|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Michael, I like your plan!!! Where do you put
the money that you don't trade? Don't mean to be personal but that may be the
key to unraveling the use of tools to 'play with' versus using tools to 'get
rich'.
I would like to follow your lead but don't have
the answers as to where to put the money that I need for income and other
retirement needs.
Thanks,
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <A
href="mailto:mslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title=mslist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>michael
To: <A href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
I'm
afraid I don't agree that Art is just an exceptional skill. Art is
emotional as much as skill. TA is business. How do I separate
myself??? When I started trading I took my allotted money and had a small
goodbye ceremony. I told myself and my spouse that it was gone. I
never added or subtracted to it, it's just gone. I don't depend on it for income
and I am not counting on it for retirement or anything else.
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>
My
philosophy is to let the other guy make the emotional mistakes. TA and
trading in general is business. One list writer recently said that he
didn't go long the market because he doesn't work anymore even though his system
gave him a bull signal. That was an emotional decision. My systems
work. I know they work because I have tested them and proven them with my
own cash. They are based on sound fundamental reasoning. One
of the systems I use said to buy at the money OEX index puts
on OCT 3rd and sell it on OCT 13. It then said to buy another put on the
morning of the 17th and sell in the morning of the 18th. I am now as of
this morning long OEX options. Needless to say I've had a great
month. And I didn't have to make any emotional decisions because the money
is gone. I should also mention that after 2 years the dissapearing money
is up 600+ percent. The funny thing is I have lost more than I've
won. But I know how to manage losers and let my profits
run.
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>
While
I would love to take credit for the systems I can't. I owe most of it
to Don Fishback. I can take credit for learning the methods
and for having rid myself of the emotional baggage that may have swayed me
away from huge gains.
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>
I
won't disagree that money management has a great deal to do with it... but even
money management can be effected by emotional decisions if you let it.
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>Michael
<FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial
size=2>
<FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Giancarlo
GaydouSent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:51 AMTo:
metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: Advanced Get versus
MetaStockMichael,
how can you be so sure to be absolutely free from yourself (psyche & body
influence each other), I would say that I'm alwaysworking to better tune
this independence, and I'm learning to "find" the right tools to reach the goal,
right for me perhaps not for another.But I repeat Money + Risk /
Management are the best tools I've found up-today.Art is a synonym of
superior skill - or better: the superior ability that is attained by study
and practice and observation (Webster),but if you like I'll call it just
skill.ggAt 08:24 AM 20/10/2000 -0400, you wrote:<FONT
color=#0000ff face=arial size=2>
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 color=#0000ff face=arial
size=2>Michael-----Original
Message-----From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [<A
href="mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn";
eudora="autourl">mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<A
href="mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn"; eudora="autourl">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:
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) <FONT
size=2>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. <FONT
size=2>
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
<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>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.
|