1098
by Darkdoji
I know it will take time for people to get into the notion of risk-free space and understand its absolute value and therefore adopt it whether they are honest enough to attribute it to Orbit Logic or NOT (more likely). First, space without measure identities (definitions that delimit the space), define as risky space for trading. This is because the trader does not know how to organise a valid view of the space and remains jumpy even for the slightest changes "adverse" to her entry. Delimited space is the work space of the trader and the notion in Orbit is to let the trader take her decisions in the rational sense rather than be driven by irrationality underpinned by fear, underpinned by ignorance of the space.
So for instance a trader is trading in negative space and makes a sell entry which within seconds of such an entry suffers adverse excursion (price moves contrary and strongly so). She (the trader) is likely to assume a loss ahead and cut her losses (on the seemingly "wise" but profoundly ignorant advise of the outdated but very popular trading methods available). But if the trader has a delimited sense of space she could instead NOT "cut her losses" ---> but switch to a mode of thinking that sees the errant trade as in a "holding strategy". Because in negative space it is more likely than not that at the next pivot high price is returned to trend. So instead of fulfilling a prophecy based on the ignorant advice from methods ignorant of the correct notions of trading space, she a) knows the "errant" move will not break bounds and b) turns this "error" to advantage by adding a new order at the next pivot down say. As such (and repeating the same behaviour over time), the account grows at a faster rate in risk-free space than it would in risky space promoted by current methods in oversupply. It is the method and not the inability of the trader which conditions the trading mentality currently provided by the tenebrific and apophenic methods in oversupply at this point in time. It takes reasoning, positive experience of the ideas being suggested here, etc for people to see the point (and of course for many they will never in fact see any point at all which is fine). I make the comment because it is important to understand I am not simply attacking those methodologies that are non science tenebrific and apophenic, rather, I am pointing to important differences that differentiate what we encourage and what is in oversupply to traders currently. Finally, one needs to wonder why are these tenebrific and apophenic methods in oversupply? Well because in truth they represent very inferior thinking unrelated to the actual dynamics that drive markets. Anyone and everyone is an expert in those fields but you reap what you sow.
Think about it, if I hop on one leg 50 times and the MACD changes in direction to indicate entry - and I succeed in doing so successfully 7 times I can declare a new "trading system"within those methods. But my "system" is baseless in reality as it does not relate to any fundamental of the science of complex dynamical systems. And of course once the "system" fails and continues to fail, the shamelessness of it all is that I can come back and say the "system has stopped working" - and I am not required to give any reason. This is why it is true that it is best to reference a science based market model so that you not only know what you are doing but are able to see with your eyes why you are wrong when you are wrong. In that way you have a higher measure of survival potentially because you can correct things to improve. I hope I make some sense.
(-_-)
