|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
LBR started a trading chat in December, and she has archived all of the
transcripts since the service began. I've never done any stats on her
performance, but I'd guess she runs about 60% winners from what i've seen.
In my opinion, what provides market readability and consistency is the
ability to only trade under optimum conditions. Optimum conditions are
defined as periods of time when the market has good liquidity, volume, and a
good percentage of long term traders active. It has the appearance of the
market wanting to go somewhere; i.e big money. It can also take the shape
of a "failed setup", where a very obvious signal has failed, and the market
quickly goes in the other direction.
Any trades taken outside these conditions will lessen your consistency
considerably. Naturally, being able to define "optimum conditions", takes a
lot of experience, skill, and discipline, but if you believe that good
trades are available all the time, you are mistaken. A good example of this
is yesterday, and today in the S+P. Yesterday morning the market exhibited
"optimum conditions". Today, there wasn't anytime when we had optimum
conditions. Finally, even after identifying "optimum conditions", and
taking a trade, the market must continue to perform properly.
Chris Lober
>
>>I read the discussion at the web site that Mr. Borasky cited.
>>Uhhhhhhh.........Truthfully, I'm lost. It would seem that the aspects
>>of practical importance regarding the link between chaos and
>>short term market movements is that they (the noise in short term
>>market fluctuations) are random. HOWEVER, if that is the case,
>>and market lore has long suggested this is the case, it does not
>>explain how and why some day traders and short term traders
>>maintain a 70% win percentage. I cited LBR in a previous post.
>>Marty Schwartz says he likes to be right 7 or 8 times out of 10.
>>Most of you have also probably read about one trader in "Market
>>Wizards" (Weinstein?) who says he is right on--was it 80 to 90
>>percent of his trades? Again, I'm not sure I understand what I
>>read but when the words like 'noise' and 'random' appeared I can
>>relate that to intra-day market price fluctuations. Comments?
>>
>>Charles
>>
>>
>
>
|