Re: [amibroker] Re: 'Rule Based' versus 'Discretionary' trading..., AmiBroker Email List Archive

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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>