Stochastics

Would you like me to pretend that I am you? And, by pretending, do for you, the work you need to do for yourself?

I provided you with a homework assignment that you could also use as a model for for doing some purposeful learning.

You look at silvermotion's MACD chart and see that it doesn't work at all. You need to do the homework to come to understand what is correct instead of what silvermotion does.

The same is true of all other charts so far. You need to do the homework to come to understand what is correct instead.

You also see a post by a person trading 10 to 99 million dollars who thinks making 100,000 to 9.9 million dollars on that capital is satisfactory. You need to do the homework to come to understand what is correct instead. Making 1 percent a year isn't very swift. Neither is making 10%. Neither is making 100%.

Do you need a demo on how to do work?

Here are two simple questions:

What is the greatest amount of money per contract you could lose today by the worst trading possible? Multiply by 250 to see what it is for a year.

What is the greatest amount of money per contract you could make today by the by trading possible? Multiply by 250 to see what it is for a year.

The answers turn out to be the same. By doing a half assed job of combining each you wind with a wash day or a tic or 2 tics or 3 tics profit or loss. That is nothing to show for your work. This is the same as making 100,000 dollars on 10 million dollars in a year. 1/250 th of 100,000 dollars is 400 dollars on 10 million each day of the year. NADA.

Making a net of 2 points a day on an ES contract is NADA as well. You know that by looking at how much can be lost in a day if a person loses as much as possible.

Do you need someone to tell you how to do homework????

 

But your performance of -24% in a trading contest is?

 

Thanks for helping make the point.

The contest was part of a year and not trading in the contest lost 24% after activating the trading with one entry.

This shows quite well that 1% and 10% are easily achieved in less than a year by doing no trading and not monitoring the contest account. It also shows that high beta stocks represent terrific potentials for making money both long and short.

Were the contest just a three month one, then by extrapolation it is posible to see that I could have lost 96% percent in a year. that puts us in the 100% example range. I feel that it is possible to lose a great deal more in a year than 100 percent of initial capital. Keep adding more and more capital and lose even more.

This kind of proof is a proof of what the market offers. And it further proves that by making the most possible mistakes, a person is able to show a very terrible perfomance in a, roughly zero sum game for a given amount of capital using available trading tools in that market.

You have years of lurking and backtesting your understanding of one of my posts. The back test resulted in a failure as you did it. So was an effort to get your coding on the table. a great idea did emerge, though. How to use shared coding for back testing to improve the backtest to see what is going on with the method of backtesting.

This is a Stochastics thread that went nowhere so far. Often by setting a really lousy baseline it is possible to build from this myth and error prone mess to something that articulates the potential of what is possible.

The stochastics is a very old tool and it is used by a lot of people successfully and it has not worn out its trading welcome for 50 years and it is not a signal based approach that is derived from induction, the mother of the Black Swan.

The Black Swan that others achieve is just an opportunity for those who develop systems not based upon induction.

 

Actually you made NINE trades to accomplish your robust -24%.

 

LOL ... where's the beef?

 

I have addressed this elsewhere on the forum. Sometimes it is best to stand aside during sideways consolidation; however range days can be traded accurately with price alone.

For clarification, I don't employ standard patterns such as head and shoulder, cup and handle, pennants, etc. Perhaps this is what most people think of when price action is mentioned and why they are unable to relate to anything other than indicator based strategies. Not targeted to you so much as the thread in general.

st

 

W T F are you talking about?
Are you smoking crack Jack?
I thought we were discussing stochastics.
Out of nearly two pages of your almost entirely off topic cryptic nonsense I've found maybe two sentences that are marginally credible.
"C, H, and L are trading values."
and
"Who is in control of price..."

I enjoy history but in this case your history lesson is irrelevant.
DOM? T&S ? Canceled orders ?
That's all well and good Jack but what's any of that got to do with stochastics, let alone my original question? Stochastics aren't calculated using any of that stuff.
Are you so paranoid and defensive from the constant attacks that you need to defend your methodology, even when your method is not the topic of discussion?

And no I have enough to do without "homework" assignments, but thanks just the same.

 

Yawn...............yet another after the fact chart providing nothing of value smothered in a load of bull$hit. All in the guise of trying to appear knowledgeable. No surprise there.

st

 

I think the trading contest had a start and a finish. Once started you were in the contest. I believe that when the contest ended I was inactive and had a contestant result. I have been told it was -24%. For a while the percent diclined to -26%. Now it is back to -24%.

There are many blogs which comment on my trading and my posts and my post's quality and, moreso, their quantity. Most are negative owing to the vantagepoint of the producers. Here Trader666 does his thing as he has for years and years. He is phenomenal.

The Stochastics from Lane's work was a very early contribution and his Stochastics is very impressive and is impressive in many ways. He followed Dow who will also be remembered for many contributions. Some things are timeless. Stochastics is one of them.

Stochastics and MACD are classic renditions in thinking by Lane and Appel, respectively, to deal with the sentiment of markets. The former worked with percents and the latter worked in absolutes. Both took into account the periodicity of the markets and they used more than one fractal concurrently. By knowing at all times the market sentiment, a person may successfully be in the market on the right side of the market. Both used simple algebraic approaches involving averages. Dow preceded them in even a simpler manner.

There is a myth related to indicators regarding whether or not they lag. The myth is founded on how averaging is down and, unfortunately, causes these people who deploy the myth to miss the point of how signals from any indicator works.

Another almost universal myth of trading follows closely on the heels of the above myth. Somewhere somehow at some point, a thought was created and communicated that predicting was a part of trading.

Dow, Lane and Appel were not among those who formulated and proferred this myth. But it has become a cornerstone of the financial industry. It is buttressed by a huge insistance by people to use inductive reasoning as part of the unnecessary operation of predicting.

Two other myths have come into being to support the predicting myth; they involve playing the odds and providing protection against failure. Arithematic is used to measure these things.

The P, V relation emerged as open interest (money flow) became important. Stochastics and MACD provided the price dynamic and the first derivative of volume provided the second independent variable's dynamic. These three-variable contributions were used to provide the market market strength. Of the eight possibilites only the two extreme combinations provided for "strong" markets, all others (6) created weak markets. Ross didn't get this straight and he came up with trending and consolidation and assigns a ratio. Welles Wilder did though. RSI means something as an indicator.

ET provides a full spectrum of the combinations and permutations of players whose beliefs come from either work or myths and mostly work founded on myths.

A recent statement by someone said that the market's behaviour is like all other natural behaviors (several examples were given as a spectrum). Wrong. Scientists of the markets, have shot blanks on this and most other matters. Anyone can see the splintering of the research into a spectrum of sub-disciplines; it is the opposite of movement to a universal understanding.

Securitization in four steps to the square created illiquidity as its summit.

Dow, Lane, and Appel did not. But their immitators have as a consequence of shortcutting the precepts and introducing the myths of the financial industry and trading.

What is required of expert traders is not easily understood at this time of the markets. The emergence of a global connectedness is very stimulating and creates immense resources for trading. The pools are beyond imagination and are creating billionaires by the score.

I wanted to see global "effects" and I got there two months early. Tens of square miles became hundreds of square miles became thousands of square miles in three months. Where 70% of the Earth's fresh water exists is located is literally errupting.

What destroyed critical thinking among people who wnated to learn to trade? It was probably the words: "day trading". As a catalyst we all see what happened to discourse as a consequence.

There is a saying among expert traders: "An expert can tell who is another expert." Where to experts come from? They come from the working class. The first thing on the list is to know and understand markets. To do this you need to be able to use science and not use myths. The market has two variables; their relationship is clear and it is counterintuitive and symmetric. There is no predicting or odds or protection involved...

 

BE Cool. Have fun.

I am not defending anything.

It is true that I do get a comment here and there that could be called an attack. It comes down to being humor if you look closely at what is going on.

To see how important the close is to range (Stoch) and to see the window where sentiment changes (MACD neutral) with calibrated indicators, it is best to use displays that are informative. I suggested the group needed to do this in order that, when you get the correct equations, you can see how informative they are when calibrated properly. You learn to do calibration as well.

The topic here is making money using the Stochastic.

Working to understand anything is a choice. To fast track understanding by working hard and in a focused way, is not a commonly available choice. You are a typical person who does what he wants. You asked something and showed you were messed up. This is not the time of your life for learning from anyone. Be cool; don't do any homework.