sound waves created by the interaction of your vocal cords and tongue are structured by the content of your message. Microwaves are energy. Many phone calls are relayed by microwaves, which means that the microwave energy has to be structured in a way that reflects the message it is carrying. Laser light is energy, and if you've ever witnessed a demonstration of a laser light show, or laser art, what you've seen is pure energy taking a shape that reflects the creative desires of the artists. All of these are good examples of how energy can take shape, form, and structure. Of course, there are many more, but there is one more example that illustrates the point in the most graphic way. At the most fundamental level, what are dreams? I am not asking you what dreams mean or what you think their

a4da05cba31bc68cbdf46672831caf9c

NarrativeText

purpose is, but rather, what are they? What are their properties? If we assume that dreams take place within the confines of our skulls, then they can't be composed of atoms and molecules, because there wouldn't be enough space for all of the things that exist and take place in our dreams. Dream experiences seem to have the same proportions and dimensions as the things we perceive when we are awake and experiencing life through our five senses. The only way this could be possible is if dreams were a form of structured energy, because energy can take on any size or dimension, but, in doing so, doesn't actually take up any space. Now, if it hasn't already occurred to you, there's something here that's really profound. If the memories, distinctions, and beliefs we've acquired as a result of our encounters with the external environment represent what we've learned about that environment and how it works; and if these memories, distinctions, and beliefs exist in our mental environment as energy; and if energy doesn't take up any space; then it also could be said that we have an unlimited capacity for learning. Well, not only do I think it could be said, I'm saying it. Consider the development of human consciousness and what to know to function effectively compared to just 100 years ago. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that we don't have an unlimited capacity to learn. The difference between what we are aware of now and what we can do as a result of this expanded awareness would boggle the mind of anyone living 100 years ago.

c425f318e0a7e2b9c142acdff3d86b71

Title

PERCEPTION AND LEARNING

6637d6dab1c2bf95d16795db235a0afa

NarrativeText

However, we must be careful not to equate storage capacity with learning capacity. Learning, and becoming aware of what is available to be learned, is not just a function of storage capacity. If it were, then what would stop us from knowing everything? And if we knew everything, then what would stop us from perceiving every possible characteristic, property, or trait of everything that is expressing itself in any given moment? What stops us now? These questions get to the very heart of why you have to understand that mental components like memories, distinctions, and beliefs exist as energy. Anything that is energy has the potential to act as a force expressing its form, and that is exactly what our memories, distinctions and beliefs do. They act as a force on our senses from the inside, expressing their form and content, and, in the process of doing so, they have a profoundly limiting effect on the information we perceive in any given moment, making much of the information that is available from the environment's perspective, and the possibilities inherent within that information, literally invisible. I am saying here that, in any given moment the environment is generating an enormous amount of information about its properties, characteristics, and traits. Some of that information is beyond the physiological range of our senses. For example, our eyes can't see every wavelength of light nor can our ears hear every frequency of sound the environment produces, so there's definitely a range of information that is beyond the physiological capabilities of our senses. What about the rest of the

809f83b9a56a13ae4d7642527e9a884b

NarrativeText

information the environment is generating about itself? Do we see, hear, taste, smell, or feel through our senses every possible distinction, trait, and characteristic being senses? Absolutely not! The energy that's inside of us will categorically limit and block our awareness of much of this information by working through the same sensory mechanisms the external environment works through. Now, if you take a moment and think about it, some of what I just said should be self-evident. For example, there are many ways in which the external environment can express itself that we don't perceive simply because we haven't learned about them yet. This is easy to illustrate. Think back to the first time you ever looked at a price chart. What did you see? Exactly what did you perceive? With no previous exposure, I'm sure, like everyone else, you saw a bunch of lines that had no meaning. Now if you're like most traders, when you look at a price chart you see characteristics, traits, and behavior patterns that represent the collective actions of all the traders who participated in those particular trades. Initially, the chart represented undifferentiated information. Undifferentiated information usually creates a state of confusion, and that's probably what you experienced when you first encountered a chart. Gradually, however, you learned to make distinctions about that information, such as trends and trend lines, consolidations, support and resistance, retracements or significant relationships between volume, and open interest and price action, just to name a few. You learned that each of these distinctions in the market s behavior represented an opportunity to fulfill some personal need, goal, or desire. Each distinction now had a meaning and some relative degree of significance or importance attached to it. Now, I want you to use your imagination and pretend that I just set before you the very first price chart you ever saw. Would there be a difference between what you see now and what you saw then? Absolutely. Instead of a bunch of undifferentiated lines, you would see everything you've learned about those lines between then and now. In other words, you would see all the distinctions you've learned to make, as well as all the opportunities those distinctions represent. Yet, everything you can see as you look at that chart now existed then, and, furthermore, was available to be perceived. What's the difference? The structured energy that's inside of you now—the knowledge you have gained—acts as a force on your eyes, causing you to recognize the various distinctions that you've learned about. Since that energy wasn't there the first time you looked at the chart, all the opportunities that you now see were there, but at the same time invisible to you. Furthermore, unless you've learned to make every possible distinction based on every possible relationship between the variables in that chart, what you haven't learned yet is still invisible. Most of us have no concept of the extent to which we are continually surrounded by the invisible opportunities inherent in the information we're exposed to. More often than not, we never learn about these opportunities and, as a result, they remain invisible. The problem, of course, is that unless we're in a completely new or unique situation or we're operating out of an attitude of genuine openness, we won't perceive something that we haven't learned about yet. To learn about something, we have to be able to experience it in some way. So what we have here is a

e14c6c001acc87aa4ca373f94810206f

NarrativeText

closed loop that prevents us from learning. Perceptual closed loops exist in all of us, because they are natural functions of the way mental energy expresses itself on our senses. Eveiyone has heard the expression, "People see what they want to see." I would put it a little differently: People see what they've learned to see, and everything else is invisible until they learn how to counteract the energy that blocks their awareness of whatever is unlearned and waiting to be discovered. To illustrate this concept and make it even clearer, I am going to give you another example, one that demonstrates how mental energy can affect how we perceive and experience the environment in a way that it actually reverses the cause-and-effect relationship. Let's look at a very young child's first encounter with a dog. Because it's a first-time experience, the child's mental environment is a clean slate, so to speak, with respect to dogs. He won't have any memories and certainly no distinctions about a dog's nature. Therefore, up to the moment of his first encounter, from the child's perspective, dogs don't exist. Of course, from the environment's perspective, dogs do exist and they have the potential to act as a force on the child's senses to create an experience. In other words, dogs expressing their nature can act as a cause to produce an effect inside the child's mental environment. What kind of effect are dogs capable of producing? Well, dogs have a range of expression. By range of expression I mean dogs can behave in a number of ways toward humans. They can be friendly, loving, protective, and fun to play with; or they can be hostile, mean, and dangerous—just to name a few of the many behaviors they're capable of. All of these traits can be observed, experienced, and learned about. When the child sees the dog for the first time, there is absolutely nothing in his mental environment to tell him what he is dealing with. Unfamiliar, unknown, and unclassified environmental information can generate a sense of curiosity—when we want to find out more about what we're experiencing—or it can generate a state of confusion, which can easily turn to fear if we can't place the information into an understandable or meaningful organizational framework or context. In our example, the child's sense of curiosity kicks in and he rushes to the dog to get more sensory experience. Notice how children are literally compelled to thrust themselves into a situation they know nothing about. However, in this example, the environmental forces at hand do not react favorably to the child's advances. The dog the child is interested in is either inherently mean or having a bad day. In any case, as soon as the child gets close enough, the dog bites him. The attack is so severe that the dog has to be pulled off the child. This kind of unfortunate experience is certainly not typical, but it's not that uncommon either. I chose it for two reasons: First, most people can relate to it in some way either from their own direct experience or through the experience of someone they know. Second, as we analyze the underlying dynamics of this experience from an energy perspective, we're going to learn about 1) how our minds are designed to think, 2) process information, 3) how these processes affect what we experience and 4) our ability to recognize new possibilities.

73520626c30d9aa623033513e033be43

NarrativeText

I know this mav seem like a lot of insieht from iust one example, but the principles involved apply to the dynamics beneath virtually all learning. As a result of being physically and emotionally traumatized, the little boy in our example now has a memory and one distinction about the way dogs can express themselves. If the boys ability to remember his experiences is normal, he can store this incident in a way that represents all of the senses the experience had an impact on: For example the attack can be stored as mental images based on what he saw, as well as mental sounds representing what he heard, and so on. Memories representing the other three senses will work the same way. However, the kind of sensory data in his memory is not as important as the kind of energy the sensory data represents. We basically have two kinds of mental energy: positively charged energy, which we call love, confidence, happiness, joy, satisfaction, excitement, and enthusiasm, to name a few of the pleasant ways we can feel; and negatively charged energy, representing fear, terror, dissatisfaction, betrayal, regret, anger, confusion, anxiety, stress, and frustration, all representing what is commonly referred to as emotional pain. Because the boy's first experience with a dog was intensely painful, we can assume that regardless of what senses were affected, all of his memories of this experience will be in painful, unpleasantfeeling, negative energy. Now, what effect will this negatively charged mental energy have on his perception and behavior if and when he encounters another dog? The answer is so obvious that it may seem ridiculous even to ask, but the underlying implications are not obvious, so bear with me. Clearly, the moment he comes into contact with another dog, he will experience fear. Notice that I used the word "another" to describe the next dog he has any contact with. What I want to point out is that any dog can cause the boy to feel fear, not just the one that actually attacked him. It won't make a bit of difference if the next dog he comes into contact with is the friendliest dog in the world, one whose nature is only to express playfulness and love. The child will still be afraid, and furthermore, his fear could quickly turn to unrestrained terror especially if the second dog (seeing a child and wanting to play) attempts to approach him. Each of us has at one time or another witnessed a situation in which someone was experiencing fear, when from our perspective there wasn't the least bit of danger or threat. Although we may not have said it, we probably thought to ourselves that this person was being irrational.

c9f19e2d7c28c8dc5a699dbf6a4ad9e8

Title

PERCEPTION AND RISK

7154462efeb5394456ca3affd54566a9

NarrativeText

If we tried to point out why there was no need to be afraid, we probably found that our words had little, if any, impact. We could easily think the same thing about the boy in our example, that he is just being irrational, because it's clear from our perspective that other possibilities exist than the one his mind has focused on. But is his fear any less rational than, let's say, your fear (or hesitation) about putting on the next trade, when your last trade was a loser? Using the same logic, a top trader would say that your fear is irrational because this "now moment"

2a757121f6c6f21f450d94d0d433f800

NarrativeText

opportunity has absolutely nothing to do with your last trade. Each trade is simply an edge with a probable outcome, and statistically independent of every other trade. If you believe otherwise, then I can see why you're afraid; but I can assure you that your fears are completely unfounded. As you can see, one person's perception of risk can easily be perceived as irrational thinking by another. Risk is relative, but to the person who perceives it in the moment, it seems absolute and beyond question. When the child encountered his first dog, he was bubbling with excitement and curiosity. What is it about the way our minds think and process information that could automatically flip the boy into a state of fear the next time he encounters a dog, even if it's months or years later? If we look at fear as a natural mechanism warning us of threatening conditions, then what is it about the way our minds function that would automatically tell the boy that the next encounter with a dog is something to be afraid of? What happened to the boy's natural sense of curiosity? There is surely more to learn about the nature of dogs than this one experience has taught him, especially in light of the fact that our minds seem to have an unlimited capacity for learning. And why would it be virtually impossible to talk the boy out of his fear?

92bca7ca7c182ae691f74311b27fe34f

Title

THE POWER OF ASSOCIATION

6bb372bbb7ac560114795e2505490eb2

NarrativeText

As complex as these questions may seem at first glance, most of them can be answered quite easily. I'm sure many of you already know the answer: Our minds have an inherent design characteristic that causes us to associate and link anything that exists in the external environment that is similar in quality, characteristics, properties, or traits to anything that already exists in our mental environment as a memory or distinction. In other words, in the example of the child being afraid of dogs, the second dog or any other dog he encounters thereafter, doesn't have to be the dog that attacked in order for him to experience emotional pain. There just has to be enough of a likeness or similarity for his mind to make a connection between the two. This natural tendency for our minds to associate is an unconscious mental function that occurs automatically. It's not something we have to think about or make a decision about. An unconscious mental function would be analogous to an involuntary physical function such as a heartbeat. Just as we don't have to consciously think about the process of making our hearts beat, we don't have to think about linking experiences and our feelings about them. Its simply a natural function of the way our minds process information, and, like a heartbeat, it's a function that has a profound effect on the way we experience our lives. I'd like you to try and visualize the two-way flow of energy that reverses the cause-and-effect relationship that will make it difficult (if not impossible) for the boy to perceive any other possibilities than the one that's in his mind. To help you, I'm going to break this process down into its smallest parts, and go through what happens step by step, All of this may seem a bit abstract, but understanding this process plays a big part in unlocking your potential to achieve consistent success as a big trader. First,

dbee9cb7480624c2f45ace594b90d7cb

NarrativeText

let's get right down to the basics. There's structured energy on the outside of the boy and structured energy on the inside of the boy. The outside energy is positively charged in the form of a friendly dog that wants to express itself by playing. The inside energy is a negatively charged memory in the form of mental images and sounds that represent the boy's first experience with a dog. Both the inside and the outside energy have the potential to make themselves felt on the boy's senses and, as a result, create two different kinds of situations for him to experience. The outside energy has the potential to act as a force on the boy in a way that he could find very enjoyable. This particular dog expresses behavior characteristics like playfulness, friendliness, and even love. But keep in mind that these are characteristics that the child still has not experienced in a dog, so from his perspective they don't exist. Just as in the price chart example I presented earlier, the child won't be able to perceive what he hasn't yet learned about, unless he is in a state of mind that is conducive to learning. The inside energy also has potential and is just waiting, so to speak, to express itself. But it will act on the boy's eyes and ears in a way that causes him to feel threatened. This in turn will create an experience of emotional pain, fear, and possibly even terror. From the way I've set this up, it may seem as if the boy has a choice between experiencing fun or experiencing fear, but that's really not the case, at least not in the moment. Of the two possibilities that exist in this situation, he will undoubtedly experience the pain and fear, instead of the fun. This is true for several reasons. First, as I've already indicated, our minds are wired to automatically and instantaneously associate and link information that has similar characteristics, properties, and traits. What's outside of the child in the form of a dog, looks and sounds similar to the one that's in his mind. However, the degree of similarity that is necessary for his mind to link the two is an unknown variable, meaning I don't know the mental mechanism that determines how much or how little similarity is required for our minds to associate and link two or more sets of information. Since everyone's mind functions in a similar way, but, at the same time is unique, I would assume there is a range of tolerance for similarity or dissimilarity and each of us has a unique capacity somewhere within the range. Here's what we do know: As this next dog comes into contact with the boy's eyes or ears, if there is enough similarity between the way it looks or sounds and the dog that's embedded in his memory, then his mind will automatically connect the two. This connection, in turn, will cause the negatively charged energy in his memory to be released throughout his body, causing him to be overcome with a very uncomfortable sense of foreboding or terror. The degree of discomfort or emotional pain that he experiences will be equivalent to the degree of trauma that he suffered as a result of his first encounter with a dog. What happens next is what psychologists call a projection. I'm going to refer to it simply as another instantaneous association that makes the reality of the situation from the boy's perspective seem like the absolute, unquestionable truth. The boy's body is now filled with negatively charged energy. At the same time, he is in sensory contact with the dog. Next, his mind associates whatever sensory

4b8f510f1e47a7a3c9bfd3713ba87813

NarrativeText

information his eyes or ears perceive with the painful energy he's experiencing inside himself, which makes it seem as if the source of his pain and fear is the dog he is seeing or hearing in that moment. Psychologists call the dynamics of what I just described a projection because, in a sense, the boy is projecting the pain he is experiencing in the moment onto the dog. That painful energy then gets reflected back to him, so that he perceives a dog that is threatening, painful, and dangerous. This process makes the second dog identical in character, properties, and traits to the one that is in the boy's memory bank, even though the information the second dog is generating about its behavior is not identical, or even similar, to the behavior of the dog that actually attacked the boy. Since the two dogs, the one in the boy's mind and the one outside of the boy's mind, feel exactly the same, it's extremely unlikely the boy will be able to make any type of distinctions in the second dog's behavior that would suggest to him that it is any different than the one in his mind. So, instead of perceiving this next encounter with a dog as an opportunity to experience something new about the nature of dogs, he perceives a threatening and dangerous dog. Now, if you think about it for a moment, what is it about this process that would indicate to the boy that his experience of the situation was not the absolute, unquestionable truth? Certainly the pain and fear that he experienced in his body was the absolute truth. But what about the possibilities that he perceived? Were they true? From our perspective, they weren't. However, from the boy's perspective, how could they be anything but the true reality of the situation? What alternatives did he have? First, he can't perceive possibilities that he hasn't learned about yet. And it is extremely difficult to learn anything new if you're afraid, because, as you already well know, fear is a very debilitating form of energy. It causes us to withdraw, to get ready to protect ourselves, to run, and to narrow our focus of attention —all of which makes it veiy difficult, if not impossible, to open ourselves in a way that allows us to learn something new. Second, as I have already indicated, as far as die boy is concerned, the dog is the source of his pain, and in a sense this is true. The second dog did cause him to tap into the pain that was already in his mind, but it was not the true source of that pain. This was a positively charged dog that got connected to the boy's negatively charged energy by an automatic, involuntary mental process, functioning at speeds faster than it takes to blink an eye (a process that the boy has absolutely no awareness of). So as far as he's concerned, why would he be afraid if what he perceived about the dog wasn't the absolute truth? As you can see, it wouldn't make any difference how the dog was acting, or what someone might say to the contrary about why the boy shouldn't be afraid, because he will perceive whatever information the dog is generating about itself (regardless of how positive) from a negative perspective. He will not have the slightest notion that his experience of pain, fear, and terror was completely self-generated. Now, if it's possible for the boy to self-generate his own pain and terror and, at the same time, be firmly convinced that his negative experience was coming from the environment, is it also possible for traders to self-generate their own experiences of fear and emotional pain as they interact with market information and be thoroughly convinced that their pain and fear was completely justified by the

e805d6a101d5e49088eff81ba4c37aa1

NarrativeText

circumstances? The underlining psychological dynamics work in exactly the same way. One of your basic objectives as a trader is to perceive the opportunities available, not the threat of pain. To learn how to stay focused on the opportunities, you need to know and understand in no uncertain terms the source of the threat. It's not the market. The market generates information about its potential to move from a neutral perspective. At the same time, it provides you (the observer) with an unending stream of opportunities to do something on your own behalf. If what you perceive at any given moment causes you to feel fear, ask yourself this question: Is the information inherently threatening, or are you simply experiencing the effect of your own state of mind reflected back to you (as in the above illustration)? I know this is a difficult concept to accept, so I'll give you another example to illustrate the point. Let's set up a scenario, where your last two or three trades were losers. You are watching the market, and the variables you use to indicate that an opportunity exists are now present. Instead of immediately executing the trade, you hesitate. The trade feels very risky, so risky, in fact, that you start questioning whether this is "really" a signal. As a result, you start gathering information to support why this trade probably won't work. This is information you normally wouldn't consider or pay attention to, and it's certainly not information that is part of your trading methodology. In the meantime, the market is moving. Unfortunately, it is moving away from your original entry point, the point at which you would have gotten into the trade if you hadn't hesitated. Now you are conflicted, because you still want to get in; the thought of missing a winning trade is painful. At the same time, as the market moves away from your entry point, the dollar value of the risk to participate increases. The tug of war inside your mind intensifies. You don't want to miss out, but you don't want to get whipsawed either. In the end, you do nothing, because you are paralyzed by the conflict. You justify your state of immobility by telling yourself that it's just too risky to chase the market, while you agonize over every tic the market moves in the direction of what would have been a nice winning trade. If this scenario sounds familiar, I want you to ask yourself whether, at the moment you hesitated, were you perceiving what the market was making available, or perceiving what was in your mind reflected back to you? The market gave you a signal. But you didn't perceive the signal from an objective or positive perspective. You didn't see it as an opportunity to experience the positive feeling you would get from winning or making money, but that's exactly what the market was making available to you. Think about this for a moment: If I change the scenario so that your last two or three trades were winners instead of losers, would you have perceived the signal any differently? Would you have perceived it more as an opportunity to win than you did in the first scenario? If you were coming off three winners in a row, would you have hesitated to put that trade on? Very unlikely! In fact, if you're like most traders, you probably would have been giving very strong consideration to loading up (putting on a position much larger than your normal size). In each situation, the market generated the same signal. But your state of mind was negative and fear-based in the first scenario, and that caused

d92303971d5bde5e2f12d30aaee11dc2

NarrativeText

you to focus on the possibility of failure, which in turn caused you to hesitate. In the second scenario, you hardly perceived any risk at all. You may even have thought the market was making a dream come true. That, in turn, would make it easy, if not compelling, to financially overcommit yourself. If you can accept the fact that the market doesn't generate positively or negatively charged information as an inherent characteristic of the way it expresses itself, then the only other way information can take on a positive or negative charge is in your mind, and that is a function of the way the information is processed. In other words, the market doesn't cause you to focus on failure and pain, or on winning and pleasure. What causes the information to take on a positive or negative quality is the same unconscious mental process that caused the boy to perceive the second dog as threatening and dangerous, when all the dog was offering was playfulness and friendship. Our minds constantly associate what's outside of us (information) with something that's already in our mind (what we know), making it seem as if the outside circumstances and the memory, distinction, or belief these circumstances are associated with are exactly the same. As a result, in the first scenario, if you were coming off two or three losing trades, the next signal the market gives you that an opportunity was present will feel overly risky. Your mind is automatically and unconsciously linking the "now moment" with your most recent trading experiences. The link taps you into the pain of losing, creating a fearful state of mind and causing you to perceive the information you're exposed to in that moment from a negative perspective. It seems as if the market is expressing threatening information, so, of course, your hesitation is justified. In the second scenario, the same process causes you to perceive the situation from an overly positive perspective, because you are coming off three winners in a row. The association between the "now moment" and the elation of the last three trades creates an overly positive or euphoric state of mind, making it seem as if the market is offering you a riskless opportunity. Of course, this justifies overcommitting yourself. In Chapter 1, I said that many of the mental patterns that cause traders to lose and make errors are so self-evident and deeply ingrained that it would never occur to us that the reason we aren't consistently successful is because of the way we think. Understanding, becoming consciously aware of, and then learning how to circumvent the mind's natural propensity to associate is a big part of achieving that consistency. Developing and maintaining a state of mind that perceives the opportunity flow of the market, without the threat of pain or the problems caused by overconfidence, will require that you take conscious control of the association process. CHAPTER 6

4073ab2a94a14935ffd4c0e589dd4441

Title

CHAPTER 6

ba8ffd25e6f3dddcd14f10bd3525af23

Title

THE MARKET'S PERSPECTIVE

d2ac2cdcbb315606f5b76f271f3a3beb

NarrativeText

For the most part, a typical traders perception of the risk in any given trading situation is a function of the outcome of his most recent two or three trades (depending on the individual). The best traders, on the other hand, are not impacted (either negatively or too positively) by the outcomes of their last or even their last several trades. So their perception of the risk of any given trading situation is not affected by this personal, psychological variable. There's a huge psychological gap here that might lead you to believe that the best traders have inherent design qualities in their minds that account for this gap, but I can assure you this is not the case. Every trader I've worked with over the last 18 years has had to learn how to train his mind to stay properly focused in the "now moment opportunity flow." This is a universal problem, and has to do both with the way our minds are wired and our common social upbringing (meaning, this particular trading problem is not personspecific). There are other factors relating to self-esteem that may also act as obstacles to your consistent success, but what we are going to discuss now is the most important and fundamental building block to your success as a trader.

45ee8cd878793e4aef27b7435c59fb41

Title

THE "UNCERTAINTY" PRINCIPLE

845e954f8596ab78a21cf2f69a9c2296

NarrativeText

If there is such a thing as a secret to the nature of trading, this is it: At the very core of one's ability 1) to trade without fear or overconfidence, 2) perceive what the market is offering from its perspective, 3) stay completely focused in the "now moment opportunity flow," and 4) spontaneously enter the "zone," it is a strong virtually unshakeable belief in an uncertain outcome with an edge in your favor. The best traders have evolved to the point where they believe, without a shred of doubt or internal conflict, that "anything can happen." They don't just suspect that anything can happen or give lip service to the idea. Their belief in uncertainty is so powerful that it actually prevents their minds from associating the "now moment" situation and circumstance with the outcomes of their most recent trades.By preventing this association, they are able to keep their minds free of unrealistic and rigid expectations about how the market will express itself. Instead of generating the kind of unrealistic expectations that more often than not result in both emotional and financial pain, they have learned to "make themselves available" to take advantage of whatever opportunities the market may offer in any given moment. "Making yourself available" is a perspective from which you understand that the framework from which you are perceiving information is limited relative to what's being offered.

11c7eb78e693d3fc732b5d56b7b627f7

NarrativeText

Our minds don't automatically perceive every opportunity that presents itself in any given moment. (The "boy and the dog" illustration from Chapter 5 is a perfect example of how our own personal versions of the truth are reflected back to us.) This same land of perceptual blindness happens all the time in trading. We can't perceive the potential for the market to continue to move in a direction that is already against our position if, for example, we are operating out of a fear of being wrong. The fear of admitting we are wrong causes us to place an inordinate amount of significance on information that tells us that we're right. This happens even if there's ample information to indicate that the market has in fact established a trend in the opposite direction of our position. A trending market is a distinction about the market's behavior we can ordinarily perceive, but this distinction can easily become invisible if we are operating out of fear. The trend and the opportunity to trade in the direction of that trend don't become visible until we are out of the trade. In addition, there are opportunities that are invisible to us because we haven't learned to make the distinctions that would allow us to perceive them. Recall our discussion in Chapter 5 of the first price chart you ever looked at. What we haven't learned yet is invisible to us, and remains invisible until our minds are open to an exchange of energy. A perspective from which you make yourself available takes into consideration both the known and the unknown: For example, you've built a mental framework that allows you to recognize a set of variables in the markets behavior that indicates when an opportunity to buy or sell is present. This is your edge and something you know. However, what you don't know is exactly how the pattern your variables identify will unfold. With the perspective of making yourself available, you know that your edge places the odds of success in your favor, but, at the same time, you completely accept the fact that you don't know the outcome of any particular trade. By making yourself available, you consciously open yourself up to find out what will happen next; instead of giving way to an automatic mental process that causes you to think you already know. Adopting this perspective leaves your mind free of internal resistance that can prevent you from perceiving whatever opportunity the market is making available from its perspective (its truth). Your mind is open for an exchange of energy. Not only can you learn something about the market that you previously didn't know, but you also set up the mental condition most conducive to entering "the zone." The essence of what it means to be in "the zone" is that your mind and the market are in sync. As a result, you sense what the market is about to do as if there is no separation between yourself and the collective consciousness of everyone else participating in the market. The zone is a mental space where you are doing more than just reading the collective mind, you are also in complete harmony with it. If this sounds a bit strange to you, ask yourself how it is that a flock of birds or a school of fish can change direction simultaneously. There must be a way in which they are linked to one another. If it is possible for people to become linked in the same way, then there will be times when information from those with whom we are linked can and will bleed through to our consciousness. Traders who have experienced being tapped into the collective consciousness of the market can anticipate a change in direction just as a bird in the middle of a flock or a fish in the middle of a school

9af023934fe5f792d0d59da56de9ddc9

NarrativeText

will turn at the precise moment that all of the others turn. However, setting up the kind of mental conditions most conducive to experiencing this seemingly magical synchronicity between you and the market is no easy task. There are two mental hurdles to overcome. The first is the focus of this chapter: learning how to keep your mind focused in the "now moment opportunity flow." In order to experience synchronicity, your mind has to be open to the market's truth, from its perspective. The second hurdle has to do with the division of labor between the two halves of our brain. The left side of our brain specializes in rational thought, based on what we already know. The right side specializes in creative thought. It is capable of tapping into an inspiration, an intuition, a hunch, or a sense of knowing that usually can't be explained at a rational level. It can't be explained because if the information is really creative in nature, then it is something that we wouldn't know at a rational level. By definition, true creativity brings forth something that didn't previously exist. There's an inherent conflict between these two modes of thought, that the rational, logical part will almost always win, unless we take specific steps to train our minds to accept and trust creative information. Without that training, we will usually find it very difficult to act on our hunches, intuitive impulses, inspirations, or sense of knowing. Acting appropriately on anything requires belief and clarity of intent, which keeps our minds and senses focused on the purpose at hand. If the source of our actions is creative in nature, and our rational mind hasn't been properly trained to trust this source, then at some point in the process of acting on this information, our rational brain will flood our consciousness with conflicting and competing thoughts. Of course, all of these thoughts will be sound and reasonable in nature, because they will be coming from what we already know at a rational level, but they will have the effect of flipping us out of "the zone" or any other creative state of mind. There are few things in life more frustrating than recognizing the possibilities evident from a hunch, intuition, or an inspired idea, and not taking advantage of that potential because we talked ourselves out of it. I realize that what I've just said is still much too abstract to implement on a practical basis. So, I'm going to take you step-by-step through what it means to be completely focused in the "now moment opportunity flow." My objective is that by the time you've read this chapter and Chapter 7, you will understand without a shred of doubt why your ultimate success as a trader cannot be realized until you develop a resolute, unshakeable belief in uncertainty. The first step on the road toward getting your mind and the market in sync is to understand and completely accept the psychological realities of trading. This step is where most of the frustrations, disappointments, and mysteriousness associated with trading begin. Very few people who decide to trade ever take the time or expend the effort to think about what it means to be a trader. Most people who go into trading think that being a trader is synonymous with being a good market analyst. As I have mentioned, this couldn't be further from the truth. Good market analysis can certainly contribute to and play a supporting role in one's success, but it doesn't deserve the attention and importance most traders mistakenly attach to it. Beneath the market behavior patterns that are so easy to become fixated on are some very unique psychological characteristics. It's the nature

c63b6f88cd816cce95761d277fbca0c7

NarrativeText

of these psychological characteristics that determines how one needs "to be" in order to operate effectively in the market environment. Operating effectively in an environment that has qualities, traits, or characteristics that are different from what we're used to requires making some adjustments or changes in the way we normally think about things. For example, if you were to travel to an exotic place with certain objectives or goals to accomplish, the first thing you would do is familiarize yourself with the local traditions and customs. By doing so, you would leani about the various ways in which you would have to adapt in order to function successfully in that environment. Traders frequently ignore the fact that they may have to adapt in order to become consistently successful traders. There are two reasons for this. The first is that you need absolutely no skill of any kind to put on a winning trade. For most traders it usually takes years of pain and suffering before they figure out or finally admit to themselves that there's more to being consistent than the ability to pick an occasional winner. The second reason is that you don't have to travel anywhere to trade. All you need is access to a phone. You don't even have to roll out of bed in the morning. Even traders who normally trade from an office don't have to be in the office to put on or take off their trades. Because we can access and interact with the market from personal environments that we are intimately familiar with, it seems as if trading won't require any special adaptations in the way we think. To some degree, you are probably already aware of many of the fundamental truths (psychological characteristics) about the nature of trading. But having an awareness or an understanding of some principle, insight, or concept doesn't necessarily equate to acceptance and belief. When something has been truly accepted, it isn't in conflict with any other component of our mental environment. When we believe in something, we operate out of that belief as a natural function of who we are, without struggle or extra effort. To whatever degree there is a conflict with any other component of our mental environment, to the same degree there is a lack of acceptance. It isn't difficult, therefore, to understand why so few people make it as traders. They simply don't do the mental work necessary to reconcile the many conflicts that exist between what they've already learned and believe, and how that learning contradicts and acts as a source of resistance to implementing the various principles of successful trading. Getting into and taking advantage of the kind of free-flowing states of mind that are ideal for trading requires that those conflicts be thoroughly resolved.

1d2a9e50c5dcb72da23ffd4f424b582d

Title

MARKETS MOST FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC (IT CAN EXPRESS ITSELF IN AN ALMOST INFINITE COMBINATION OF WAYS )

e1df86cabf917d2956daa6ddd9687462

NarrativeText

The market can do virtually anything at any time. This seems obvious enough, especially for anybody who has experienced a market that has displayed erratic and volatile price swings. The problem is that all of us have the tendency to take this characteristic for granted, in ways that cause us to make the most fundamental trading errors over and over again. The fact is that if traders really believed that anything could happen at any time, there would be considerably fewer losers and more consistent winners. How do we know that virtually anything can happen? This fact is easy to establish. All we have to do is dissect the market into its component parts and look at how the parts operate. The most fundamental component of any market is its traders. Individual traders act as a force on prices, making them move by either bidding a price up or offering it lower. Why do traders bid a price up or offer it lower? To answer this question we have to establish the reasons why people trade. There are many reasons and purposes behind a person s motivation to trade in any given market. However, for the purposes of this illustration, we don't have to know all the underlying reasons that compel any individual trader to act because ultimately they all boil down to one reason and one purpose: to make money. We know this because there are only two things a trader can do (buy and sell) and there are only two possible outcomes for every trade (profit or loss). Therefore, I think we can safely assume that regardless of one's reasons for trading, the bottom line is that everyone is looking for the same outcome: Profits. And there are only two ways to create those profits: Either buy low and sell high, or sell high and buy low. If we assume that everyone wants to make money, then there's only one reason why any trader would bid a price up to the next highest level: because he believes he can sell whatever he's buying at a higher price at some point in the future. The same is true for the trader who's willing to sell something at a price that is less than the last posted price (offer a market lower). He does it because he believes he can buy back whatever he's selling at a lower price at some point in the future. If we look at the market's behavior as a function of price movement, and if price movement is a function of traders who are willing to bid prices up or offer them lower, then we can say that all price movement (market behavior) is a function of what traders believe about the future. To be more specific, all price movement is a function of what individual traders believe about what is high and what is low. The underlying dynamics of market behavior are quite simple. Only three primary forces exist in any market: traders who believe the price is low, traders who believe the price is high, and traders who are watching and waiting to make up their minds about whether the price is low or high. Technically, the third group constitutes a potential force. The reasons that support any given traders belief that something is high or low are usually irrelevant, because most people who trade act in an undisciplined, unorganized, haphazard, and random manner. So, their reasons wouldn't necessarily help anyone gain a better understanding of what is going on. But, understanding what's going on isn't that difficult, if you remember that all price movement or lack of

8bca51dd7e61d89c7e6e8cfd58742f1c

NarrativeText

movement is a function of the relative balance or imbalance between two primary forces: traders who believe the price is going up, and traders who believe the price is going down. If there's balance between the two groups, prices will stagnate, because each side will absorb the force of the other side's actions. If there is an imbalance, prices will move in the direction of the greater force, or the traders who have the stronger convictions in their beliefs about in what direction the price is going. Now, I want you to ask yourself, what's going to stop virtually anything from happening at any time, other than exchange-imposed limits on price movement. There's nothing to stop the price of an issue from going as high or low as whatever some trader in the world believes is possible—if, of course, the trader is willing to act on that belief. So the range of the market's behavior in its collective form is limited only by the most extreme beliefs about what is high and what is low held by any given individual participating in that market. I think the implications are self-evident: There can be an extreme diversity of beliefs present in any given market in any given moment, making virtually anything possible. When we look at the market from this perspective, it's easy to see that every potential trader who is willing to express his belief about the future becomes a market variable. On a more personal level, this means that it only takes one other trader, anywhere in the world, to negate the positive potential of your trade. Put another way, it takes only one other trader to negate what you believe about what is high or what is low. That's all, only one! Here's an example to illustrate this point. Several years ago, a trader came to me for help. He was an excellent market analyst; in fact, he was one of the best I've ever met. But after years of frustration during which he lost all his money and a lot of other people's money, he was finally ready to admit that, as a trader, he left a lot to be desired. After talking to him for a while, I determined that a number of serious psychological obstacles were preventing him from being successful. One of the most troublesome obstacles was that he was a know-it-all and extremely arrogant, making it impossible for him to achieve the degree of mental flexibility required to trade effectively. It didn't matter how good an analyst he was. When he came to me, he was so desperate for money and help that he was willing to consider anything. The first suggestion I made was that instead of looking for another investor to back what ultimately would be another failed attempt at trading, he would be better off taking a job, doing something he was truly good at. He could be paid a steady income while working through his problems, and at the same time provide someone with a worthwhile service. He took my advice and quickly found a position as a technical analyst with a fairly substantial brokerage house and clearing firm in Chicago. The semiretired chairman of the board of the brokerage firm was a longtime trader with nearly 40 years of experience in the grain pits at the Chicago Board of Trade. He didn't know much about technical analysis, because he never needed it to make money on the floor. But he no longer traded on the floor and found the transition to trading from a screen difficult and somewhat mysterious. So he asked the firm's newly acquired star technical analyst to sit with him during the trading day and teach him technical trading. The new hire jumped at the opportunity to show off his abilities to such an

d91a48d9f000914b2d7bf1bb94be581f

NarrativeText

experienced and successful trader. The analyst was using a method called "point and line," developed by Charlie Drummond. (Among other things, point and line can accurately define support and resistance.) One day, as the two of them were watching the soybean market together, the analyst had projected major support and resistance points and the market happened to be trading between these two points. As the technical analyst was explaining to the chairman the significance of these two points, he stated in very emphatic, almost absolute terms that if the market goes up to resistance, it will stop and reverse; and if the market goes down to support, it will also stop and reverse. Then he explained that if the market went down to the price level he calculated as support, his calculations indicated that would also be the low of the day. As they sat there, the bean market was slowly trending down to the price the analyst said would be the support, or low, of the day. When it finally got there, the chairman looked over to the analyst and said, "This is where the market is supposed to stop and go higher, right?" The analyst responded, "Absolutely! This is the low of the day." "That's bullshit!" the chairman retorted. "Watch this." He picked up the phone, called one of the clerks handling orders for the soybean pit, and said, "Sell two million beans (bushels) at the market." Within thirty seconds after he placed the order, the soybean market dropped ten cents a bushel. The chairman turned to look at the horrified expression on the analysts face. Calmly, he asked, "Now, where did you say the market was going to stop? If I can do that, anyone can." The point is that from our own individual perspective as observers of the market, anything can happen, and it takes only one trader to do it. This is the hard, cold reality of trading that only the very best traders have embraced and accepted with no internal conflict. How do I know this? Because only the best traders consistently predefine their risks before entering a trade. Only the best traders cut their losses without reservation or hesitation when the market tells them the trade isn't working. And only the best traders have an organized, systematic, money-management regimen for taking profits when the market goes in the direction of their trade. Not predefining your risk, not cutting your losses, or not systematically taking profits are three of the most common—and usually the most costly—trading errors you can make. Only the best traders have eliminated these errors from their trading. At some point in their careers, they learned to believe without a shred of doubt that anything can happen, and to always account for what they don't know, for the unexpected. Remember that there are only two forces that cause prices to move: traders who believe the markets are going up, and traders who believe the markets are going down. At any given moment, we can see who has the stronger conviction by observing where the market is now relative to where it was at some previous moment. If a recognizable pattern is present, that pattern may repeat itself, giving us an indication of where the market is headed. This is our edge, something we know. But there's also much that we don't know, and will never know unless we learn how to read minds. For instance, do we know how many traders may be sitting on the sidelines and about to enter the market? Do we know how many of them want to buy and how many want to sell, or how many shares they are willing to buy or sell? What about the traders whose

44da15d19aeefb3fae77c413c3cc1c67

NarrativeText

participation is already reflected in the current price? At any given moment, how many of them are about to change their minds and exit their positions? If they do, how long will they stay out of the market? And if and when they do come back into the market, in what direction will they cast their votes? These are the constant, never-ending, unknown, hidden variables that are always operating in every market—always] The best traders don't try to hide from these unknown variables by pretending they don't exist, nor do they try to intellectualize or rationalize them away through market analysis. Quite the contrary, the best traders take these variables into account, factoring them into every component of their trading regimes. For the typical trader, just the opposite is true. He trades from the perspective that what he can't see, hear, or feel must not exist. What other explanation could account for his behavior? If he really believed in the existence of all the hidden variables that have the potential to act on prices in any given moment, then he would also have to believe that every trade has an uncertain outcome. And if every trade truly has an uncertain outcome, then how could he ever justify or talk himself into not predefining his risk, cutting his losses, or having some systematic way to take profits? Given the circumstances, not adhering to these three fundamental principles is the equivalent of committing financial and emotional suicide. Since most traders don't adhere to these principles, are we to assume that their true underlying motivation for trading is to destroy themselves? It's certainly possible, but I think the percentage of traders who either consciously or subconsciously want to rid themselves of their money or hurt themselves in some way is extremely small. So, if financial suicide is not the predominant reason, then what could keep someone from doing something that would otherwise make absolute, perfect sense? The answer is quite simple: The typical trader doesn't predefine his risk, cut his losses, or systematically take profits because the typical trader doesn't believe it's necessary. The only reason why he would believe it isn't necessary is that he believes he already knows what's going to happen next, based on what he perceives is happening in any given "now moment." If he already knows, then there's really no reason to adhere to these principles. Believing, assuming, or thinking that "he knows" will be the cause of virtually eveiy trading error he has the potential to make (with the exception of those errors that are the result of not believing that he deserves the money). Our beliefs about what is true and real are very powerful inner forces. They control every aspect of how we interact with the markets, from our perceptions, interpretations, decisions, actions, and expectations, to our feelings about the results. It's extremely difficult to act in a way that contradicts what we believe to be true. In some cases, depending on the strength of the belief, it can be next to impossible to do anything that violates the integrity of a belief. What the typical trader doesn't realize is that he needs an inner mechanism, in the form of some powerful beliefs, that virtually compels him to perceive the market from a perspective that is always expanding with greater and greater degrees of clarity, and also compels him always act appropriately, given the psychological conditions and the nature of price movement. The most effective and functional trading belief that he can acquire is "anything can happen." Aside from the fact that it is the truth, it will act as a solid

69c253492c1d3f0a3902501ff624d0c5

NarrativeText

foundation for building every other belief and attitude that he needs to be a successful trader. Without that belief, his mind will automatically, and usually without his conscious awareness, cause him to avoid, block, or rationalize away any information that indicates the market may do something he hasn't accepted as possible. If he believes that anything is possible, then there's nothing for his mind to avoid. Because anything includes everything, this belief will act as an expansive force on his perception of the market that will allow him to perceive information that might otherwise have been invisible to him. In essence, he will be making himself available (opening his mind) to perceive more of the possibilities that exist from the markets perspective. Most important, by establishing a belief that anything can happen, he will be training his mind to think in probabilities. This is by far the most essential as well as the most difficult principle for people to grasp and to effectively integrate into their mental systems. CHAPTER 7

f3c23528ec0ba9283d866c8912262274

Title

THE TRADER'S EDGE: THINKING IN PROBABILITIES

d7d550010955f5c01c3c23723533fa32

NarrativeText

Exactly what does it mean to think in probabilities, and why is it so essential to one's consistent success as a trader? If you take a moment and analyze the last sentence, you will notice that I made consistency a function of probabilities. It sounds like a contradiction: How can someone produce consistent results from an event that has an uncertain probabilistic outcome? To answer this question, all we have to do is look to the gambling industry. Corporations spend vast amounts of money, in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars, on elaborate hotels to attract people to their casinos. If you've been to Las Vegas you know exactly what I am talking about. Gaming corporations are just like other corporations, in that they have to justify how they allocate their assets to a board of directors and ultimately to their stockholders. How do you suppose they justify spending vast sums of money on elaborate hotels and casinos, whose primary function is to generate revenue from an event that has a purely random outcome?

be5b2035d8ea93feaf3fd4f8cd59a185

NarrativeText

Here's an interesting paradox. Casinos make consistent profits day after day and year after year, facilitating an event that has a purely random outcome. At the same time, most traders believe that the outcome of the market's behavior is not random, yet can't seem to produce consistent profits. Shouldn't a consistent, nonrandom outcome produce consistent results, and a random outcome produce random, inconsistent results? What casino owners, experienced gamblers, and the best traders understand that the typical trader finds difficult to grasp is: even that have probable outcomes can produce consistent

01ace6f2bcebca79b6038f31ebace2d6

Title

CHAPTER 7

6569563fb9ebadd74caddeba38a33830

Title

PROBABILITIES PARADOX: RANDOM OUTCOME, CONSISTENT RESULTS

afadff492161cff53ca3287b7d54fc57

NarrativeText

results, if you can get the odds in your favor and there is a large enough sample size. The best traders treat trading like a numbers game, similar to the way in which casinos and professional gamblers approach gambling. To illustrate, let's look at the game of blackjack. In blackjack, the casinos have approximately a 4.5-percent edge over the player, based on the rules they require players to adhere to. This means that, over a large enough sample size (number of hands played), the casino will generate net profits of four and a half cents on every dollar wagered on the game. This average of four and a half cents takes into account all the players who walked away big winners (including all winning streaks), all the players who walked away big losers, and everybody in between. At the end of the day, week, month, or year, the casino always ends up with approximately 4.5 percent of the total amount wagered. That 4.5 percent might not sound like a lot, but let's put it in perspective. Suppose a total of $100 million dollars is wagered collectively at all of a casino's blackjack tables over the course of a year. The casino will net $4.5 million. What casino owners and professional gamblers understand about the nature of probabilities is that each individual hand played is statistically independent of every other hand. This means that each individual hand is a unique event, where the outcome is random relative to the last hand played or the next hand played. If you focus on each hand individually, there will be a random, unpredictable distribution between winning and losing hands. But on a collective basis, just the opposite is true. If a large enough number of hands is played, patterns will emerge that produce a consistent, predictable, and statistically reliable outcome. Here's what makes thinking in probabilities so difficult. It requires two layers of beliefs that on the surface seem to contradict each other. We'll call the first layer the micro level. At this level, you have to believe in the uncertainty and unpredictability of each individual hand. You know the truth of this uncertainty, because there are always a number of unknown variables affecting the consistency of the deck that each new hand is drawn from. For example, you can't know in advance how any of the other participants will decide to play their hands, since they can either take or decline additional cards. Any variables acting on the consistency of the deck that can't be controlled or known in advance will make the outcome of any particular hand both uncertain and random (statistically independent) in relationship to any other hand. The second layer is the macro level. At this level, you have to believe that the outcome over a series of hands played is relatively certain and predictable. The degree of certainty is based on the fixed or constant variables that are known in advance and specifically designed to give an advantage (edge) to one side or the other. The constant variables I am referring to are the rules of the game. So, even though you don't or couldn't know in advance (unless you are psychic) the sequence of wins to losses, you can be relatively certain that if enough hands are played, whoever has the edge will end up with more wins than losses. The degree of certainty is a function of how good the edge is. It's the ability to believe in the unpredictability of the game at the micro level and simultaneously believe in the predictability of the game at the macro level that makes the casino and the professional gambler effective and successful at what they do. Their belief in the uniqueness of each hand prevents them from engaging in the pointless

608cc860cd11f29bd79025030ded5b6b

NarrativeText

endeavor of trying to predict the outcome of each individual hand. They have learned and completely accepted the fact that they don't know what's going to happen next. More important, they don't need to know in order to make money consistently. Because they don't have to know what's going to happen next, they don't place any special significance, emotional or otherwise, on each individual hand, spin of the wheel, or roll of the dice. In other words, they're not encumbered by unrealistic expectations about what is going to happen, nor are their egos involved in a way that makes them have to be right. As a result, it's easier to stay focused on keeping the odds in their favor and executing flawlessly, which in turn makes them less susceptible to making costly mistakes. They stay relaxed because they are committed and willing to let the probabilities (their edges) play themselves out, all the while knowing that if their edges are good enough and the sample sizes are big enough, they will come out net winners. The best traders use the same thinking strategy as the casino and professional gambler. Not only does it work to their benefit, but the underlying dynamics supporting the need for such a strategy are exactly the same in trading as they are in gambling. A simple comparison between the two will demonstrate this quite clearly. First, the trader, the gambler, and the casino are all dealing with both known and unknown variables that affect the outcome of each trade or gambling event. In gambling, the known variables are the rules of the game. In trading, the known variables (from each individual trader's perspective) are the results of their market analysis. Market analysis finds behavior patterns in the collective actions of everyone participating in a market. We know that individuals will act the same way under similar situations and circumstances, over and over again, producing observable patterns of behavior. By the same token, groups of individuals interacting with one another, day after day, week after week, also produce behavior patterns that repeat themselves. These collective behavior patterns can be discovered and sub- «pnii<=-nflv identified bv nsinf analvtical tools such as trend lines, moving averages, oscillators, or retracements, just to name a few of the thousands that are available to any trader. Each analytical tool uses a set of criteria to define the boundaries of each behavior pattern identified. The set of criteria and the boundaries identified are the trader's known market variables. They are to the individual trader what the rules of the game are to the casino and gambler. By this I mean, the trader's analytical tools are the known variables that put the odds of success (the edge) for any given trade in the trader's favor, in the same way that the rules of the game put the odds of success in favor of the casino. Second, we know that in gambling a number of unknown variables act on the outcome of each game. In blackjack, the unknowns are the shuffling of the deck and how the players choose to play their hands. In craps, it's how the dice are thrown. And in roulette, it's the amount of force applied to spin the wheel. All these unknown variables act as forces on the outcome of each individual event, in a way that causes each event to be statistically independent of any other individual event, thereby creating a random distribution between wins and losses. Trading also involves a number of unknown variables that act on the outcome of any particular behavior pattern a trader may identify

c7a2d253525f7913a1b5ae0ffc182a37

NarrativeText

and use as his edge. In trading, the unknown variables are all other traders who have the potential to come into the market to put on or take off a trade. Each trade contributes to the market's position at any given moment, which means that each trader, acting on a belief about what is high and what is low, contributes to the collective behavior pattern that is displayed at that moment. If there is a recognizable pattern, and if the variables used to define that pattern conform to a particular trader's definition of an edge, then we can say that the market is offering the trader an opportunity to buy low or sell high, based on the trader's definition. Suppose the trader seizes the opportunity to take advantage of his edge and puts on a trade. What factors will determine whether the market unfolds in the direction of his edge or against it? The answer is: the behavior of other traders! At the moment he puts a trade on, and for as long as he chooses to stay in that trade, other traders will be participating in that market. They will be acting on their beliefs about what is high and what is low. At any given moment, some percentage of other traders will contribute to an outcome favorable to our traders edge, and the participation of some percentage of traders will negate his edge. There's no way to know in advance how everyone else is going to behave and how their behavior will affect his trade, so the outcome of the trade is uncertain. The fact is, the outcome of every (legal) trade that anyone decides to make is affected in some way by the subsequent behavior of other traders participating in that market, making the outcome of all trades uncertain. Since all trades have an uncertain outcome, then like gambling, each trade has to be statistically independent of the next trade, the last trade, or any trades in the future, even though the trader may use the same set of known variables to identify his edge for each trade. Furthermore, if the outcome of each individual trade is statistically independent of every other trade, there must also be a random distribution between wins and losses in any given string or set of trades, even though the odds of success for each individual trade may be in the traders favor. Third, casino owners don't try to predict or know in advance the outcome of each individual event. Aside from the fact that it would be extremely difficult, given all the unknown variables operating in each game, it isn't necessary to create consistent results. Casino operators have learned that all they have to do is keep the odds in their favor and have a large enough sample size of events so that their edges have ample opportunity to work.

df99608113527f80e219e3ac0710c202

Title

TRADING IN THE MOMENT

2553773776ee20dc665c3c9bb20b49d4

NarrativeText

Traders who have learned to think in probabilities approach the markets from virtually the same perspective. At the micro level, they believe that each trade or edge is unique. What they understand about the nature of trading is that at any given moment, the market may look exactly the same on a chart as it did at some previous moment; and the geometric measurements and mathematical calculations used to determine each edge can be exactly the same from one edge to the next; but the

cc6930678478339bbd0c96edd95df96f

NarrativeText

actual consistency of the market itself from one moment to the next is never the same. For any particular pattern to be exactly the same now as it was in some previous moment would require that every trader who participated in that previous moment be present. What's more, each of them would also have to interact with one another in exactly the same way over some period of time to produce the exact same outcome to whatever pattern was being observed. The odds of that happening are nonexistent. It is extremely important that you understand this phenomenon because the psychological implications for your trading couldn't be more important. We can use all the various tools to analyze the market's behavior and find the patterns that represent the best edges, and from an analytical perspective, these patterns can appear to be precisely the same in eveiy respect, both mathematically and visually. But, if the consistency of the group of traders who are creating the pattern "now" is different by even one person from the group that created the pattern in the past, then the outcome of the current pattern has the potential to be different from the past pattern. (The example of the analyst and chairman illustrates this point quite well.) It takes only one trader, somewhere in the world, with a different belief about the future to change the outcome of any particular market pattern and negate the edge that pattern represents. The most fundamental characteristic of the market's behavior is that each "now moment" market situation, each "now moment" behavior pattern, and each "now moment" edge is always a unique occurrence with its own outcome, independent of all others. Uniqueness implies that anything can happen, either what we know (expect or anticipate), or what we don't know (or can't know, unless we had extraordinary perceptual abilities). A constant flow of both known and unknown variables creates a probabilistic environment where we don't know for certain what will happen next. This last statement may seem quite logical, even self-evident, but there's a huge problem here that is anything but logical or selfevident. Being aware of uncertainty and understanding the nature of probabilities does not equate with an ability to actually function effectively from a probabilistic perspective. Thinking in probabilities can be difficult to master, because our minds don't naturally process information in this manner. Quite the contrary, our minds cause us to perceive what we know, and what we know is part of our past, whereas, in the market, every moment is new and unique, even though there may be similarities to something that occurred in the past. This means that unless we train our minds to perceive the uniqueness of each moment, tiiat uniqueness will automatically be filtered out of our perception. We will perceive only what we know, minus any information that is blocked by our fears; everything else will remain invisible. The bottom line is that there is some degree of sophistication to thinking in probabilities, which can take some people a considerable amount of effort to integrate into their mental systems as a functional thinking strategy. Most traders don't fully understand this; as a result, they mistakenly assume they are thinking in probabilities, because they have some degree of understanding of the concepts. I've worked with hundreds of traders who mistakenly assumed they thought in probabilities, but didn't. Here is an example of a trader I worked with whom I'll call Bob. Bob is a certified trading advisor (CTA) who

9708bc89dc340fd24018c1cfe1b1802d

NarrativeText

manages approximately $50 million in investments. He's been in the business for almost 30 years. He came to one of my workshops because he was never able to produce more than a 12- to 18-percent annual return on the accounts he managed. This was an adequate return, but Bob was extremely dissatisfied because his analytical abilities suggested that he should be achieving an annual return of 150 to 200 percent. I would describe Bob as being well-versed in the nature of probabilities. In other words, he understood the concepts, but he didn't function from a probabilistic perspective. Shortly after attending the workshop, he called to ask me for some advice. Here is the entry from my journal written immediately after that phone conversation. 9-28-95: Bob called with a problem. He put on a belly trade and put his stop in the market. The market traded about a third of the way to his stop and then went back to his entry point, where he decided to bail out of the trade. Almost immediately after he got out, the bellies went 500 points in the direction of this trade, but of course he was out of the market. He didn't understand what was going on. First, I asked him what was at risk. He didn't understand the question. He assumed that he had accepted the risk because he put in a stop. I responded that just because he put in a stop it didn't mean that he had truly accepted the risk of the trade. There are many things that can be at risk: losing money, being wrong, not being perfect, etc., depending on one's underlying motivation for trading. I pointed out that a person's beliefs are always revealed by their actions. We can assume that he was operating out of a belief that to be a disciplined trader one has to define the risk and put a stop in. And so he did. But a person can put in a stop and at the same time not believe that he is going to be stopped out or that the trade will ever work against him, for that matter. By the way he described the situation, it sounded to me as if this is exactly what happened to him. When he put on the trade, he didn't believe he would be stopped out. Nor did he believe the market would trade against him. In fact, he was so adamant about this, that when the market came back to his entry point, he got out of the trade to punish the market with an "I'll show you" attitude for even going against him by one tic. After I pointed this out to him, he said this was exactly the attitude he had when he took off the trade. He said that he had been waiting for this particular trade for weeks and when the market finally got to this point, he thought it would immediately reverse. I responded by reminding him to look at the experience as simply pointing the way to something that he needs to learn. A prerequisite for thinking in probabilities is that you accept the risk, because if you don't, you will not want to face the possibilities that you haven't accepted, if and when they do present themselves. When you've trained your mind to think in probabilities, it means you have fully accepted all the possibilities (with no internal resistance or conflict) and you always do something to take the unknown forces into account. Thinkine this way is virtually impossible unless you've done the mental work necessary to "let go" of the need to know what is going to happen next or the need to be right on each trade. In fact, the degree by which you think you know, assume you know, or in any way need to know what is going to happen next, is equal to the degree to which you will fail as a trader. Traders

5662c9960d60f1e701ca22668667375a

NarrativeText

who have learned to think in probabilities are confident of their overall success, because they commit themselves to taking every trade that conforms to their definition of an edge. They don't attempt to pick and choose the edges they think, assume, or believe are going to work and act on those; nor do they avoid the edges that for whatever reason they think, assume, or believe aren't going to work. If they did either of those things, they would be contradicting their belief that the "now" moment situation is always unique, creating a random distribution between wins and losses on any given string of edges. They have learned, usually quite painfully, that they don't know in advance which edges are going to work and which ones aren't. They have stopped trying to predict outcomes. They have found that by taking every edge, they correspondingly increase their sample size of trades, which in turn gives whatever edge they use ample opportunity to play itself out in their favor, just like the casinos. On the other hand, why do you think unsuccessful traders are obsessed with market analysis. They crave the sense of certainty that analysis appears to give them. Although few would admit it, the truth is that the typical trader wants to be right on every single trade. He is desperately trying to create certainty where it just doesn't exist. The irony is that if he completely accepted the fact that certainty doesn't exist, he would create the certainty he craves: He would be absolutely certain that certainty doesn't exist. When you achieve complete acceptance of the uncertainty of each edge and the uniqueness of each moment, your frustration with trading will end. Furthermore, you will no longer be susceptible to making all the typical trading errors that detract from your potential to be consistent and destroy your sense of self-confidence. For examnle not rlefminff the risk before crRftincr into a trarle is hv far rhp most common of all trading errors, and starts the whole process of trading from an inappropriate perspective. In light of the fact that anything can happen, wouldn't it make perfect sense to decide before executing a trade what the market has to look, sound, or feel like to tell you your edge isn't working? So why doesn't the typical trader decide to do it or do it every single time? I have already given you the answer in the last chapter, but there's more to it and there's also some tricky logic involved, but the answer is simple. The typical trader won't predefine the risk of getting into a trade because he doesn't believe it's necessary. The only way he could believe "it isn't necessary" is if he believes he knows what's going to happen next. The reason he believes he knows what's going to happen next is because he won't get into a trade until he is convinced that he's right. At the point where he's convinced the trade will be a winner, it's no longer necessary to define the risk (because if he's right, there is no risk). Typical traders go through the exercise of convincing themselves that they're right before they get into a trade, because the alternative (being wrong) is simply unacceptable. Remember that our minds are wired to associate. As a result, being wrong on any given trade has the potential to be associated with any (or every) other experience in a trader's life where he's been wrong. The implication is that any trade can easily tap him into the accumulated pain of every time he has been wrong in his life. Given the huge backlog of unresolved, negative energy surrounding what it means to be wrong that exists in most people, it's easy

3e727b79931228353bbc9ef709beafb8

NarrativeText

to see why each and every trade can literally take on the significance of a life or death situation. So, for the typical trader, determining what the market would have to look, sound, or feel like to tell him that a trade isn't working would create an irreconcilable dilemma. On one hand, he desperately wants to win and the only way he can do that is to participate, but the only way he will participate is if he's sure the trade will win. On the other hand, if he defines his risk, he is willfully gathering evidence that would negate something he has already convinced himself of. He will be contradicting the decision-making process he went through to convince himself that the trade will work. If he exposed himself to conflicting information, it would surely create some degree of doubt about the viability of the trade. If he allows himself to experience doubt, it's very unlikely he will participate. If he doesn't put the trade on and it turns out to be a winner, he will be in extreme agony. For some people, nothing hurts more than an opportunity recognized but missed because of self-doubt. For the typical trader, the only way out of this psychological dilemma is to ignore the risk and remain convinced that the trade is right. If any of this sounds familiar, consider this: When you're convincing yourself that you're right, what you're saying to yourself is, "I know who's in this market and who's about to come into this market. I know what they believe about what is high or what is low. Furthermore, I know each individual's capacity to act on those beliefs (the degree of clarity or relative lack of inner conflict), and with this knowledge, I am able to determine how the actions of each of these individuals will affect price movement in its collective form a second, a minute, an hour, a day, or a week from now." Looking at the process of convincing yourself that you're right from this perspective, it seems a bit absurd, doesn't it? For the traders who have learned to think in probabilities, there is no dilemma. Predefining the risk doesn't pose a problem for these traders because they don't trade from a right or wrong perspective. They have learned that trading doesn't have anything to do with being right or wrong on any individual trade. As a result, they don't perceive the risks of trading in the same way the typical trader does. Any of the best traders (the probability thinkers) could have just as much negative energy surrounding what it means to be wrong as the typical trader. But as long as they legitimately define trading as a probability game, their emotional responses to the outcome of any particular trade are equivalent to how the typical trader would feel about flipping a coin, calling heads, and seeing the coin come up tails. A wrong call, but for most people being wrong about predicting the flip of a coin would not tap them into the accumulated pain of every other time in their lives they had been wrong. Why? Most people know that the outcome of a coin toss is random. If you believe the outcome is random, then you naturally expect a random outcome. Randomness implies at least some degree of uncertainty. So when we believe in a random outcome, there is an implied acceptance that we don't know what that outcome will be. When we accept in advance of an event that we don't know how it will turn out, that acceptance has the effect of keeping our expectations neutral and open-ended. Now we're getting down to the very core of what ails the typical trader. Any expectation about the markets behavior that is specific, well-defined, or rigid—instead of being neutral

41e10da680603b99beb753143bb17924

NarrativeText

and open-ended—is unrealistic and potentially damaging. I define an unrealistic expectation as one that does not correspond with the possibilities available from the market's perspective. If each moment in the market is unique, and anything is possible, then any expectation that does not reflect these boundary-less characteristics is unrealistic.

5445c537c75834ad32b4296046bff5fb

Title

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS

3269e449c61a0bf3908bfcaec399a604

NarrativeText

The potential damage caused by holding unrealistic expectations comes from how it affects the way we perceive information. Expectations are mental representations of what some future moment will look, sound, taste, smell, or feel like. Expectations come from what we know. This makes sense, because we can't expect something that we have no knowledge or awareness of. What we know is synonymous with what we have learned to believe about the ways in which the external environment can express itself. What we believe is our own personal version of the truth. When we expect something, we are projecting out into the future what we believe to be true. We are expecting the outside environment a minute, an hour, a day, a week, or a month from now to be the way we have represented it in our minds. We have to be careful about what we project out into the future, because nothing else has the potential to create more unhappiness and emotional misery than an unfulfilled expectation. When things happen exactly as you expect them to, how do you feel? The response is generally wonderful (including feelings like happiness, joy, satisfaction, and a greater sense of well-being), unless, of course, you were expecting something dreadful and it manifested itself. Conversely, how do you feel when your expectations are not fulfilled? The universal response is emotional pain. Everyone experiences some degree of anger, resentment, despair, regret, disappointment, dissatisfaction, or betrayal when the environment doesn't turn out to be exactly as we expected it to be (unless, of course, we are completely surprised by something much better than we imagined). Here's where we run into problems. Because our expectations come from what we know, when we decide or believe that we know something, we naturally expect to be right. At that point, we're no longer in a neutral or open state of mind, and it's not difficult to understand why. If we're going to feel great if the market does what we expect it to do, or feel horrible if it doesn't, then we're not exactly neutral or open- minded. Quite the contrary, the force of the belief behind the expectation will cause us to perceive market information in a way that confirms what we expect (we naturally like feeling good); and our pain-avoidance mechanisms will shield us from information that doesn't confirm what we expect (to keep us from feeling bad). As I've already indicated, our minds are designed to help us avoid pain, both physical and emotional. These pain-avoidance mechanisms exist at both conscious and subconscious levels. For example, if an object is coming toward your head, you react instinctively to get out of the way. Ducking does not require a conscious decision-making process. On the other hand, if you clearly see the object and have

fb2519a2833bacac49cfcef1362992e3

NarrativeText

time to consider the alternatives, you may decide to catch the object, bat it away with your hand, or duck. These are examples of how we protect ourselves from physical pain. Protecting ourselves from emotional or mental pain works in the same way, except that we are now protecting ourselves from information. For example, the market expresses information about itself and its potential to move in a particular direction. If there's a difference between what we want or expect and what the market is offering or making available, then our pain-avoidance mechanisms kick in to compensate for the differences. As with physical pain, these mechanisms operate at both the conscious and subconscious levels. To protect ourselves from painful information at the conscious level, we rationalize, justify, make excuses, willfully gather information that will neutralize the significance of the conflicting information, get angry (to ward off the conflicting information), or just plain lie to ourselves. At the subconscious level, the pain-avoidance process is much more subtle and mysterious. At this level, our minds may block our ability to see other alternatives, even though in other circumstances we would be able to perceive them. Now, because they are in conflict with what we want or expect, our pain-avoidance mechanisms can make them disappear (as if they didn't exist). To illustrate this phenomenon, the best example is one I have already given you: We are in a trade where the market is moving against us. In fact, the market has established a trend in the opposite direction to what we want or expect. Ordinarily, we would have no problem identifying or perceiving this pattern if it weren't for the fact that the market was moving against our position. But the pattern loses its significance (becomes invisible) because we find it too painful to acknowledge. To avoid the pain, we narrow our focus of attention and concentrate on information that keeps us out of pain, regardless of how insignificant or minute. In the meantime, the information that clearly indicates the presence of a trend and the opportunity to trade in the direction of that trend becomes invisible. The trend doesn't disappear from physical reality, but our ability to perceive it does. Our pain-avoidance mechanisms block our ability to define and interpret what the market is doing as a trend. The trend will then stay invisible until the market either reverses in our favor or we are forced out of the trade because the pressure of losing too much money becomes unbearable. It's not until we are either out of the trade or out of danger that the trend becomes apparent, as well as all the opportunities to make money by trading in the All the distinctions that would otherwise be perceivable become perfectly clear, after the fact, when there is no longer anything for our minds to protect us from. We all have the potential to engage in self- protective painavoidance mechanisms, because they're natural functions of the way our minds operate. There may be times when we are protecting ourselves from information that has the potential to bring up deepseated emotional wounds or trauma that we're just not ready to face, or don't have the appropriate skills or resources to deal with. In these cases, our natural mechanisms are serving us well. But more often, our pain-avoidance mechanisms are just protecting us from information that would indicate that our expectations do not correspond with what is available from the environments

84920706107f8c809553c26abd9f217e

NarrativeText

perspective. This is where our pain-avoidance mechanisms do us a disservice, especially as traders. To understand this concept, ask yourself what exactly about market information is threatening. Is it threatening because the market actually expresses negatively charged information as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists? It may seem that way, but at the most fundamental level, what the market gives us to perceive are uptics and down-tics or up-bars and down-bars. These up and down tics form patterns that represent edges. Now, are any of these tics or the patterns they form negatively charged? Again, it may certainly seem that way, but from the market's perspective the information is neutral. Each up-tic, down-tic, or pattern is just information, telling us the market's position. If any of this information had a negative charge as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists, then wouldn't everyone exposed to it experience emotional pain? For example, if both you and I get hit on the head with a solid object, there probably wouldn't be much difference in how we would feel. We'd both be in pain. Any part of our bodies coming into contact with a solid object with some degree of force will cause anyone with a normal nervous system to experience pain. We share the experience because our bodies are constructed in basically the same way. The pain is an automatic physiological response to the impact with a tangible object. Information in the form of words or gestures expressed by the environment, or up and down tics expressed by the market, can be just as painful as being hit with a solid object; but there's an important difference between information and objects. Information is not tangible. Information doesn't consist of atoms and molecules. To experience the potential effects of information, whether negative or positive, requires an interpretation. The interpretations we make are functions of our unique mental frameworks. Everyone's mental framework is unique for two fundamental reasons. First, all of us were born with different genetically encoded behavior and personality characteristics that cause us to have different needs from one another. How positively or negatively and to what degree the environment responds to these needs creates experiences unique to each individual. Second, everyone is exposed to a variety of environmental forces. Some of these forces are similar from one individual to the next, but none are exactly the same. If you consider the number of possible combinations of genetically encoded personality characteristics we can be born with, in relation to the almost infinite variety of environmental forces we can encounter throughout our lives, all of which contribute to the construction of our mental framework, then it's not difficult to see why there is no universal mental framework common to everyone. Unlike our bodies, which have a common molecular structure that experiences physical pain, there is no universal mind-set to assure us that we will share the potential negative or positive effects of information in the same way. For example, someone could be projecting insults at you, intending to cause you to feel emotional pain. From the environment's perspective, this is negatively charged information. Will you experience the intended negative effects? Not necessarily! You have to be able to interpret the information as negative to experience it as negative. What if this person is insulting you in

ff5f0f50caed34ad91f4cb0fd5bd0ce4

NarrativeText

a language you don't understand, or is using words you don't know the meaning of? Would you feel the intended pain? Not until you built a framework to define and understand the words in a derogatory way. Even then, we can't assume that what you'd feel would correspond to the intent behind the insult. You could have a framework to perceive the negative intent, but instead of feeling pain, you might experience a perverse type of pleasure. I've encountered many people who, simply for their own amusement, like to get people riled up with negative emotions. If they happen to be insulted in the process, it creates a sense of joy because then they know how successful they've been. A person expressing genuine love is projecting positively charged information into the environment. Let's say the intent behind the expression of these positive feelings is to convey affection, endearment, and friendship. Are there any assurances that the person or persons this positively charged information is being projected toward will interpret and experience it as such? No, there aren't. A person with a very low sense of self-esteem, or someone who experienced a great deal of hurt and disappointment in relationships, will often misinterpret an expression of genuine love as something else. In the case of a person with low self-esteem, if he doesn't believe he deserves to be loved in such a way, he will find it difficult, if not impossible, to interpret what he is being offered as genuine or real. In the second case, where one has a significant backlog of hurt and disappointment in relationships, a person could easily come to believe that a genuine expression of love is extremely rare, if not non-existent, and would probably interpret the situation either as someone wanting something or trying to take advantage of him in some way. I'm sure that I don't have to go on and on, sighting examples of all the possible ways there are to misinterpret what someone is trying to communicate to us or how what we express to someone can be misconstrued and experienced in ways completely unintended by us. The point that I am making is that each individual will define, interpret, and consequently experience whatever information he is exposed to in his own unique way. There's no standardized way to experience what the environment may be offering—whether it's positive, neutral, or negative information—simply because there is no standardized mental framework in which to perceive information. Consider that, as traders, the market offers us something to perceive at each moment. In a sense, you could say that the market is communicating with us. If we start out with the premise that the market does not generate negatively charged information as an inherent characteristic of the way it exists, we can then ask, and answer, the question, "What causes information to take on a negative quality?" In other words, where exactly does the threat of pain come from? If it's not coming from the market, then it has to be coming from the way we define and interpret the available information. Defining and interpreting information is a function of what we assume we know or what we believe to be true. If what we know or believe is in fact true—and we wouldn't believe it if it weren't—then when we project our beliefs out into some future moment as an expectation, we naturally expect to be right. When we expect to be right, any information that doesn't confirm our version of the truth automatically becomes threatening. Any information that has the

3017c155e8079c963f09c98bbea7ed81

NarrativeText

potential to be threatening also has the potential to be blocked, distorted, or diminished in significance by our pain-avoidance mechanisms. It's this particular characteristic of the way our minds function that can really do us a disservice. As traders, we can't afford to let our pain-avoidance mechanisms cut us off from what the market is communicating to us about what is available in the way of the next opportunity to get in, get out, add to, or subtract from a position, just because it's doing something that we don't want or expect. For example, when you're watching a market (one you rarely, if ever, trade in) with no intention of doing anything, do any of the up or down tics cause you to feel angry, disappointed, frustrated, disillusioned, or betrayed in any way? No! The reason is that there's nothing at stake. You're simply observing information that tells you where the market is at that moment. If the up and down tics that you're watching form into some sort of behavior pattern you've learned to identify, don't you readily recognize and acknowledge the pattern? Yes, for the same reason: There's nothing at stake. There is nothing at stake because there's no expectation. You haven't projected what you believe, assume, or think you know about that market into some future moment. As a result, there's nothing to be either right about or wrong about, so the information has no potential to take on a threatening or negatively charged quality. With no particular expectation, you haven't placed any boundaries on how the market can express itself. Without any mental boundaries, you will be making yourself available to perceive everything you've learned about the nature of the ways in which the market moves. There's nothing for your pain-avoidance mechanisms to exclude, distort, or diminish from your awareness in order to protect you. In my workshops, I always ask participants to resolve the following primary trading paradox: In what way does a trader have to learn how to be rigid and flexible at the same time? The answer is: We have to be rigid in our rules and flexible in our expectations. We need to be rigid in our rules so that we gain a sense of self-trust that can, and will always, protect us in an environment that has few, if any, boundaries. We need to be flexible in our expectations so we can perceive, with the greatest degree of clarity and objectivity, what the market is communicating to us from its perspective. At this point, it probably goes without saying that the typical trader does just the opposite: He is flexible in his rules and rigid in his expectations. Interestingly enough, the more rigid the expectation, the more he has to either bend, violate, or break his rules in order to accommodate his unwillingness to give up what he wants in favor of what the market is offering.

76676d9d7e6cd765258282a277eccd52

Title

ELIMINATING THE EMOTIONAL RISK

f696f2e3a9a72052a3a81ee6e74e0d7b

NarrativeText

To eliminate the emotional risk of trading, you have to neutralize your expectations about what the market will or will not do at any given moment or in any given situation. You can do this by being willing to think from the markets perspective. Remember, the market is always communicating in probabilities. At the collective level, your edge may look perfect in every respect; but at the individual level, every trader who has the potential to act as a force on price movement can negate the positive

b70ee1be77a223e95968a87cc9b1a37e

NarrativeText

outcome of that edge. To think in probabilities, you have to create a mental framework or mind-set that is consistent with the underlying principles of a probabilistic environment. A probabilistic mind-set pertaining to trading consists of five fundamental truths.

7a1c2df8b06468ee1b31e6fa554364c3

ListItem

1. Anything can happen. 2. You don't need to know what is going to happen next in order to make money. 3. There is a random distribution between wins and losses for any given set of variables that define an edge. 4. An edge is nothing more than an indication of a higher probability of one thing happening over another. 5. Eveiy moment in the market is unique.

8e256d4a5ce287c76c895303af2a064f

NarrativeText

Keep in mind that your potential to experience emotional pain comes from the way you define and interpret the information you're exposed to. When you adopt these five truths, your expectations will always be in line with the psychological realities of the market environment. With the appropriate expectations, you will eliminate your potential to define and interpret market information as either painful or threatening, and you thereby effectively neutralize the emotional risk of trading. The idea is to create a carefree state of mind that completely accepts the fact that there are always unknown forces operating in the market. When you make these truths a fully functional part of your belief system, the rational part of your mind will defend these truths in the same way it defends any other belief you hold about the nature of trading. This means that, at least at the rational level, your mind will automatically defend against the idea or assumption that you can know for sure what will happen next. It's a contradiction to believe that each trade is a unique event with an uncertain outcome and random in relationship to any other trade made in the past; and at the same time to believe you know for sure what will happen next and to expect to be right. If you really believe in an uncertain outcome, then you also have to expect that virtually anything can happen. Otherwise, the moment you let your mind hold onto the notion that you know, you stop taking all of the unknown variables into consideration. Your mind won't let you have it both ways. If you believe you know something, the moment is no longer unique. If the moment isn't unique, then everything is known or knowable; that is, there's nothing not to know. However, the moment you stop factoring in what you don't or can't know about the situation instead of being available to perceive what the market is offering, you make yourself susceptible to all of the typical trading errors. For example, if you really believed in an uncertain outcome, would you ever consider putting on a trade without defining your risk in advance? Would you ever hesitate to cut a loss, if you really believed you didn't know? What about trading errors like jumping the gun? How could you anticipate a signal that hasn't yet manifested itself in the market, if you weren't convinced that you were going to miss out? Why would you ever let a winning trade turn into a loser, or not have

d5acda080a0da5c1c449da407f4ce69e

NarrativeText

a systematic way of taking profits, if you weren't convinced the market was going your way indefinitely? Why would you hesitate to take a trade or not put it on at all, unless you were convinced that it was a loser when the market was at your original entiy point? Why would you break your money management rules by trading too large a position relative to your equity or emotional tolerance to sustain a loss, if you weren't positive that you had a sure thing? Finally, if you really believed in a random distribution between wins and losses, could you ever feel betrayed by the market? If you flipped a coin and guessed right, you wouldn't necessarily expect to be right on the next flip simply because you were right on the last. Nor would you expect to be wrong on the next flip if you were wrong on the last. Because you believe in a random distribution between the sequence of heads and tails, your expectations would be perfectly aligned with the reality of the situation. You would certainly like to be right, and if you were that would be great, but if you were wrong then you would not feel betrayed by the flip, because you know and accept that there are unknown variables at work that affect the outcome. Unknown means "not something your rational thinking process can take into consideration in advance of the Hi-r" ?jXCi>v'L ^ fu!Iv accept that you don't know As a result, there is little, if any, potential to experience the kind of emotional pain that wells up when you feel betrayed. As a trader, when you're expecting a random outcome, you will always be at least a little surprised at whatever the market does— even if it conforms exactly to your definition of an edge and you end up with a winning trade. However expecting a random outcome doesn't mean that you can't use your full reasoning and analytical abilities to project an outcome, or that you can't guess what's going to happen next, or have a hunch or feeling about it, because you can. Furthermore, you can be right in each instance. You just can't expect to be right. And if you are right, you can't expect that whatever you did that worked the last time will work again the next time, even though the situation may look, sound, or feel exactly the same. Anything that you are perceiving "now" in the market will never be exactly the same as some previous experience that exists in your mental environment. But that doesn't mean that your mind (as a natural characteristic of the way it functions) won't try to make the two identical. There will be similarities between the "now moment" and something that you know from the past, but those similarities only give you something to work with by putting the odds of success in your favor. If you approach trading from the perspective that you don't know what will happen next, you will circumvent your mind's natural inclination to make the "now moment" identical to some earlier experience. As unnatural as it seems to do so, you can't let some previous experience (either negative or extremely positive) dictate your state of mind. If you do, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to perceive what the market is communicating from its perspective. When I put on a trade, all I expect is that something will happen. Regardless of how good I think my edge is, I expect nothing more than for the market to move or to express itself in some way. However, there are some things that I do know for sure. I know that based on the markets past behavior, the odds of it moving in the direction of my trade are good or acceptable, at least in relationship to how much I am willing to spend to find out if it does. I

1043bd71c5a985b3ef08c417e7ca46cb

NarrativeText

also know before getting into a trade how much I am willing to let the market move against my position. There is always a point at which the odds of success are greatly diminished in relation to the profit potential. At that point, it's not worth spending any more money to find out if the trade is going to work. If the market reaches that point, I know without any doubt, hesitation, or internal conflict that I will exit the trade. The loss doesn't create any emotional damage, because I don't interpret the experience negatively. To me, losses are simply the cost of doing business or the amount of money I need to spend to make myself available for the winning trades. If, on the other hand, the trade turns out to be a winner, in most cases I know for sure at what point I am going to take my profits. (If I don't know for sure, I certainly have a veiy good idea.) The best traders are in the "now moment" because there's no stress. There's no stress because there's nothing at risk other than the amount of money they are willing to spend on a trade. They are not trying to be right or trying to avoid being wrong; neither are they trying to prove anything. If and when the market tells them that their edges aren't working or that it's time to take profits, their minds do nothing to block this information. They completely accept what the market is offering them, and they wait for the next edge. CHAP TER 8

fab36d17dcb60c71f7ec6221251d51dd

Title

CHAPTER 8

ef983f0c69f84b2b6074a0b02788c37b

Title

WORKING WITH YOUR BELIEFS

da7628d071d1a824a3e2d3240a26570a

NarrativeText

Now the task before you is to properly integrate the five fundamental truths presented in Chapter 7 in your mental environment at a functional level. To help you do that, we will take an in-depth look at beliefs—their nature, properties, and characteristics. However, before we do that I will review and organize the major concepts presented thus far into a much clearer and more practical framework. What you learn from this and the next two chapters will form the foundation for understanding everything you need to do to achieve your goals as a trader.

8e9a34c9d61c06c31772887bb61d63e1

Title

DEFINING THE PROBLEM