[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Advanced Get versus MetaStock



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links


I 
agree that TA is not an art.  Art suggest conveying feelings and 
emotions.  Many of us know that if you have either of these things in your 
trading, you will make irrational decisions.  TA is a skill.  You must 
learn how to read the numbers and determine sentiement from 
them.
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2> 
<FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff 
size=2>Michael
<FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Giancarlo 
GaydouSent: Friday, October 20, 2000 5:55 AMTo: 
metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: Advanced Get versus 
MetaStockAt 02:32 AM 20/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:<FONT 
size=2>
A childs dream is easely full filled. 
gg>  at last!! we know the reason of your 
satisfaction about your trading methods, even if from the Ph of your 
mails        nobody would tell.
It's the hard-core TA that we're 
  after, not softies stuff.gg> sounds like the epic 
side of TA.
TA is NOT an art !!!!. If your 
  aim is also to get right to the scientifical (and therefore evidential) bottom 
  of it.gg> if you bother yourself to read my mail 
there was something about 8th grade math,  8th grade math doesn't mean the 
math      for 13 years old school boys, ask around 
and you'll have a long way to go in front of you, long enough to forget the 
"Fibonacci /      Bartjens / Gann / Elliott" stuff. 
If you don't get there TA it is an ART because in TA there is nothing 
scientifically sound or proved,      you play with 
probabilities, the only edge that you have is: 
      Q - how many times in the past there was a 
scenario like this one ?      A - 20 times in 10 
years of data.      Q - what was the behavior of 
price the following day (W/M/Y) ?      A - 13 times 
went up and 7 times went down.      Decision: since 
the probabilities are on the up side (and my assessment of the scenario with the 
help of what ever oscillators /      indicators / 
levels / cycles / moon / sun it's positive) I'll go 
long.      Can't see anything difficult there, 
what is really difficult it's to apply stop loss and risk / money management in 
a MATHEMATICALLY      sound way so to end up making 
money, but the scientifically sound is the risk/money management not TA, and the 
decision to go      long/short it is SUBJECTIVE, so 
it has only to do with your sensibility in assessing that 13 Vs. 7 today is a 
good edge.     Some 
readings:      Pole, West, and Harrison (1994), 
Applied Bayesian Forecasting and Time Series Analysis. (Chapman & Hall), 
      Harvey (1989), Forecasting, Structural 
Time Series and the Kalman Filter. (Cambridge University Press) 
      Box and Jenkins (1976), Time Series 
Analysis, Forecasting and Control. (Holden-Day) 
      The first is on Bayesian DLM models, second 
is on structural models, and third on classical ARIMA approach. For a recent 
survey       of stationary econometric models you 
could check Clements and Hendry (1998), Forecasting Economic Time Series. 
      (Cambridge University Press). 
          
The Bartjens mails+links that 
  have been posted:"Subject: 
  Bartjens                                
  Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:47:04""Subject: Re: 
  Bartjens                          
  Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:16:11""Subject: Re: 
  Bartjens                          
  Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:52:56""Subject: Re: What options to 
  sell?       Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 
  01:02:17" Must have been posted in one of that long 
  lasting phases, periods of months in a row, when the List is moreof 
  an old ladies Chat box instead then that it is used as what it was set out to 
  be: a MSK or TA discussioning List.(reason you probably missed the posts 
  !!!).gg> certainly your posts on the subject didn't stir 
lots of enthusiastic replays, why not try posting some recipes of 
Dutch's       baked goods or 
knitworks.Have a nice timegg
Regards,Ton Maas<A 
  href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDismiss 
  the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.Homepage  <A 
  href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas  
  
    
      ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- 
      Van: Giancarlo 
      Gaydou 
      Aan: <A 
      href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
      Verzonden: donderdag 19 oktober 2000 12:16 
      Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
      Poor Mr. Fibonacci, (that's the right spelling) 
      he's certainly turning around in his grave, let him RIP.
      He didn't know that his theory one day was to be used in TA by 
      traders, neither he knew that close enough won't be just good 
      enough.
      I guess that if you would spend a little more time to explain the 
      theory of Mr. Bartjens, maybe only mailing the links were some 
      documentation could be found, we all may become Mr. Bartjens' 
fans.
      For the little that I've learned the boys that crunch 8th grade math 
      do have a fair edge on markets, but from what they say they are happy 
      to be "close enough".
      FWIW, in this list many good traders have already explained 
      that:
      "No indicator, no oscillator, no FIB's, or what else, works unless you 
      develop the right feeling about it, but once you have the 
      feeling anything works"
      and to me that mean: Holy Grails & Hens of the Golden Eggs, if 
      they exists, are well secured in armoured safes, not sold in the shops 
      for little or big monies. 
      Beside the above another good remark was mailed here:
      "TA it's an ART not an exact science"
      and to me that mean: Everybody can buy a fiddle "but" (VB BUT) only 
      "few" (VB FEW) will be able to master it,  a pennywhistle may 
      be too much for many.
      I'm not so fond of the Fibonacci's theory but some times have found it 
      "just good enough" because it was "close enough" even closer 
      than other tools, but always "after" because I don't have particular 
      feelings about it.
      gg
      At 02:26 AM 19/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:
      
        Thanks for your contribution. It will be most helpfull to the 
        many. 
         
        There are many ways that can lead one to the room of glory. 
        Even the monkeys are capable to make money throwing darts. No big 
        deal in that !!!. 
         
        The incorrect Fibionancy-myth of  "figures being relational to 
        one another" has indeed here on 
        the List been unraffled before, including that of the further 
        man-made-ajointed myth of 
        "mother nature wonders", that either would be caused by it or that 
        would be related to the myth. 
         
        The Mr. W. Bartjens Law shows a straight out correct relation 
        between the standard figures-set 
        that was first introduced in the 10 Century, a set that today is 
        still in use, and the Cyfferringe 
        (that is the Law) also shows WHY the figures are TRUELY related. 
         
        The modern day Decimal** system, that is directly based on the 
        standard figures-set, provides 
        -along with its Fractals-  the natural relation and rythem 
        between figures. 
         
        Apart from the Decimal system being the natural related figures, it 
        also has a  -now TRUE fair 
        dinkom evidentual-  influencial effect on humans on this globe 
        that are all using it. Easely the 
        humans then refer to "halves", "thirds", "quarters" and "tenths" of 
        something : 
            -"Oh it only costs halve the original price" 
            -"Profits have rissen one thirds compared to last 
        year" 
            -"The quarterly figures are............" 
            -"It's only roughly been a ten percent 
        increase{rise}". 
         
        Check the levels derived from splitting "a whole" 100 into the 
        Decimalic Fractals and then compare to 
        and find that the from the Fibionancy-myth calculated ones then 
        "only come close to". 
        That explains too why one can make money from the Natural Human 
        support and resistances found 
        at the above mentioned Fractal levels. 
         
        That the Fibionancy-myth calculations then only can come close to is 
        perhaps benificial to you, but 
        they are not ever based on the mentioned "natural, relational, 
        logical, scientifical or on any other fact" 
        that the myth also tries out everyone to believe. 
         
        Check out the previous sent Bartjens mail(s) to 
        find the 1st Group and mail showing why they are related. 
        Check the previous sent Fractals Retracements mail(s) to find the 
        Natural Human support + resistance 
        levels equivelant for the financial markets. 
         
        Then compare results to the Fibionancy-myth and the myth 
        is straight out unraffled. 
        Now place the Fractal Retracements on your Charts and see why they 
        work, and why the Fibionancies 
        can only come close to, eg naturaly, since that they are not 
        "natural, relational, logical, scientifical or 
        on any other fact"-based or related. 
         
        I will let you have the NEXT month to work this all out and expect 
        you to report back to the List with 
        example Charts holding the BASED ON FACTS Natural Human support 
        & resistance levels. 
         
        Then if you like, you may still post comparisson results of your 
        beloved Fibionancy vs the above. 
        Doubt that anyone is interested in them after seeing both versions, 
        eg after they have seen 
        "the Humans have prooven their point" Fractal retracements. 
         
        Oh, I forgot, seeing your mail's reference to you trading Fibionancy 
        as your major trading tool making 
        50 or 100 trades/month (that would be only 900 (75*12) trades/yearly 
        !!!!!!!!!) now let me refer to some 
        of my previously sent stunning trade example mails. 
        I only trade 50 or 100 trades/year (!!!!!) , most of the time less, 
        to achieve my bâ ¬loved goal$, and do 
        so trading REAL TA-tools. 
         
        ** Decimal system: 
            ------------------------- 
        Group 1 are the figures 1 up to 9 and where the 0 is niks, nada. 
        Group 2 are the follow up to 9 figures 10 to 19 
        Group 3 are the follow up to 10 figures 20 to 29 
        etcetera etcetera.
        Regards, 
        Ton Maas 
        ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

        Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying. 
        Homepage  <A 
        href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas 

         
         
        ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- 
        Van: Joe Duffy 
        Aan: <A 
        href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
        Verzonden: woensdag 18 oktober 2000 13:40 
        Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock<FONT 
face=arial>
        
          A.J. Maas wrote; 
          now based on the Fibionancy-myth, a myth that here 
          on the List also has been unraffled before. 
          ================================= 
          I guess I have read the above from you once to often, so I will 
          comment. You may not be able to make money using Fibonacci. That has 
          no relation to its use in trading. 
          I use Fibonacci as my major trading tool. I make 50 to 100 trades 
          per month. I am willing to post a monthly statement, from NEXT month 
          if you like. If my Fibonacci based trades make money, you can submit a 
          $1K check to my favorite charity. If they don't, I will submit one to 
          yours.