Forums - Almost everything works...

Forums (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/index.php)
- Trading (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?forumid=1)
-- Almost everything works... (http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=241596)

Posted by danielc1 on 04-28-12 01:34 PM:

Almost everything works...

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by EON Kid on 04-28-12 01:51 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well.

you have been registered for 10 years and you make a comment like this.
People lose on both mentioned & more reasons. Please put me on ignore, carry on in your ignorant bliss

Posted by danielc1 on 04-28-12 02:07 PM:

Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from EON Kid:

you have been registered for 10 years and you make a comment like this.
People lose on both mentioned & more reasons. Please put me on ignore, carry on in your ignorant bliss

There is a buddhims saying: Threath people as of they are more enlighted than you, only then you can learn from others. Please share your innerthoughts why you think that the statement is not correct.

I'm glad I made you laugh, carry on...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by keeptradin' on 04-28-12 02:21 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

There is a buddhims saying: Threath people as of they are more enlighted than you, only then you can learn from others.

Another good Buddhist saying is that "All unhappiness comes from attachment", or something along those lines. I find that to be true in trading, for when I become attached to the outcome of a trade, it causes me to act on emotion, rather what I see in the market.

My best trades are the ones that I enter at the price given by my setup, set my target and stop loss, then walk away. My worst trades are when I stare at the screen, move my orders, average in to a loser, etc.

I too find that most methods will work well some of the time if the trade is managed properly. Finding one that works well most of the time is the tricky part, as is developing the confidence to execute according to one's trading plan.

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by Handle123 on 04-28-12 02:50 PM:

We live in a microwave world, we expect it yesterday. Too many simple don't take the time to learn, they believe read a few books, backtest a couple weeks, open an account and they are prepared to compete with those who have struggled through all the up and downs, and become very good at trading. Trading is a grind, those who have been at this a long time know to accumulate wealth, is making small consistent profitable trades overall. The homerun trades people hear every five years hardly ever arrive for the trader who makes a living at this. I have been fortunite to make some very huge trades, but nobody wants to hear it took 25 or 30 tries to find the top/bottom.

99% of what I do is either backtesting or waiting, and 1% is trading. Not very exciting, but that is how it is done. If someone can't wait, they will lose, if they don't study, they will lose, if they don't backtest, they will lose.

Having good entries is nice, but what happens after you are in the trade is the most important.

Posted by Rabbitone on 04-28-12 03:25 PM:

There is no “Puzzle” as to why so many traders wash out. It was the same reason I washed out twice in the middle 1990’s – greed and ego. I thought I had the brains to beat Wall Street’s best in on any day using my “tested” day trading method. It cost me a pretty penny to find out I was wrong. I almost did not come back to trading. But passion over came my anxiety to try a 3rd time.

The 3rd time I tried a new tact in trading after using a big yearend bonus to fund an account. I decided to use a different method with 4 key tenets:
- Trade from daily and weekly charts, only.
- Trade in the direction of the markets.
- Trade swings and positions only.
- Limit losses to fixed percentage of my account.

Is it dull and boring trading? Yes.

Did the trading plan get more complicated than the 4 tenets? Yes?

Does it work once the bugs are worked out? Depends?

Is it profitable? If you trade swings and positions over the long term, yes. But a drawdown that last several months can be very discouraging.

Did it work for me? Yes, once I understood when I could and could not do my trading it worked. I’m now am retired.

The bottom line is some of things those authors present work only for their trading plan. What you discover is their general ideas are not “cookie cutter”. Trying to duplicate trades with their trading style and your trading restrictions undermines you. You have to build trades what work only for you and your style of trading. Taking an authors trade that is not “yours” destroys your trading plan.

__________________
Rabbit

Posted by danielc1 on 04-28-12 03:44 PM:

I'm glad that there is some agreement with the findings allthough that the people post above have a point that it is the exits and the whole understanding of what has been said and done that makes a trading method work and not just the plain text you read in the books...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by EON Kid on 04-28-12 04:09 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

There is a buddhims saying: Threath people as of they are more enlighted than you, only then you can learn from others. Please share your innerthoughts why you think that the statement is not correct.

I'm glad I made you laugh, carry on...

search your inner thoughts as to why 95% cannot be right or win.

It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep may be.
Virgil, Aeneid

Posted by Lights on 04-28-12 04:28 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Most people who follow these systems fail because none of them talk about risk management

Posted by blowingup2012 on 04-28-12 04:32 PM:

Actually the method put out by Buffet and Rogers works very very very well. Basically, you wait...sit on your hands...until the opportunity is obvious. Then you move in like a shark. You hold out...hold out once more sitting on your hands until the time there is a lot of enthusiasm and you dump your shares into the enthusiasm.

When is that time to jump in and trade? For myself, that time would be when this chart gets down much much lower.

Right now, there seems to be a lot of enthusiasm in the market and its a horrible time to invest. The time to invest is when its much much lower. If you follow my sage advice, then you will make a little money or maybe even a lot of money. Just wait for this chart to come in which may take several months to over a year, but it will come in. When it does come in, do your homework first on whatever you trade or invest in. Morningstar.com has independent analysts and their subscription service is cheap for what you get. Dont invest in crap because crap can trade sideways or go bankrupt...witness American Airlines.

There are a few on the internet who claim they can trade everyday no matter the market conditions, but claims made over the internet and real brokerage/bank statements reviewed in-person are two different things. This is fantasyland where anyone can log in and tell you they made a boatload on some trade the other day. The truth is if you were to visit these people you wont find any Ferraris in the driveway and the honest plumber down the street seems to live a better lifestyle then them. Trust no one.

My greatest mistake over the last 10 years was not trusting this one chart. So right now, this chart tells me to go away or just watch and wait. This will find another reason to come down, just a matter of time.

Posted by Mysteron on 04-28-12 04:45 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Someone who has trading ability may well be able to use any trading process and still be profitable. But anyone with common sense should adopt a process that has obvious merit.

If someone is stupid enough to trade using crank methods of waves, fibs, moon cycles etc - then unless they have trading ability from the start they will likely fail.

The act of following any process though should at least mitigate the effects of ego, opinions and emotions - and help the trader to survive long enough to find a method that works for them.

Posted by danielc1 on 04-28-12 04:47 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from EON Kid:

search your inner thoughts as to why 95% cannot be right or win.

It never troubles the wolf how many the sheep may be.
Virgil, Aeneid

Maybe something like this is why 95% cannot win or be right: The sheep are happy to be the sheep deep inside, because they are in the majority and to be the wolf is a lonely game of only a few... But back to your first comment: Do you really think that the things that is known to the public doesn't work, that made you make the comment to my post or is it something else?

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by deaddog on 04-28-12 07:28 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

I have to say I agree with you.

Everytime I hear this or that doesn’t work I always ask why? I rarely get an answer.

For every methodology you have mentioned I can show you examples of where it didn’t work. But that’s only one trade, Over a number of trades with the proper money management most will be profitable or at least not blow out your account.

Most fail because they don’t have the patience or discipline to follow a system.

Posted by dom993 on 04-28-12 07:50 PM:

IMHO, there are really to separate categories of trading / traders: intraday & swing/position.

- Intraday trading is the most difficult to get consistently profitable at, and there ain't that many books or disclosed methods/systems that offer cookie-cutter replicable profitability (none to my limited knowledge, I'll be glad to learn different).

- Swing/position trading stocks is a little easier because of the long-term bullish bias of the stock market. But then one should measure his trading performance vs the market performance (so-called Alpha), and all of a sudden it is way more difficult to do better than the market on a long-term basis. Still, there are a number of books that can help achieve that (at least, that's my belief).

Posted by RangeTrader on 04-28-12 08:04 PM:

The reality is most people cannot see something which is right in front of their eyes because they have the wrong mindset.

Like me... For the first year I was trading I thought technicals were BS and it was all an instinct game. Now I use mostly technicals and less and less instinct...

I developed my own technical system in a way that I could see the signals and moves with my own eyes and cross compare them to price to verify that everything is correct.

It's less of a "exact technical rule based system", and more of an "advanced tape reading system."

__________________
The market is always in a range trade. It just happens that the range is usually moving...

Posted by Traveler on 04-28-12 08:25 PM:

When people here say that "nothing works," what they mean is that either they lost, or were unable to find something with a Sharpe ratio of 10 so that they could leverage up a piker's stake into a living.

Posted by Zr1Trader on 04-28-12 08:48 PM:

Everyone knows how to lose weight. There are many different "methods" that can accomplish the task. How many can do it and keep it off for the rest of their life without "blowing up". Requires hard work, discipline, and persistence.

I think trading is similar.

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-28-12 08:49 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I don't know where the deal with everything works comes from.

Have you backtested these methods? Some of them don't even have strategies. They are figments of the author's imagination, like Tharp.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by KastyG on 04-28-12 09:01 PM:

Quote from Zr1Trader:

Everyone knows how to lose weight. There are many different "methods" that can accomplish the task. How many can do it and keep it off for the rest of their life without "blowing up". Requires hard work, discipline, and persistence.

I think trading is similar.

This is not entirely true.

For weight loss only two methods work, eat less calories or burn more while maintaining calories.

Does all of successful trading come down to one of two possibilities?

Posted by icarus618 on 04-28-12 09:15 PM:

Of course noTHING "works." It is the person using the thing who works. This is not to say that any thing is as good to use as any other thing or that what is best to use is based on the trader's "personality." People who think that way have yet to hone (iteratively refine) a great method that they completely trust. Complete trust is not an easy thing to come by. The process of arriving at such a method does discard a lot of fluff that's held out to the public as viable. There is no secret, but to most people it might as well be a secret because what it takes to extract will remain a mystery to them.

Posted by KastyG on 04-28-12 09:47 PM:

Quote from icarus618:

Of course noTHING "works." It is the person using the thing who works. This is not to say that any thing is as good to use as any other thing or that what is best to use is based on the trader's "personality." People who think that way have yet to hone (iteratively refine) a great method that they completely trust. Complete trust is not an easy thing to come by. The process of arriving at such a method does discard a lot of fluff that's held out to the public as viable. There is no secret, but to most people it might as well be a secret because what it takes to extract will remain a mystery to them.

the secret:
cut losses quick, let winners run. all else follows.

when i am on right side, i know it rather quickly.

i just let it ride.

on the great trades, price always go further than i predict.

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 04-28-12 10:13 PM:

Quote from KastyG:

the secret:
cut losses quick, let winners run. all else follows.

when i am on right side, i know it rather quickly.

i just let it ride.

on the great trades, price always go further than i predict.

Brilliant insights that apparently are hard for many to accept.

Most methods will work in one particular type of market. They will lose in others. For example, buying breakouts or new yearly highs in stocks will work in an all-out bull market. It will destroy you in a down market or range bound market.

Posted by tenthousandmen on 04-28-12 10:15 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Most people on this board would fuck everything up even if they received a set of instructions from George Soros. That's the way some men and women are unfortunately. There is a thread "Battle for survival" (LOL) around here that chronicles this phenomenon live, if you want to check it out.

(and NO, they wouldnt fuck it up because soros is a jackass. Its becuase youre fucking stupid.)

Posted by deaddog on 04-28-12 10:58 PM:

Quote from KastyG:

This is not entirely true.

For weight loss only two methods work, eat less calories or burn more while maintaining calories.

Does all of successful trading come down to one of two possibilities?

Quote from KastyG:

the secret:
cut losses quick, let winners run. all else follows.

I suppose you have to do two things in trading.

Posted by KastyG on 04-28-12 11:16 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Brilliant insights that apparently are hard for many to accept.

Most methods will work in one particular type of market. They will lose in others. For example, buying breakouts or new yearly highs in stocks will work in an all-out bull market. It will destroy you in a down market or range bound market.

cutting losses short, and letting winners run works in all markets.

losses get cut shorter when range bound, and winners don't run as far.

the concept remains, valid still

edit: allow me to clarify, range bound is different than choppy. With choppy you take your comeuppances.. till the trend emerges ...it always has...let it run

unless you're HFT, then the bounds of sane trading are
breached..no such thing as a trend or range or chop.

all reality is reduced to a series of 0000 & 111's

Posted by icarus618 on 04-28-12 11:55 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Brilliant insights that apparently are hard for many to accept.

Most methods will work in one particular type of market. They will lose in others. For example, buying breakouts or new yearly highs in stocks will work in an all-out bull market. It will destroy you in a down market or range bound market.

Is "buying breakouts" really a method? Do you really need a method to buy a new yearly high?

If buying breakouts will work in a bull market and "destroy you in a down or range bound market," then maybe the method should deal with when you should be buying breakouts and new yearly highs. In other words, the method is what allows you to discern when you are in a bull versus down or range bound market.

Regarding brilliant trading insights:

Everyone knows and can easily accept cutting losses short and letting profits run. The hard part is in doing it. Why? Because it is unclear to people what constitutes a "loss" to cut short and a "profit" to let run and for how far.

If I enter the ES long and the trade immediately goes 2 ticks against me is that a loss to cut short? Yes? No? Maybe? If yes, do I cut it short ASAP or do I wait to see if it comes back 2 ticks to my entry or even a tick in my favor as it does MOST OF THE TIME. And if I wait and the trade comes back +1 tick in my favor is that a profit I should let run? Would it be a mistake to cut the trade for +1 even though initially it was -2 and I wanted to cut my loss short? What if the trade started out +1 and then went to -2? If you don't like using ticks in the example, substitute in points.

Reciting adages is easy: Sell higher than you bought. Buy lower than you sold. Well, okay, but how do I know it's going higher or lower or just staying flat? If I knew that I wouldn't need a method.

Posted by KastyG on 04-29-12 12:02 AM:

Quote from icarus618:

Is "buying breakouts" really a method?

Great point! You cut right to chase! That's no "method", that's a reckless gamble at best.

Thanks for your clarification, you summed it in a few

a "method" is not anything that comes to the mind, and is applied without forethought

when you think about it's pretty stupid to buy any random breakout, the obvious is fade it

and thats why most fail

Posted by satchel on 04-29-12 01:17 AM:

Reckless gamble?

New all-time highs are to be bought on breakouts - one of Livermore's rules.

__________________
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty.--Frank Herbert

Posted by KastyG on 04-29-12 01:19 AM:

Quote from satchel:

Reckless gamble?

New all-time highs are to be bought on breakouts - one of Livermore's rules.

Isn't it common knowledge that most breakouts fail?

Then, why buy one on that basis alone?

Posted by blowingup2012 on 04-29-12 02:02 AM:

Price is random. Look at DECK and NFLX once considered leading stocks now crumbling to junk. Live and learn. Price is random.

Posted by KastyG on 04-29-12 02:05 AM:

Quote from blowingup2012:

Price is random. Look at DECK and NFLX once considered leading stocks now crumbling to junk. Live and learn. Price is random.

price is never random, price is driven by volume. Volume is not random, but real trades

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 02:10 AM:

Quote from KastyG:

Isn't it common knowledge that most breakouts fail?

Then, why buy one on that basis alone?

They've only failed in the last 10 years. For 10 decades before 2000 that strategy really did work, then failed after the new millenium came.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by KastyG on 04-29-12 02:17 AM:

Quote from bwolinsky:

They've only failed in the last 10 years. For 10 decades before 2000 that strategy really did work, then failed after the new millenium came.

thats really intersting factoid, if i live to be a 1000, it's useful!

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 02:19 AM:

Quote from KastyG:

thats really intersting factoid, if i live to be a 1000, it's useful!

Yes! And then we can really be called a millenial!

Really, Livermoore was psychotic, and got lucky in up markets. His strategies wouldn't work today.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by eusdaiki on 04-29-12 02:26 AM:

Quote from dom993:

IMHO, there are really to separate categories of trading / traders: intraday & swing/position.

- Intraday trading is the most difficult to get consistently profitable at, and there ain't that many books or disclosed methods/systems that offer cookie-cutter replicable profitability (none to my limited knowledge, I'll be glad to learn different).

- Swing/position trading stocks is a little easier because of the long-term bullish bias of the stock market. But then one should measure his trading performance vs the market performance (so-called Alpha), and all of a sudden it is way more difficult to do better than the market on a long-term basis. Still, there are a number of books that can help achieve that (at least, that's my belief).

You forgot the ones who write algos and trade intrasecond...

__________________
We will not have any more crashes in our time."
- John Maynard Keynes in 1927

Posted by KastyG on 04-29-12 02:26 AM:

Quote from bwolinsky:

Yes! And then we can really be called a millenial!

Really, Livermoore was psychotic, and got lucky in up markets. His strategies wouldn't work today.

not as smart as you..you're genius progeny.

but, i' will really try to get all your jokes and innuendo

Posted by Random.Capital on 04-29-12 02:35 AM:

Quote from bwolinsky:

Really, Livermoore was psychotic, and got lucky in up markets. His strategies wouldn't work today.

Of course they would.

Getting "lucky in up markets" has always worked, and will always work.

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 02:47 AM:

Quote from Random.Capital:

Of course they would.

Getting "lucky in up markets" has always worked, and will always work.

That was his strategy. True buy and hold will always work, but not in the sense that it would be a good short term model to follow if you were trying to day or swing trade.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by eusdaiki on 04-29-12 02:51 AM:

Quote from Random.Capital:

Of course they would.

Getting "lucky in up markets" has always worked, and will always work.

he happened to be short at the right time in 1907 and 1929, out of pure luck? Doubt it.

__________________
We will not have any more crashes in our time."
- John Maynard Keynes in 1927

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 03:06 AM:

Quote from eusdaiki:

he happened to be short at the right time in 1907 and 1929, out of pure luck? Doubt it.

It was probably insider trading.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by kut2k2 on 04-29-12 03:23 AM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Strongly disagree. Most methods fail all the time, because they are geared towards only a certain type of market. Trend-following methods fail bigtime when the market turns choppy. RTM methods fail bigtime when the market turns trendy. To say it's all the trader's fault is very short-sighted, unless you expect the trader to *know* when the market is trendy or choppy independent of the technical indicators that are almost never any help in that regard.

Traders fail largely because their tools are flawed, not because they can't follow basic instructions. Most people can.

Posted by trueandhonest on 04-29-12 04:03 AM:

Buy and hold always works, just look at historical charts. It's called inflation.

Posted by danielc1 on 04-29-12 09:14 AM:

Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from kut2k2:

Strongly disagree. Most methods fail all the time, because they are geared towards only a certain type of market. Trend-following methods fail bigtime when the market turns choppy. RTM methods fail bigtime when the market turns trendy. To say it's all the trader's fault is very short-sighted, unless you expect the trader to *know* when the market is trendy or choppy independent of the technical indicators that are almost never any help in that regard.

Traders fail largely because their tools are flawed, not because they can't follow basic instructions. Most people can.

That is an interesting thought... Part of successful trading is to know in wich market you are and knowing wich method will work. It is pretty standard knowledge about the market that is easy to understand. Up/down/sideways and high/medium/low volatility. Breakout strategies that are discussed above work great in up and low to medium volatility markets but will indeed fail in sideway high volatility market. Common sense, standard knowledge available to the public...
About your remark that most people can follow basic instructions. I find it in my experiences not true... Most people can not follow basic instructions. They first 'filter' the instructions with their own experiences and then apply what they think is the instruction. Besides trading, I have also some other business where I work with other people. My findings are that a simple instruction with one aspect of something they must do, will be followed trough, but as soon I give an order that is more complex, like build a stand, invite people and use exactly this words if you talk to them, that they alter the instructions to their believe and experiences. And trading is even more complex in my eyes...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by danielc1 on 04-29-12 10:46 AM:

Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

I don't know where the deal with everything works comes from.

Have you backtested these methods? Some of them don't even have strategies. They are figments of the author's imagination, like Tharp.

I know I'm going to rub your hair in the wrong way with this comment but backtesting is way overrated to find a tradingsystem that work... I can make every system work in backtesting, with only adapting the variables when to get out... But it is a handy tool to know what kind of system would work in what kind of market condition...

I do agree that not every author I have mentioned has a system; Especially Van Tharp (who I personally know) is a big advocate of finding your own system that fit's your personality. But the guy who he is working with the last decade knows almost everything about tradingsystems, Ken Long, is one of the top notch traders I know. Intraday, Swing and longterm, his trading is very good. And he uses what Van talks about in his trading. As do I.

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 04:53 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I know I'm going to rub your hair in the wrong way with this comment but backtesting is way overrated to find a tradingsystem that work... I can make every system work in backtesting, with only adapting the variables when to get out... But it is a handy tool to know what kind of system would work in what kind of market condition...

I do agree that not every author I have mentioned has a system; Especially Van Tharp (who I personally know) is a big advocate of finding your own system that fit's your personality. But the guy who he is working with the last decade knows almost everything about tradingsystems, Ken Long, is one of the top notch traders I know. Intraday, Swing and longterm, his trading is very good. And he uses what Van talks about in his trading. As do I.

My pedigree from research related to things like IQ and Income, that could predict what income you'd earn when you were 40 based on your ASVAB iq percentile, showed that intelligence was the greatest predictor of income with a 37% R^2.

I guess my analysis of that is why I'm always leaning towards quantitative trading methods, than seat of the pants guessing. I don't consider strategies that work in real time optimized on past data as any reason to discount backtesting. Backtesting is a way to find a solution to a formula. Assuming your strategy is not literally measuring if it's May 5th, 2010, do not buy, then whatever the model says it did around that time is probably close to what it would have done actually. Even if the trades went off at different prices, it still would have had relatively similar positions on. In the case of IQ and Income, your intelligence modelled against the log of your income at age 40 is just the same as the models output at the time you had optimized it.

Everything works is naive, because what doesn't work is thinking that not having to optimize simply because you fail to see the scientific basis behind backtesting is significantly more effective than trading on discretion.

I prefer artificial intelligence to a trader's guesstimate any day of the week, and know that those discretionary traders cannot possibly trade as well as my robots do.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by danielc1 on 04-29-12 07:21 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

My pedigree from research related to things like IQ and Income, that could predict what income you'd earn when you were 40 based on your ASVAB iq percentile, showed that intelligence was the greatest predictor of income with a 37% R^2.

I guess my analysis of that is why I'm always leaning towards quantitative trading methods, than seat of the pants guessing. I don't consider strategies that work in real time optimized on past data as any reason to discount backtesting. Backtesting is a way to find a solution to a formula. Assuming your strategy is not literally measuring if it's May 5th, 2010, do not buy, then whatever the model says it did around that time is probably close to what it would have done actually. Even if the trades went off at different prices, it still would have had relatively similar positions on. In the case of IQ and Income, your intelligence modelled against the log of your income at age 40 is just the same as the models output at the time you had optimized it.

Everything works is naive, because what doesn't work is thinking that not having to optimize simply because you fail to see the scientific basis behind backtesting is significantly more effective than trading on discretion.

I prefer artificial intelligence to a trader's guesstimate any day of the week, and know that those discretionary traders cannot possibly trade as well as my robots do.

I hear you. I know from your responses to this site you are very heavily based to scientific research and wants to see 'hard' facts about some ideas before it is valid in your mind. And that is good. Your aproach is one way and a good way. But there is a whole other world out there, that exist with people, traders, that do very well without the knowledge you talk about. Many, many great traders never ever backtested their ideas, because they knew what they knew about the markets. My 'trouble' with backtesting is not how you do it. My 'trouble' with backtesting is, that it is way to easy to be fooled as a new guy in the believe that you have a good system, if you do not know what you need to know about trading and the market you are going to trade. But also this piece of information is known to the public and easy researchable...
Let's agree to disagree on this matter

Oh, one more thing: i'm very very naive. That is one of the reasons I can get information from someone else and take it in good faith without any resistance and applied it to my benefit. I believe (almost) everything untill proofed other wise

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by oldtime on 04-29-12 08:32 PM:

I agree. Any strategy you came up with when you were flat and of sound mind and body may not make you money, but it will at least get you back close to even.

The problem arises when it starts off in the drawdown (even though you predicted the drawdown would inevitabley occur) and you give up on the system and start on something new, but now at a reduced account size.

They all work, minus the spread and commissions.

No way to overcome spread and commissions without accepting unknown risk which no system can compensate for.

In otherwords, you need to guess, and you need to guess right.

The system is just a foundation to work off of. Hopefully it has a strong money management component and a reasonable stop loss protection plan.

Posted by dv4632 on 04-29-12 09:07 PM:

Quote from icarus618:

Regarding brilliant trading insights:

Everyone knows and can easily accept cutting losses short and letting profits run. The hard part is in doing it. Why? Because it is unclear to people what constitutes a "loss" to cut short and a "profit" to let run and for how far.

If I enter the ES long and the trade immediately goes 2 ticks against me is that a loss to cut short? Yes? No? Maybe? If yes, do I cut it short ASAP or do I wait to see if it comes back 2 ticks to my entry or even a tick in my favor as it does MOST OF THE TIME. And if I wait and the trade comes back +1 tick in my favor is that a profit I should let run? Would it be a mistake to cut the trade for +1 even though initially it was -2 and I wanted to cut my loss short? What if the trade started out +1 and then went to -2? If you don't like using ticks in the example, substitute in points.

Reciting adages is easy: Sell higher than you bought. Buy lower than you sold. Well, okay, but how do I know it's going higher or lower or just staying flat? If I knew that I wouldn't need a method.

Good points. Reciting adages is indeed easy...

Posted by oldtime on 04-29-12 09:20 PM:

Quote from dv4632:

Good points. Reciting adages is indeed easy...

yeah, that's a good one.

If you enter ES long and it moves 2 points against you should close it out at a loss, thus honoring the "cut your losses short" adage.

And then you should immediately reenter long at a better price, thus honoring the "buy when there is blood in the streets" adage

If it moves in your favor, you should never take a profit unless they don't ring a bell, thus honoring the "They never ring a bell at the top" adage.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-29-12 09:26 PM:

danielc1.

You have a lot to learn.

Suppose you do.

Blah blah blah

Suppose you don't.

Blah blah blah

Read Time magazine's 100.

Narrow your focus to a comment quoted by the economics and financial editor. He quotes this guy who said something he discovered (and he is wrong, too).

Here are two people that the public might even put some credence into. Let me help you past the sophistry of Time magazine and those who receive compliments on their supposed to be true truisms.

There is no risk in trading on any fractal once you have purposely built your mind to totally parallel the operations of the markets. (You build a fully differentiated mind)

Look into your mind to see some systems where you have successfully done that in the past and in your youth where you could still learn.

Now assess other posters in the field of trading by measuring whether they have gone through building their minds fully for trading or whether they are FOS.

Regarding Time magazine and it editor and the person who got recognition, they all are FOS.

Lets pretend. See below.

When you use your fully differentiated mind for trading, you notice there is no noise, no anomalies and that every observable fractal for trading is fully interlocking and a perfectly rigid unfailing system.

That is to say, you went through your very familiar process of learning on the topic of markets and your mind is fully differentiated and precisely parallels the system of the market.

Make a list of topics that you have learned completely. Next to it make columns for who taught you and the method they got you to use to become fully differentiated.

For example, right now you have a mistaken notion that Blowinski is scientific. You do not understand, so far, about science. Look and see that science or a science topic is not on your list, nor were you taught or trained.

Have you learned about mathematics or maybe algebra for base 10. Each base has a separate algebra is what you were told when you took simple math courses.

One type of math is dictated by the markets. If you are reading comments from a person, for the person to be correct, he has to be using that kind of math.

Read about backtesting from posts of those who do and do not backtest. (I cannot, simply because of the math that market's dictate, this math is always certain and probability cannot be part of this brand of math).

Someone in this thread spoke of one's mental orientation. They didn't highlight one aspect that, roughly speaking, is deadly and terminal. The mind does not erase very well. What is the mind's substitute for being unable to erase its memory.

Make a new column on your list and list how you learned to correct mental mistakes you made while learning a topic that you were able to learn in the past.

Notice that all the topics were long ago and nowadays you are not adding topics anymore.

In trading, I have found three methods are required. Three are needed because of market size. Market size limits your personal application of capital.

Each method stems from but one core. The core and each methods are published here as one pagers. This means there are four one-page sets of rules for trading by being in the market all the time (RTH's); on the correct side of the market all the time, and taking the full offer of the market in profit segments all the time (carving turns with partial fills).

It takes about 40 to 60 days to become fully differentiated mentally. If you have a unsettled heritage or have been casual about knowledge and skills acquisition, it may take you longer to read and knowledgeably use the four pages.

The 10,000 hours thing is longer than it takes you whole body to replace all of its cells. Why consider spending 2,500 hours a page.

The more FOS you are, the more toiling (think of how toilet paper gets its name) you will have to do. Stop right now accepting unfounded input.

The PVT page for short term position trading stocks was determined to have a Sharpe ratio of 60 by Worden Bros using their universe (the NAZ 100) for a year's trading. Blowinski debates the findings of Worden Bros drag nd drop Blox which converted the one pager to logic and applied it to the NAZ 100. Is Worden FOS or is Blowinski? When Worden Bros did their thing at the TradersExpo in thier exihibition booth, they did not believe they did it correctly the first time. (they promptly erased it....) I chuckled. Look,,,, Think..... You do drag and drop and you run it for a year on 100 stocks. You get a number never seen in Worden Bros ever before.

Why would you erase it? Wouldn't you save it to a secure file and keep it safe and available for later analysis?

My best post of all time was promptly deleted by ET management. Topically, it presented by mathematical name, the four cornerstones of creating in financial markets. But I used the word "fuck" (I am told) 26 times.

Anyway Worden did their drag and drop over and got the same Sharpe of 60 plus. And then they didn't delete it. BUT they didn't sell it either. It is here free as one pager.

danielc1, sorry, I have to be the bearer of such sad tidings for you.

Posted by danielc1 on 04-29-12 10:17 PM:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

Jack, if your best piece of posting contains 26 times the word 'f*ck' maybe it is an idea to start stop using that word and people could see your 'true' message. Or was your message not good enough to stand without that word?

And don't be sorry for me, let me be in my own cocoon. I live a nice life...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by davroz on 04-29-12 10:24 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Seems that no one is answering the original post, but instead are giving their own views why most traders fail.

There is a tendency to seek change for improvement rather than settle for what is, that is a natural human characteristic to endeavor to improve and therefore change. In a trading context though the inability to settle on a method and to keep changing to another indicator, another charting tool i.e. to blame the tool rather than the workman i.e. oneself, just leads to a spiral of failure. There should come a point perhaps after a few blown accounts that the trader realises that they have to choose a method and then to adapt their behaviour to make that method work, i.e. the change has to come from their own way of thinking in order to become successful.

Posted by bwolinsky on 04-29-12 10:33 PM:

Quote from jack hershey:

The PVT page for short term position trading stocks was determined to have a Sharpe ratio of 60 by Worden Bros using their universe (the NAZ 100) for a year's trading. Blowinski debates the findings of Worden Bros drag nd drop Blox which converted the one pager to logic and applied it to the NAZ 100. Is Worden FOS or is Blowinski? When Worden Bros did their thing at the TradersExpo in thier exihibition booth, they did not believe they did it correctly the first time. (they promptly erased it....) I chuckled. Look,,,, Think..... You do drag and drop and you run it for a year on 100 stocks. You get a number never seen in Worden Bros ever before.

So says you, Jack! It does not exist. This backtest. If it did you would have done well to save it. I've asked you to put me in touch with those Worden Bros. My most recent is only for trading .SPX, SPY, or ES. It has nothing to do with other stocks since none of your strategies are designed for those.

Where is the backtest, Jack? You've made it another figment of your imagination and created the farce to further your image several months ago when you first brought it up.

This 60+ sharpe ratio backtest is nowhere. Why can't you do it?

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by keeptradin' on 04-29-12 10:59 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

Reminds me of the first time I saw the movie "Dune".

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by SteveNYC on 04-29-12 11:05 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

Jack, if your best piece of posting contains 26 times the word 'f*ck' maybe it is an idea to start stop using that word and people could see your 'true' message. Or was your message not good enough to stand without that word?

And don't be sorry for me, let me be in my own cocoon. I live a nice life...

That post by Jack is one of the longest if not longest post on ET ever. He should receive some award.

He seems to make sense but I only understood and agree to disagree on one thing he said in his post. I may have found an error in his post.

He said that 10,000 hours of trading is longer than it takes a body to replace its cells.

Well, it takes a body 10 years to replace its cells.

10,000 trading hours can be achieved in about 6.15 years.

Here is the math:

One trading day has 6.5 hours.

There's about 250 trading days in one year.

250 x 6.5 = 1,625 hours/year

10,000 hours / 1,625 hours per year = 6.15 years.

Just 6 years to become a maestro of trading.

Posted by Random.Capital on 04-29-12 11:27 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

No.

Posted by icarus618 on 04-29-12 11:38 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

* * *

He said you've fucked yourself over and are beyond help. Oh and that bwolinsky is full of shit.

Don't shoot the messenger!

Posted by jack hershey on 04-29-12 11:40 PM:

Quote from SteveNYC:

That post by Jack is one of the longest if not longest post on ET ever. He should receive some award.

He seems to make sense but I only understood and agree to disagree on one thing he said in his post. I may have found an error in his post.

He said that 10,000 hours of trading is longer than it takes a body to replace its cells.

Well, it takes a body 10 years to replace its cells.

10,000 trading hours can be achieved in about 6.15 years.

Here is the math:

One trading day has 6.5 hours.

There's about 250 trading days in one year.

250 x 6.5 = 1,625 hours/year

10,000 hours / 1,625 hours per year = 6.15 years.

Just 6 years to become a maestro of trading.

Thanks so much for your input.

ET has a cap on the # of characters and spaces in one slug of posting. I just stay under that limit by getting a count. If you go over it dissapears

A lot of learners put in 10 hours a day and some work on weekends. 2,500 hours a year is my round number.

In trading there is a myth about "full time" trading. No one who knows how to trade, has to trade each market day or any whole market day. What would be the point? My point was in reference to market capacity. You can only trade at five times the capacity by taking partial fills while carving the turns.

My estimate of 40 to 60 days comes from the deep recognition of the routine a trader follows.

CW follows a betting regime used by John Boyd to train fighter pilots. Their objective was to win dog fights; OODA was the routine.

When a person begins to learn, he follows a routine that has no "chance" and instead only has "certainty. The OP did this when he learned to use a pencil to write in his first language. He was successful and completely differentiated in a matter of a month or so. This core successful experience came by following a routine. The routine was repeated daily in a group setting with a roving teacher.

In trading, it is the same. Pencils are used and logging is done. A laptop is used and the volume and price are annotated. There is one pattern and an Order Of Events happens.

Where we meet, a screen (52 inches) is on the wall. Any laptop is cabled to it. All computers are connected to a hub that allows a chart to be updated over the 300 seconds of each bar. I narrate the market events as the traders wish. They usually like 5 to 10 minutes ahead of the real market time.

We do about 10 to 12 pages a day and put it into three ring binderrs.

We enter as the market opens on bar 1. We trade up to the beginning of midday. In AZ, opening is 6:30 am. I happen to log and annotate all day so I can take the offer through the day up to about bar 78. Then I just log through bar 81.

The group does a weekly add/delete on their stock Universe. We enter about 1 and 1/2 hours before price begins to move. We exit when volume no longer keeps up. This is crossover stock trading. The owned stocks maintain the highest money velocity.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 12:03 AM:

Quote from bwolinsky:

So says you, Jack! It does not exist. This backtest. If it did you would have done well to save it. I've asked you to put me in touch with those Worden Bros. My most recent is only for trading .SPX, SPY, or ES. It has nothing to do with other stocks since none of your strategies are designed for those.

Where is the backtest, Jack? You've made it another figment of your imagination and created the farce to further your image several months ago when you first brought it up.

This 60+ sharpe ratio backtest is nowhere. Why can't you do it?

I not only saved the logic; I converted it into a one pager. Years before the Worden test, it was posted here. So was the Universe selection process.

The name of the process is called PVT. PVT stands for Position Vector Trading.

The one pager was written in a matter of ninutes as someone typed it up for me using equations to make up the charts after I dictated the % of volume for each bar in the catenary graph at the bottom. Last a 400,000 sample of stocks was used to verify that the data I dictated was on the mark.

To make it extremely simple, the parts of the trade were typed in unique solors for each part of the trade.

This one pager has a title. It is: Unusual Volume.

I also posted a P n L created by someone else (this is referred to as a third party). He made an ATS and the P n L is the ATS working. It shows trade hold length average and profit average.

You may remember a person totally fucking up the PVT trading in several ways. He posted how he took 500K to about nothing doing 24,000 trades over five years and he did not have a Universe either nor did he use the proper exit. He was FOS and got mentally ill lurking. People who can read can compute his average loss on 100 shares. try it. Find out he lost a statistically insignificant amount of money. All he did was NOT do a test. He got statisitcally insignificant results and was not able to under stand this. One other neat aspect. zero of his trades lasted slong as a normal position trade; he always exited prematurely because of his fucked up exit design.

"Where is the backtest, Jack?". Anyone can duplicate it if they wish or they can fuck it up as was done on ET by an airhead.

What you do is use the NAZ 100 and the unusual volume page and run it for a year. Then you use any Sharpe equation and fill in the results. The equation will produce a result. read it.

Thw question is not a queation to me, really. It is a question to you? Why can't you take the provided information and do the test with real data and real stocks? You told us. You don't trade stocks.

The discussion on all of this was before you arrived at ET.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 12:10 AM:

Quote from icarus618:

He said you've fucked yourself over and are beyond help. Oh and that bwolinsky is full of shit.

Don't shoot the messenger!

This is a very good and precise edit.

It is good to see a person (The OP) go through what had to be avoided. The example is poingnant. He told of his misfortunes and how his mind got to a non differentiating state. He can't erase it.

For anyone beginning, they have to accept the math the market uses. Boolean algebra. As said here its all one's and zero's....

In trading, "following" doesn't work. One of Covell's first sentences was "Seven gruelling years........ or such. See the altenative calc of 10,000 hours and add in wrting it down as quotes of others..... LOL.. you can stand right next to it and never learn a thing, covell so uneloquently proved.

Posted by keeptradin' on 04-30-12 12:11 AM:

Quote from keeptradin':

Reminds me of the first time I saw the movie "Dune".

Good posts, Jack. Said with sincerity, and not sarcasm.

Much like "Dune", it takes multiple viewings and several perspectives to "hear" what he is saying.

And a mind that wishes to learn and not judge.

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 12:44 AM:

Quote from danielc1:

Can somebody please explain in plain English or even in Dutch for that matter , what Jack is talking about?

Jack, if your best piece of posting contains 26 times the word 'f*ck' maybe it is an idea to start stop using that word and people could see your 'true' message. Or was your message not good enough to stand without that word?

And don't be sorry for me, let me be in my own cocoon. I live a nice life...

Thank icarus, I did.

That fuck bait worked yet one more time.

People did and will always complain ("whiners") about how long my post are. So I did four one pagers that a guy could make an ATS out of and then trade it to create a P n L. It showed a 11.1% gain every week or so.

Who's sorry for you? You are just like 90% of the temporary trading retail folks.

Remember when you learned to letter or do cursives? Did you learn to ride a bike? Swim? Play a team sport?

Making a cocoon is a worthy learned skill with some cool associated knowledge. Posting here is just an example of a leak in your cocoon. Do you still put on ice skates?

My message is indisputable.

1. There is one pattern in markets. It is flawless and there is no noise nor anomalies. Boolean algebra and Carnap's logic theory is in full bloom.

2. For trading, volume signals lead price signals. See the pattern applied to PVT and SCT.

3. How the markets work is deduced. You cannot use induction to prove the operation of the markets. In Boolean algebra, the 1's and 0's always mean the probability is 100% all the time. When you took Geometry you learned how to do deductive proofs.

4. Having a Boolean Parametric Measure in an in-kind Hypothesis Set is as good as it gets according to Keynes.

So the joke about Time Magazine's editotrs and their list that included Andrew Lo of MIT, is almost priceless. Lo's uncherishble words were: "Buy and Hold don't work anymore" So cocoonicable, if I may say so. So will he ever find out what works? Will it, at least, be a little important. LOL FOS is so cool at Tech.

Trudeau, last in the issue, said he didn't understand how Stephen Colbert could do what Trudeau described precisely.

Colbert and I are both logicologists. We both read Time magazine as a humor magazine.

Do you remember when the West travelled the spice and silk routes? Do you see how unravelling a worm's life work in the housing industry makes a silk blouse an outstanding anatomical and very spicy wrapper. Don't get Spagetti suace on your gal's blouse.

Go to Denver and drop into the club called "The Mine Shaft" and find out. Have a"gunpowder" drink on me.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 12:59 AM:

Quote from keeptradin':

Good posts, Jack. Said with sincerity, and not sarcasm.

Much like "Dune", it takes multiple viewings and several perspectives to "hear" what he is saying.

And a mind that wishes to learn and not judge.

Dune as a paperback was a new venture in writing. It IS contagious as a movie.

I am not sarcastic but I do like dryer humor as in martini's etc...

Neuro science can be woven into the thought process so the truth does get stranger than fiction.

I couldn't, at the time, imagine that cocoon was being built instead of a little exploring off the usual turf.

This prime necessity of markets to have sand-like granularity is where the Boolean algebra extinguished probability.

Dodd and Granville are just about as old as the Dow theorists. But like in calculus you can go differential or integral. Its the same with a good steak sandwich or a Sonoran desert hot dog.

Dodd and Granville were the tick dogs. They recited the HS and PM so long ago. Electric cars were replaced by Ford using storable engergy. It wasn't right but it made all the magazines in advertizing.

So fear, anxiety and anger rule for those who do not know how to know at all times. I kinda like the other side of the cocoon: support ,comfort and confidence that comes when you know you know all the time.

And explore, too.

Posted by keeptradin' on 04-30-12 02:01 AM:

Quote from jack hershey:

I am not sarcastic but I do like dryer humor as in martini's etc...

You misread my meaning, but I felt that upon reading the words I wrote that that would be the case. Much like in trading, we can know an outcome in advance, yet fail to take the appropriate action to avoid a negative outcome.

My meaning was that after reading your posts, I found them to be well written. And I meant that I was saying that with sincerity, and not sarcasm. I was not implying that your posts were sincere rather than sarcastic, although that would be a relevant inference.

The reason for that statement was that so many passive/agressive types here on ET resort to sarcasm to say what their passive side will not allow them to verbalize. My intention was merely to convey that I found your posts to be insightful, and that I meant that in a sincere way.

I too enjoy a dry martini, but have taken more to the bourbon side of things of late. Something about the bite that reconnects me to my redneck roots.

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by keeptradin' on 04-30-12 02:15 AM:

Quote from jack hershey:

2. For trading, volume signals lead price signals. See the pattern applied to PVT and SCT.

By volume, are you referring to order flow (the placement of orders to enter/exit the market), or actual contracts traded??

Volume in itself is a result of price action, and is a lagging indicator. Volume is an effect, not a cause. It is a result of market direction at a given period of time, rather than a predictor. Take stop runs for example: massive volume can be generated by moving price to a certain level, followed by an immediate reversal in the direction that supply/demand is most prevalent after the vacuum that is created by the aforementioned stops is filled.

The placement of orders, however, is a leading indicator, in that those orders are the summary of the collective mindset of the market on a millisecond by millisecond basis. Even artificial intelligence such as algos and HFT's is included in order flow, as they too must enter and exit the market just as humans do.

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by Zr1Trader on 04-30-12 05:12 AM:

Quote from keeptradin':

The placement of orders, however, is a leading indicator, in that those orders are the summary of the collective mindset of the market on a millisecond by millisecond basis. Even artificial intelligence such as algos and HFT's is included in order flow, as they too must enter and exit the market just as humans do.

Posted by danielc1 on 04-30-12 08:13 AM:

Don't we all love the internet and sites like this?

Jack:
One : You come to this thread and tell me I have a lot to learn. Great I hope I do, when I don't, live get's pretty boring, knowing it all.
Two : You are projecting your own shortcomings to other people. You tell me, a guy with 200 post in ten years, that I'm leaking my cocoon because of my posting. Euhmmm, right, mister over 5000 posts. (Where do you find the time to make so many lengthly post?)
Three : Surprise, surprise : I know your methods and what you are trying to tell other people about trading... But I aslo have the wisdom to not try it to see it as the only way to trade. Oh, by the way, what you tell and teach is something most old time floor pit traders also know. Nothing new and public knowledge if you do the research.
Four : I hope the guy that has researched you, will take the time to research me, because there is some evidence of 'succes' (what is succes by the way?) due to my trading. Tip use the same handle on some exotic cars forums...
Five : Get your own tread, if you have nothing constructive to say.

And as a human being, I wish you all the succes you want and a healthy live.

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by AAAintheBeltway on 04-30-12 03:05 PM:

Whatever happened to Spydertrader's attempts to trade Jack's stock method? It was so complex, it was difficult to follow, but I thought the volume-based concepts made sense. In particular, Jack had an exit trigger based on extreme volume that seemed to work very well.

As i recall, his approach was to watch group of higher beta stocks, wait for them to enter a low volume consolidation phase, then attempt to buy when they confirmed an up move. Not all that different from O'Neil's CANSLIM.

I lost interest in Jack when he started claiming his daytrading students were able to net several times the daily range.

Posted by Scataphagos on 04-30-12 03:38 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

"...I lost interest in Jack when he started claiming his daytrading students were able to net several times the daily range.

CORRECTAMUNDO!

Most aspiring traders question the possibility/veracity of averaging 2 ES points per day... let alone 3X the daily range.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 07:58 PM:

Quote from keeptradin':

By volume, are you referring to order flow (the placement of orders to enter/exit the market), or actual contracts traded??

Volume in itself is a result of price action, and is a lagging indicator. Volume is an effect, not a cause. It is a result of market direction at a given period of time, rather than a predictor. Take stop runs for example: massive volume can be generated by moving price to a certain level, followed by an immediate reversal in the direction that supply/demand is most prevalent after the vacuum that is created by the aforementioned stops is filled.

The placement of orders, however, is a leading indicator, in that those orders are the summary of the collective mindset of the market on a millisecond by millisecond basis. Even artificial intelligence such as algos and HFT's is included in order flow, as they too must enter and exit the market just as humans do.

The height of the volume bar represents contracts traded during the measured interval.

Most people believe as you do.

When I started out, I deduced that volume leads price.

The pattern shows the V, P relationship

The end effect of the pattern is the beginning of overlap with the next emerging pattern. Soon overlap ends and the new and opposite sentiment pattern is on its own giving you more profits in this ensuing segment.

Since from the beginnning or my reasoning and trading, I used the finite math dictated by the markets, there was no prediction requuired. Prediction was probably introduced by people who did not always know bar by bar what was going on.

As John Boyd explained about these people, they chose betting as a means of doing their routine (OODA).

Performance data of such people shows dramatically their not taking the market's offer by a long shot. you can make a ratio of the market's offer to the profits of "predictors or bettors and see that they earn meagre protions of the offer.

While this is just impiracle data, it strikes any thinking person that using prediction is a fool's errand. Don't predict or use a mathematics not dictated by market's operation. If you do you are leading yourself astray.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 08:01 PM:

Quote from keeptradin':

You misread my meaning, but I felt that upon reading the words I wrote that that would be the case. Much like in trading, we can know an outcome in advance, yet fail to take the appropriate action to avoid a negative outcome.

My meaning was that after reading your posts, I found them to be well written. And I meant that I was saying that with sincerity, and not sarcasm. I was not implying that your posts were sincere rather than sarcastic, although that would be a relevant inference.

The reason for that statement was that so many passive/agressive types here on ET resort to sarcasm to say what their passive side will not allow them to verbalize. My intention was merely to convey that I found your posts to be insightful, and that I meant that in a sincere way.

I too enjoy a dry martini, but have taken more to the bourbon side of things of late. Something about the bite that reconnects me to my redneck roots.

thanks for your response. I am a bourbon fan too. My bourbon of choice is the one recommedended by the Kentucky Derby blue grass folks. straight shots and no ice, thank you.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 08:08 PM:

Quote from Zr1Trader:

+1

I use about 10 to 12 leading indicators of price.

Many center on orders.

Orders people use often leave them at the gate and unfilled. It is very strange to me to see people placing orders that will not be filled.

The DOM "walls" are a prime example of volume quantities that are not going to let price pass and will cause price to rebound in the opposite direction.

OTR charts are the best volume charts for watch turns and understanding how many partial fills and which harmonics (odd or even) are at play.

It seems as though volume is leading and then for some reason, you think price is leading.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 08:44 PM:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Whatever happened to Spydertrader's attempts to trade Jack's stock method? It was so complex, it was difficult to follow, but I thought the volume-based concepts made sense. In particular, Jack had an exit trigger based on extreme volume that seemed to work very well.

As i recall, his approach was to watch group of higher beta stocks, wait for them to enter a low volume consolidation phase, then attempt to buy when they confirmed an up move. Not all that different from O'Neil's CANSLIM.

I lost interest in Jack when he started claiming his daytrading students were able to net several times the daily range.

As you saw and read. The stock trading took place over a year. Orders were announced the trades were taken and then the results were posted for over a year. You probably know the annualized take from reading the journal.

3 beta stocks selected in various ways over the years were used.

the one pager gives everyone the formulae for each of the volumes designated: DU, FRV, and Peaking.

One table color coded is a normalized table that can be used for any high beta universe.

O'Neil came upon the scene at some point after 1957 when the system I use was first distributed to others. today you can get your Universe with the click of a button. Stocktables.com uses the EPS and RS percentiles of O'Neil. We both started with little initial capital: he at 500 bucks and I started with 300. there was an odd lot penalty at that time.

In stocks volume leads price by about 1 and 1/2 hours. A nice time advantage. for yearsthe SEC cited me for insider trading simply because of this fact of volume leading price (and which they had to be taught so they could try their best to understand how front running really works. Since they couldn't, they accepted the idea that I could not possible know such a diverse population of information sources. At any rate they ceased and decisted after a few years. And their citations were withdrawn. they did penalize my broker, however. My broker embroidered their coattailing operation and for embroidering MLPF&B was fined.

Stock trading is position trading for me, PVT.

those whom I support in their learning also trade intraday. SCT is what they do. See the one-pager. Commodities indexes are judged by their daily range. their is a common formula. this can be used as a denominator to determine the daily multiple of or the market's offer.

As stated by others here in the past the multiple appraoches 6 commonly. Gaussian distributions of two market variables were also tabulated and presented.

since it is common to enter on the opening bar and stay in the market all day by staying on the correct side of the market, it turns out a multiple of the ATR is a common experience for those doing the drills of learning all of this.

Entry/exit trading is replaced by hold/reversal trading and using one pattern that has a specific unvariying OOE.

Any observer could examine the reasoning involved. It is indisputable as seen on ET over the years.

Asa person takes a look at himself, he usually finds he has absorbed the CW and myths of the markets. They do not erase from the long term memory. These people all have undifferentiated minds as a consequence.

If they were learning to read as they learnedwhat is in their minds for markets, then they would not be able to learn to read.

They can read, however. With respect to learning to read, they always did what they were told.

The same is true for their learning to drive a car. they earned their licenses.

Wealth is how people measure a trader's success. Some people give away money and other give away time. A few give away both.

I use PEP to take money away from Wall Street and so far even the SEC has bitched about how I do it. They think I am an insider trader. What a joke.

the belt person lost interest. this is normal for a CW and myth oriented believer. How could it be any other way? It cannot be any other way when a person has a mind that are the consequence of his beliefs.

Look at Andrew Lo's mind. And people believe him.

Why was the SEC convinced I was a criminal? It may be that they get trined to believe the CW that big money believes.

In trading, the minority rules. The majority are the victims.

In retail, it is believed that most people lose. I believe most people have wrecked their minds permanently.

Posted by jack hershey on 04-30-12 09:00 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Don't we all love the internet and sites like this?

Jack:
One : You come to this thread and tell me I have a lot to learn. Great I hope I do, when I don't, live get's pretty boring, knowing it all.
Two : You are projecting your own shortcomings to other people. You tell me, a guy with 200 post in ten years, that I'm leaking my cocoon because of my posting. Euhmmm, right, mister over 5000 posts. (Where do you find the time to make so many lengthly post?)
Three : Surprise, surprise : I know your methods and what you are trying to tell other people about trading... But I aslo have the wisdom to not try it to see it as the only way to trade. Oh, by the way, what you tell and teach is something most old time floor pit traders also know. Nothing new and public knowledge if you do the research.
Four : I hope the guy that has researched you, will take the time to research me, because there is some evidence of 'succes' (what is succes by the way?) due to my trading. Tip use the same handle on some exotic cars forums...
Five : Get your own tread, if you have nothing constructive to say.

And as a human being, I wish you all the succes you want and a healthy live.

Give Martin Sosnoff a read. Try "Silent Investor, Silent Loser". Toni, his countess wife, apparently shares his art and photography interests. His inside covers do show a bunch of altrnative CW types of approaches.

His firm was the first non fund outfit to go public. (google Milliken)

People spend two things in life (live as you would say): money and time. Time is not recoverable. My orientation is to help others since it a great way to leverage doing problem solving.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 08:23 AM:

Ring... Ring... Yes, Hello?

Is this the police?

Yes.

Help, my thread is hi-JACKED

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by ocean5 on 05-01-12 09:08 AM:

Quote from jack hershey:

I use about 10 to 12 leading indicators of price.

Excuse me,if i may...Have read this statement many time and what does it mean?Sometimes you use 10, the other time 12,am i correct?It depends on something?I just don`t understand when people sometimes say this kind of words - ''i think'',''approximately'',''it seems'',''maybe'',''10 to 12''...etc

-How many?
-10 to 12
-What is it?
-10...or 12...
-so,10 or 12?
-sometimes...
-hmm...i see...(the conversation of two Pan troglodytes)

Sorry,i only felt so good this evening for the past 5 years...

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 09:37 AM:

You know, Jack, I think my trading is not that different then yours or what you are trying to tell other people. I use for example also 'volume' as a leading price indicator in my intraday trading. Only I do not make 5000+ posts about it. One is more then sufficient, if you are clear about it... And a picture says more then a thousand words...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 09:39 AM:

Oops, forgot the picture...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by oilfxpro on 05-01-12 09:53 AM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

Once upon a time , a scammer was selling services from a website , trading education ,trading signals ,site advertising fees ,software sold on site , and rebates from bucket shops were his main source of income .

He wanted the world to believe everything his site sold worked.The moral is don't entertain pricks!

__________________
Trading is very easy job with automation.

Posted by RCG Trader on 05-01-12 03:22 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

My pedigree from research related to things like IQ and Income, that could predict what income you'd earn when you were 40 based on your ASVAB iq percentile, showed that intelligence was the greatest predictor of income with a 37% R^2.

I guess my analysis of that is why I'm always leaning towards quantitative trading methods, than seat of the pants guessing. I don't consider strategies that work in real time optimized on past data as any reason to discount backtesting. Backtesting is a way to find a solution to a formula. Assuming your strategy is not literally measuring if it's May 5th, 2010, do not buy, then whatever the model says it did around that time is probably close to what it would have done actually. Even if the trades went off at different prices, it still would have had relatively similar positions on. In the case of IQ and Income, your intelligence modelled against the log of your income at age 40 is just the same as the models output at the time you had optimized it.

Everything works is naive, because what doesn't work is thinking that not having to optimize simply because you fail to see the scientific basis behind backtesting is significantly more effective than trading on discretion.

I prefer artificial intelligence to a trader's guesstimate any day of the week, and know that those discretionary traders cannot possibly trade as well as my robots do.

I got a 96 on my ASVAB, how much money should I be making?

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 03:38 PM:

He, Jack, trades of the day, can you please comment why I still have trades that sometimes lose? I want to be perfect just like you...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by dom993 on 05-01-12 05:53 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

He, Jack, trades of the day, can you please comment why I still have trades that sometimes lose? I want to be perfect just like you...

Really not perfect it seems ... look at your exit Buy shown 814.2 when price is trading about 817 at that time.

Idem for 1st entry Long shown 814.3 when price is about 815.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 06:34 PM:

Quote from dom993:

Really not perfect it seems ... look at your exit Buy shown 814.2 when price is trading about 817 at that time.

Idem for 1st entry Long shown 814.3 when price is about 815.

Yeah, fore some reason, the arrow's with entry and exit price labels are way of before the 'gap' in the chart at 16u (10u US time)...

Damn't... I can't even photoshop right... what must people think now of me...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by KastyG on 05-01-12 06:43 PM:

not everything..but much idoes...

with right money management.

Posted by Crispy on 05-01-12 06:58 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from RCG Trader:

I got a 96 on my ASVAB, how much money should I be making?

I got a 90 and just turned 40. How about me?

This will be hilarious...I can feel it coming on now... :-)

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 07:06 PM:

Just to be clear of the entry's and exit times of today because the chart of today is not real clear... If someone needs it...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by bwolinsky on 05-01-12 07:19 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from RCG Trader:

I got a 96 on my ASVAB, how much money should I be making?

ASVAB percentiles were worth $250 per percentile in annual income. There were 13 other variables but I don't remember them and somehow don't have a copy of the report I submitted.

I know if you have drug and alcohol problems that'll knock $5000 off your annual income, $9600 is added for PhD or professional degrees. Some other numbers.

Asian ethnicity was the highest value added ethnicity.

96th percentile*$250/percentile point=$24,000 base.

These were values when you are age 40.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by jack hershey on 05-01-12 08:12 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

He, Jack, trades of the day, can you please comment why I still have trades that sometimes lose? I want to be perfect just like you...

Forget about being perfect and see if you can become a beginner and get the job done.

See attached.

Posted by jack hershey on 05-01-12 08:24 PM:

Quote from jack hershey:

Forget about being perfect and see if you can become a beginner and get the job done.

See attached.

Here is the answer sheet.

Posted by keeptradin' on 05-01-12 08:26 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

96th percentile*$250/percentile point=$24,000 base.

These were values when you are age 40.

So a 40 year-old who scored in the 90th percentile on the ASVAB and had two kids would be living below the US poverty level??

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

Scary stuff right there...no wonder they are rioting in the streets on May Day!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/2012...ory?id=16246278

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by jack hershey on 05-01-12 08:30 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Just to be clear of the entry's and exit times of today because the chart of today is not real clear... If someone needs it...

Cut ahead to the beginner level.

See if you can find the two trades I worked through for you.

Your broker ought to be cautioning you severly at this point. Ask him directly why he isn't. He is supposed to be following the regs.

Posted by jack hershey on 05-01-12 08:36 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

ASVAB percentiles were worth $250 per percentile in annual income. There were 13 other variables but I don't remember them and somehow don't have a copy of the report I submitted.

I know if you have drug and alcohol problems that'll knock $5000 off your annual income, $9600 is added for PhD or professional degrees. Some other numbers.

Asian ethnicity was the highest value added ethnicity.

96th percentile*$250/percentile point=$24,000 base.

These were values when you are age 40.

Your dog told my dog he ate the paper; he likes rice paper.

I'm in the second percentile of the GRE (Measured from the top down as usual.) I missed two questions because of unit errors.

Someone who was watching me trade said: "Gee, you made 13K in 9 minutes with 40 ES contracts." Maybe he said wow; I'm not sure. I was obeying the market at the time.

Posted by serioustrade on 05-01-12 08:41 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

What a load of crap. The OP can't trade profitably. Period.

Posted by bwolinsky on 05-01-12 09:18 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from keeptradin':

So a 40 year-old who scored in the 90th percentile on the ASVAB and had two kids would be living below the US poverty level??

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml

Scary stuff right there...no wonder they are rioting in the streets on May Day!!

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/2012...ory?id=16246278

These were United States kids between the ages of 13-17 in 1967. By 2002 they'd collected a ton of data I used SAS to analyze.

It really depended on ethnicity, degrees, and out of 12000 datapoints with only males counted those were the results.

I don't think you can draw a parallel with other countries with regard to the data, because it was very US centric, even though the ethnicity had somewhat of an impact, african american males had negative numbers in that category.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by bwolinsky on 05-01-12 09:21 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from jack hershey:

Your dog told my dog he ate the paper; he likes rice paper.

I'm in the second percentile of the GRE (Measured from the top down as usual.) I missed two questions because of unit errors.

Someone who was watching me trade said: "Gee, you made 13K in 9 minutes with 40 ES contracts." Maybe he said wow; I'm not sure. I was obeying the market at the time.

Just one screenshot of that would be enough.

Looking forward to the first 25 lot NQ position though. 50 ES wouldn't take too much effort to optimize.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 09:27 PM:

Jack, I see what you mean, but the point is that you are saying this after the fact. The first trades of the day, I was looking to short as soon I saw the volume being negative, and in a split moment the day 'break' to the downside out of a 'box' was over, only to turn up drastically. A typical move, when the first move failed, is a strong move in the other way, but you can not know that when you are sitting in front of the screen when the market is unfolding. It could easily have been a down move that continued from the opening...
Unless you see something I do not see in the spur of the moment...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-01-12 09:36 PM:

Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from serioustrade:

What a load of crap. The OP can't trade profitably. Period.

What I can and can not do, is not identifiable trough the internet. Besides that, who cares? You don't have to pay my bills and I do not have to pay yours, and I have nothing to proof to other people.

If you would like to elaborate why you think the statement is not true, your more then welcome to share your thoughts...

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by murray t turtle on 05-01-12 09:49 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Kase, Cooper, Tharp, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

=============
Good points;
as was long in in up market, & short the '29 downtrend.

LOL

But with all due respect, Mr . Douglas maybe smart, but never made much sense to me, Dr Tharp did. Probably right, as they say in Chicago ''the smarter you are the longer it takes.''LOL. I dont think Mr Mark Douglas ever claimed to be a profitable trader.

And Dr Van Tharp, dont know his P& L, but i found his Jack Schwager interview helpful enough to buy some more of his books...

Mostly agree with you;
but Don Bright admits he no longer trades in ''fractions'' so some public books need a bit of discretion................................

__________________
murray t turtle,nickname,not an alias

Posted by RCG Trader on 05-01-12 10:06 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

These were United States kids between the ages of 13-17 in 1967. By 2002 they'd collected a ton of data I used SAS to analyze.

It really depended on ethnicity, degrees, and out of 12000 datapoints with only males counted those were the results.

I don't think you can draw a parallel with other countries with regard to the data, because it was very US centric, even though the ethnicity had somewhat of an impact, african american males had negative numbers in that category.

okay so these are 1967 dollars? That would be 130K in today's dollars. That makes a little more sense.

Posted by bwolinsky on 05-01-12 11:32 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from RCG Trader:

okay so these are 1967 dollars? That would be 130K in today's dollars. That makes a little more sense.

No, the earnings were from 1999-2002.

Really, there's a reason the median income is what it is.

The model explained 37% of everything and it's adjusted R^2 was not much less so a very robust model.

The average person does not make $130k.

__________________
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Bud Fox

Wall Street

Posted by logic_man on 05-02-12 12:00 AM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I find something amusing, but I'm also puzzled about it... Most things on this site is about how nothing works and that the majority of people lose their money in trading. I have seen many, many methods of trading. You know what I find out? Most of the stuff out there that is public knowledge works very well. Darvas, Gann, Krauz, Kase, Curtis, Cooper, Tharp, Douglas, Elder and so on, have shared some ideas that work.

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

I'm wondering who share this believe on this site. Then I can put everybody else on 'ignore'

I think what you're actually seeing when you say that these things "work" is that they don't NOT work ALL the time. So, you could trade, e.g. Gann, for a few years before you blow out. With very conservative money management, it could take you a half-decade or more, depending on your starting stake, before you lost all your money. I doubt any of them work in the sense of long-term positive expectancy. But, this is only something I suspect and I wouldn't know for sure, since I use something which is not based on anything you've mentioned.

Posted by demetria on 05-02-12 04:17 AM:

Public Knowledge

No, the public knowledge is designed to take your money. The public knowledge does not work very well because by the time it becomes public knowledge the stock has been set up to take your money. Its almost advantageous to always do the opposite of public knowlege. Really, to be successful , once you have received the public knowledge you need to reference the chart of the stock and see what has been done beforehand, before the news.For , instance, if the stock has been terribly run down before earnings then its being positioned to run, and vice versa,... If its been run up before earnings then its in positon to turn downwards.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-02-12 06:58 AM:

Re: Public Knowledge

Quote from demetria:

No, the public knowledge is designed to take your money. The public knowledge does not work very well because by the time it becomes public knowledge the stock has been set up to take your money. Its almost advantageous to always do the opposite of public knowlege. Really, to be successful , once you have received the public knowledge you need to reference the chart of the stock and see what has been done beforehand, before the news.For , instance, if the stock has been terribly run down before earnings then its being positioned to run, and vice versa,... If its been run up before earnings then its in positon to turn downwards.

First of all : Welcome to the board.

You are absolutly right in your example. My point is that this information you share in your response is 'public knowledge' under traders and investors and that this works to make money in stocks. Like many other thousands of things that is writen about trading and investing... And that it is the people who interpreted the message trough their 'experiences' and 'thoughts' and fail to see how it really works...

To all of ET: I see I'm over 200 post in ten years, it is time to start doing something else with the free time I have, then posting here. So good luck to you all, I'm going to stop posting now for a while. (if there is a party because I stop posting, please send me some cake!)

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by keeptradin' on 05-02-12 02:02 PM:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from bwolinsky:

The average person does not make $130k.

Average per capita income for the US is ~ $41k as of 2011:

http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-pci.htm

Interesting to note the highest per capita income (almost $17k more than the next closest state) is in the District of Columbia.

Isn't that where the politicians and lobbyists all live??

__________________
Work is for people who don't know how to trade!

Posted by jack hershey on 05-02-12 05:37 PM:

Quote from danielc1:

Jack, I see what you mean, but the point is that you are saying this after the fact. The first trades of the day, I was looking to short as soon I saw the volume being negative, and in a split moment the day 'break' to the downside out of a 'box' was over, only to turn up drastically. A typical move, when the first move failed, is a strong move in the other way, but you can not know that when you are sitting in front of the screen when the market is unfolding. It could easily have been a down move that continued from the opening...
Unless you see something I do not see in the spur of the moment...

From your comments above and your trading print, a person who is used to mentoring others, can explain a lot to a person like you.

Blah blah blah.

See if you can keep the blahs I just gave you in mind.

They cover the objections you offered of the help I gave you. From my comments you now know more about what your problem is with your erroneous belief system.

So now you have another choice to make. Can you can the crap you tell me and begin to do what I say and repeat what I suggest over and over.

I looked at forty minutes of your activity in two kinds of CW markets. Cw calls them chop and trending. I was informing you of the difference. And I told you how to operate in each.

Lets just let it go at this.

You feel it is more important to be correct than to be rich.

Look at blowinski avoiding seeing his first practice run on a 60 plus sharpe ratio trading test. He is like you. He has the facts in hand and doesn't know it.

There may be a term for what you two have as a common handicap.

I have already explained in this thread that what I say is indisputable. Yet you two can't understand what that means and what to do as your next steps.

Posted by danielc1 on 05-02-12 07:41 PM:

Quote from jack hershey:

From your comments above and your trading print, a person who is used to mentoring others, can explain a lot to a person like you.

Blah blah blah.

See if you can keep the blahs I just gave you in mind.

They cover the objections you offered of the help I gave you. From my comments you now know more about what your problem is with your erroneous belief system.

So now you have another choice to make. Can you can the crap you tell me and begin to do what I say and repeat what I suggest over and over.

I looked at forty minutes of your activity in two kinds of CW markets. Cw calls them chop and trending. I was informing you of the difference. And I told you how to operate in each.

Lets just let it go at this.

You feel it is more important to be correct than to be rich.

Look at blowinski avoiding seeing his first practice run on a 60 plus sharpe ratio trading test. He is like you. He has the facts in hand and doesn't know it.

There may be a term for what you two have as a common handicap.

I have already explained in this thread that what I say is indisputable. Yet you two can't understand what that means and what to do as your next steps.

I know, I know, I would not post for a while. I promise this is the last one:

He, Jack, how about todays trade. I'm I getting close???

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

Posted by PointOne on 05-05-12 05:44 AM:

Question on harmonics

Quote from jack hershey:

OTR charts are the best volume charts for watch turns and understanding how many partial fills and which harmonics (odd or even) are at play.

Jack could you please explain why knowing if the component harmonics are odd or even helps a trader?

And then how you do so and which is which (odd vs. even).

(I assume the difference is in the relative frequency (3 or 4) of what you term A/D - whatever that really is - again some more explanation might be helpful.)

I guess visually it shows up as the difference between price spiking and price "rolling over" more gradually through change (where you have second chances at getting filled) - but as I said that's just guessing.

(Maybe this should have its own thread?)

Posted by ocean5 on 05-05-12 06:18 AM:

Re: Question on harmonics

Quote from PointOne:

Jack could you please explain why knowing if the component harmonics are odd or even helps a trader?

And then how you do so and which is which (odd vs. even).

(I assume the difference is in the relative frequency (3 or 4) of what you term A/D - whatever that really is - again some more explanation might be helpful.)

I guess visually it shows up as the difference between price spiking and price "rolling over" more gradually through change (where you have second chances at getting filled) - but as I said that's just guessing.

(Maybe this should have its own thread?)

it is useless as well as the DOM Wall.i took some time yesterday to monitor DOM Wall intentionally as i knew it would fall like dead.what i was able to observe was the bunch of Wall builders steamed rolled like pancakes.Too bad for them.'All in all it was all just break in the wall...' So Jacks stuff works when it work and doesn`t when it doesn`t, as any other default indicators.You will just waste your time studying it

Posted by gerryhoho on 02-08-13 03:51 AM:

Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from danielc1:

I think that the reason why the majority of people lose their money in trading has nothing to do with trading but in why they trade. Maybe people trade to lose and not to win money. Winning money does not solve internal struggles, losing does... because it requires change. Change of words, change of thinking, change of feelings, change of being...

So it is not the method of trading that people see or use that causes losing, it is the people their innerselfs, that is causing this...

[/B]

i guess from child-wood many of us hear and receive a lot of wrong perception about this world or criticism around us that dispower us. We might unconsciously learn that money is devil which causes conflict with our trading.

Well just everyone has a different issue i guess, but i would suggest if anyone who has a reasonable edge in trading but still find themself losing, its a better idea if you can talk to ur innerself, visit some healer to heal ur inner child, may be you will find winning easier.

I see people who has a very good edge but still lose, and they will just spend more time in researching. I told them its not ur edge not winning but just u dun wanna win.

So if you spend tremendous time in research with a good edge but still lose, may be its time u look at ur spiritual side

Posted by bau250 on 02-08-13 04:24 AM:

Quote from blowingup2012:

There are a few on the internet who claim they can trade everyday no matter the market conditions, but claims made over the internet and real brokerage/bank statements reviewed in-person are two different things. [/B]

Lol, you're not serious - right?

Posted by oldtime on 02-08-13 02:30 PM:

I trade everyday, almost never flat, the market determines if I am a day trader, or a minute trader, or a week trader, or a month trader.

very rarely have a losing month

but I have had some days where I have lost more than I hoped to make in a month

Posted by ssrrkk on 02-08-13 02:53 PM:

Re: Almost everything works...

say you have 10 methods. let's make it easy and say each of them works 50% of the time and fails the other 50% of the time. you don't know when each of them work, and when each of them fail, just overall they work 50% of the time. how would you make money in the long run?

Posted by oldtime on 02-08-13 03:00 PM:

Re: Re: Almost everything works...

Quote from ssrrkk:

say you have 10 methods. let's make it easy and say each of them works 50% of the time and fails the other 50% of the time. you don't know when each of them work, and when each of them fail, just overall they work 50% of the time. how would you make money in the long run?

they are talking about this now in game theory

like the man said, "There's a difference between quitting and quitting while you are ahead."

Posted by ylro on 02-08-13 10:10 PM:

I agree with the OP's statement. For some people almost everything works.

Posted by vinc on 02-09-13 08:53 PM:

High time the OP turned up in the ' Why the obvious is not so obvious' thread..

Posted by Bob111 on 02-09-13 09:02 PM:

Posted by danielc1 on 02-10-13 05:02 PM:

Quote from vinc:

High time the OP turned up in the ' Why the obvious is not so obvious' thread..

Is that thread not long enough?

__________________
The only true capitalism is compassionate capitalism.

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:27 AM.