<i>"please proof me wrong, if you dare.....post your trades live, p&L included, and then we talk.... up to that point....is all smoke and mirrors..."</i> It would be nice to see any of the trade parameters from this book taken real-time and posted for scrutiny. Who will be the one to take these trades and post the P&L? Sure would prove the book's merit and support its case, one must agree
Certainly not. But I'd contend that your "visual glance" is quantifiable. Otherwise you yourself could not recognize it. The human mind is a powerful pattern recognizer. But it is not magic. Fletch
incorrect..... I wanted to be optionpro. But realized I am no optionpro... I am mr. futures......i like futures....... riskarb was the real optionpro.... This will probably be my last post for ET as optionpro007. If I come back, I will something else.... I am very pissed off at Baron and the way he is directing this website. Incredible contributors have been lost to this website because they have not made it another "policy" to refrain 20 some year old idiots of insulting the "true professionals" of this business.... The MOST valuable asset to this website, is it "contents" and you guys are kicking it in the ass........ hello !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtf!!! I am pissed off.....
Wow, sorry you feel that way!:eek: But if you're serious about it, you'd be better off making well thought out intelligent arguments (as in dialogues) rather than just running off in a huff (or running off at the mouth). Hope you feel better soon. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/bipolar.cfm#bp1 Jimmy
We'd all appear more intelligent if we used the spell checker But the key issue is that the book is not scientific unless its advertising blurb is completely at odds with its content (I refer to my earlier post in this dialogue).
You can't know what is or is not in the book without reading it, attempting to apply its principles over a set period of time across varying market conditions and recording the results in a dispassionate manner. More intelligence at work here .
Whether the author after testing 6,400 signaling rules has found a reasonably profitable way to make a living yet?
Thanks Jimmy for your good wishes..... Sorry about last night guys, scotch has a way of helping you vent your frustrations like nothing else.... I apologize for my rantings. Still, I hope my message was read and understood by the parties involved. Cheers !
<i>"If you drop back to my first post and look at what they wrote you will find that they are sadly unscientific in dismissing anything they can't figure out an easy way of measuring."</i> Wholeheartedly concur. If the book dismisses all TA functions that cannot be clearly defined and rigorously tested, it therefore dismisses everything <b>4RE</b> and <b>Trader28</b> do in their popular, educational threads. What they each/both do is interpretive TA use for trading... along with everyone who follows along. The book purports (unless I'm wrong) that only quantified TA application is of any use. All remaining has intuitive logic = guesswork behind it. I say no... many patterns and setups clear to the trained eye are impossible to quantify in structured black & white, because of subtle degrees variation involved. Exclusionary statements = suggestions like that are false, and damaging to traders' development as well. There is great merit to quantified, measurable TA data for systems development. To outwardly dismiss all else as improbable or irrelevant is the problem.