Brian_z
I have modified my trading formula several times as
I have found a few problems where a trade was made that I didn't think should
have been made by looking at the charts or a trade wasn't made when I thought
that it should have been made. I am trading automatically so I am just checking
on the trades that have been made.
I have set up a backtest that trades within a
minute of my actual real time trading. I have accomplished this by a having
trading window that only trades at specific times for 2 minutes.
What I have found it that my results get better
with each change. These changes are small changes like I changed my trading
times. I changed the parameters on one indicator. I added a stop loss and a stop
profit.
The amazing thing is that I am not attempting to
optimize my formula, I am only trying to have it trade exactly as I want it to
trade and at the best time when the markets are closing. I make a change and
backtest it. My results have quadrupled on my backtesting and on my actual
trading. I check my actual trading results by backtesting because they should be
the same. So when I get an automatic real trade, I run the backtest to see if it
also shows a trade. Of course, the price is slightly different most of the time,
but not enough to really affect my results. Oh, I use a market trade to insure
that it is filled as fast as possible.
I only make 5 to 10 trades a month. If I told you
my annual per cent of profit, you would not believe it, but it is well over 100%
return. I have been trading this system for about a year, but I have only been
auto trading it for about a month. I only trade gold futures both long and
short.
Now that you know the background about my formula,
I want to tell you that it is so simple. It only has 3 buy conditions and 3 sell
conditions which are very simple. So, it is possible to use rule based
trading with a simple formula especially if you concentrate on one area to keep
it as simple as possible.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2008 5:24
PM
Subject: SV: [amibroker] Re: 'Rule Based'
versus 'Discretionary' trading...
Comments on some quotes from the markets in profile
link:
>Using rules to make money is, of course, incredibly
appealing; >however, such cut-and-dried rules are seldom accompanied by
the most >important rule - a rule to connect, manage, and harmonize all
the >other rules.
That is what I am saying??? in very simplistic
terms ?.. this requires that we are capable of achieving a psychological
point of balance ?. from that point of balance we can manage input from
both sides of the equation ? the left and right brain???.. I `wrote that
in' when I said that "indefinite/subjective rules are acceptable
provided they lead to a formal rule
(statement)".
>Dictionary.com defines a rule as "a basic
generalization that is >accepted as true and that can be used as a
basis for reasoning?." >Nothing is said about the rule being tested for
validity, or how the >rule was derived.
There is a section in
the Wiki epistemology link, that I posted, that talks about how
philosophers define knowledge as "propositions that are believed,
justified and true" ?. The article then went on to say that in the 60's
this definition was invalidated leading to the addition of the need for
INFALLIBLE justification i.e. the validity of the rules is vigorously
examined ?.. this is `old hat'.
>There is a bewildering range of
variables that affect any commodity, >futures contract, or stock. And
there are nearly limitless com- >binations and permutations of these
variables. If a purely rules- >based system were to be truly effective,
it would have to offer a >rule for each possible arrangement - an
impossibility.
Not so.
In Science it is a well known principle
that all models make assumptions ? the assumptions are a trade off for
utility value?? provided the model has predictive value we continue to use
it until something better comes along.
In trading we do the same
thing e.g. we have discussed, in this forum in the past, how the data that
we use is only an approximation of the market (it is impossible for
exchanges to provide an absolute, real time data stream ? and it is
getting worse as markets move to non- traditional mechanisms) ?. knowing
that we can still trade successfully.
When a trader uses, say
programmed rules, they are modelling a limited area of the market i.e. the
window that they are interested in, or targetting draws a square around
part of the bigger picture ?. they know they have only captured a small
part of the market, in their box ?.. as long as it has some predictive
value ?. and continues to have it?
>Rules-based systems do not
account for contextual market conditions, >and are not adaptive to
constantly evolving market con-ditions.
I allowed for that ? in my
manifesto ?. contextual market conditions may not be able to be
programmed/written down/mentally stated ? I say MAY because I can't be
certain that other traders don't have access to data that I haven't OR can
program/write down/state things that I can't???. also there is nothing to
stop a `programmed rules trader' from clicking the button on their
computer whenever they want to.
Some traders have posted to say that
they `look at market conditions' (==
subjective/contextual/indefinite?).......... and then decide
which `system' to use i.e. the indefinite rule `guided' them towards a
stated rule that precedes the buy action.
`Hot' programmers can write
some very complex systems, that can make sophisticated decisions ?.
provided they can input the relevant data in a timely
manner?
>Discretionary traders are constantly performing their own
market >analyses, and are required to spend considerably more time and
>effort both before and during market hours. This time requirement
>also limits the number of markets or securities discretionary
>traders can successfully follow
Not necessarily.
They
can focus down to one small section of the market OR one market anomaly
that they are following???they might follow the same thing, over and over
?. if it doesn't disappear ??. in which case they could, say, start the
day with a scan, or a few charts ?? look at them and make a
subjective/contextual/indefinite `in principle decision' to go long
on a sector ---------> narrow down to 2 or 3 stocks to watch
-----------> enter the trade based on a definite/stated rule
(setup).
5 minutes a day to get in ??? unknown time waiting to get
out?
`Programmed rules traders' aren't always going to be more focussed
or have less work to do ?.. their system might involve a lot of number
crunching (wait while the computer runs it) before they get a setup
for the day.
BTW traders can't backtest indefinite, contextual or
subjective rules, or principles, but in lieu of that they can paper trade
??? the statistical data set they obtain will be just as valid (subject
to statistical rules) as a backtested data set.
brian_z
---
In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
"sidhartha70" <sidhartha70@...> wrote: > >
Brian, > > Thought you might find this interesting. I've read a
couple of this > guys books (being a Market Profile geek)... and I rate
him very > highly. Just an interesting link, > > http://www.marketsinprofile.com/DscrtTrdr-2.html >
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
"brian_z111" <brian_z111@> wrote: > > > > My
teacher often said "Energy follows thought." - I find it one of >
> the more difficult axioms to understand. > > > > I
think it is embodied in trading by 'positive thinking' ... Napolean
> > Hill and the classics of that kind. > > > >
brian_z > > > > > > > > > >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
"Jan Malmberg" <jan@> wrote: > > > > > >
Hi, > > > > > > In response to the entire thread:
Because there is energy, there is > > law that > > >
governs it. No energy equals no law which equals no energy. This is
> > the > > > fundamental truth of existence. >
> > > > > Best regards / JM > > > > >
> > > > > > > _____ > > > >
> > Från: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
[mailto:amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com]
> > För > > > sidhartha70 > > > Skickat: den
23 augusti 2008 11:43 > > > Till: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com >
> > Ämne: [amibroker] Re: 'Rule Based' versus 'Discretionary'
trading... > > > > > > > > >
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com> > >
ps.com, > > > "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@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker% 40yahoogroups.com>
> > ps.com, > > > "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@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:amibroker% 40yahoogroups.com> > >
ps.com, > > > "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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplicity> >
> > .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@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker% > >
40yahoogroups.com> > > > ps.com, "wavemechanic"
<timesarrow@> > > > > > > wrote: > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.tradingm > > > >
> <http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/stocks/commentary/lcbattlep/08272 >
> 0> > > >
arkets.com/.site/stocks/commentary/lcbattlep/082720 >
> > > > > 04-39801.cfm > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > http://www.tradingm > > > >
> <http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/swingtrading/commentary/lcbattlep >
> /> > > >
arkets.com/.site/swingtrading/commentary/lcbattlep/ >
> > > > > 09022004-39899.cfm > > > > >
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > >
From: sidhartha70 > > > > > > > To:
amibroker@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker% > >
40yahoogroups.com> ps.com > > > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:amibroker% > > 40yahoogroups.com> > >
> ps.com, "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@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:amibroker% > >
40yahoogroups.com> > > > ps.com, "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.amibroke <http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/>
> > r.com/devlog/ > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > For other support material please check
also: > > > > > > > http://www.amibroke <http://www.amibroker.com/support.html> >
> > r.com/support.html > > > > > > > Yahoo!
Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this
incoming message. > > > > > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg. <http://www.avg.com> 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
__,_._,___
|