All is fine, thanks. And I'm sure the little one is eager to issue an "opening order" of its own in about 4 months...
^^^^^^^ re; Don & profit & business expenses WEcoyote; You probably know more than me about cheap commissions ; however i can read for free Don's articles in TA of Stocks & Co, Barnes & Noble thoughtly provides benches for that PURPOSE. As far as a new trader paying more in 2004, 2005, here's the deal, a repeating business pattern; lower volume or higher risk almost always pay more. In other words lower volume TOL sector pays more; than higher volume , lower bid/ask spread in GE sector, and they should.
Just, FYI, in times of low volaitlity, we allow and encourage the adding of an additional share "unit" - as long as the rest of the tape reading suggests an additional opportunity (sector, peer movements, prem/disc, all the rest). Things change, we try to adapt....the only thing that matters is to continue trading profitably. Have a Happy Holiday! Don
all of you bashers should know that you can call bob or don and ask them the tough questions on their radio show at 2 cst. i have never heard them refuse to answer a question. instead of just bashing behind a hidden screen name why not ask them directly? i am sure they will welcome callers because some days it gets kind of slow. 888.966.0616
Not that my ears were burning but I guess I take offense at the word "basher" being thrown about by so many of Don's apologists here on ET. I know for a fact I tried many times, when I started posting, to engage Don in thoughtful dialogue in this journal and got defensive double-talk in return. I was labeled by him a "basher" for no other reason than for having the temerity to disagree with him on comments he made here. These disagreements were purely on issues of trading and strategy, at the time. I had not yet voiced any criticism of what I came to view as his questionable business practices and ethics. I have also seen enough of his comments that contradict his own prior comments and principles (he glosses over them by calling it "adapting"...Darwin is spinning in his grave) to feel reasonably assured he would be no more straight-foward or forthcoming over the air waves or face to face for that matter. I would not waste my time calling his radio show and lending my voice to what I'm sure is just another marketing ploy. "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back." M. Corleone
So, let's have a chat with Andre' on an open forum....I've offered this many times....and if you are a "creationists" (then so be it). I, believe that everyone must adapt to the markets...and success usually speaks for itself. I do the best I can to help others, and I surely do "adapt" or do what may seem to be a "change of mind" - just as the market does. Heck, even my brother has done a 180 on the portfolio group over the last few weeks (I guess that's why he's so many $millions trading over the years, by adapting when need be). This whole discussion is not really a matter of numbers, but simply a demonstration of a workable "mini" strategy" - one of my biggest detractors ("Hitman" a while back), began using it and even he admitted to his success. It's no big deal....we can certainly chat on an open forum if you like...but let's not take up space here, ok? We can limit the responses from others, and we can get back to discussing this particular strategy and trading in general. All the best Don
3 fills, 2 long, 1 short, +310 BA was B-Rutal, a humiliating kick in the crotch that soured what was otherwise an above average day.
I agree one must adapt to changing market conditions. However some of the things you attribute to adaptation of fine points of strategy, I see as contradictions of what one would surmise, from the assured tone of your statements, to be your broader core principles, if in fact you have any. I speak of your recent conversion (adaptation?) to the idea of price averaging, or as you creatively choose to call it "adding additional share units". This is a radical about-face from a principle you so strongly preached against not all that long ago. This is not merely you saying in earlier threads something like you never use an envelope narrower than 1% and now you say you use .2-.5. This we can agree is adapting to the market's current lower volatility. A 1% envelope these days would not get you many fills. Advocating price averaging now, it seems to me, is a far more radical divergence from your former convictions that I believe can not be easily passed off as adaptation. It would be like saying you once believed in the old market credo "cut your losses and let your profits run" but you don't feel that applies any longer in today's market. Mind you I'm not saying price averaging is a good or bad thing; useful option or totally destructive...I debate it's virtues in my own mind all the time. I just find your flip-flop on certain issue curious. BTW in mentioning "Hitman" in your response to me, at least you finally seem to concede that not all "Don bashers" are one and the same person posting under "multiple aliases". And congratulations; I'm really happy your brother makes so much money. -------------------------------------------------- "If you like being long 50,000 @ 40, you gotta love being long 100,000 @ 30".