Sure it does - if you don't get it. It means I exactly what it says, I could care less, more and more each day. The key here, is in seeing the relationship with "less" and "more". There is a very logical relationship. Are you familiar with the concept of a negative number? You realize then that negative numbers "do" have meaning? Thus, you can actually have "more" of a "negative" value. What's "more" negative: -2 or -2000? Therefore, one could care "less" (the negative), more and more each day, by simply increasing the negative value with "more" of less. Simple - when you stop to think about it. The revelation has already been made.
Yes - a heck of a lot of simulation over the years - that's what makes the Revenue Model solid. Only someone without a clue would think that simulation is a bad thing. LOL! Only a clueless trader would simply walk into the market with some wild-eye idea they dreamed up last night. It takes YEARS before you will ever get to this level, friend. And, your total ignorance about the role of simulation proves that fact. Now, on the other hand, exactly how simulated are these trades that you see? See any "simulation" in their results? Or, do you see targets being destroyed one by one? See â one can always come up with the shallow drive-by-shooting post and then go run and hide from the facts sitting in their face. However, that wonât bring your level of trading up to par â now will it. If you trade as well as you offer these drive-by-shooting posts, you'd be extremely wealthy by now.
(lame explanation for why you didn't use the correct expression, "Couldn't care less" deleted) LOL, is that what the people "inside" your keyboard told you to say?
a full day after what, duh?? by da way I gave u also da date in my followin' post u updated it and I replied
Hey Winter, I love this one: In this reply, you were telling a guy who clearly stated that if you are not making money in the business, that you are not really a trader. I 100% agree with that sentiment as the purpose of trading is the net out revenue on a continual and consistent basis - or else, you are not really trading. You could be investing, or speculating, or gambling for fun, but not performing in the truest sense of the word: trading. But, I really like your reply much better! In your reply, you told the guy that if he had used a number such as â10% per monthâ that he comments might be bit more believable. So, clearly then, your comments in my thread make all the sense in the world. (do you see how easy it is to link these things together with just a little research) You see, your framework has you locked out of ever considering 2,700+% net growth over a basic 3 month period of time, even remotely plausible. So, anything that comes down that pipe-line is going to be immediately rejected by one with this locked down mindset, simply because it exists outside of your own personal experience. Not, because it is mathematically impossible. Not because there were not enough pips to go around in those three (3) months and not because somebody else other than yourself was able to research, design, test and engineer a new trading technology capable of actually doing it, but it gets rejected simply because it falls outside of your own personal envelope.
Observations and Trade Profile Updates: Iâll post notes later. 24hrs - From 3/21/06 to 3/22/06: First Day Trade Long Entry 2107 Limit 2122 Stop None (might enter manual stop later) Active 24hrs - From 3/21/06 to 3/22/06: Second Day Trade Short Entry 2123 Limit 2061 Stop 2166 Pending 120hrs â From 3/19/06 to 3/24/06: Swing Short Entry 2175 Limit 1967 Stop 2185 Active 480hrs â From 3/1/06 to 3/30/06: Position Long Entry 1931 Limit 2378 Stop 1856 Closed (already closed for 254 pips at 2185)
I'm honored that you felt the need to start searching through my old posts just like you did with Bitstream. I hope that when the day comes when I am "extremely wealthy" that I will have something better to do with my time.
You do the homework to see where people are come from, Winter. That's the appropriate thing to do. I know that appropriateness is not in vogue these days, but I try to do the right thing at all times and not only when it meets my narrow needs. If you had the time of someone wealthy then YOU would be able to decide what you did with it. And, if you could read, then you'd know why I keep having to waste my time correcting people like you. Get the premise right, Winter - and everything else will fall into place where it belongs.
What I find funny is that I have made no comments about your claims, your system or you other than some trivial typing gaffs. Yet you automatically assumed that I doubt your claims and then you proceeded to attack this strawman that you created in your mind. What does this say about you?