Given a finite sequence of numbers, how does one prove either that they follow a pattern (and will continue to do so), or that they are random? As a pretty thorough skeptic, I've been fairly sure for a long time that there is no proof, one way or the other. So why do I come back again and again to the possibility of trading, and technical trading at that?
I got this book to get reacquainted with the trader's way of thinking and talking. On that level, it certainly did why I wanted it to do. I would also have liked it to persuade me away from my skepticism. On that score, I would say that it was a bit less successful.
A few years ago, I got more deeply involved in the possibility of trading. I had developed a few test systems. One of them showed a potential profit of approx. 1100% per year, using a moderately aggressive money management system. A more experienced friend thought that system left something to be desired, mostly from a risk/reward standpoint on individual trades. He thought I should shoot higher on individual trades.
I agreed to look a bit more deeply, and offered to test a promising system that he was developing. My testing showed that this system was not only less than promising, but that in three out of five years, it would lead to financial ruin. In my ignorance, I got scared. (The truth of the matter is that a trader should be ecstatic when he finds a really, really bad system, because all he has to do is trade the opposite, and he has a good winner. At the time, however, I was simply mesmerized by the idea that my "experienced" friend could come up with such a dog.)
At about the same time, I realized that I could probably do well with my own systems. But there was a small catch. It would mean giving up a few things for the indefinite future -- like sleep. So that was the end of that, but not through any conscious decision.
Now, I'm thinking about it again, and again I'm stuck at the start: who has it right, the random walkers, or the technicians? And I don't think there is an answer to that question. At this level, Schwager doesn't impress me.
Here are two quotes from the book about using judgment in trading:
"In conclusion, the skeptics are probably correct in claiming that a Pavlovian response to chart signals will not lead to trading success."
and...
"Act on market dreams. ... Such dreams are often right because they represent your subconscious market knowledge attempting to break through..."
OK, so here he is making a case that skill, experience, intuition and even dreams are vitally important to a sophisticated trader. And there are lots of people who believe this, I guess...
But then, here he is talking about trading plans:
"The more specific the trading strategy, the better. ... Of course, the most specific trading would be one based on a mechanical trading system."
and...
"How did I resolve my conflict? I decided to focus completely on mechanical trading approaches in order to eliminate the emotionality in trading."
Unless Philip Dick got it right, and androids do dream of electric sheep, these two sets of statements contradict each other. Schwager doesn't even attempt to resolve the conflict. He seems to think that they are both true. This problem makes it much harder for me to find many of his other points all that useful.
Another thing I've noticed in these trading books: they all spend the majority of time talking about the set-ups for initiating trades. Then, after doing this, they will pretty uniformly say that the secret to success in trading is money management and knowing where to exit (cutting losses while allowing profits to accumulate). But they pay much, much, much less attention to the areas that they say are more important. On that, this book is no different. There is the customary nod to money and risk management, but it takes a definite backseat to the "sexier" subject of when to pull the trigger.
Finally, Schwager wrote a couple of books consisting of interviews with successful traders. He summarizes some of what he learned from that experience in tips at the end of this book. One of the things he concluded from those interviews is that, looking at the success of those traders, and looking at their consistency, the market can't simply be random. Too bad he, nor anyone else, has ever written a book consisting of interviews with hopeless failures at trading. The sample pool is much bigger, and my guess is that there are probably many, many more lessons to be learned from people's failures. What Schwager fails to consider is that the pool of people who start trading is enormous. Given the number of people who start, even if the market were random, some of those people would end up as very big winners. When all you do is interview the winners, you are bound to start seeing the skill and design in what they did, even if it was just a random occurance. (Given the same number of people who have traded on the stock markets, a model of random success and failure over the same period of time would produce at least one person as successful as Warren Buffett. So, is he a genius or very lucky, or both?)
Anyway, I'm still skeptical. But if there is a skill to trading, I'm confident I can learn it. Or who knows? Maybe I might just get lucky.