Maybe we are not dumb enough to trade (is trading about the challenge?)

Maybe we are not dumb enough to trade (is trading about the challenge?)

So I am watching Elementary tonight, mainly for a good perv at Lucy Lui. But it got me wondering.

Surely it is not only Lucy that has me so interested in another rehash of Sherlock Holmes? What is it that make detective shows so fascinating? Why does it remind me of trading?

We know they are going to solve the case. It would be a pretty shit[1] show if they didn’t.

If they want a mystery that can’t be figured out, watch a woman leave late on a Friday night with a guy who smells like a Russian sailor and articulates like a 3 year old with a face full of baked beans.

No, I think what get’s us watching is that we view it as a challenge. It’s personal. Damn you script writer if you think you can get me with your clever plot lines and hot Asian distractions. I am going to watch every candlestick in every room until I figure this damn thing out[2].

This then led to a predictable Google image search, followed by a realisation that maybe this is one part of why the success rate for traders roughly matches my success rate with women in college.

Are we just in trading for the challenge?

The opportunity to prove to the market that it is below us on the intelligence chain? It’s a stupid quest of course, but humans suck at humbleness, and markets excel at exposing that more than a Lady Gaga outfit.

I brought Lady Gaga into it. I’m slipping.

Maybe the best trading trait is to have the disability to not realise that you might be winning.

If we could just accept this is one challenge we won’t figure out, we might figure it out after all.

Can we ever win at trading even when we are winning?

Sorry for bringing up Lady Gaga, it won’t happen again. OK back to Google images.

Happy trading.

  1. Yes I now say shit on this blog, don’t say I never expand my vocabulary. ↩︎

  2. For those under 100 years old, this is a reference to Cluedo ↩︎

Related Article