|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Louis,
As long as you understand I don't deal (intentionally) in the base
human emotions (they have no value to me).
My philosphical points were addressed 'To Whom It May Concern'.
People are totally mistaken if they think there is no relevance to
trading in my 'philosphical' post, however few are interested and I
don't have the time to do the subject justice anyway.
My 'easy' answer to you was c) none of the above, but, IMO the
problem is that you don't have the experience to make the necessary
distinctions for yourself (is it my fault that you are in such a
hurry?). Also, it is not a good thing to 'lift' your trades from
others. People trade best wnen they develop their own systems/styles
etc so that is why I gave you that answer - it is in your best
interests. As well as that, good opinion on this subject abounds in
the forum and the books you have purchased e.g. Howard has given his
opinion on the importance of people choosing their own Objective
Function and the fact that his recommended approach sidelines trading
pyschology, so it is not as if the question went unanswered. (I
understand that my esoteric answers are not to everyones taste,
perhaps not yours, but there are plenty of other people prepared to
give an opinion.
However that is just my answer - there are another 7000+ people who
can give you any answer they like.
Cheers,
brian_z
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Louis Préfontaine"
<rockprog80@xxx> wrote:
>
> Ok I was naive; I thought I could simply ask and get some easy
answers which
> would get me right on track to get new ideas on how to build a
hourly
> system...
>
> I'll stick around and try to get some piece of wisdom and maybe I
will be
> able to build something with those that will eventually allow me to
build
> the system I want to build!
>
> Louis
>
>
> 2008/3/21, brian_z111 <brian_z111@xxx>:
> >
> > (Subjective) investigations into the 'human condition' have been
> > going on, in parallel with our search for objective truths, as
long
> > as humanity has been around.
> >
> > This body of information has been collected and preserved, by the
> > few, for the benefit of mankind (the many) and consitutes a
SCIENCE
> > to its guardians, adherents and students.
> >
> > From that body of WISDOM two principles can be extracted that are
> > relevant to your comments:
> >
> > holism is universally persistent (all things are made in the
IMAGE of
> > the creator)
> >
> > and,
> >
> > flowing from that, we derive the principle of CORRESPONDENCE
> > (operating principles in one sphere, have their corresponding
> > principle in another)...
> >
> > ...but that is going to far OT.
> >
> > Over to trading (OR how the above relates to trading):
> >
> > Over the long term the bias of the (stock) market is a function of
> > the earnings performance of the component companies.
> >
> > This is skewed by the behaviour of market participants, which
> > introduces randomness to the markets.
> >
> > The shorter the timeframe the more dominant is 'randomness'
(which of
> > course is not true randomness).
> >
> > (If you are interested in the subject of organising principles and
> > holism Carl Jung's work on Psychological Archetypes is a wonderful
> > example of how the universal paradigms play out in the affairs of
> > wo/mankind).
> >
> > brian_z *:-)
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
40yahoogroups.com>, "Ronald
> > Davis" <xokie7@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I maintain the view that algorithms exist in nature, and that
> > people who develop algorighms are only discovering another one of
> > nature's secrets.
> > >
> > > When my son first showed me Amibroker several years ago, I
looked
> > at charts with Stochastics, and RSI, and I became convinced that
> > mother nature has algorithms that can find the central core of
all of
> > that volatility.
> > >
> > > I have yet to discover mother nature's algorighms, but my
attempts
> > have led me to some conclusions.
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > >
> > > My results WERE BEST when I "AVERAGED THE LAST SEVERAL HUNDRED
DAYS
> > OF ACTIVITY"
> > >
> > > and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average
of
> > hundreds of days.
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > >
> > > My results WERE LESS GOOD when I "AVERAGED OF LAST 9 DAYS OF
> > ACTIVITY"
> > >
> > > and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this average
of
> > only 9 days.
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > >
> > > Hope this helps someone. Ron D
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------------------
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Louis Préfontaine
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 PM
> > > Subject: [amibroker] Philosophical question
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi group,
> > >
> > > I just began reading Howard Bandy's book (even though I did not
> > finish Aronson's book yet...), and a somehow philosophical
question
> > came to my mind when he speaks about the market's inefficiency and
> > how we must take advantage of it. He talks both about moving
> > averages and breakout, and I was wondering which one of the two
> > techniques do you think is the more promising for such a system?
> > >
> > > I ask this because as far as subjective technical analysis is
> > concerned, I am more used with breakout techniques. But the real
> > inefficiency in breakout techniques comes from time, that is if
one
> > can act quickly enough to make a profit from the sudden change in
> > price. But from my experience it seems to be more difficult with
EOD
> > or hourly data. And it is less profitable for someone (like me)
who
> > is using options, which tend to anticipate the change quicker
than it
> > really happens.
> > >
> > > Moving averages techniques, on the other side, seems a bit
> > mystical to me, and maybe a bit too simple or too « easy ». I
don't
> > know much about them...
> > >
> > > But anyway, my question is: which one of those two techniques do
> > you prefer, or do you use both for entering a trade, or shorting a
> > trade? What can be a good way to trade for someone (like me) who
> > wants to trade hourly data and can't always get the beginning of a
> > breakout?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Louis
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
For other support material please check also:
http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|