Talk:Larry R. Williams/Archive 1

Investment success as a mark of genius
It says in the article, "Williams won the 1987 World Cup Championship of Futures Trading from the Robbins Trading Company were he turned $10,000 to over $1,100,000 (11,376%) in a 12 month competition with real money." as though that win could be considered a measure of the man's genius, but there is no mention of his having won the award before or since. Nor have I read anything about the billion dollars which Williams must surely have made by now, had the skills required to win the award in the first place reflected real world insight. Surely a lottery winner shows just as much acumen and investment savvy. My apologies if Williams really is a billionaire these days. - which is possible. You never know.


 * Williams is, indeed, a consistently successful trader. While a 11000% increase over a year is not typical, his overall track record is still significant, and last I heard, he lives well off it. It's also worth pointing out that he taught his daughter (actress Michelle Williams) his trading technique, and she went on to win that same tournament several years later with a 1000% increase (4th largest gain ever).


 * Williams is more recently known for his "Million-Dollar Challenge" seminars, where he traded $1M of his own money during the seminar, demonstrating the technique he was teaching using real money. A percentage of profits made during the seminar were shared with attendees. The implication is that while there are many people who will tell you how to trade, Williams is willing to "put his money where his mouth is," so to speak, and use his own money to demonstrate the practice.


 * Larry teaches a somewhat conservative trading strategy that attempts profit off the emotional mistakes of others. The logic is that while the market is largely unpredictable, people are consistently irrational in predictable ways, and tend to make the same emotional mistakes in certain situations. So if you can find a time where a large number of people appear to be reacting illogically, you bet against them.


 * 72.204.204.169 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw or read nothing in the original article that inferred, as you have stated below, Williams as a genius. Your comment does show why you should not be commenting or editing ANYTHING related to markets or even perhaps, genius aptitudes or acumen.

FYI - Winning the annual Robbins competition is tons of work for 365 days, and, it is indeed a competition of trading your own cash. I don't know how many times Williams competed, but I do know that most winners stop when they win. Just finishing in the top 5 after a whole year of grueling trading, is a mammoth accomplishment. Trading successfully and consistently over long periods of time is rare, whether trading $10,000, or $1 million or several billions in a hedge fund.

It is obvious to most traders or investors that when you are really good, you don't trade very often, or certainly as often as he likely did in the Robbins competition. And, if you knew anything about the subject of trading, and/or his trading that you are trying to cast doubt on, you would have never commented in the manner you have. But, instead, you might have done some homework, some research. And, then, just said, "Hmmm, that must be pretty darn good."

You might have found that Williams does a great job of teaching people(through books and seminars), how to learn to trade, and with low risk. What I know you would find is that Williams has the respect of the trading community for sharing his market indicators and analysis methods. Traders live in 50% world. If 50% of your trades are profitable, you can make a very comfortable living by simply managing risk expertly. Since 99% of traders fail and blow up their accounts, learning from someone who trades for a living is desirable. But I suppose I'm way over your level of knowledge about a dynamic subject, that is, risk management. It is the only thing that matters in trading that results in profitable trading.

Some people can trade, others who can't trade, write books about it. Williams does both. Others that know nothing of substance on this subject, do indeed speak freely. So, good on him and good for those few of us who trade for a living.

I would guess you would be one of the people described in the last sentence below, "So if you can find a time where a large number of people appear to be reacting illogically, you bet against them." That all of us traders LOVE to trade against. We call them, "fades". The people that know everything and, yet ... know very little.

I'm left wondering how many other people's work/life, you have sarcastically attacked to their detriment. I had an uncle who did that ... a very lonely man... even his kids didn't want to be around him. Sad.

My association with Williams: None. And, I don't think I've ever met Williams over the past 30 years. I have used his indicators though, as have millions of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.70.110.33 (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No reliable secondary sources support "earned a bachelor of science degree"
The recently added reference to Oregon's publication of personal notes submitted by former students ("Flash"), fails to document the so-far unsupported statement that the subject of this article earned a Bachelor of Science degree. He ostensibly studied journalism there, according to several previous incarnations of this article. The BA and the BS in journalism at Oregon differ today (46 years after the subject's alleged attendance there) only in the academic requirement of the study of a foreign language for the Bachelor of Arts, or the study of some mathematics for the Bachelor of Science degree. I find no reputable, reliable, secondary sources to support the subject's competence in either a foreign language or in even elementary mathematics.

I've left the reference to the articles submitted by former students to "Flash," but I've modified the statement in the article to say no more than that which the reference reliably tells us about the subject.


 * ~ Wordsmith (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)