|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Brian,
I know what you are saying, but should you be saying it on this forum?
However, since you have brought up the subject of getting random
results from flipping a coin, and much trading is based in the idea of
random noise being a big factor, I propose a test.
Get a piece of graph paper, a pen or pencil, and a coin.
Your goal will be to flip the coin and record the deviation from zero
on the graph paper to prove that it is NOT random.
Find a very quite place with a rug where you won't be disturbed for a
half hour. You should not have eaten recently.
Put an X in the middle left box on the graph paper as the starting
mark. When you flip the coin, you will be marking the next square to
the right of the last mark. If you flip a Heads, you will be moving
up one square. If it a tails, you will be moving down one square.
This would normally be an example of a random walk graph.
Put your mind in the most focused level of consciousness that you can
for this test. In other words concentrate!
The next step is the most important of all:
Summon up the greatest emotional desire you can for achieving a
singular result. That result is your desire for the line you are
graphing to deviate from the starting point by as much as possible.
Feel it in the pit of your stomach. That burning desire to influence
the flip of a coin! Don't think, just desire!
Flip the coin and let it land. Record your mark. Flip the coin.
Record your mark. Feel the desire focusing your concentration ever
more. Flip, Mark...
When picking up the coin, do not return it to heads up, or tails up,
just use whatever it landed on last as the starting position. Give it
a good flip. Not just a few turns in the air, but spinning well.
At some point, you will feel emotionally dry. You will not be able to
keep up that emotional intensity forever (for me it is 20 minutes).
Notice when that point happens and put a mark on the paper so you can
see that point.
For some the results of this test will give you a new perspective on
yourself to think about.
I devised this test 35 years ago and the results changed the direction
of how I perceived many things after that.
Enjoy!
Dennis
On Aug 22, 2008, at 8:58 PM, brian_z111 wrote:
>> Another possible irrational explanation is that some humans may have
>> the ability to see the future.
>
>
> Ed,
>
> I feel I sold you short on this one so if you are interested in a
> more detailed answer read on.
>
> In my scheme of things there are no trader classifications, except
> perhaps good ones and not so good ones.
>
> If it helps us to understand our trading and/or become better
> traders, by naming classes, by all means lets do so but if and when
> we consider traders to be discretionary, we are, IMO deceiving
> ourselves i.e. it is probably the most useless classification of all.
>
> For the sake of the discussion - if there are otraders who can 'know'
> things using faculties that other traders don't have then I would
> call them XTraders (X == unclassified OR an unknown quantity).
>
> Our culturally accepted paradigm is that we are thinking
> (rationalising) and feeling creatures contained in a physical body
> (vessel).
>
> Culturally it is considered 'irrational' that anyone could function
> with a faculty other than thinking or feeling i.e. people
> who 'believe' this are sub-standard thinkers (perhaps they are
> unbalanced by their emotions?)
>
> In other cultures alternative 'levels of consciousness' are
> considered the norm (consciousness that is above and beyond rational
> thinking that is).
>
> Specialists in this field don't consider these X faculties as
> irrational - this term is reserved for a special class of sub-
> rational consciousness.
>
>
> As an analogy:
>
> Rationality can be symbolised by a clear blue cloudless sky and the
> sub-conscious mind as the clear deep green ocean.
>
> The irrational elements of our 'mind' are floating on the surface of
> the ocean, bobbing up and down like corks.
> Collectively the corks are always in motion.
> They are discrete and individual corks 'rotate' above and below the
> water line. Their upward motion creates pressure on our conscious
> mind and some leap out of the water, into consciousness, for brief
> periods.
>
> We call them irrational because they never come to full and complete
> expression in our rational mind - it is not possible for them to
> exist there autonomously because of the material that they are
> constructed of (speaking symbolically they are half-formed creatures
> from the deep).
>
> They act somewhat autonomously from our consious mind and controlling
> them is a devil of a job (the labours of Hercules).
>
> Specifically they are products of our environment (upbringing/past
> etc) that are exascerbated ny 'inherited' qualities (put two people
> in the same stressful environment and one can develop a mental
> pathology while the other person won't).
>
> They can affect our trading by popping up as irrational behavoiur in
> the heat of battle or by generally influencing our approach
> (fear/greed etc).
>
> The 'higher' level of consciousness (knowing) that I am personally
> familiar with is the Intuition which I consider to be the 4th/seven
> levels of consciousness attainable my Mankind.
>
> Note that in our culture the term is used in different ways in
> different cultures and that even amongst specialists in this field
> their is disagreement over the classifications of consciousness and
> the nomenclature.
>
> I don't know how Intuition works, nor have I experienced the full
> scope of it.
>
> For me it works in different ways at different times and it is
> dependent on how I manage it (if I am tired or don't pay full
> attention the quality of what I 'perceive' drops).
>
> It is not mind reading.
>
> I experience it as a kind of 'super-rationality' i.e. given the same
> facts that the rational mind possesses (yes I still have to read the
> help manual) I can sometimes connect the dots in amazing ways and do
> it instantaneously - I just consider I have done the rational anlysis
> at a speed that my conscious mind couldn't keep up with.
>
> According to the pundits other levels of consciousness are accessible
> in the supra-rational mind.
>
> The intuitive level of consiousness can be accessed via the abstract
> mind and this is what many of the leaders of our culture do - it is
> especially prevalent in those who are trained in/have a disposition
> towards use of the abstract languages e.g.
> maths,programming,philosophy, art, music etc where it is experienced
> as INSPIRATION.
>
> I haven't tried to be an Intuitive trader because I am quite happy to
> use all of the resources available to me in a balanced way (combining
> computer skills, rational thinking, inspiration and emotional control
> in a synthesized package and I am doing fine with that).
>
> Anyway, I can't seperate my learned experiences from my instinctive
> experiences so I couldn't perform an honest test (if I tried to make
> purely intuitive trading choices I could be biased by other more
> mundane factors).
>
>
>
> How does this apply to trading?
>
> We can make a truly unbiased decision if we flip a coin (technically
> speaking the decision is made by the coin at the moment it comes to
> rest).
>
> Coins don't have thoughts, feelings or X consciousness.
>
> We do.
>
> Whenever we make a decision it is almost impossible for us to measure
> the degree that it is influenced by feelings, thoughts or XFactors.
>
> Anything that influences our decision making places a condition on
> it, so in a round aout way it is a rule.
>
> That is why I claim that we are all rule based traders (unless we
> flip a coin to make our trading decisions).
>
> The differences come about because of the quality, number, format etc
> of our 'rules'.
>
> As a rule of thumb:
>
> Writing down our rules is one way to quality control them.
> Writing them in computer language is an even more definitive way
> force them to logicality.
>
> However we shouldn't assume that people who like to trade in a visual
> way e.g. chart trading, don't have written or programmed rules OR
> that people who haven't written down their rules are 'worse' traders
> than those who do.
>
> In all probability traders who haven't written down their rules are
> using much simpler 'systems' and/or have automatically joined
> together a few simple rules to make a set of easily 'remembered'
> mental rules.
>
> On that basis it is a bold asumption to say that they couldn't teach
> it to others.
>
> I dare say they can most likely teach it to a 15 year old a lot more
> readily than they could teach them to autotrade.
>
> It is a pretty fair bet that bad rules, unclear rules, or no rules at
> all, is the source of most trading trouble rather than unwritten
> rules or XFactor rules.
>
> As for XFactor traders (if there really are any out there):
>
> - they are still following a rules it just happens that they get them
> from the fairy perched on the top of their computer screen (I guess
> the proof of the pudding is in the eating).
>
> Personally, I haven't made a decision to buy/sell based on an
> intuitive signal AFAIK (if anyone is an intuitive trader then I would
> be a good candidate).
>
> However in real life I make intuitive decisions all of the time.
>
> One way I use the intuition is that I sense it like a stop light in
> the pit of my stomach - I can almost see it - red == stop/orange ==
> caution, green == go.
>
> Specfic examples:
>
> I go to a website - I take one look at it - I read the first
> paragraph of an article their - I get a red light - don't read
> anyfurther - it saves me research time - reason == the level of
> consciousness of the author is too low - they couldn't possibly write
> anything about trading worth reading (sorry but it isn't anything
> more romantic than that).
>
> In other cases I use the intuition in more advanced ways but that is
> a very long story.
>
> I hope that helps a few traders sort out their thoughts.
>
> "If we are saying it, we are thinking it.
> If we are thinking it, we are doing it".
>
> If we are sloppy with our trading nomenclature?
>
>
> brian_z *:-)
>
> I am very sorry but I can't answer private emails to my public email
> addresses - many of them get lost amongst the spam anyway.
>
> Also I apologise deeply but I do not 'take' students.
>
> FTR I teach the 'middle way' (not in a sectarian way) and I do what I
> can publically.
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Ed Hoopes" <reefbreak_sd@xxx>
> wrote:
>>
>> Another possible irrational explanation is that some humans may have
>> the ability to see the future.
>>
>> In competitive sports some players just seem to know what their
>> opponents will do. Maybe the same is true of some successful
> traders.
>> They can't explain it rationally, but they "just know it"
>>
>> Reef
>>
>> PS
>> Unfortunately, I don't have this trait.
>>
>>
>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@> wrote:
>>>
>>> From the 2nd article:
>>>
>>> "Paul Taglia sees high-probability Window set-ups that the rest
> of us
>>> don't. I've seen him do this for nearly two years. He can't
> explain
>>> it...he simply says that he's looked at thousands and thousands
> of
>>> charts over his career and some charts simply look better to him
> than
>>> others. We once asked him to keep a journal to see if we could
>>> systematize what he saw. It was a useless exercise. He sees it
> but he
>>> can't explain it."
>>>
>>>
>>> According to Occams Law the simplest explanation is usually the
> best.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity
>>>
>>> Possible explanations, of Paul Taglia's discretionary style are:
>>>
>>> a) He can 'see', or sense, the future in the charts,
>>> b) he has a set of rules that he learnt in the past (based on
>>> experience) and they have become second nature - possibly he has
>>> forgotten what they are or when he learnt them (or at least some
> of
>>> them)
>>> c) he has a set of rules, and he knows that, but this is an
> excellent
>>> posture to take if his game plan is never to reveal them to anyone
>>> d) he has a set of rules but has a playful nature OR likes to
> take
>>> the mickey out of his associates OR has a superiority complex and
>>> disdains the idiots who surround him
>>> e) he has an inferiority complex and needs the boost that comes
> from
>>> the adulation of others - this is an excellent strategy to
> establish
>>> mystique as a trader and achieve legendary status
>>> f) it is a great way to market ones employment value in a
> transient
>>> workplace (its a resume that can't be questioned to any extent
> either)
>>> g) some combination of a-f
>>> h) he has a set of rules (some conscious, some sub-conscious) but
> he
>>> can't be bothered explaining them (it is a form of energy
>>> conservation - an alternavtive version of this is that he could
> be a
>>> very focused trader and has eliminated the non-essentials, like
>>> defining his style OR chatting about his style.
>>>
>>> BTW irrationality is the common name for the shadow (I used the
>>> symbolic name).
>>>
>>> There is no irrationality in maths, programming etc which is
> probably
>>> why I quite like programmers etc.
>>>
>>> Trading myths are born out of, and perpetuated by irrationality.
>>>
>>> brian_z
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "wavemechanic" <timesarrow@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/stocks/commentary/lcbattlep/082720
>>> 04-39801.cfm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/swingtrading/commentary/lcbattlep/
>>> 09022004-39899.cfm
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: sidhartha70
>>>> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 10:52 AM
>>>> Subject: [amibroker] Re: 'Rule Based' versus 'Discretionary'
>>> trading...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right Brian. We do all use rules of some sort.
>>>>
>>>> But I guess discretionary traders don't use 'hard and fast'
> rules
>>> and
>>>> can't always define the same set of rules by which they
> choose to
>>>> define an entry or exit.
>>>>
>>>> For example, as we all know, something as simple as defining
> a
>>> trend
>>>> programatically can be more problematic as you might at first
>>> think.
>>>> However, a good trader can see very quickly what state the
> market
>>> is
>>>> in by looking at various time frame of chart.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, divergences of various sorts can be easy to see
> with the
>>>> naked eye but difficult to code in their entirety.
>>>>
>>>> Like driving a car, or a golf swing, you learn the 'rules'
> but
>>> when
>>>> you get really good you are no longer thinking rules... you've
>>>> effectively let go of the rules and are just 'doing'...
>>>>
>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is my definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> We are all rule based traders.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mechanical Traders are a specialist group who have
> programmed
>>>>> computers to autotrade their rules OR automatically
> announce
>>> their
>>>>> rules via computer communications (audio, email, chart
> prompts,
>>>>> spoken text etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> I am prepared to continue the discussion with any seers,
>>> inituitives
>>>>> etc, who come forward, and adjust my definition to meet
>>> anything new
>>>>> that comes out of that.
>>>>>
>>>>> In advance I admit to the possibility of exceptions to the
> rule.
>>>>>
>>>>> brian_z
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111"
> <brian_z111@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Descretionary traders make decisions that are based on
>>> personal
>>>>>>> knowledge and circumstances, perhaps using many factors
>>> unknown to
>>>>>>> themselves. Like which journal they read the night
> before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the nub of the question for sure, and the point
> that
>>> I am
>>>>>> investigating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that when they (self-nominated DT's) think they
> are
>>>>> making
>>>>>> discretionary decisions they are in fact making rule
> based
>>>>> decisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is why I asked for specific examples
> of 'discretionary'
>>>>> decision
>>>>>> making e.g. I haven't seen Bilbo's chart yet but I
> consider
>>> it
>>>>> highly
>>>>>> unlikely that the decision about whether a trend is in
> place
>>> is a
>>>>>> discretionary decision - I can define a trend in several
>>> different
>>>>>> ways - all of them can readily be written as a rule (in
> words
>>> or
>>>>> with
>>>>>> code) - I don't care if the definitions are 'correct' or
> not
>>> as
>>>>> long as
>>>>>> the system that they are part of works i.e. my rules for
> a
>>> trend
>>>>> depend
>>>>>> on the context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Dennis said, our rules might be difficult to program,
>>> causing us
>>>>> not
>>>>>> to automate the trade, but mentally we are still running
> the
>>> rules
>>>>> and
>>>>>> if we are honest with ourselves we do know what the rules
> are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For a novice traders to try and mimic the techniques (of
>>>>> Discretionary
>>>>>>> Traders) without
>>>>>>> having similar backgrounds merits caution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I am suggesting is that, over time, the sub-
> conscious
>>> mind
>>>>> will
>>>>>> automate what was intially habitual conscious behaviour,
> and
>>> even
>>>>> make
>>>>>> some improvements on it, so that 'we' can skip the
> conscious
>>> part
>>>>> for
>>>>>> some 'tasks' e.g. driving the car becomes second nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That won't happen for new traders, in a short time, so
> they
>>> do need
>>>>> to
>>>>>> persevere, be patient and not try to mimic people who
> have
>>> been
>>>>> around
>>>>>> for years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO formal (written) rules based
>>> trading/backtesting/optimization
>>>>> is
>>>>>> the best place to start - it grinds the basic lessons in
> very
>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If anyone can look at a chart, and without recourse to
> any
>>> rules,
>>>>> know
>>>>>> which way the price is going to move and trade
> successfully
>>> (long
>>>>>> term) on that basis then that is something else
> altogether.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it is at all possible to do that then it definitely
> can't
>>> be
>>>>> taught.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is why I asked, "Anyone doing it?".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is just like >100%PA returns - anything is possible
> but
>>> once
>>>>> someone
>>>>>> confirms that they have done it then it moves from the
> realm
>>> of
>>>>>> possibility into reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the meantime I will stick to my guns by saying
>>> that "except for
>>>>>> people who KNOW what the price is going to do everyone
> else
>>> is a
>>>>> rule
>>>>>> based trader and categorizing traders, as DT's or MT's,
> is
>>>>> arbitrary".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> brian_z
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.6.6/1623 - Release
> Date:
>>> 8/20/2008 8:12 AM
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
------------------------------------
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/
|