|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Boy, I couldn't agree LESS with Ralph! For what it's worth, I found
DeMark's book to be both refreshingly new AND his concepts PROFITABLE in
back-testing. For me, at least, it made sense and erased a lot of the
"techno babble" that all of us RTers seem to revel in BUT that never seems
to make any of us any REAL money. Forgive me if I'm wrong and the average
RTer is independently wealthy from trading "time days" and "Murrey Math"
and over-used stuff like stochastics and OBV. To me, DeMark blazed some
new trails and BOTH of his books are more than worth the price of
admission.
Ralph's contention that DeMark's methods are over-simplified (horrors,
can't have anthing but complexity and smoke and mirrrors in futures
trading!) and not better than a flip of the coin are simply wrong, in my
opinion and experience. I have the software, and have read the books (and
absorbed them) numerous times. I'll tell you this, fellow RTers: For the
first time in my trading life (8 years), I'm consistently making money. Am
I rich? No. But I'm winning, which I define as watching my account
balance consistently INCREASE instead of DECREASE. And I owe it to
DeMark's methods, so here's one serious disagreement with Ralph's opinion
and a resounding endorsement of DeMark's books, software, and methods.
Frank Howard
----------
> From: Ralph Volpe <rjv@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: GKPercy@xxxxxxx
> Cc: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Tom DeMark
> Date: Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:30 PM
>
> > 3) Any comments on either of his published books "The New Science of
> > Technical Analysis" or the latest one "New Market Timing Techniques"?
> >
> I read Thom DeMark's book, "The New Science of Technical Analysis," and
> found it froth with over-simplifications of market activity. When he
> discussed any pattern, there where always similar patterns lurking on
> the same chart that behaved opposite to his analysis. I also found his
> prose a bit too labored, and found myself editing much of his writing so
> I could better understand the concepts.
>
> If Tom's trading record was examined, he probably fair no better than
> anyone else flipping a coin.
>
> Ralph Volpe
>
|