Biggest trading ****up
Discussion
Petrolsmasher said:
Just had a frankly ridiculous situation happen, unlucky about 5 times.
Had money in cardano, a cryptocurrency. Lost about 10%, kept going down so cashed out and bought thomas cook at 4.5 cents, that barely moved for a week so i cashed out and bought NASDAQ, then trump tweeted, that went to s
t, lost me money, meanwhile thomas cook tripled in value, i put the remainder of my nasdaq money back into cardano, soon as i bought it dropped 2 percent.
Im not a trader no and i shouldent have played with leverage, but fk me, give me a break. Instead of tripling my money by leaving thomas cook, i lost 75 percent of it.
you are grumbling about gambling if you are not happy to throw your money away why do it ? its not investing and its not really trading Had money in cardano, a cryptocurrency. Lost about 10%, kept going down so cashed out and bought thomas cook at 4.5 cents, that barely moved for a week so i cashed out and bought NASDAQ, then trump tweeted, that went to s
t, lost me money, meanwhile thomas cook tripled in value, i put the remainder of my nasdaq money back into cardano, soon as i bought it dropped 2 percent.Im not a trader no and i shouldent have played with leverage, but f
k me, give me a break. Instead of tripling my money by leaving thomas cook, i lost 75 percent of it. FastNLoud said:
Slighty OT, but what are some legit comapines that don't take up the other side of your trade/manipulate things against you? IG Index? CMC Markets?
I think it’s important to completely separate the two concepts of taking the other side and manipulating against. The former is an essential part of the markets and favours the client as much as the broker while the latter is not and does not. Taking the other side gives you faster execution and greater liquidity and gives us the market spread. Win win. It allows us to not charge you for market data or platforms or information. Allows for incredibly low comms and no local taxes etc. Even when we hedge with clearers such as JPM, Goldman’s etc we are in turn accessing their liquidity and getting better pricing because they have the ability to take our flow into their books and for it to go nowhere near an exchange. The fact that a percentage of flownin the liquid markets will be run unhedged is a function of the number of gamblers using the platforms and as gamblers mostly always lose there is simply no need to hedge all the flow and surrender those gains.
Manipulating is wholly different and has no place in a professional market but it happens. But traditional manipulation such as bad closing fills have become almost unecassary among the more dubious brokers as they have learned that if you give enough leverage the client will wipe themselves out without any need to involve any of the traditional tactics.
The other important addition to giving too much leverage is to give dirt cheap spreads as the punters most prone to self destruction are also the same people who think cheaper on the front end must mean better when any sane individual recognises that in a competitive market such a tactic is a trap and that the hidden costs downstream are far higher.
The most insidious side will be using off books services that supply ‘trading signals’ to their customers. The purpose of which is to make sure a client is active, using that leverage and wiping out in an orderly manner.
But the harsh reality is that there are more bent traders out there than brokers. We have to spend a lot of time and money protecting our systems from the scammers. The simple ones you can spot very quickly but there are a lot of sophisticated scammers out there. I used to find it mildly amusing to see posts on trading forums by someone complaining that they had been screwed by a broker when in reality I had just s
t them down for trying to manipulate a market, arbing the book tolerances etc. They got caught trying to steal money and then go onto the internet to whinge about how unfair it was getting caught. 
Cheib said:
Without very good discipline it’s almost impossible to be profitable/have a good track record on a long term or consistent basis. Human nature is to run losses and realise profits....I’ve done it myself and have lost count of the people I have worked with that are susceptible or culpable of doing so.
Yep, you're describing 'loss aversion'.Humans aren't designed to manage money. It takes years and years to chip away at the psychological flaws that prevent success.
In contrast, it takes few trades to be given a lesson about them.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff