Re: Which holds best promise?

[Bob Heisler <bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Howard,

I understand what you are saying.  My point is that a computer can't
recognize the conditions, only the human eye can.  And IMHO you must be able
to adjust your trading to fit the environment (I am referring to intraday
trading of the SP/ND/DJ in particular)  We can have clean trends, ranges,
slop and chop, etc.  The setups, stops and objectives may be determined in
the same manner, but how you handle the different conditions can mean the
difference between losing and winning trades/days.

I really believe the setups, stops, etc. are fairly simple to figure out if
you can read price.  It's the trade management that makes the difference.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Jackson <hrjf4@xxxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Which holds best promise?


>--- Gary Fritz <fritz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Bob Heisler <bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > And even though I am "discretionary" trader, I
>> take the same
>> > trades/setups every day and set stops and
>> objectives the exact same
>> > way - all based on the price action.  What varies
>> is adjusting my
>> > trade management to the conditions, and no
>> computer can do that for
>> > me.
>>
>
>Isn't Bob H. saying in this parragraph he indeed uses
>a system?
>I think many people consider indicators as 'new
>information' and many times I have heard the argument:
>"you will do best by studying price, no indicator
>works". To me, indicators are nothing but different
>ways of studying price and will tell you
>characteristics of the market you need.
>
>A system is nothing other than a method you use to
>trade, only that you have defined it in such a way -in
>such precise terms- that your computer can follow it
>just as you can follow it. And indicators are ways
>other people have used to express some aspect of the
>market so they can have their computers follow their
>ideas.
>If Bob's "trades/setups, stops and objectives" are
>truly the 'same every day' and are not based on
>intuition or subjective factors then it is possible
>for him to have a computer do the monitoring of the
>market for him. Furthermore, if he can teach someone
>else to trade the way he does and have them identify
>each scenareo under which he would place a trade he
>will also be able to 'teach' a computer to do the same
>work.
>Many times we don't have the training, the tools or
>the inclination to have a computer make our life a bit
>easier (no bob-bashing intended, I think computers are
>still too difficult to use and we defenitely don't
>have good enough tools to truly develope 'smart'
>systems)
>And, If he can't (teach another person and a
>computer), then I would venture to say he modifies his
>rules as he goes along. In my view this is being
>inconsistent and inconsistency in performance is not
>what I look for when managing my money...
>
>Note: my intention is not to pick on Bob, I'm using
>Bob to refer to traders who have an approach to
>trading but claim don't follow a 'system'
>
>
>H
>
>--- Gary Fritz <fritz@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Bob Heisler <bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > And even though I am "discretionary" trader, I
>> take the same
>> > trades/setups every day and set stops and
>> objectives the exact same
>> > way - all based on the price action.  What varies
>> is adjusting my
>> > trade management to the conditions, and no
>> computer can do that for
>> > me.
>>
>