|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
TraderJoe,
I couldn't agree more...so, please, "defender of all righteous post", tell
us why Ton gets to "bash" everyone, everyday?
The rules seem unfair,
Groucho
"Quote me as saying I was misquoted."
----- Original Message -----
From: "TraderJoe" <ta-trader@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Blind bats, old ladies, and one giant turd.
> If you can't say anything constructive, don't say anything at all. Lets
get back to talking about trading and lay off of all this pointless name
calling BS. This is getting ridiculous. Nobody deserves this kind of abuse.
If you do not agree with somebody's post, say so without insulting the other
person. If you can't do this without insulting the other person, do not say
anything at all. You are wasting peoples valuable time. Ton, like many
others, have posted many positive contributions that we can thank him for.
Ton, like many others, have posted things that I disagree or have no
interest in, but I do not bash him for it. We can all learn alot more from a
positive environment, than what has been going on here for the last few
days.
>
> P.S. ..Allan McNichol is the CEO of Equis.
> ---
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:12:47
> Jack Assante wrote:
> >ummm.... who's Alan McNichols?<g>
> > Jack
> >
> >Groucho Markz wrote:
> >
> >> "Blind bats and old ladies have become List-members nowadays. "
> >>
> >> Ton,
> >>
> >> You have been the main reason this forum has turned into a toilet bowl.
> >> Your myopic view of the world, from your Eurocentric position, has
driven
> >> the best and brightest to forums that would boot your ass off in a
lightning
> >> second. I challenge you to try to become and remain a
"realtraders.com"
> >> contributor for more than a few days (or any list that actually
monitors
> >> it's posts). I can only surmise that you are allowed to continue your
> >> attacks because you have compromising pictures of Alan McNichols.
> >>
> >> Try not posting for a few weeks and we'll see if the TA discussions
take on
> >> more meaningful content. I bet you can't..."ranters" seldom have the
> >> ability to control their endless dribble.
> >>
> >> Groucho
> >> "Quote me as saying I was misquoted."
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "A.J. Maas" <anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: <owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 5:00 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >>
> >> Since these personal attacks continue, I see no further reason to
continue
> >> in assisting anyone using the MSK or other programs related or to
continue
> >> discussing any technical topics here. There are limits, and they have
> >> already
> >> been reached last Sept00. The past Oct00 month shoiwed only a slight
> >> improvement, but to minimal to be taken serious. Ce la vie!!!!{that's
life}.
> >>
> >> Blind bats and old ladies have become List-members nowadays. Also
> >> the quality level of the mails sent and the included fantasies for
contents
> >> lead
> >> me to assess that since earlier this year we're basicaly drifting
towards a
> >> Walt
> >> Disney's equivelant "enjoy + entertainment"-List. {read: a common chat
box}.
> >>
> >> One that also stands 180 degrees linea recta opposite from a well
gaining
> >> $+b,'s Equis's "MSK + Technical Analysis"-List, eg the one that I
joined
> >> several years ago.
> >>
> >> And unfortunately, since there are so many other chat boxes and tea
rooms
> >> that they can join, therefore cannot understand why they have had to
pick
> >> the
> >> MSK List to waiste anyones valuable time{read: making $+b,'s from time
> >> consuming TA + research}.
> >>
> >> This has also been spelled out very often on the List, either in
general or
> >> to them
> >> personaly.
> >>
> >> Thus from now on only the facts will be posted by me without the usual
> >> further
> >> comments, explanations and other information that they were accompanied
by.
> >> Interpretation then of these facts and the finding (out) then of these
facts
> >> in mails
> >> or attachments is then left up to ones selve to find (out) or to not
find
> >> (out).
> >>
> >> Until they have left this then is in order.
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> Also after 3.5 years of being on this List can also note that a
desperate
> >> modification
> >> of this List is urgently required. A List split up in a Level I and a
Level
> >> II should
> >> therefore be considdered by Equis.
> >>
> >> -Level I can then be used by the chatters and other rifraf of which
we've
> >> seen
> >> too many useless, insulting and irrelevant mailings this year, last
few
> >> months
> >> and again also now the very recent last few weeks + again this
weekend.
> >>
> >> -Level II can then be used by the well meaning serious advancees and
also by
> >> the
> >> many lurkers that aren't ready to post yet, or don't want to post or
only
> >> want to gain or
> >> by members that truely want to discuss + gain from experience made in
> >> making
> >> money in the markets + tactics used + TA used and other true TA or MSK
> >> subjects
> >> explained, eg thus the higher leveled discussioning, instead of seeing
> >> these
> >> endless + useless debating about nothing, that are also often
accompanied
> >> by
> >> personal level insulting mails and that in the end eventualy still
lead to
> >> nowhere/nothing.
> >> And of which then these are basicaly downright List discraces, for the
poor
> >> TA
> >> knowledge level and for the personal attacks, eg like the example mail
> >> below.
> >> But for that matter, many other examples can be easely coufed up!!!.
Level
> >> II should
> >> also ONLY be made available to REGISTERED MSK PROGRAM USERS !!!!!
> >> This to exclude the rifraf from entering and also to maintain a
certain
> >> minimal program
> >> knowledge and TA knowledge level.
> >>
> >> Have therefore also cc-ed this mail to the List-owner.
> >>
> >> In the mean time from a new-to-be-lurker, it is Aurivoir
> >> !!!!{goodbye}................
> >>
> >> cc - owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for consideration of the above
List
> >> Level split.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ton Maas
> >> ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> >> Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >>
> >> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> >> Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Verzonden: zondag 29 oktober 2000 6:43
> >> Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >>
> >> > Lionel,
> >> >
> >> > The type of distribution shape ain't the reason why Maas laws are
> >> completely
> >> > flawed. He's assuming first +/- 2 std is catching 100 % of the data,
ie a
> >> > first rule which is just plain wrong (and should enlighten this list
once
> >> > more Mr Maas is just a pretentious ignorant, kind of Staline
science).
> >> He's
> >> > then assuming that since +/- 2 std is catching 100 %, then +/- 1.8
std is
> >> > catching 90 %, ie a second rule which is again junk science. Not bad
for a
> >> > guy pretending TA is a science and not an art.
> >> >
> >> > Now about TA.
> >> >
> >> > That the prices are not exactly normally distributed is a fact all TA
> >> > authors know since decades. John Bollinger also knew when he did
introduce
> >> > his bands... but, the normal hypothesis is shared by the vast
majority of
> >> TA
> >> > litterature (books, web sites, software docs) when population
statistics
> >> > (percentage of price data within bands) are being associated with
count of
> >> > standard deviations (std).
> >> > So, there are no many ways to answer the question of %-age vs std
count
> >> for
> >> > Bollinger bands. Either you stick to the "convention" and 90 % of the
data
> >> > is +/- 1.645 std, the same +/- 2 std is 95 % of the data. Or you
begin
> >> > discussing again the real price distribution shape, and have to
propose
> >> that
> >> > there ain't in fact any agreed single law to deduce %-age from std
count
> >> (or
> >> > reversely). I took the option of providing a simple answer, based on
a
> >> > generally agreed and tacite hypothesis in the TA language.
> >> >
> >> > Another realty is John Bollinger's bands are volatility bands, and
his
> >> > entry/exit rules are in the same way based on volatility. What he
says is
> >> > that he found out standard deviation is the most suitable volatility
> >> > measure. He could have used another one... and we would not speak
today
> >> > about %-ages figures he never (NEVER) considered himself [a fortiori
use].
> >> > The only he says about std count is it should adjusted based on the
number
> >> > of periods considered in the Bollinger bands (+/- 1.5 if 10, +/- 2 id
20,
> >> > +/- 2.5 if 50 -- exact numbers to be confirmed).
> >> >
> >> > As it happens so often, one person introduced a concept... and the
> >> universe
> >> > added different interpretations and/or uses. Some people are always
> >> looking
> >> > for improvements... other just want to have something different to
say.
> >> >
> >> > Greetings. Alain.
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:43 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Maas:
> >> > > Since the distribution of stock prices is log-normal, your entire
> >> > discussion
> >> > > of standard deviations is flawed. Refer to Peter's book "Chaos and
Order
> >> > in
> >> > > the Financial Markets..." for documentation of this.
> >> > > Lionel Issen
> >> > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> >> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 9:58 AM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Are we here discussing the Kaufman's definition for his method in
> >> > > calculating
> >> > > > an everyday very common Standard Deviation value?
> >> > > > Or anyone else's sd-calc methods?
> >> > > > ----------------------------------
> >> > > > Nope.
> >> > > > We are discussing here the use of the Bollinger Bands (which
bands
> >> > already
> >> > > > include the MSK Standard Deviation function in their formulas),
that
> >> > will
> >> > > have
> >> > > > to catch 90% of the Price, eg A.Torchio's original question:
> >> > > > "Could anyone tell me the number of standard deviations
> >> > allowing
> >> > > to
> >> > > > contain within the bands 90% of price data?"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Find the answer using MSK and Bartjens:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > In MSK click "Help"|"Index"|"Bollinger bands:sample custom
indicator:"
> >> > > > for the bands-formula that catches 100% of the Price.
> >> > > > Like said, the BBands already include StDev, thus no need to add
more
> >> or
> >> > > > alter its function. What needs adjusting -lowering- is the times
that
> >> > the
> >> > > function
> >> > > > needs to be multiplied to have the bands come down to catch 90%
> >> instead
> >> > > > of the 100% it does at the moment. So, yet again unraffled:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The CF Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Upper band
> >> > > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Lower band
> >> > > > ------------
> >> > > > -totals 4 times the StDev function
> >> > > > (for the bandwidth "to contain 100% of price data")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Then in a CF to catch 90% of the Price is using this as follows:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Upper band
> >> > > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Lower band
> >> > > > ------------
> >> > > > -totals 3.6 times the StDev function
> >> > > > (for the bandwidth now "to contain 90% of price data")
> >> > > >
> >> > > > and where the "3.6" then also equals to 90% of the original "4
devs"
> >> > > ((4/100)*90).
> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Whatever Kaufman then wants to use in and for his method {haven't
> >> > checked
> >> > > it}
> >> > > > is -like your silly+stupid remarks- unimportant and irrelevant
here.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You can however check Kaufmans calculations by using Bartjens,
but
> >> note
> >> > > that
> >> > > > on the contrairy, Bartjens doesn't need a Kaufman to be right or
to be
> >> > > spot on, eg
> >> > > > Batjens Law is always right.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Like said, it's that is simple, but can be oh so difficult to
> >> understand
> >> > > for 8th grades
> >> > > > or a belg.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Regards,
> >> > > > Ton Maas
> >> > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> >> > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> >> > > > Van: "Jossart Alain"
> >> > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > Verzonden: zaterdag 28 oktober 2000 8:57
> >> > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > " Trading Systems and Methods " - P. Kaufman, iow the
reference in
> >> TA
> >> > > and
> >> > > > > trading systems
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > I provided the answer to a question you have not even
understood
> >> yet.
> >> > Is
> >> > > > > Bartjens free gift too ? [Kaufman ain't]
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> >> > > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:38 AM
> >> > > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Obviously has to be a belg............Bartjens goes beyond
8th
> >> > grades.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The formulas delivered in below mail ARE FOR USE IN METASTOCK
!!
> >> > > > > > Not in a chatbox.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > They are available to you, if you also do have a copy of
> >> MetaStocK,
> >> > > > > > which I strongly doubt you have.
> >> > > > > > =============
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > For other List members that are -now- truely concerned :
> >> > > > > > They make use of the program's StDev(DataArray,Periods)
function,
> >> > that
> >> > > > > > you can find in the MSK7x-manual p.264.
> >> > > > > > See my other mail send tonight for more detailed info.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > And for the Jossarts, Jagows, Stevensons, Manascos and other
here
> >> > not
> >> > > > > named
> >> > > > > > brown marks among us, think twice before writing + posting
> >> > > > > crap..................go by
> >> > > > > > the facts, else you just don't stand the chance!!!
> >> > > > > > Quality and prime trading + money earning stuff is what we're
> >> after
> >> > > here.
> >> > > > > Offensive,
> >> > > > > > even disgrading words, cannot and will not effect me, since
you'll
> >> > get
> >> > > > > easy tackled
> >> > > > > > on your silly writings and sending in your own nonsense.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > Ton Maas
> >> > > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> >> > > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> >> > > > > > Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 27 oktober 2000 13:50
> >> > > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Probability distribution tables :
> >> > > > > > > - +/- 1 std = .3413 x 2 = .6826 = 68.3 %
> >> > > > > > > - +/- 1.8 std = .4641 x 2 = .9282 = 92.3 %
> >> > > > > > > - +/- 2 std = .4772 x 2 = .9544 = 95.4 %
> >> > > > > > > - +/- 3 std = .4987 x 2 = .9974 = 99.7 %
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > and...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > - 1.64 std = .4495 x 2 = .8990 = 89.9 % of the data
> >> > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > - 1.65 std = .4505 x 2 = .9010 = 90.1 % of the data
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > So the answer to Alberto Torchio's question is : Bollinger
(95%)
> >> > is
> >> > > +/-
> >> > > > > 2
> >> > > > > > > std, while 90 % is +/- 1.64... std
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > What did you say ? en dus en dan, aah ja, zeker en vast...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> >> > > > > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 4:11 AM
> >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > The mean=middle=0
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > 100%=da width difference between "+1 stdev"{+100%} and
"-1
> >> > > > > stdev"{-100%}
> >> > > > > > > > thus
> >> > > > > > > > 100%{2*1}=2*stdev(da,pds) {width is then mean + 1*stdev
up
> >> > > +1*stdev
> >> > > > > > > down}
> >> > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > 50%{2*0.5}=1*stdev(da,pds)
> >> > > > > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > 90%{2*0.9}=1.8*stdev(da,pds)
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Regards,
> >> > > > > > > > Ton Maas
> >> > > > > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when
replying.
> >> > > > > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> >> > > > > > > > Van: "Lionel Issen"
> >> > > > > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > > > Verzonden: dinsdag 24 oktober 2000 4:23
> >> > > > > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > I cant find my statistics book, but I think its close
to 2
> >> std
> >> > > dev.
> >> > > > > > > > > Lionel Issen
> >> > > > > > > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> >> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > > > > > > > From: "Alberto Torchio" <atorchio@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > > > > To: "Realtraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:27 AM
> >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmembers,
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > I have been asked a simple question on Bollinger
Bands and
> >> > was
> >> > > > > unable
> >> > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > answer...
> >> > > > > > > > > > Could anyone tell me the number of standard
deviations
> >> > > allowing to
> >> > > > > > > contain
> >> > > > > > > > > > within the bands 90% of price data?
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > Alberto Torchio
> >> > > > > > > > > > Torino, Italy
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Get FREE Email/Voicemail with 15MB at Lycos Communications at
http://comm.lycos.com
>
|