The two areas in trading that separate the men from the boys (so to speak) are:

1.) The ability to divide environmental perceptions in half and process them separately. First I ask myself what I am feeling and in doing so I acknowledge and honor the feelings so that they don’t cry out for expression on the chart. Then and only then I ask the market what it is telling me. (I used to combine these two observations; I used to subconsciously deny how I was feeling because I knew it was wrong to let my feelings dictate a trade and so the feelings were bleeding into my technical observations because I had not acknowledged them and honored them.)

2.) The ability to execute according to #1 as if I am even or in the black when I am in the red. If during my 90 minutes of trading (09:30 -
11:00), I’m in the red, usually the feeling is something like “I’m afraid! I want to be in the market! I want to be in a trade!”

re A.N.N.A.:

I realized it’s not enough to intellectually understand ANNA. I had to write my own version of the ANNA software for my own internal hardware. When I learned to ride a bike, even though I’d observed someone else doing it and they told me how, I still had to write the program in my own head about how to balance and pedal. It couldn’t be just an intellectual understanding.

re trading plan rules:

I think that if you need strict rules, you’re not ready to trade cash. Strict rules mean that you’re not in control of your emotional feedback
in a live market. I’m not tape reading and I have general ideas about where I get in a trade (ideally the pullback at the end of a trend) but
I don’t have strict rules because it seems trading is an art not a science.

-Trader Diagnosis

So, I found your website and purchased Access Your Psychological Capital, which then led me to devour books on emotional intelligence, mindfulness, neuroscience, and sports psychology. During this time of self-reflection, I combined my life experiences, education (Masters of Divinity in Biblical Theology), your workshop and group meetings, and many other resources, and applied them to arrive at a greater self-awareness. I’d like to share the journey of becoming acquainted with my echo with you—a journey that has led me to greater emotional understanding, less impulse trades, and no more door punching.

Your E-Learning Course introduced me to another stage of trading development: what is going on inside of me. For the first time I took responsibility for what was happening while I was trading. I realized who the enemy was—me. Why do I do the things I do? I’m a mess. Where do I start according to what Denise teaches?

I began by focusing on my body before, during, and after a trade with no self-judgment. Before getting in a trade I felt anxious, sat on the edge of my chair, and breathed heavily. After I finally pulled the trigger, I was in the trade at a less than ideal location and trying desperately to seek new information to reassess the trade. During the trade, my chest felt heavy, I clenched my thumbs, making a fist, and prayed I wouldn’t get stopped out. At this point I had no idea what other traders were doing—I was completely consumed with myself. Then, sure enough, I would get stopped out on a pull back or exit after only a couple of ticks, afraid that it would come back and I would lose what little profit I had. Even two ticks profit felt like a loss to me especially after watching it march on without me, reminding me with every tick that I just lost an opportunity. . . DAMN IT, SHIT, I lost!

I was so angry that I got upset at a simple question from my wife or the noises my kids were making, blaming them for my bad trade—as if I had lost because they were distracting me. Well, after experiencing this a number of times, I knew I had issues. It was not my wife’s or my kids’ fault, and after apologizing to them, I admitted to myself that I was afraid to lose, and didn’t want my family to think I was a failure.

But I noticed my fear of failure was just as strong when I risked only $50 as when I risked $200. So I asked myself: “What do I feel and believe about myself when facing risk?” I turned my focus from my physical response to my emotional response, for emotions reveal my true beliefs about who I am and how I relate to the world around me and, in particular, how I relate to the market.

I realized that when facing risk, I feel fear, and my earliest memory of fear happened at four years old. I was sitting on my Mom’s lap in the front seat of the car while my Dad clutched the steering wheel and peered through windshield wipers that were frantically trying to clear the window of the indefatigable rain. Lighting bolts were everywhere. Thunder crashed around us. I cried and held my blankie tight. My Dad yelled some disparaging remark about my being a baby. I felt embarrassed and ashamed.

Sitting with this memory and the emotions of it, I realize I have heretofore associated fear with being a baby and losing the affection of my dad. Looking back, I see that whenever I hurt physically or emotionally, I tried to prove to myself that I wasn’t a “baby” by rebelling against my instinct to cry and instead doing dare-devilish stunts on four-wheelers and snowmobiles, tight narrowly escaping paralysis and even death a number of times. I now know I was trying to prove to myself and others that I was fearless. Early in my trading days, I took some crazy, risky trades. I won a few and lost a bunch. It didn’t take long before the losing trades hurt, and I knew I couldn’t control the market like a motor vehicle. In front of my computer screen, I started to experience real fear, and I was angry because it reminded me of feeling like a baby, as if the market was my dad saying: “What’s wrong? Are you scared? You must be a baby!” My response didn’t help; I’d make another impulse trade, another trade out of regret and another loss. Another failed attempt to prove, to my father or myself or whomever, I’m somebody.

I realized then that part of my echo was, “I can’t have what I want because I’m not as talented or strong as everyone else”—I’m just a scared baby. I was afraid of screwing up a trade because losing meant I wasn’t strong enough or talented enough to deserve acceptance or love from those closest to me. When trading, I felt like a timid kid playing against confident giants, so I had a tendency to get out after only a couple ticks because I felt as though it wouldn’t work out. I was sure I wasn’t going to get what I want, so I better get out NOW.

This feeling of “I can’t have what I want,” was further reinforced by 1) my parents pessimistic view of adversity in life—you will never win, everyone else will come out on top, because they are stronger/more talented than you are—and 2) my parents frequently complimented other kids who were talented musically or academically, yet rarely paid me compliments about my talent in sports. Since I felt my parents were always comparing me with others and there was an absence of affirmation towards me, I felt that I had to perform in order for them to be proud of me.

I think my fear of not gaining the affirmation of my parents was most strongly imprinted on my mind when I quit taking piano lessons in 9th grade. I hated piano and, as my wife will testify, I am basically tone deaf. Yet, because the children of my mom’s friends were talented musicians, I HAD to take piano. The day I told her “I quit,” my mom blew up, cried and then tried to convince me that playing piano was “good for me,” regardless of the fact that I hated it and wanted to put my time into athletics. Her reaction communicated to me that in order to gain her acceptance and love, I had to do what SHE wanted me to do. I was only acceptable if I played piano, which was pure misery for me; therefore, I believed I couldn’t have what I wanted—success, love and acceptance in something that I wanted.

From that moment on, I feared that pursing things I enjoyed meant risking my parents’ acceptance and approval. So, I put pressure on myself to perform perfectly in basketball and football, thinking that maybe then they would accept and love me for me. I thought: “if they see how good I am at sports, piano [or whatever else] won’t matter so much.” Then when my performance wasn’t perfect, I blamed myself for BOTH my poor performance AND the fact that my parents didn’t love or accept me. This line of thinking led me to believe that their lack of love and acceptance was “my fault.”

Interestingly enough, any time I pursued something, my parents said, “Well, if it doesn’t work out. . . . ” As a kid, I interpreted that statement to mean my pursuit will fail because I’m not good enough, which will result in failing to gain my parents’ acceptance. Consequently, the fact that they don’t accept me is MY fault. . . . If only I’d just worked a little bit harder. . . .

So, when I trade, my self-worth is dependent on whether I make it or not. When I take a bad trade, I realize my full echo is, “I can’t have what I want because I’m not as talented or strong as all the other traders out there, and, the fact that I’m not as talented and strong is ALL MY FAULT!” If I don’t make it, I risk losing the love and acceptance of those I care about because I project my parents’ line of thinking onto them. The greatest revelation came one day, when after three bad trades, I just started saying, “I’m sorry, I’m sorry.” At first, I had no idea to whom I was apologizing. I was apologizing for having failed and disappointed everyone important to me. I was telling them that I was sorry for not being “good enough” and, ultimately for not making it as a trader. That is a reality I dread.

After walking, wallowing, and writing, I am finally able to name my hindering emotions: fear that I can’t have what I want because I’m “a baby,” anger and regret over the fact that I’m not “good enough,” and despair over the fact that this is all my fault. Now that I’ve named my emotions and beliefs, I’m free to channel my psychological capital towards what other traders are doing by using market profile and order flow. I have finally given myself permission to succeed and I am confident when I trade.

JUST before the hovering finger clicks the mouse to trade, there is one thing that online investors of the future might want to check: their “Rationalizer”. The device, a prototype of which was unveiled this week, is an emotion-sensing system designed to help investors keep a cool head when buying and selling. [...]

The Rationalizer, which is still under development, consists of a bracelet that measures something called a galvanic skin response. This is a change in the electrical resistance of the skin which can be caused by various stimuli, like anger or elation. It cannot determine if the emotional arousal is negative or positive, only that it is happening.

ABN’s interest reportedly stemmed from a study by Andrew Lo and Dimitri Repin, “Psychophysiology of real-Time Financial Risk Processing” (Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), pp, 323 – 339,  2002), showing that day-traders who exhibit more intense emotional reactions also have significantly worse trading results.

One may question the efficiency of using this new device, trading performance wise. My guess is that this kind of practice is based on a somewhat misguided view on emotions. This view emphasizes the negative effect of emotions on behavior, the idea being that emotions vitiate rational decision-making. Here “emotions” stands for “passions.” Automatic emotional responses mediated by structures such as the anterior insula or the amygdala – see Joseph LeDoux’s beautiful book “Emotion, Memory, and the Brain” (1994) for the functions of the amygdala in fear conditioning – would trump higher-level responses mediated by the prefrontal cortex. Very Platonic stance, sometimes referred to as “dual process theory.”

This is not to say that emotions never prompt us into the wrong direction, they surely do, often “short-circuiting” logical reasoning and long term planning that are essential to efficient trading (Cf Andrew Lo and collaagues, “Fear and greed in financial markets : A clinical study of day-traders” American Economic Review, 95(2), pp. 352-359, 2005). The dual process theory is thus heuristic in that it highlights such phenomenon. However, it may lead to a hyperemphasis on emotions as sources of mistakes. Such hyperemphasis is wrong-headed. Because in many domains, nonconscious emotional biases drive behavior before conscious knowledge does; without such emotional inputs, overt knowledge is in effect insufficient to ensure rational behavior.

Antoine Bechara, Antonio Damasio and colleagues highlighted this role of emotions in implementing rational decisions (”Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy“, Science, 275, pp.293 – 1295, 1997). Further, John Allman, an eminent neurobiologist from Caltech, has been pinning down the role of the Von Economo Neurons (VENs) of the anterior cingulate cortex in providing humans with a system for quick and intuitive behavior in the face of uncertain ever-changing conditions. This work stresses that in complex situations involving fast intuitive assessments, such as day-trading, fast intuitions are melded with slower, deliberative judgments (e.g. “Intuition and autism: a possible role for Von Economo neurons“, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp. 367-373, 2005), whereby emotions are best viewed as informational inputs serving deliberative processes. Consistent with this view, recent studies on decision making under uncertainty has revealed the amygdala and the anterior insula to provide uncertainty signals. See, e.g., the paper by Wofram Schultz and colleagues “Explicit neural signals reflecting reward uncertainty” in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 363(1511), pp. 3801-11 (2008); or the one by Tania Singer and colleagues “A common role of insula in feelings, empathy and uncertainty” in Trends in Cognitive Neurosocience, 13: pp. 334-340 (2009). A famous paper by J Coates and J Herbert, “Endogenous steroids and financial risk taking on a London trading floor” (PNAS, 105(16) pp. 6167–6172, 2008), helps pinning down the nature of these uncertainty signals: these may be relayed to the neural structures involved in decision making through neuropharmacological signals. For instance cortisol, which has receptors in the insula and the amygdala, would signal market risk in the brain.

All this suggests that emotions are key information providers when deciding under uncertainty. They make us tuned to our environment. Actually, in some contexts of fast and intuitive decision-making in the face of unstable (high vol) conditions, one expects that the stronger the emotional uncertainty signals of the day-trader, the higher the performance. To be more specific, I would not be surprised that for a trader “in the zone” at a particular point in time, the light pattern of  “EmoBow” (the object displaying a moving light pattern to illustrate the user’s mood) reach a deep red. Shall one conclude that the trader is too aroused emotionally at that moment, and hence should take a deep breath? Or merely that he has achieved a state of focus that intense, that all the relevant stimuli in his environment are integrated as emotional inputs? In the second scenario, stopping the decision process is like stopping a high-speed driver in the middle of the race.

Surfing the Tsunami, New York Mag, Feb 2 issue

Evidently this is news to the magazine but from my vantage point, this is no different than the desk I ran or the early firms I traded with – Bright Trading, Schonfeld and ETG. There were others, lots of others, in the 1990’s – but the idea is the same – exactly the same. It is funny to read about head and shoulders patterns in New York (not to be confused with The New Yorker) but it is also a bit instructive – favorite stocks, last minute moves, the thrill of the chase….

The markets are ALWAYS a bet against what other people are going to do and Milman, the trader in the magazine, gets that.

The atmosphere is also the same as I remember it at all but Sharpe Capital where my desk was housed within a true market-making firm. Or at Schonfeld… where the wallpaper (and lunch) was amazing.

Entertaining and instructive… when you want to know who you are trading against.

Chances are if you are reading this, you aren’t a person who needs a refresher course on this but did you know that effectively there was a futures contract in 1500 BC? In “Iraq” no less? Or the real role of credit – over time? Having been raised in a post-depression, no debt household I actually am MORE fond of the use of debt for having read this chapter.

See the thing in my mind is NOT that the banks created structured products but that 1) they were not exchange traded 2) the overall number of market players was very limited (see #1). Then you have the rating agencies …. (talk about a Madoff-like “relationship based decision”) but what about President Bush’s “ownership society” and MOST of all, the people who took out mortgages they KNEW they couldn’t afford!

Part of me wishes I would have realized that I could get that mortgage on the 3.5 million dollar house in Old Greenwich…. but oh well, I wouldn’t have done it anyway because in my own mind, the math wouldn’t have worked – even if it did compute to the mortgage broker.

I digress…. what I meant to say is I personally think the book is worth reading even if the Economist basically trashes it.