|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
--- tj <tradejacker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:13:05 -0700 (PDT)
> From: tj <tradejacker@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Advanced Get
> To: charles meyer <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>
>
> maybe the question you should ask is why should i buy the same stuff
> that everyone else is buying? consistent success is predicated on
> using
> stuff that no one else or only a very few people are using in their
> trading. think about this...floor traders are fading the signals from
> the very same packages you named (i may get pattern smasher for this
> very reason....fading signals from commercial packages (like mermer's
> ets) is very profitable :)) no thanks, i'll pass, and make my own
> educated guesses :)) you can go nuts trying to figure out these
> things
> and what the author intends, ie, why is one signal valid now and then
> an identical signal is not valid at another time? a lot of time and
> money is wasted this way. at least when i use my own stuff i don't
> need
> to ask these questions, i just do it.
>
> TJ
>
> btw, probably a few make money using these things, but i'd bet that
> 95%+ don't make consistent money, year in and year out, doing it
>
> btw2, i'm not against all vendors, just the majority who are scammers
> knowingly and unknowingly. i'd focus on tools (like jurik's stuff and
> kaufman's efficiency ratio, for example) that make me a more
> productive
> trader. the tool's math might be complex, but the utilization is
> simple.
>
>
> --- charles meyer <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Thanks for your words of wisdom. Can I infer that to the list with
> > Golden Box and Advanced Get we can add Fibonacci Trader,
> > Dynamic Trader, Nature's Pulse and Pattern Smasher? Regards
> > the idea of a 'vendor that promises turning points in advance' I am
> > awfully curious to know how often these different software
> packages,
> > which I assume use different calculation methodologies, agree as
> > to a future price and time for a turning point. If not, how would
> > one
> > know which program to believe at any given time. That is to say,
> if
> > each is
> > giving a different answer which is to be believed? I wonder if
> > anyone has
> > done any comparative analysis of which one, if any, does
> > the better job of 'working consistetly'? Perhaps you have already
> > answered the question and here I am thinking 'say it ain't so tj',
> > 'say it aint's so'..............
|