Just read NoD's long post with attention... I agree with Sellindexvol... you're giving away too much! But it's so nice you see exactly what I saw there too... oops, did I just say TA can be objective?
Strongly disagree. More boring you can make trading futures, the better success would you achieve. Richard Dennins made 100 millions in 80s because he had a boring system and he didn't had to analyse markets bar by bar or tick by tick after getting filled. Consider a manufacturing plant - it has processes. The more you can make your futures or stocks trading like a manufacturing plant, the higher success will you get.
It really sounds incredible. He was basically betting day after day, week after week, month after month on a negative edge. Over a large number of bets, by simple probability he ought to lose. Do you remember any specifics he talked about which allowed him to select his bets? What game was he playing - counting cards (blackjack) or something else.
wow you must be the authority on PA...I mean if you say it's a fallacy...then it must be so. I read NoDoJi's post and there is so much discretion in there that no two traders will take the same trade
I don't have a link to it but I saw in a chat room recently where someone referenced a study done on CL. The results were that 70% of intraday price moves could not be explained with fundamentals.
Maybe they meant CL can't be explained with fundamentals all by itself without other inputs for intraday traders. Then again, I've seen too many traders with different definitions of what they consider to be fundamentals and too many different definitions of what they consider to be "price moves".
Not really, I was more interested in the tax side of the story instead of his favorite games. I do remember it was not in Vegas. Yeah, he was at it about 5 days per week with regular gambling schedule.
Ask yourself, can what she says be coded? If not --its discretionary. My opinion is its discretionary. surf