|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
From the Webster Dictionary, English not being my mother tongue.
At 03:26 AM 21/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:
Art is personal imaginairy
expressions created from and by human creativeness.
Not necessarely a commercial involvement is required.
It can be expressed in several ways, incl. creating websites, spreading
myths and starting hoaxes.
Can be envoked by anyone: students, professionals, talking heads or by
the jack avarages.
Results are: that one can make it into a different personal life-style if
someone is willing to pay
for it and that it is adding to cultural heritage.
Noun: art
1. the products of human creativity; works of art
collectively
2. the creation of beautiful or significant things
3. the superior ability that is attained by study and practice
and observation (can it be TA??)
4. photographs or other visual representations in a printed
publication
Noun: skill
1. an ability that has been acquired by training
2. ability to produce solutions in some problem domain
Science is professional level research.
Commercial involvement, direct or indirect is required.
Aimed into finding the utmost evidential+explainatory reasoning in
(current + in future still to be
discovered technical) facts that make up, explain and are held in
succesfully prooven-to-work
methodologies and technologies. And basicaly in and for any
subject.
Needs professional leveled skills to help unfold these reasonings.
Results are: that it can lead into finding more stronger evidential
explainations, other discoveries
and/or in solutions that can then be used in practise.
Noun: science
1. the domain of knowledge obtained by the systematic study of
nature
2. a particular branch of scientific knowledge
3. ability to produce solutions in some problem domain
Risk of Welfare is the most sufficiant market
tool.
a) Generating enough or better, more Ca$h from scientificaly leveled TA
approaches that are held and
found in systems, systematics, tactics +
methods.
b) Risk of ruin is not a relevant issue, since that scientific-technicaly
a) should be the single outcome
for result.
----------------------------------------------
Goes far beyond 8th grades and Ph does help.
Ph is not required........................simply stating scientific facts
is sufficient.
My mistake on inverting capital letters.
Noun: pH
1. p(otential of) H(ydrogen); the logarithm of the reciprocal
of hydrogen-ion concentration in gram atoms per liter; used as a measure
of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution on a scale of 0-14
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: vrijdag 20 oktober 2000 15:51
Onderwerp: RE: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
Michael,
how can you be so sure to be absolutely free from yourself (psyche &
body influence each other), I would say that I'm always
working 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.
gg
At 08:24 AM 20/10/2000 -0400, you
wrote:
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.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Giancarlo Gaydou
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 5:55 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
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.
|