Looking for a reliable trading logic? First, you need to figure out who you are learning from.
From the perspective of retail traders' actual operations, the strategies of these different schools vary quite a bit.
**Talent-based Traders** rely on intuition and heavy, all-in bets. During pullbacks, they can get exhausted and frustrated. Ordinary people find it hard to withstand such psychological fluctuations.
**Institutional Thinking** focuses on fundamentals and growth potential. It sounds very professional, but it requires high precision in data and strict discipline in execution—retail traders can easily learn the wrong habits if not careful.
**Pure Chartists** only look at candlestick patterns, ignoring stories. Their win rate isn't very high, but their profit-loss ratio per trade is good. The problem is—they need to endure holding cash for long periods, and the psychological torment of consecutive stop-losses is also a test.
**Systematic Risk Control** has a clever design logic. It assumes you'll make mistakes from the start. Through high-probability screening mechanisms, cold-blooded stop-loss execution, and strict position management, ordinary retail traders can survive and gradually amplify profits. It is the most friendly to beginners.
Which one suits you? It depends on your personality, tolerance, and the learning investment you can make. Most importantly—don't blindly rely on talent. Find the strategy that fits you and stick with it.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
20 Likes
Reward
20
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
AllInAlice
· 01-21 14:25
Honestly, I still think the risk control faction is the most reliable; the talent-based approach will eventually fail.
View OriginalReply0
PriceOracleFairy
· 01-19 15:20
nah the "天赋型" thing is just survivorship bias wrapped in a lottery ticket... most don't make it past the first liquidation cascade lol. systematic risk management actually prints, boring as it sounds
Reply0
FlashLoanLord
· 01-19 11:32
The systematic risk control approach is indeed the most solid, but frankly, it still depends on who can truly implement it. Most people fail at the stop-loss stage.
View OriginalReply0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
· 01-18 14:54
A systematic risk control approach is indeed the most stable, but to be honest, it tests a person's patience... I'm currently sticking stubbornly to this idea.
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-9ad11037
· 01-18 14:52
Honestly, systematic risk control is the real way to survive long-term; relying solely on talent and all-in strategies will eventually lead to bloodshed.
View OriginalReply0
CodeZeroBasis
· 01-18 14:48
A systematic risk control approach is indeed more practical, but it's easier to say than to do. How many people can truly stick to discipline?
View OriginalReply0
MaticHoleFiller
· 01-18 14:39
Honestly, the risk control faction is the most reliable; everyone else is just gambling on their psychological resilience.
View OriginalReply0
BankruptWorker
· 01-18 14:37
I need to try this systematic risk control approach. The talent-based all-in is so damn exciting that I went bankrupt a long time ago.
View OriginalReply0
BTCWaveRider
· 01-18 14:35
A systematic risk control approach is indeed more practical, but how many can truly stick with it? Most still have the itch to go all-in impulsively.
Looking for a reliable trading logic? First, you need to figure out who you are learning from.
From the perspective of retail traders' actual operations, the strategies of these different schools vary quite a bit.
**Talent-based Traders** rely on intuition and heavy, all-in bets. During pullbacks, they can get exhausted and frustrated. Ordinary people find it hard to withstand such psychological fluctuations.
**Institutional Thinking** focuses on fundamentals and growth potential. It sounds very professional, but it requires high precision in data and strict discipline in execution—retail traders can easily learn the wrong habits if not careful.
**Pure Chartists** only look at candlestick patterns, ignoring stories. Their win rate isn't very high, but their profit-loss ratio per trade is good. The problem is—they need to endure holding cash for long periods, and the psychological torment of consecutive stop-losses is also a test.
**Systematic Risk Control** has a clever design logic. It assumes you'll make mistakes from the start. Through high-probability screening mechanisms, cold-blooded stop-loss execution, and strict position management, ordinary retail traders can survive and gradually amplify profits. It is the most friendly to beginners.
Which one suits you? It depends on your personality, tolerance, and the learning investment you can make. Most importantly—don't blindly rely on talent. Find the strategy that fits you and stick with it.