I apologize. Let me see if I can make it clearer. Of course if you are trying to instigate a pissing contest I will guarantee I can more than keep up, though I prefer not to trash impaired opponents. Trading any Market where "Time" is the prime decision making ingredient is the same as trading with an "arbitrary" decision making process because the Markets do not react to "time". The primary & secondary definitions of arbitrary are: "depending on individual discretion and not fixed by law" & " based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something". The Markets react to a variety of stimuli but time isn't one of them. Of course, if you can prove to me that a share of stock, a futures contract can "Think" or the majority of traders worldwide set their clocks by their trading decisions . . . then I will become a believer. That being said, common sense then dictates that trading arbitrarily will give you arbitrary results. Don't need to be Einstein to figure that one out. Shear deductive reasoning then relinquishes to the fact that trading decisions based primarily on time WILL result with inconsistent results, aka profits. I doubt anyone here will disagree with the common sense of that.
definitely a respectable argument. i did not intend to start a dissing contest, rather i found your previous remarks to be assulting. thanks for clearing yourself out. as far as my personal experience goes, markets DO react to time, and they react in an astonishingly accurate way. there does not pass a single day that doesn't leave me amazed regarding how accurate the market 'clock' is. besdies my own experience, some traders have been investigating this for years and years and found equally astonishing results. i will not engage in trying to prove it to anyone, since i find no motivation to do so. we'll have to agree to disagree then. 50
"assulting"? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that word. If you meant assaulting, my original comment wasn't intended for that purpose. My original comment was meant solely as a ditty or cycle of thought. When I said to prove to me that there is consistency to your "time" theory, I meant something tangible. I wasn't expecting to be told that "I know but won't tell you or I know people" I feel like I'm back in grade school again. What is so hard with backing up what you say? Make a credible statement in regards to what you say is true. Seems like a simple task to me. Please astonish me! Oh, and by consistency I mean something over 80%. Ten to 20 percent is anything BUT consistent. I will agree that we disagree but I would like to know that what I disagree with is a tangible fact.
it wouldn't matter to me if you believe that time cycles is fiction, or that anything else is anything for that matter. since i take interest in the subject, i was angered by the fact that you showed up with an empty remark e.g. 'it's useless and you're all gamblers'. since then, you have corrected yourself and i have to apologize too, since i guess it was impulsive of me to reply to your remarks with even a more shallow remark of my own, thereby disrupting the thread even further. so i'll stop here and let the thread stay on the subject, which was elaborating the idea of time cycles among those who believe in them, rather than proving that they exist to those that do not. i respect your beliefs none the less. all the best 50