|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Jeff
Thanks for your email ... could you be more specific?
"... they're trying to capture the big moves ..."
i.e., time frame?, what's it tied to? are they supply driven or demand
driven (historically)? ... etc
If I know what they're looking for / hoping for and some specifics ... then
I have some idea as to what their "not working out" plan / timetable is so
that I can begin to watch for the "twitchy" tell-tale signs ... aside from
big piles of elephant dung <G>
Usually "events" such as "spring rallies" etc. have characteristics that can
be number-crunched, such as ... historical start-stop dates with which to
judge "overdue-ness"
I like to keep looking for those "pockets of predictability" ... you know
... those times when everybody's "paying attention" ... rather than those
random walk periods.
Best regards
Walter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Ledermann" <j.ledermann@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 10:56 PM
Subject: RE: Wheaties
| Walter
|
| I seem to have stirred things up here quite unintentionally even
| if I was stirring <g>
| .
| > I understand that you and other trader's like to go contrary to the
funds,
| > but why are the funds where they are in the first place? A major fund
move
| > can take 3 days to place in the markets. Why are they placed there? They
| > have the money and talent for best information, the best historical
| > analysis, etc. what's going on? what are they trying to capture?
|
| That's easy... they're trying to capture the big moves. If it takes 3
days
| to position yourself you're hardly going to be trading a week long
pattern.
| But don't try to tell me that a fund that takes days to position itself
doesn't
| leave it's footprints all over the market. (More like muddy boots in the
grains).
| That footprint is what Steve "sees" with his oscillators. This is
unfortunately
| only the easy part of trading as far as I'm concerned. The really tricky
part
| for me is translating a move in my predicted direction into profits. That
usually
| boils down to undercapitalization which means I have no option but to use
| stops which are a double-edged sword on which I often end up impaled.
|
| Steve wrote a very good piece on this a while back which I think will put
this
| thread to rest finally:
| > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Karnish
| > Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 1999 5:08
| > Subject: Re: First a "freebie" then open your wallet!
|
| > I don't use stops. I used to be very vocal about the "need" to use
them.
| > Over the years, I've changed my mind. I don't even want to get into a
| > discussion about it (I've heard it all and even contributed to the
"other
| > side of the argument"). Nobody should even think of approaching these
| > markets unless they are well capitalized. Also, things go a lot better
with
| > diversification. Drawdowns ALWAYS occur, no matter what your approach
may
| > be. One should spin their Optimal F's and money management software on
the
| > numbers and decide if "any" approach suits your "risk to reward"
fantasies.
| >
| > So, rule #1: start with adequate funds.
| > Rule #2: diversify among as many markets as you can.
| > Rule #3: try to forget the propaganda about "stops" that you've been
fed
| > your whole trading life
| >
| > This approach is not for the undercapitalized, nor is it for the faint
of
| > heart. Each mechanical approach has its own Achilles heal. Some
traders
| > will scream that because of the "no-stop" rule that this is not a
credible
| > approach. Who am I to argue?
| > Anyone trading a "Mini S&P" needs a minimum of $25,000 to safely trade
this
| > approach. To segregate less than that to trade this system would be
very
| > foolish. Also, please understand: my clients that trade the S&P "do
not"
| > use this BB Histogram to position themselves. I have a number of
approaches
| > that I share with my traders that I will not make public. Each approach
| > shows a much greater return than what can be realized with the BB Histo
| > formula.
| >
| > I wish I had "one stinkin' dollar" for every time I have called a
| > "direction" properly...only to be stopped out by a tick or two and then
| > watched as the market appreciated/depreciated in the direction of my
| > technical work. Stops have cost me more money than drawdowns (period).
| > What I do is rather simplistic: momentum oscillators, averaging
positions,
| > and no stops. I totally understand the risks and at times it has caused
me
| > to sacrifice a bit of sleep. Both my proprietary approaches have
performed
| > above the 80% level during 1999 and applying "fail-safe" stops (in an
effort
| > to improve the profitability) has not improved the winning percentage or
the
| > bottom line. Recently, I've allowed "Dr. Ag-Econ" and "Mr. MBA" to try
to
| > improve on the approaches by applying any safety nets they can conjure.
So
| > far, the phone is not ringing off the hook with suggestions about how to
| > increase the productivity.
| >
|
|