|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Interesting is a very good compliment in my book - thankyou.
If there is interest there ..... don't want to shove it down peoples
throats .... it will become annoying to many if we keep on and on
about it everyday... no harm in doing it thoroughly once or twice...
it is on the record now ......might not do it again...in the future
people can refer back to this thread... there are good sales for
books in this field ... on that basis a % of traders must be
interested ..... might as well get it from the horses mouth as
speculate......I just happen to do it for free......some say you get
what you pay for though ;-)
> I'm not sure I see a difference between 'X traders' and 'intuitive
> traders'... they are the same thing I assume?? Why classify them as
> 'X' traders when 'intuitive' is a term much more familiar to most?
Trading has to move along with the times.
It is a good thing to coin new terms that reflect current significant
trends .... I like it.... X for unclassified, unknown, untested and
unproven (to most of us)...... don't seriously expect the term to
enter the traders lexicon ... its a bit of fun and very useful to
boot.
We have different psychological 'physiologies' that shape us.......
like a cut out of a butterfly or a fish, when you shine the
subjective light of 'higher consiousness' through the built-in
pattern, the image it reflects on the wall is different..... so the
psychic gifts vary with typology..... Intuition is just one of
them.... the one that I have... it is known as the clearest and most
certain of the faculties (possibly the least romantic though)...... a
friend of mine is a 'Seer' .... when I just 'know' something (green
light) she is 'seeing' it in technicolor with a story and a cast ...
very difficult to interpret ..... also difficult to separate
valueable insights from psychic pollution....... it is so sensual it
is hard to hold the objective viewpoint ..... she flys away.... she
loves it....makes her feel special and powerful (uh-oh an inflated
ego).... refer to Carlos Casteneda re how 'Power' is an enemy of
a "Man Of Knowledge".....I am very cautious about the value of these
things .... there is so much crap around and people are so prone to
self-deception ... pathologies and drug induced fantasies are taken
as gospel etc.... most people who think they are Xtrading are bound
to be mistaken..... the irrational aspects of the sub-conscious are
the ultimate game players, masters of disguise and speak with an
entrancing voice...... I used Intuition as the example so that I
could include some personal experiences.... I think people need
something tangible to consider/critique..... it is OK for people to
be critical about it....scepticism is healthy.... if I didn't quote
something 'factual' people could say I was avoiding scrutiny by being
ambiguous about it all.
> "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."
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think a good, intuitive
> trader can be processing far more information than you suggest.
I coined the term XTraders deliberately, so that we would start to
distinguish between autonomic rules and rules based on experiences of
higher consciousness (keep in mind that I didn't start this ...
people like Mark Douglas did)...... people are definitely mixing them
up .... once we start to use the correct word the correct ideas start
to follow.
On one hand we have autonomic rules ....... rules that were once
conscious that have moved into the sub-conscious.... like when we
learn to drive ... looking down at the clutch... slowly let it
out.... increase accelerator speed..... years later we are putting on
makeup (not me) or talking on the mobile while we drive... a
collection of formerly conscious rules has moved into the sub-
conscious mind and coalesced there and evolved ......coagulations
like that are organic entities, of a kind, and can grow over time, by
attracting new family related rules to their center (you get a new
car with a GP built in and it is automatically factored into the
driving complex)..... it feels magical and powerful as we drive down
the road on autopilot doesn't it ... but it is a normal and every day
occurrence..... not a supernatural experience at all!
IMO it would be very easy to think that autonomic trading is Xtrading.
What I experience as the Intuition seems to have the capacity to pull
in new, relevant, information from somewhere and/or connect the dots
when there are logical gaps that the rational mind can't bridge i.e.
makes quantum leaps..... can't prove it to the world
though.....rationalists could find some good arguments against the
fact that anything exceptional is going on there so I don't like to
get carried away with it..... have to give myself an out in case I am
wrong.... still have to mow the lawn and paint the picket fence the
same as everyone else.
Re Hawkins/Douglas and 'at oneness' with the markets == intuition:
I can't quite relate to the experience they are describing ... have
to leave it to them to clarify their statments .... my 'intuition' is
an 'eyes wide open' experience...... there is a good deal of mis-
understanding around about 'at oneness'.... ParamAtma... Samadhi is
one thing and way beyond any of us....the mystical experience is
another..... more people achieve the mystical experience than find
the occult path (don't ask!).... I can't see any direct relevance to
trading there.
> I find it strange that you don't use more intution in your trading
> since you seem to believe in its power and use it so successfully
> elsewhere in your life.
I don't see it as a power - I won't grasp the 'black rod of power'.
You don't need to assemble an orchestra to play hip-hop.
It is not a supernatural faculty ... quite natural and normal
actually.... it is just part of a balanced holistic psyche...... it
plays its part in the whole....... overbalancing on one aspect of the
psyche, including rationality, is unhealthy...... can't entirely
separate out what is coming from where anyway..... not without a good
deal of effort ... the payoff has to be there to justify the energy
input ... business is business even in the 'new age'.
There is a lot more involved that is not relevant to trading/this
forum .... "with freedom comes responsibility".
BTW I personally got good trading value out of this thread, in a
generalist way.... wrote my 'trading manifesto'... thanks for
starting it.... wouldn't have done it without this thread and the
various input from other posters.
My manifesto (draft version -- subject to change):
All successful traders are rule based traders.
A rule is "a statement, or principle governing beaviour" (Oxford mini)
The rules are either:
- programmed
- written
- unwritten
- autonomic
- or a combination of the above
Rules are based on the following factors (inputs):
- physical
- emotional
- mental
- X factors (alternative consciousness)? (? == not proven).
- or a combination of the above
.... that can be either subjective or objective.
Rules must be definite, to enable later adjustment based on feedback.
A set of rules comprises a system.
Indefinite 'rules of thumb' can be used provided they are limited to
activating a separate definite rule, or set of rules, that form a sub-
set of the system.
A couple of quick examples:
Physical objective rule == not to trade when drinking alcohol.
Subjective X rule == buy when the fairy tells me to buy (not being
facetious here - it is a definite rule provided the fairy is
persistent ... a good one if it works, a bad one if it doesn't).
Indeterminate objective/subjective rule == headline news,
fundamentals create the context for a bear mood in a stock ----->
trader gets the 'feeling' that something might happen with this
stock --------> confirmed price action at the open intiates a
sequence of definite rules.
brian_z
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "sidhartha70" <sidhartha70@xxx>
wrote:
>
> Brian,
>
> Interesting as always.
>
> I'm not sure I see a difference between 'X traders' and 'intuitive
> traders'... they are the same thing I assume?? Why classify them as
> 'X' traders when 'intuitive' is a term much more familiar to most?
>
> You say,
>
> "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."
>
> I'm not sure I agree with that statement. I think a good, intuitive
> trader can be processing far more information than you suggest, and
a
> much larger base of loosely based rules than you suggest.
>
> To quote Steven Hawkins from 'Steidlmayer on Markets'...
>
> "... you will begin to gain a feel for a market that enables you to
> sense changes AS they occur, not after. You will develop the ability
> to RECOGNIZE opportunies. You will learn to RECOGNIZE when you are
> wrong BEFORE your dollar position tells you so. You will begin to
see
> that, when you have exited a trade early, it was usually the right
> thing to do... In other words you become 'one' with the market."
>
> I guess that's something approaching intuition. I remain to be
> convinced that 'seeing a few seconds into the future' is anything
more
> than being 'in flow' with the market. Maybe zero delay, seeing
things
> AS they happen, not after, is enough.
>
> I find it strange that you don't use more intution in your trading
> since you seem to believe in its power and use it so successfully
> elsewhere in your life.
>
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <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@>
> > 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
<*> 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/
|