It is a drag. I narrate early and today I narrated the pm also. There was a 5 point run after this Print so it is not included. I didn't see your post and you are correct the print is hard to follow I posted the trading sequence to clarify. Here it is again just to get it attached to your post. I will post print for a couple of weeks and the person gets into the groove on this. The midday is a hard trading portion of the day so we focused on that to be sure we could get the tough stuff handled from the get go. The scaling was done just to show how to recapture being upside down. In future prints we will trade faster too. We will run up to about 30 a day soon. This one shows, that at minimum risk (few contracts) you can work a range (H/L) as the potentialof the market and get a lot out. We got 6 points out of a 2 1/2 point range midday. That is a yield equal to the real H/L and a yield of 2.4 times the range we traded. I am targeting twice margin per day when trading all day, am midday, and pm breakouts with minum contracts (1 to 2) in market continually. Midday is the weakest period so I start there and square that away first.
IMHO, I don't think the holy grail can be a mechanical system, and I don't think it can be any "crossover" type of system, because by that time it is too late. I think if one uses indicators in their trading, watching patterns develop on indicators themselves could produce good results, instead of waiting for some type of crossover, etc. I guess you can try to find just one setup, even if it appears once a week, and just have ten different vehicles to trade it on so hopefully you would get atleast one trade a day.
...why are you of the opinion that the Holy Grail cannot be a mechanical system? You realize that this is a trick question with a gotcha at the end. Thanks.
Give yourself some time on this. When you get to pulling down multiples of the daily H/L, all systems are mechanical. The operators hang out still but they focus primarily on being on the right side of the market at the trading frequency that is optimal. There are two sides to the market and an assortment of trading frequencies. The primary first order activity is picking the optimum frequency, then you focus on the "right side of the market". Each time the side changes money is banked and the process repeats. One of the key roles of this combination of considerations achieves is eliminating the persistent flip- flopping of waht is perceivedto be the "right" side of the market. flip flopping only occrs on the wrong trading periodicity. Strategists have many "no-win" detectors and in the zero sum market place this is one of those applications. As you glide along learning about markets, you will get the the place where it is a requirement to be in the market at all times as a matter of money velocity considerations. It is not possible in this modern world to compete nowadays with out continuous high money velocities relative to the potential of any given market place to deliver capital appreciation. For uncomplex markets (zero sum ones) there is a concept of winners and losers. Functional system mechanically migrate at all time to the winner side of the market. Today, computers never find it difficult to determine the correct answer when there are but two choices. Being on the right side of a market, is not a complex determination.
Grob- Before I call bullshit on you. I would like ask for a watered down, version on this if you please. I read your post once, then went back and read it a few more times, just to make sure. Your operational definitions on each of your nifty catch-phrases, differs from what would be considered common uses of financial jargon in this community. Which leaves me considering the possibility that although you wanted to sound intelligent you tripped over yourself to do so.... I'm referring to these two paragraphs specifically; >>As you glide along learning about markets, you will get the the place where it is a requirement to be in the market at all times as a matter of money velocity considerations. It is not possible in this modern world to compete nowadays with out continuous high money velocities relative to the potential of any given market place to deliver capital appreciation.<< >>For uncomplex markets (zero sum ones) there is a concept of winners and losers. Functional system mechanically migrate at all time to the winner side of the market.<< Money velocity considerations? Velocities relative to the potential of any given market place? Uncomplex markets??????????????????????????? then, (zero sum ones)?? WHich ones aren't?? I must be trading the wrong markets. But this is suggesting two conflicting concepts! So, if I'm understanding correctly, I should be looking for a Complex market (NON-Zero sum ones), which supports the concept of ALL winners -OR- ALL Losers. I guess that would make it easy, I simply choose to be on the Winning side all the time and thats that! -momo