I heard the story that before you turned twenty-one, you had your father stand in the ring, while
you stood on the sidelines signaling trades to him.
That was in 1968 and 1969. My father had the membership but he didn't know much about trading. He was
just going along with it because I was underage and wanted to do it. When I turned twenty-one, it was one of the
happiest days in his life because he said, "I really hate this. I have no idea what I'm doing. It's yours!"
Were you at a disadvantage trading one step removed, with your father filling the orders?
Sure. We consistently lost.
But you couldn't have lost very much because you were trading very small.
I probably lost a couple of thousand dollars during that period.
Do you consider that period worthwhile, nonetheless, because of the lessons learned?
Yes, in retrospect, I would say this to new traders—although it may not be a reassuring thought—when you
start, you ought to be as bad a trader as you are ever going to be.
Because it is less expensive at that time?
Right. You shouldn't be too surprised if you really screw up.
Do you know traders for whom early success proved to be their undoing?
I have noticed variations of that. There are a lot of people who get imprinted like ducks. You can teach them
that a warship is their mother if you get them young enough. For a lot of traders, it doesn't matter so much whether
their first big trade is successful or not, but whether their first big profit is on the long or short side. Those people
tend to be perennial bulls or bears, and that is very bad. Both sides have to be equally OK. There can't be anything
psychologically more satisfying about one than the other. If there is, your trading is going to go askew.
I think that's what happened to a lot of people in the 1973 runaway bull market in soybeans. Even if they
didn't make money themselves, but were just present to witness the market mania and see a few people make a lot
of money, they were imprinted with it.
Dostları ilə paylaş: 
