be as profitable as you can make it. You need to look for a new edge all the time instead of whining that a trend day or a non-trend day is killing you. Just an example from a recent thread. If a trend day has something to do with your performance then you will never make it as a trader. If your method does not work well in trending markets, you should know that before you even start using it. Otherwise, you will end up writing pseudo-academic papers or whining on this board because of a trend day. By the way, that's also sums up the importance of intelligence in trading. Use the methods that work. To know which ones work in which markets you undoubtedly need at least a very rudimentary intelligence.
I'd say, cos the way it would play would be end of the day, take the data away and give it a flay. O.K.? What are we suggesting here? That it is possible to disprove an entire family of postulates when the members that make up that class have never been defined in totality? Bit like saying "I have proven that NO BIRDS ARE BLACK" and when asked for proof, saying "WELL, I DID EXAMINE ALL SWANS". Yeah? and what about ravens, blackbirds, crows, indicators developed yesterday that no one has ever heard of? Bizarre chaotic theorems gestating in the AI labs at MIT? All disproved as of today? Well baste my steaming puddings.... Me, I know there is only one way to trade sensibly, and you all know what it is. The power of three. <b>MONGOMATH!!!!!</b> http://members.lycos.co.uk/dontbelazy/
Last night I did some simulated trading using data from 1978, and I tell you, I couldn't lose. My success rate was 82%. Like shooting fish in a barrel. So what does that tell us? I think is says that trading has evolved due to the greater number of traders and the greater complexity of the trading tools at our disposal. In a nutshell you just have to work harder than you did in 1978, but you have a lot more tools to work with. Has anyone else tried this?
Another key flaw in the study is that it attempts to compare two very different commodity time periods (pre-1990 & post- 1990). Prior to 1990 the commodity market was on a huge run. The CRB index ran from below 80 to over 330. There was a lot of volatility. Stocks lagged as an investment in this period. Post 1990, the CRB index stayed in a close trading range of 200-260. Commodities were not "hot" and stocks soared. While TA may have reduced some of the volatility and profits post 1990, it is more likely that trading commodities when they were not on a "bull run" was a key cause of the reduction of profits of the CTA trading groups in the later compared to the former period . As an example... was it easier to make more money in stocks in 1999 as a trader or today? Are most stock traders making more in 1999 or today.... part of the profit impact is the nature of the market. The only good news is that commodities may be "coming back" due to the state of the stock market. The CRB index is generally rising in the short term. - Greg
You have just uncovered Wapper's 3rd law:- "Any economic activity becomes steadily harder to earn a living at until the last fool has signed up, at which point it reverts to being merely 'difficult'"... Which is of course directly related to Wapper's 2nd Law, 5th codification:- "The expected return on any economic activity is inversely proportional to the return perceived by the general public" (and if you dont believe that one, check the accounts of any hotdog seller)
Yeah, except that any hotdog seller knows that he runs a business. Some wannabe traders don't... And trading is a very serious business... and it is seriously misunderstood.
one should question fundamental analysis then, after people lost more than 2 trillion dollars in market value. and they sure were not using TA. but it's not about Fundamental vs TA for once. I only brought this up to show that it depends on how you trade. some fundamental traders did VERY WELL before the bubble and after the bubble. it's about who is doing the work. not really the 'religion' he is using (Fundamental, TA, or whatever else)
Having put countless highly touted TA methods through objective tests in TechnifilterPlus, I feel confident in saying that most of them are garbage, junk, crap, and deadly to your bottom line. Does TA work...not in the way many people believe that it does. Novices get screwed trying to implement some of these TA ideas without testing them. gs
Some stupid College kid who's never traded writing shit from a dreamy perception. Answer is no, the reason we hear the word, they market is harder now, TA doesn't work, trading is bad is just a plain old excuse for their self-fulfilled failure. First, the traders, CTAs, fund-managers and etc. suck because they hoped that the market will move the way they did. Just like how you cut losses in a bad trade, when the market condition changes, you have to let go of your old style and adjust along with the market. The market is not harder it's just different and hoping to change back the way it used to be is just like holding an rotten tomatoes hoping it to be edible. TA doesn't work? LOL... works for me... as I say, if performance starts slipping? You suck because you most likely don't understand the core concept behind the TA you are using, if you have a strong understanding, you should be able to adjust promptly... Adjusting doesn't mean Optimizing... 2 different subjects.