Who is this JH in fact ? I see him make the most lenghty posts I have ever seen here on elitetrader , is he a profitable trader ?
hes a very knowledgable guy and i believe he is a very profitable trader,no reason to doubt him,asked him for charts once ,came right back with them, asked to explain a couple things, came right back with answers,very generous and helpful,,haven't seen his acct statements nor he mine,not necessary, problem with jacks posts is not that they are a little wordy, but that every time he posts these little rats follow him around and take a crap and stink up the whole thread they are like footprints
The funny thing about the guys who insist on "the testing" is the following: I know several guys that trade like me. When I look at the same timeframe/fractal chart that they do, I know PRECISELY where their entries and exits are (realtime or hindsight, no difference), if we both trade the same fractal, my entries/ exits would match theirs. I can call it to the minute, to the bar. Surf might believe this or not, but I know it to be true. I am sure Spyder or Jack, Anek or the Prof can do exactly the same with "their" guys (the guys they tought to trade like them), the guys who know how to read the information on the screen in realtime. Perhaps the people who demand the "testing" don't know or believe this. If they did they would realize that something that can be duplicated by other people obviously is not "subjective" or "art" (Actually, the test for scientific validity is EXACTLY that an experiment can be duplicated). Apparently, the thought does not occur that it might be a method that requires a SKILL, an ability that might take some time and effort to learn. If your computerized testing method can or cannot find the edge is irrelevant- if it can not, the fault lies obviously with the testing method. Just because you can not see the moons of Jupiter with a pair of cheap binoculars is not scientific proof that they do not exist. The thing is: the way to find out if these methods work or not requires you to understand them to a certain degree. That needs the basic effort required to figure out if there is truth to the claim or not. Nobody owes you anything, especially not if the information is offered free on the internet (such as in ALL of the 4 cases cited above, believe it or not). There is something psychologically weird about this demanding attitude (unless it is just dishonest fishing for signals). I suspect the attitude comes from a history of disappointments-sometimes lasting many years- which in trading can demoralize you completely, until you get to the point where you are too cynical in your misery to believe anything is possible: your mind has been closed. (Jack wrote lucidly about that effect). You have built neural pathways of beliefs which are now strong like steel cables. But you still hang around internet boards and demand that people show you prints or show you "tested proof".
<b>Quote from slacker: ..Professor Skinner gave pigeons food without attempting to reinforce any particular behavior. In fact, he gave the pigeons food 'at regular intervals with no references whatsoever to the bird's behavior.' The outcome of this experiment was superstitious pigeons.... the pigeons attempted to make sense of the outcomes.... One bird was conditioned to turn couter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements......Each pigeon developed its own superstitious behavior..... The point is that our 'lizard brains' seek a logical pattern to illogical behavior. profitable. </b> you are one clever slacker... nicely said. surf
Hello guys, Rahula, Surf, Spike and the others, plese consider this information about the markets: random or not: 1. If the market are random why they influance each another? For exapmpe there are planty of stocks, with very similar (same) patterns? Is it random? No. They are related (beta), i.e. they are not random. 2. Why the market react of news? If they are random they should behauve like they do just before the news? In forex you can see amaising things just after the news. This is not random. This prooves that the market are driven by phicology of mass of people. 3. The subjects who partisipate of the market are human beings (believe or not), nevertheless they do it with telephone call, contract, electronic platform, of computer program. People take desitions wich their brain , which means psicology. This is what drives the market. Is the pricology random? I don't think so. If you do not believe me, please try to go in your town with random desition (behaviour). Cross the streets randomly (withowt watching out). Ha ha ha. Random. 4. Are the markets random. See the Elder's chapter "are the markets effitient". He sais, and I fully agree with him that the markets are random at 95%. This is it. BUT at 5% they are not random. And this is exactly where the expirienced traders get theyr profit. This is not easy but this can be done. 5. Conserning your chart: I was amaised at the beginning. They were like a real chart. But not exactly. The thin diffrence is that the trends in the real markets and just 5% more stable and just 5% more prolonged. And this is eaxclty where the profit comes from. Otherwise the random looks like real chart, but it is not. It only looks like. If you do not believe me I can show you tasks from the time I was a schoolboy where diffrent order of triangles seemed to change the total surface of them. Is it possible. Not really. This only looked lke this. Or I can proove you that 1=2 like this: Let a=b, then a*b = a2 (a2 is square of a); a*b - b2 = a2 - b2 (we add same ammont (-b2) in both parties) b*(a-b) = (a+b)*(a-b) , we remove the same multiplier (a-b) and b=a+b; a=a+a; a=2*a (we remove the same multiplier (a) and 1=2. That's it. This is what proves your chart. So finally I this what I put above looks very logical. But do I bevieve this at 100%. Not really, because I couldn't make profit from the markets. For me markets are still effitient. When I succeed to make consistent profit from this I'll believe it at 100%. That's all folks. Cheers!
I like my privacy, especially because giving it up will do me no good and may create a potential danger. That's my experience on internet. I have contact on a regular basis with some ET members. They know much more about me, but i know who they are because whe met each other several times. And on top of that these people appreciate what i tell them althought they don't take all i say fir granted. There is a difference between being critical and negative. On ET most people are negative, not critical. If i post my results people will say that i can post anything., which is true. I have seen already many endless discussions on this kind of subjects. No matter what i show, it will never be accepted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Professor Skinner gave pigeons food without attempting to reinforce any particular behavior. In fact, he gave the pigeons food 'at regular intervals with no references whatsoever to the bird's behavior.' The outcome of this experiment was superstitious pigeons.... the pigeons attempted to make sense of the outcomes.... One bird was conditioned to turn couter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements......Each pigeon developed its own superstitious behavior..... The point is that our 'lizard brains' seek a logical pattern to illogical behavior. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is probably a story, not a test. My trades are real. And even it it were a test it has no value because the statistical evidendence is to low and no one can verify that what this prof said really happened and should be interpreted this way. On top of that the brains of these pigeons are not identical to those of human beings. Different brains probably react different, so they compare apples with oranges. What this test said is: we tested an elephant and stated that he couldn't add up 1+1, so humans are not able to do that either they think they kind find the solution because they think they see a pattern. That prof surely didn't become a good trader. The pigeon story reminds me of a moviefragment where someone stated, centuries ago, that the earth was not flat but round. The reaction of the crowd was identical to what i experience here. But i must admit that i'm not as smart as the guy who discovered that the earth was round.
Not a story but an experiment that can be used to illustrate the problems of making generalizations about the future based on individual instances. The mind has a need to find patterns. As for 'my trades are real'. Ok, those successful trades in no way prove the market is not random as in any random population there will be winners. John Meriwether, of LTCM ignominy, just blew out his third fund. Victor Niederhoffer, just took another busload of investors into tax loss carry forward country. Those trades were real. The 'real trades' as 'individual instances' used to prove a generalization of the market over a long period of time are worthless. Money can be made in a random market; but it is easier to keep the money if you acknowledge its randomness. Good trading!!!