|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This is a re-send of an earlier post which apparently did not make it
through.
The attached is the CIS TREX Opening Statement Post #1 which is the
first in a series of four posts.
Walt Downs
CIS Trading
Message-ID: <34256F39.1482@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 15:02:17 -0400
From: Walt Downs <knight@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: knight@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Organization: Commodity InfoSystems <http://www.cistrader.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FUTR GEN: CIS TREX Opening Statement Post #1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wow, I opened my mailbox today, and got a face full of The great
Duckie controversy. Honestly folks, I thought this thread WAS over.
Don't have much else to say about it. Carrying on past all that, over
the last few days, this is waht I have been working on, and where I
stand.......
RT'ers,
In recent conversations with various traders on the forum,
in regards to TREX ratios, Fibb/Gann ratios, and trading,
many things were gained by myself, and hopefully others.
While at times, I may have seemed a bit terse, one-sided,
confrontational, and bull-headed, I can assure you it was
for a purpose.
As a trader who has traded longer than some, and not
as long as others, I have rapidly come to recognise a
personality trait inherent in all successful traders:
1. They forget very little
2. They disregard NOTHING.
Thus, they remember what the market has taught them in
the past, while remaining flexible enough to adjust to what
new developments the market might present to them in the
present.
I would like to present three different responses from 3
individuals whose opinions I have respect for, and who
were kind enough to respond to the TREX posts for one
reason or another:
1. Rick Ratchford.
As those who were around during this discussion can attest,
this thread definetely became heated. : ) BUT, while Rick and
I couldn't resist the urge to take a few tentative pokes at each
others methodologies, I think we both maintained enough
composure and decorum not to let things get too out of hand,
even though we were OBVIOUSLY of an opposite viewpoint.
I would like to say that, personally, I have alot of respect for
what Rick has done on this forum in regards to his posts for
traders in which he drew on his knowledge of the markets to
present many fine articles on risk control and general trading
psychology and philosophy. His philosophies on adapting to
the market much the way as a tree bends in the wind, were
particularly astute.
What I came away from this thread with, was a lasting impression
of Rick's passion for Fibb/Gann methodologies. I would be a fool to
disregard such obvious emotion. If Rick feels that strongly about
it, it is very likely that there are many others who feel the same.
As such, REGARDLESS of what statistical conclusions I might
have reached concerning Fibb/Gann ratios, emotion IS relevant to
the markets. Therefore, these ratios, exhibited through emotion,
and through the innate ability of the BELIEFS of a market's
participants to move that market, are surely valid.
2. Norman Winski
Normans response was short, and logical:
He pointed out that REGARDLESS of my statistical findings,
it was possible for Fibb/Gann ratios to display good results
when applied within the larger framework of planetary cycles.
He also suggested that if I had not taken the application of
these ratios under a broder methodolical umbrella into account,
then it was entirely possible that I was "missing the forest for
the trees" : ) All well put and very logical.
Ignoring such logic
from such a wise old tiger (See the post "The building of a
Trading Analogy Post # 3" for more info on tigers.) would indeed be
foolish.
3. Joe Duffy
Joe was kind enough to respond briefly to some of the posts.
His response I found VERY interesting.
In response to my somewhat lengthy explanation of my theories
and statistical conclusions, Joe's response was:
"Thanks for the rather lengthy post, too bad mine isn't as long!"
Then he dropped the subject.
This was a very concise and somewhat
enigmatic response which definetely gave me pause for thought.
In essence Joe was saying one of three things:
1. My conclusions were valid and he was not willing to discuss the
point.
(This would be an egotistical and very dangerous assumption on my part
so I tend to give the following two interpretations MUCH more weight. )
2. While some of my conclusions may have had merit, Joe had in fact
found
many instances under which Fibb/Gann ratios could be successfully
applied
(Ala Ratchford and Winski) , and CERTAINLY wasn't about to discuss them
with ME. ; )
3. That I was a total "Murrey" case whose analysis was simply
fallacious, and could be written off as so much tripe. A totally
reasonable viewpoint, since Joe didn't really know me from Adam. : )
Again we have a very cagey tiger saying much,
by saying nothing at all !
Please move on to the post: "TREX, knowledge gained ,the
findings, and birth of TGR Post# 2"
Thanks,
Walt Downs
CIS Trading
|