Before I get into the meat of this, I wanted to clearly state my intentions. My goal is to demonstrate that it is possible to trade with a minuscule account. This is not meant to be a personal trading blog whatsoever and would encourage others who trade similar accounts to share their experiences.

I am currently trading spot Forex because it has the lowest barrier to entry. I also understand that it is one of the most difficult markets for retail traders to be successful in.

I'm beginning with $100 and my goal is to get the account to 4 figures. My first trade was shorting the USD/CHF three days ago @ .9960 which is working nicely so far. I felt like the technicals were there, and with the political uncertainty going on here in the U.S it seemed to be an obvious play. Currently at +230 pips with a 50 pip trailing stop.



2nd trade was shorting AUD/JPY. This one is currently in the red just a bit. I believe this is a pullback and we'll see a continued downward move. I may have to ride out this small bit of drawdown, but even if it keeps going I believe that the 84.50 resistance level will prove too tough to get through.



And here is the current account summary:

Not to be a dick, but I hope you like being disappointed. This is what every fx trader does, and quickly they find out that trading a micro account is a giant waste of time. Its fine if you do it for fun, but don't encourage others to do the same with the expectation of actually being profitable.

Pretty much the response I expected here tbh. Personally, I don't believe that the size of your account has any bearing on whether you are a successful trader or not. However, I am not naive enough to think that any substantial number of fx traders do this successfully. But that doesn't mean it isn't possible.

And I'm not encouraging others to do the same in FX, per se. I've read of some successful options traders who started with as little as $1,000 and parlayed it into much more. I'm not saying that kind of thing is the norm, far from it, but I believe it can happen.

It wont happen. You are trading with what seems like no plan at all. Take your first post and insert poker words. Now you are the person who thinks they are +EV, making decisions based on random feelings, and its all from your cell phone ffs. Most of 2p2 has made their living off of people in poker with the same idea.

The only way you 10x your account is by random gambling with horrid risk management. Some professional traders grind out only a few % per month, thinking you are +ev enough to make 1000% without a huge risk of ruin is nonsense.

I know you wont listen, and you will learn the hard way by wasting time. You are right about account size not being correlated to return %, but thats obvious.

You sure make a lot of unfounded assumptions -- it's from my cell phone because I had downtime at work. I have the main platform on my computer where I do most actual trading/analysis. I could address the other bad assumptions, but I think that one pretty much encapsulates your general outlook.

On second thought, I will point out others... tell me about the part where I said that I don't have a huge risk of ruin? I fully understand that. That's all part of starting with an insignificant amount. You take on that part of it fully. Pointing out it's unlikely to happen is perfectly fine. But please, leave baseless assumptions aside.

Tell me about the part where I trade based off random feelings? You've asked no questions in regards to strategy/plan that would lead to that conclusion. If you don't care to, that's absolutely fine, but being presumptuous is not a good look.

OP,

I'll give you props for posting this since it appears you are trying to share something of value.

From personal experience, I have had day trading "sessions" where my strategy was to incorporate technical analysis indicators for my entry and exit points. It didn't take long for me to see that it was going to be very difficult for me to outrun the brokerage fee for all of my trades.

In conjuction with my (limited) experience, it seems that the smartest posters in this forum have come to the consensus that TA is utter hogwash.

Since they aren't relying on TA, I'm unsure what information and strategies the professionals on this forum are actually doing in order to be successful traders. Perhaps they may shine some light. Posters that everyone respects, like Toothsayer, have made claims that if someone isn't smart enough to obtain a PhD in math, they probably don't have what it takes.

It also doesn't help that every day trading coach on the web appears to be a complete con, being nothing more than a salesman appealing to people's greed and desires.

Ha. That's a good one. I have a more positive opinion of ToothSayer than most, and the notion of him being universally respected is comedic. It's like saying Thremp was universally respected.

I would agree except that by and large they're not talking about forex. In equity markets I would agree that TA is far less useful if not useless. I think there is some merit to it in forex. Although, the best traders are probably using clean charts and pure price action, so what the hell do I know.

Toothsayer seems to provide the most quantitative evidence in his posts that rely on statistical data. Additionally, he provides links to university studies, reputable news articles, etc. If he is able to pull up this info quickly enough to share on an internet forum, there's a strong chance he knows his sh*t. This alone appears to give him more credibility. But, being that this is the internet, it's possible certain posters are simply keyboard jockeys. Not accusing Tooth or anyone of this, but it's a reality to always be aware of.

My hunch is that the biggest thing that separates the wannabe traders (such as myself and the OP) from the successful traders, is the ability to discern B.S. information from the nuggets of gold. Once we find the nuggets that are +EV, then it just becomes a game of poker where you find the profitable spots and put your money in the pot. This is probably oversimplified. Maybe I'm just looking for the holy grail that doesn't exist. Lol.

For me, Technical Analysis just doesn't pass the B.S. detector. So much convoluted and contradictory information being sold by hucksters. Charts that are cherry picked to show a tea cup handle or something that just reeks of B.S.

"I felt the technicals were there"

A clear sign you don't have a well defined set of rules that are proven by your testing to be +ev. If you haven't put in extensive and unbiased backtesting work, then you will most likely get to a point where you lose 5+ trades in a row and then switch your strategy. Rinse and repeat. This is probably the most common pitfall around, mostly because people hate doing hard work.

This is why trading small amounts is a waste of time. You are far better off testing, developing, and verifying that your preferred strategy beats the market. Once you do that you have no reason to trade a micro account.

Check out the youtube channels - steven hart, akil stokes, and jason greystone. Stay away from anyone who just looks at the charts and constantly tries to predict the next move.

I disagree. Trading is a game of waiting for the good spots. When you're playing for clown money, trying to get a 10 bagger, you're gonna overtrade. And overtrading is death. There just aren't that many good setups where you can beat fees.

FX is about the worst thing you can play. Not sure why you'd do that. You're better off saving a couple of thousand with a second job using the time you'd spend on FX, then going into stocks. You'll still lose, but at least you'll have a small fighting chance.
You're already taking a ----EV approach to getting to $1000. Option trading (any trading) is basically systems analysis to identify flaws and mispricings. This isnt' a good start. Roulette just seems like more fun. GL though.

As for technicals. Without getting into the debate again, the great evil of technicals is that they encourage over trading, and then the fees eat you alive.

Surely jumping into trading cryptos would be a much more fun endeavour?

It's the wild west at the moment, you might get lucky...

Trying to analyse FX charts is my idea of hell.

I refrained from going into specifics because A)tl;dr and B)I didn't think anyone cared one way or the other since I know most BFIers take on TA. But the condensed version is: I use Heiken Ashi candles (isn't on the app pics, only on my MT4 platform), a 100 EMA for trend bias, and a 21 EMA to help with entries. MACD in an effort to filter out false signals. I paper traded this way successfully for about the past 3 months. Though I'm well aware that paper trade profits do not ensure real profits.

How is this a foregone conclusion? I would agree that most FX traders who are trading micro-lots have this problem, but this is one of the reasons that I don't trade any timeframe lower than the daily. When you're holding a single trade for weeks at a time, it's harder to overtrade as opposed to most FXers out there who are trading 15M - 1H charts. Plus I don't plan on having any more than 2 positions open at any given time.

OK. So let's say you're not going to overtrade. If you trade as perfectly as any human can all the time, how long do you think it would take you to go from $100 to $1000?

In other words, how many trades/week, and what EV/trade, in % return, do you think you can squeeze out of forex trading if you're the perfect trader? Curious where you'd put the number.

I have read into cryptos, and am fascinated with the idea of it, but it's not something I'm anywhere near knowledgeable enough of at the moment to just dive into.

Obviously in the near term I will have to employ sub-optimal money-management. That's the trade-off to swing trading such a small amount on a daily timeframe. I have to risk anywhere around 10% of the account on the first several trades in order to have prudent stops. But in theory, the % risked would taper off should the account grow. This would delay the amount of time it takes to go from 100 to 1,000 but would reduce risk-of-ruin.

As to the amount of time, I don't have a precise estimate or a target return % per trade. But trading as infrequently as I'm planning to, I certainly wouldn't see it happening in any less than a year.

FYP

There have been many great TA vs Fundamental threads now long buried in the archives. I wish eboro was still around as he was TAs most eloquent defender. He only made 33 2+2 posts but all were pure gold. Here is a great link to some of his thinking.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30...92/?highlight=

What I consider the key passage:

"The definition and description of technical analysis based trading is often misunderstood, too. Make no mistake: the primary role of the technician and trader is that of a risk manager. Successful traders and technicians are "skeptics" by nature, always looking over their shoulders, assessing risk objectively, and then focusing on potential reward. Good technicians don't think: "If only we could predict these price movements, we could act upon them and become rich beyond our wildest dreams". Instead, they think: "Given the current state of supply and demand, what is the potential downside in this stock, and how does that relate to potential reward. Given the historical performance of a given pattern or formation in similar situations, what is the probability that the asset will increase or decrease, and do I have an edge in exploiting the setup". The investment game, as described by Michael Mauboussin, is a game of probabilities. Technical Analysis, in truth, allows individuals to approach the markets probabilistically, and objectively. Much like value investing, technical analysis is not about "buying at the bottom and selling at the top". For the technician, the idea is to buy when the probability is greatest that the stock is going to advance, relative to risk. Understanding areas of substantial shifts in the supply and demand in an asset allows one to do just that. The "Margin of Safety" that value investors so often discuss is also present in technical analysis and trading, but it is quantified in a much more visual way. Just remember, the value of technical analysis is not to predict every move, that is impossible. Instead, the idea is to make sense of price movement via market sentiment, and to act when it indicates that a certain scenario offers good expected value and controlled risk. Part of being a good trader is being patient enough to wait for clearly defined situations/setups...and those situations do arise."

The definition of a micro stakes trading is trading illiquid instruments...

given that majority of EV plays are amplified there it's not a bad spot to be (just check the known anomaly in micro/small/large cap to see the EV go to 0 when you go to s&P 500).

Main reason being that large fund regularly skip them due to fill issues... (that you won't have due to smaller positions)

OP definition of micro stakes is wrong. FX is the biggest efficient market out there. Obviously no one here needs to be proved that if you have an edge in some sense it's the same trading a 100 or 100k account.

It's just he ones with the 100 one are usually lol noobs, because you waste your time if you could scale a 100k one...

usually ppl don't bother here as you don't have anything EV to say..god knows why ToothSayer wastes time here

I would be interested to see the public results of just one short term FX trader who makes six or seven figures. I would like to see screenshots of daily PnLs, or even better, year end brokerage screenshots. Despite looking, I cannot find even one publicly successful FX trader on the internet. There are no shortage of stock traders who publicly share results of making 6 or 7 figures. Why isn't there even one FX trader who does this with all the money spent on courses and promotion?

There is no such thing as microstakes trading. If anything, FX is highly liquid and would be comparable to high stakes poker. FX would be the last thing you should start with.

Maybe they don't want other sharp people to even know it's possible to do well?

Think about it: If you were crushing some competitive industry, would you go on a forum full of smart people and provide them with irrefutable proof of just how lucrative your industry is so they can come compete with you?

this is reserved for decentralized non scalable industry...
which FX is not...

Trading is an isolating vocation. There are plenty of stock traders who willingly share their niche and post results. People do it not because it is smart. People share their results because you don't get the same recognition that you do in other careers. It is human nature. Given that no one shares forex results, the logical conclusion is there are very few short term traders who do well primarily trading forex.

Don't waste your time with indicators like MACD and stuff, learn how to master support and resistance and you can trade any liquid market.
I have been getting mentored since the end of 2016 in daytrading with s&r and volume profiles and it has been eye opening to me.

Ocam's razor? Maybe it's because there's very few of them? Or they don't exist?

I work for a trading firm and other than Brexit I don't know anyone that trades FX as a significant part of their income.

Just came here to say FX is not the market to trade. It is indeed really hard and fairly complicated to understand.

Best market for a newbie to learn how to trade:
corn (no joke, trade corn futures, yes futures, bc they are delta 1)

Best market to trade to learn something beyond basic TA and risk management:
bonds
options on companies that report earnings and pay dividends

Then you can try metals, energy, and equity index futures.


If you really like a currency play use currency futures. At least then (unless its a mini) your broker won't absolutely rape you on the bid / offer. FFS no market orders in currency markets.

Just my opinion.

So basically this is so hard to learn and make it "profitable" that if you're not a math genius you should give up?

Is this what you people are saying?

Inviato dal mio SM-A310F utilizzando Tapatalk