That's interesting.
Thanks for sharing.... IMO personal testimonies contibute a lot to
helping people develop as traders....a lot will take heart from your
>100% performance ...well done.
For research purposes ;-)
... to see if my 'model' predicts your behaviour correctly.
Before you autotraded did you trade it with programmed alerts,
written rules, by remembering the rules or any combination of the
above?
I understand you went to AT for convenience (so you don't have to
stay awake in the middle of the night).
Since you have been autotrading for a while..... have you found any
additional benefits from it .... any pros and cons?
brian_z
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com,
<professor@x..> wrote:
>
> 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 -----
> From: brian_z111
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxps.com
> 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>