|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I use to think if I had Earls skills then I could write the grail. I think
tick count and time are worth while
to measure a markets pulse to provide direction if you have a lot of time.
If you have a lot of time a good money management system in place and you
pick the right market to trade and the right vehicle in which to that
market and have the capital it should make money all the time. A good
example of this was a system using MA and a cross over oscillators trading
the cash S&P with spiders. The risk reward was very large for both and it
didn't trade to often. Leverage was removed other than what the market had
to offer. The capitalization was so good and the time so long the emotions
were almost entirely removed. The money management was so good it wasn't
long until it had a zero risk. The guy put it on this list and said all but
the Vel is there and the money management and one other thing that helps
with the choppiness. He said I used this to make a very good living year
after year. I saw this and thought to myself most people are trying to make
a lot of money with a little amount of money and need very short time
frames. Their money management skills are precarious at best and there
looking for the indicator to make it happen. Problem is not the indicator
but them, if they don't have a lot of money then their forced to use more
time and little to no leverage. The money management is first and then the
market and last the indicator. Just what I see people do is fooling
themselves and being blinded by greed and lose their common sense. I think
reality says yes if your trying to make a lot of money in a short amount of
time then if you don't have a entry or site advantage then you must gamble.
So be it roll them dice its fine with me, its all I have until the right
genius comes along and gives me that damn indicator that really works.
Robert
10/19/98 -0600, Earl Adamy wrote:
>I have a rather extensive background in software development and spent the
>last decade of my career building trading indicators and systems as a hobby
>and I've continued to develop indicators and systems since becoming a full
>time trader. While I've hardly exhausted all possible avenues, I've been
>down a great many and my own trading has evolved away from indicators and
>systems to pivots, patterns and channels which keep me pretty close to the
>price action. The one thing I have found is that the more I deal in
>identifying and trading price moves, the more difficult the programming
>becomes. I constantly try to automate the routine parts of how I trade and
>am amazed at the complexity involved ... what appears to be a few simple
>rules turns out to be a very complex eye/brain cognitive process.
>
>I believe that the widespread use of computers and computer software in
>trading is based in large part on the apparent ease of trading using formula
>based indicators .... a myth which is heavily promoted by the mass market
>trading software vendors who promote their software based on indicator count
>and system count. Yet, that ease is deceiving ... those who trade
>successfully something like a simple RSI or Stochastic (and there are
>traders who do), know that the secret lies in recognizing and trading the
>subtle patterns of confirmation and divergence rather than simplistic line
>cross-overs and those patterns are far more difficult to program than A
>Cross Below B.
>
>Earl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothy Morge <tmorge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: Gabe Hanover <gabeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Omega-list <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Monday, October 19, 1998 5:47 PM
>Subject: Re: Indicators, Beagle or human
>
>
>>If you read Gabe's statement above, I beleive he is saying that given
>today's
>>technology, someone with coding expertise could investigate the tools I use
>to
>>trade and replicate my trading success and style. I am not willing to go
>down
>>that road with what I know about trading. By the same token, if you showed
>me, a
>>discretionary trader, exactly how a complex trading program or indicator
>worked,
>>I'm not willing to say that I could replicate the system's or indicator's
>>success. I don't know that either is easily transfered from human
>discretionary
>>trader to code on the one hand or from code to human discretionary trader.
>I'm
>>not willing to say it's simply a matter of being able to 'identify,
>quantify and
>>systemize.'
>>
>>But again, that doesn't mean both approaches aren't successful, valid and
>>perfectly useful. I just don't see them as automatic versus 'tended' human
>>trading.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Tim Morge
>>
>
>
|