The “more frequent trades” version of my approach to buying and selling foreign currency pairs online worked beautifully yesterday, and I saw no reason why it should not continue to do so today and everyday going forward. Yet last night I witnessed a number of unexpected moves, so I spent all of this morning engaged in intense analysis, and finally determined that I simply needed to make two simple adjustments to address the problem. The first is to slightly expand my focus and, rather than zero in on when and where price crosses a particular key moving average, I need to note when it crosses that indicator and one other. Both of these conditions must be met. Sometimes it happens simultaneously, and sometimes price crosses one shortly after the other—but if it does not cross BOTH, no trade can/should be executed. My second adjustment was to realize that I was mistaken in concluding that the day-to-day trend, and what I call the intermediate trend, were no longer relevant with my having adopted this new approach. Indeed, after re-plotting these two trend lines back on my charts, what struck me as unexpected the night before suddenly made total sense. As a result, I will now be trading primarily using five-minute charts instead of one-minute charts, and ONLY in the direction matching the trajectory of the intermediate trend line. But what I find really “exciting” is that this mid-course correction means I will typically be looking for 20 to 30 pips profit at a time instead of five to ten, and sometimes even up to 50 pips or more. Yet my stop loss will remain set at 10 pips. I suspect that this will work wonders for my average reward-to-risk ratio, and hopefully significantly increase the rate at which my trading account might multiply.
Today and Monday I was able to realize anywhere from 50¢ to $3.36 in profits, or about 0.5% to 3.4% of $100 (though a significantly higher percentage of my actual current balance). (I couldn’t sit around and wait for the signal to short AUDUSD yesterday, so I was stopped out of my original position and had to reenter the trade. But rest assured that if I had been able to trade in strict accordance with my system’s guidelines, every single action I took up to that point would have been profitable—a 100% success rate, so that my production would have ranged from $1.50 to $3.36.) Unfortunately, I thought the market had turned against me later last night after I again sold AUDUSD and shorted NZDUSD as well, so I exited NZDUSD with only 11¢ profit, and accepted a loss from AUDUSD that was slightly more than a dollar. As it turns out however, my original forecast was correct, and had I remained in the trades, I would have eventually collected at least a dollar from each, so that today’s trades would have yielded $3.50. Accordingly, I performed additional analysis to establish an accurate impression of what constitutes the typical (i.e., expected) short-term price range. I also added a moving average that I ceased using a while ago, but rediscovered yesterday as the BEST indicator of the overall intraday direction of price. Having the above information, I reevaluated my one-minute chart setup, which led to my categorizing the moving averages I use into three groups: (1) the day-to-day trend, (2) the overall intraday trend, and (3) the short-term intraday trend (see below). I believe my settings are all now as precise and accurate as I can get them, which is probably why every trade I have made since then has been profitable, and why I was able to climb out of the hole I got in last night. Assuming I get no better at using this system, I would expect to make about $3.00 per day from now on, in which case, my account balance should be back at breakeven within 10 days. However, as my balance grows, it will soon enable me to enter any two positions simultaneously, then three, and eventually execute multiple trades one after the other. Combine this with the likelihood that I probably will improve my performance at least a little over time, and it’s hard to imagine that my account will not pass $5000 well before 220 days—perhaps even in as few as 150 days or less. So there is not much to recommend the continuation of these daily updates, other than as a public display of my good fortune—which would be kind of tacky and distasteful. Also, what made this endeavor something of interest to me was my desire to know if it could really be done? In that I am now not only convinced that it can, but believe that this morning I’m actually seeing it happen before my very eyes, the thought of coming here to post numbers each day strikes me as kind of boring (since the “I wonder” component is no longer present). Moreover, this “journal’s” primary functions, which were to guard against deluding myself into believing things were going okay when they weren’t, and to hopefully supply me with the kind of motivation that would not allow me to fail, are in my view, no longer pertinent. I have fine tuned the system and am now aware of how to maximize its performance, so the only thing that remains is to simply implement it in the same way I’ve been doing this morning. Of course, the naysayers will warn that it takes a minimum of two or even ten years for me to be able to trust that the system is legit. But if an alien vessel were to drop down out of space and hover over the streets of Los Angeles for a day, that would be plenty enough observation to establish that cars (in the U.S.A at least) travel in the direction which puts the driver’s side of the vehicle closer to the curb than the passenger’s side. It’s totally obvious that this is what’s going on—and unless something completely bizarre happened to turn the entire system totally on its head, the same thing is going to be happening whether it’s a day from the ship’s arrival, or ten years later. Well, I think the tools I’m using as of this moment make things just as obvious when it comes to the direction exchange rates are likely headed in the Forex market. But before I totally suspend further comment, I want to coin what I’m doing now as the “BATT” system, given that it no longer hinges on multiple simple moving average envelopes. I think BATT (Biblical Approach to Trading—NOT Bitcoin & Altcoin Trading) is appropriate in that I arrived at this method partly by ignoring those teachers and trainers who claim that a sure way to fail is to opt NOT to use the most popular moving averages (i.e., the 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, and 200-period moving averages), or to try to use more than one moving average. Their rationale is that there is no point in watching something if no one else is looking at it, and that it is better to master one moving average than become an apprentice of them all. But experience convinced me that there are benefits to heeding the advice offered in the second half of Proverbs 11:14 and Proverbs 15:22, which extol the wisdom of relying on an abundance of counselors. (My contention is that the use of multiple moving averages makes it that much easier to discern with confidence what the various exchange rates intend to do in the not too distant future—and that the use of non-standard moving averages frees one up to seek out and find the specific/precise moving average or moving averages that do a better job than all others in conveying with absolute accuracy and reliability where price is ultimately going to end up.) Another biblical principle that guided my quest (or odyssey) was that of “testing everything and holding fast to that which is good,” which is what led me to reject all approaches involving Elliott waves, Fibonacci ratios, harmonic patterns and the like; and to also forego the use of moving average convergence/divergence (MACD), stochastic oscillators, the relative strength index (RSI), the commodity channel index ( CCI), the average directional movement index (ADX) and all other indicators, which I felt failed to live up to their reputations. And finally, a careful reading of the Bible makes it clear that life is all about relationships. Scripture ranks good relationships as the most important thing in life, emphasizing that right relationships are of first importance; and a similar emphasis formed the foundation of my approach. It wasn’t so much about finding the keys to success. It was more like putting together the puzzle using pieces already at my disposal, assembling them so that each assumed its proper role—about how various moving averages relate to one another in such a manner as to convey or forecast the future of “price” action. So how did a very simple guy like me, using a handful simple moving averages come up with a winning system? If I am to believe Scripture, it is a mistake to think that “my power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth,” so I trust it’s true that it’s not I, but Yahweh, “who gives…power to get wealth.” Hence, the main question I need to answer now is, assuming that the money I make does begin to grow exponentially (God willing) how am I going to use it in a manner that magnifies Him and honors the Messiah? That’s a question I look forward to answering with earnest expectation. In any event, good luck to anyone who happens to read this post! ¡Adios!
Sorry, but IMHO you are wasting your time using technicals. I don't know anyone who's gotten rich using technicals.
Unfortunately (or perhaps not so unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it) I was unable to leave well enough alone. Believing I could do better than $3.00 a day, I continued to analyze my system, and after a hiatus of about five months, have once again taken up this thread with the intention of testing what I believe to be a much improved approach to applying its core principles, which essentially come down to correctly interpreting the relationships between select moving averages, key price ranges, statistically determined support/resistance levels, and reoccurring price patterns. The improvement comes from expanding the system’s accuracy from extremely precise but very short-range five- and one-minute charts all the way up to daily and four-hour charts, which I am ONLY NOW beginning to do accurately on a consistent basis (see below). However, there do not seem to be any “bugs” in the system that need to be worked out, so I just want to spend a couple of weeks practicing its actual application before I begin testing the method in a very public way.
1.8% compounding over 220 days? 1.018^220 = 50.64204 implies your seed of 100K to become 5000K roughly 1 year. Quite possibly his asset will be the most rich man in the world after 60 years(from 30 to 90), by 50^60.
In order to realize an average return of about $5 - $10 per trade as opposed to $1 - $3 trading an account with an initial balance of no more than $100 - $200, I will be attempting (barring any unforeseen circumstances) to adapt a methodology that has been successfully applied to a scalping or guerrilla style of trading (Numerical Price Prediction or NPP) so that it can also be applied to more of an intraday-swing approach (if I might be permitted to use those two terms in conjunction with one another). In implementing the system, it seemed to make sense to me to conceptualize price action from two different perspectives, which I think of as “swings” and “legs.” The image above (on which I’ve obviously chosen to draw my lines freehand rather than plot my actual indicators) illustrates what I’m talking about. The red “moving average” is the swing, and imagining that the market is a battle between the bulls and the bears, the slope of the swing conveys who is in control at any particular point in time—bulls or bears. As such, it also forecasts in which direction price is sooner or later ultimately going to go. On the other hand, the black “moving average” tracks the legs, or the more immediate direction of price, and is designed to get traders in and out of positions at the beginning and at the end of more significant reversals in price while avoiding deceptive head fakes and false positives. By entering positions when a leg is reversing its trajectory to join the swing in moving toward the direction of the dominant trend, a trader should be able to enjoy an extremely high success rate while almost never being stopped out of positions. It should also be possible to almost completely avoid being fooled by a reversal that is disguising itself as a pullback because if the candlesticks do not form a hook in a timely manner, the swing will begin reversing direction, warning traders to remain on the sidelines for the time being. The success of the system is predicated (primarily) on using carefully chosen simple moving averages selected on the basis of statistics rather than adopting the standard 10-, 20-, 50-, 100-, or 200-period simple moving averages any sensible trader with half a lick of sense would of course use.
Most did not attain the cash as above, so most likely there is NO logic with daily 1.8% compounded. At least no one(family) did it, for the last 400 years. Furthermore, I am curious Rothchild's family annual historical return for the last 400 years.
In my opinion it's totally possible to turn a 100 dollar account into 5k. You just have to use leverage and the risk of losing the account I'd probably peg at 80% but I've seen it happen with larger amounts many times in my old office. The argument of doing a consistent 1.8% a day is ridiculous and never ever works like that in trading. So why are people taking this seriously. There's no such thing as pulling in the same return day after day. It's very unlike other businesses where it's very possible to make about the same amount of money a day. However at the end of the year you could say I've made about 1.8% a day on average even tho it's was really 1.8 +/- 3% on any given day. And going from say 10k to 100k in one year is possible (again usually leverage such as futures) but it's 100% not that case with ever increasing amounts of money like no shit you can't go from 100m to 1 billion just as easily as you could with 10grand. Hasn't this been debated a million times already?