|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Maybe some of the owners of GET should standup and
display the value/or ability
for GET to may some money. Thats what I
want, More Money.....
BF
Giancarlo Gaydou wrote:
At 02:32 AM 20/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:
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 more
of 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 time
gg
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage
http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Giancarlo Gaydou
Aan: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 bā ¬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 http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Joe Duffy
Aan: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Verzonden: woensdag 18 oktober 2000 13:40
Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
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.
|