Interpretations that would result in a more satisfying experience

3. There is a random distribution between wins and losses for any given set of variables that define 
an edge. 
 
If every loss puts you that much closer to a win, you will be looking forward to the next occurrence of 
your edge, ready and waiting to jump in without the slightest reservation or hesitation. On the other 
hand, if you still believe that trading is about analysis or about being right, then after a loss you will 
anticipate the occurrence of your next edge with trepidation, wondering if it's going to work. This, in 
turn, will cause you to start gathering evidence for or against the trade. You will gather evidence for the 
trade if your fear of missing out is greater than your fear of losing. And you will gather information 
against the trade if your fear of losing is greater than your fear of missing out. In either case, you will 
not be in the most conducive state of mind to produce consistent results.
4. An edge is nothing more than an indication of a higher probability of one thing happening over 
another.
Creating consistency requires that you completely accept that trading isn't about hoping, wondering, or 
gathering evidence one way or the other to determine if the next trade is going to work. The only 

---

evidence you need to gather is whether the variables you use to define an edge are present at any given 
moment. When you use "other" information, outside the parameters of your edge to decide whether you 
will take the trade, you are adding random variables to your trading regime. 
Adding random variables makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to determine what works and 
what doesn't. If you're never certain about the viability of your edge, you won't feel too confident about 
it. To whatever degree you lack confidence, you will experience fear. The irony is, you will be afraid of 
random, inconsistent results, without realizing that your random, inconsistent approach is creating 
exactly what you are afraid of. On the other hand, if you believe that an edge is simply a higher 
probability of one thing happening over another, and there's a random distribution between wins and 
losses for any given set of variables that define an edge, why would you gather "other" evidence for or 
against a trade? To a trader operating out of these two beliefs, gathering "other" evidence wouldn't 
make any sense.
Or let me put it this way: Gathering "other" evidence makes about as much sense as trying to determine 
whether the next flip of a coin will be heads, after the last ten flips came up tails. Regardless of what 
evidence you find to support heads coming up, there is still a 50-percent chance that the next flip will 
come up tails. By the same token, regardless of how much evidence you gather to support acting or not 
acting on a trade, it still only takes one trader somewhere in the world to negate the validity of any, if 
not all, of your evidence. The point is 
why bother! 
If the market is offering you a legitimate edge, 
determine the risk and take the trade.