Whatever. I do hope that you trade ES and NQ from time to time. It will be a privilege to take the opposite side of your trades more often than not.
I will agree with you that what has been tested didn't show an edge without even looking at the research. "BUT" Did the testing occur in a non varying environment? Did they test all indicators, popular or not? If you could answer "no" to either question then the results of the tests are incomplete so the assumptions made are incomplete and say nothing for the environment as a whole. Statistics, unless they encompass all subsets say nothing about any complete environment.
Dear Mr. Hershey: I have had Hypo heavily sedated since the last time you mentioned him in one of your rambling posts. You may have noticed that not only has he refrained from attacking you recently, he has not posted at ALL. So just when I had given him common room privileges with internet access, and the strongest admonition to avoid both ET and you, he logged and straightaway found your post here. Now he is frothing at the mouth in near complete rictus lying on the floor of his padded cell compulsively repeating "There is no faster fractal than the tick, and the P/V relation does not hold there! Just as the tonal springs from the nagual, the macro evolves from the micro!" Perhaps you know what he means, I do not. In any event, you have set my course of therapy back several weeks by reinforcing my patient's paranoia that you are Tesla-like beaming evil thoughts at him. Regards, Arthur Deco, M.D. P.S.: I fear that you and Hypo share similar obsessive thoughts about the market and repetitively compulsive actions therein in reaction. I strongly counsel you to seek professional help. Also, it is entirely possible that you are taking negatively interactive multiple courses of medication which induce loquacity, verbosity and grandiosity. Have you checked the level of lithium carbonate in the Tucson water? Perhaps it is deficient.
"I will agree with you that what has been tested didn't show an edge without even looking at the research. "BUT" Did the testing occur in a non varying environment? Did they test all indicators, popular or not? If you could answer "no" to either question then the results of the tests are incomplete so the assumptions made are incomplete and say nothing for the environment as a whole. Statistics, unless they encompass all subsets say nothing about any complete environment." It is a very simple arrangement. It is the simple results of all those indicators included (they never vary them), using the standard industry definition. It is actually not a test. They just show the results from the many included popular indicators. And the indicators just don't work over time. Arguments to the contrary are based on belief or contrived tests. This site is the opposite. In fact they don't exist to prove anything. They are just a free price chart service, owned by Barchart.com (a paid charting service). But as I said, people still believe
The site doesn't include all the indicators so their tests are incomplete. The site did not test the indicators they DID test in a Non-Variable Non-Fluctuating environment so the tests they did do are tainted making them invalid as well. There is nothing contrived about this statement, it is shear unadulterated fact. Unless you include all the subsets in creating proofs, the results of the research will be inaccurate. This is elementary statistics. You can skew that data all you want but it won't change the facts.
Are the results, once prominently featured on your website, also unadulterated fact? http://web.archive.org/web/20050309104231/www.logicalmarkettrends.com/2005+Program.htm
Is there a "criteria" that would lead one to belive that another can "play" a musical instrument? In other words you say you can play the guitar. I then ask you to play the solo from Stairway To heaven. You reply that no you can't but you know quite a bit from a folk songbook of work by Pete Seger. Perhaps in my mind, I come to the conclusion you can't play. After all how could anyone claim to be a guitarist and not be able to knock off some Jimmy Page riff's. Yet in your mind and perhaps in the mind of others, you are a heck of a great folk player. TA apparently has it's own "audition". The money making process. A big mistake systems guys, traders, managers and logicians have is in throwing out as garbage what seemingly does not "test" well. What if proftlogic gave you and me a support number each day. And each day he told us this is a VERY important level. And so on each day you bought the market off his level and each day as soon as the market traded below it, the market PLUNGED. Straight down. 4 ES points with nary an up tick each day after his support number was penetrated. If one asked you how proftlogic was "testing" you'd have to say, shitty. A loser. A fade. Death. I on the other hand would say this guy's work is AWESOME! Because each day I would take the buy, lose a few ticks and then flip short below on the penetration and get my loss back and more. In spades. I can't emphasize this enough. Acknowledge that PROBABLE outcomes are STILL RANDOMLY generated!. If your support and resistance numbers are "bona fide" they should also be EXCELLENT pivot numbers that display follow through when broken. I hate shit like friends asking me "what do you think here"? I like 'em. I've got support at 94.50 but if they take it out they could run down hard. Later in the day after my obviously long friend gets stuffed on the break down to 88 I'll get a sarcastic call, "well, if you liked 94's I bet you LOVE 88's." There's a guy who's being emotional AND clueless. 94 may have been GREAT info to me. To him it was just another place to get long near support. Support fails to be support WHEN IT FAILS TO SUPPORT THE MARKET!! Not a real hard concept.
Science confuses the $hit out of you doesn't it? If you read the description of the set-ups, it explains them in detail. I know you read but your comprehension skills are lacking. I know this for a fact since you continually ask the same questions over and over and over again even though you have been given the answers. I've never met someone so narcistic as yourself. Constantly posting just to see your responses online. I'll explain it again because I have empathy for those I consider the mentally challenged. I updated the explanation so individuals, yourself excluded, had an easier time understanding the environment: "All Trade Set-Ups and results on this page are based on my ______ Methodology and are based on Objective Rules. Trade Set-Ups or Triggers in the CONFIRMED direction or CONFIRMED pull-back direction of the ____ Volume Bar Chart with the Trade Set-Up Entry and Trade Reversal coming from the ____ Volume Bar Chart _____. Prime Physical Price Failures, Physical Price Failures or Physical Price Failures & Divergence will be used for preparation of the execution of Trades and Prices Failures will be the ultimate executions of Entries & Reversals. All trading scenarios shown here are based on perfect set-ups showing the average number of PIPS that can be extracted from the Market on any given day. Since traders are not perfect or do not trade 24 hours a day, real results will vary due to emotion, trading hours & slippage figured into the trades. Consider each of these Set-Ups as a snap shot of a perfect trading scenario (STRONG) or aggressive trading scenario (WEAK) to use in fine tuning your inter-day or position trading. This shows an individual continuously in the Market and only reversing position on each set-up. This page is to show what PIPS are available from the Market on a Daily basis NOT what MUST be taken from the Market. I teach that until an individual can clearly "SEE" each set-up to only take the CLEAR set-ups. This will maximize profits during the learning process because the more consistency you see in the Market price action the CLEARER all the set-ups become. These figures also show you the best times of the day to trade based on the highest percentage of trade triggers during those hours. This shows a trader the times when the greatest potential for profit occur. These tables show a grand percentage of accuracy but think about this; Capturing approximately 5% or less of the Daily Available Pips would have gotten your goal in January, March, April, June & August, approximately 7% in February, approximately 6% in July & approximately 2.5% in May . Are these percentages more than realistic percentages for trading profitably?" You CAN pat yourself on the back for being a small influence in my decision to no longer teach speculators and to trade full time. I still plan on teaching part-time, but only in the university on weekends for farmer & ranchers. People in the Ag industry completely understand their environment and are fun to teach. They eat, sleep and devour their environment and are constantly searching for ways to improve their bottom-line. They are skeptical which they should be but the big difference between them and you is they are, for the most part, open-minded and by damned, going to verify everything they are shown or told themselves. They believe nothing of what they are told and 5% of what they read. They are the hardest working individuals on the planet which is another reason you couldn't relate to them. Yup, each of the set-ups are based on specific rules executed in a non variable, non fluctuating and chart increment controlled environment. I know this goes over your head because you have repeatedly stated, indirectly, you don't understand how a non varying non fluctuating environment can be created in trading. It goes a long way to explaining a lot of your confusion. I call it "Thick". The only thing you need to understand is the fact that the information is way over your head and way to complicated for you to be bothered with. I wouldn't want to be responsible for you having any aneurysms or strokes taxing yourself beyond your limitations.
riskarb Registered: Jan 2002 Posts: 4895 09-10-06 04:38 PM Calls are meaningless. You have no insight into the mechanics of the signal nor the management of the stated-trade. FWIW, he (marketsurfer) stated on chat that he had just shorted "size" in GOOG. Unfortunately the stock had been halted and no trades took place at his reported price. Later he stated he received a fill from E***** Institutional that his "fund" shorted 200 shares. Again, at a price never reaching the tape on any ECN. 200... C'mon, doesn't this thread title tell it all? So let's drop the pretense... the guy is borderline retarded, pathologically FOS and an attention whore. This is the last post in which I will ever mention the guy or his handle. That should please everyone involved. Edit: Would love to see the WSJ column surfer. Maybe E*Trade filled you outside the Earthly markets out of soft-dollar compensation for your editorials. Oh Lord, it never ends with this cat. ___________________________________________________ Earlier marketsurfer said he didn't lie. I think the above post in the "lunch with marketsurfer thread" says it all.