FC,
I won't continue the debate about inherent abilities because your argument rests on faith, rather than evidence. When talking about that "pre-programmed" state in early life, I see the this as essentially a "blank slate," while you see this as a state already possessing abilities that later get masked by "programming." Like other faith-based arguments, you cannot be proven right or wrong. I respect your opinion. (Minor linguistic quibble: "inherent" is synonymous with intrinsic, and it means something that is an "essential component.")
My reason for considering chess a "perfect" game for traders is that there can be no denying of responsibility for the outcome. Good training for a trader.
BTW you said, "Thinking is dangerous in trading." A point about thinking: there's thinking in everything and every trading method. What Vadym and Chris espouse is not an absence of thinking, but rather an absence of opinions, especially opinions that rationalize a losing position. Surely you don't deny the importance of anticipation in trading. Anticipating a capitulation, a volume spike, this is all thinking. What is to be avoided is the sort of opinions like, "I'm not going to sell this position out because 40 is the 200 day moving average and I believe that will hold. I'm not going to be shaken out at 39 1/2, either, by these thieving Market makers. I won't sell at 38 3/4 because the stock will bounce soon-- look at all those bids at 38 1/2-- and test 40 to see if that is now resistance... I'll sell then. I'm going to hold for a few days because the stock is undervalued here at 36 based on the forward PE. There must be a big seller unloading a position. When he is finished I'll buy more and take advantage of the inevitable bounce."
I agree with you about the importance of self-control. Our disagreement boils down to the question, "Can anyone become a good trader?" The evidence tells me no, but we all know that statistics can be used to support anything, so I won't insist on my position, and like I said, I respect yours. |