niether, troubledog. i am seeking information by asking questions and making statements designed to stimulate conversation. it's a method of learning that traces back to a famous greek scholar/philosopher. the true believers with agendas for their cause will never understand. surfer
Here you go again, surf, doing your best to emulate an attention-seeking missile. How better to stir controversy than to paint any topic with a ridiculously broad brush, preferably the kind favored by clowns?
You are not seeking information because you are dismissing well considered arguments out of hand. You are seeking attention. On the plus side, I do agree with your comment about true believers. Of course, the irony is that they seldom realize who they are, surf.
well I for one am very interested in how to effectively trade without TA, so in the spirit of education, could you tell a little about how to trade without TA and without trends?
you are very wrong. i am not dismissing any well considered argument, since when does questioning equate dismissal? surfer
sure, there are a multitude of statistically based reversion to the mean type strategies, option spreads, i could go on and on..... directional trading, sure, you need to be with the trend to make money, and no one is going to share how this is correctly done on entry--hence the buy higher highs and sell lower lows mantra of the trend cult.- since they are mostly lacking understanding. best, surf
Well, Aristotle, it seems that you have it all figured out. I shall leave you with your wisdom, wishing you both much happiness together.
Who said anything about 'everyday traders'? If by everyday trader you mean the average joe, who loses money at worst or fails to compensate for his time and energy with sufficient profits at best, then the only thing that makes sense is to dramatically improve -- i.e. rise above the level of 'everyday trader' -- or stop trading. As for knowing better, you should be the one who knows better. The argument was whether trend following methods have merit. In proposing (or broadly insinuating) that trend following methods do not have merit, you create a negative proposition, i.e. a proposition that can be disproven by concrete example to the contrary. You are in the same position as someone who says that purple hydrangeas do not exist, and is then presented with a documented field of purple hydrangeas growing on a mountainside. (Whether Joe Blow can cultivate purple hydrangeas in his greenhouse is irrelevant.) Come on Surf, get off this. Your referral to entries highlights a grasping at straws born of ignorance. Your BUY and HOLD caricature is ignorant straw man. And your universal dismissal of a strategy based on one year of drawdown -- and implication that trend following is not a valid strategy because of such -- beggars belief. A real mathematician would be embarrassed to even hint at such a statistically absurd line of criticism. (Well, it worked for 16 years, but this year it hit the skids. Yep, the previous performance must have been a fluke. Say what???) And it is especially eyebrow raising to hear the 'recent drawdown' critique in light of your, ahem, deep reverence for the musings of he-who-shall-not-be-named (initials V.N.), who has suffered at least one total blowout, another partial blowout or two, and no doubt many gut-wrenching drawdowns (which he has had the audacity to brag about in print). You are blatantly changing the subject in an effort to mask your unwinnable proposition, and your defensive efforts are growing more silly by the post. Listen to snapdragon, man! I don't know who the guy is, but he is obviously concerned about your well being. Maybe we can turn this thread into an intervention. Then again, maybe it's time to just let it go. Good luck in your search for a new methodology -- or your new life away from markets, whichever path it may be.
Would you care to elaborate on "statistically based option spreads"? I don't think such a thing exists. Regarding "statistically based reversion to the mean type strategies": I thought you were a randomer?