|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Has anyone had trouble with the new TradeStation 2000i giving critical error messages during the Global
Server setup? I am running BMI and wonder if this is an isolated problem due to data feed, or can it
be related to conflicts with added indicators? Calls into technical service have never gotten past
continual busy signals last week.
-Stuart
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> REALTRADERS Digest 1093
>
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Re: Floor Trader Pivot Points
> by "RAY RAFFURTY" <rrraff@xxxxxxxx>
> 2) Re: Buyer Beware Clarification
> by trade <vqualey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 3) Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> by Norman Phair <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 4) Vendors
> by OatTrader@xxxxxxx
> 5) Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> by Norman Phair <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (by way of Kishore Rochey <kish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
> 6) Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> by "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 7) Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> by "Dtrader" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 8) Re: P&F Charting - in need of desparate help
> by BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> 9) Re: Trin?
> by BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> 10) Re: Trin? / clarification
> by BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> 11) Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> by "BrentinUtahsDixie" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 12) GEN - Andrews Pitchfork
> by clydelee <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
> 13) Question on risk management
> by oattrader@xxxxxxx (OatTrader)
> 14) Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> by TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> 15) MKT - S&P monthly charts 1 of 2
> by "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 16) MKT-Ru2000 June Contract
> by "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 17) MKT S&P monthly charts 2 of 2
> by "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 18) MKT Asia Pacific
> by "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 19) Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> by TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> 20) Re: RT Help for the Newbie
> by "T-Bondtrader" <t-bondtrader@xxxxxxx>
> 21) Re: RT Help for the Newbie
> by OatTrader@xxxxxxx
> 22) Fut: Sugar
> by "BrentinUtahsDixie" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 23) smarter trading
> by TraderJR@xxxxxxx
> 24) Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> by TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> 25) "What if Day Traders Had to Pass a Test?"
> by Dick Crotinger <richinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 26) Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> by Stavros Hadjichristofi <stavrosc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 27) Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> by Ketayun <ketayun@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 28) Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> by "Dtrader" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 29) Re: Day Trading Success
> by Bernard Finn <sarber@xxxxxxxx>
> 30) Re: Pivot trades
> by Bernard Finn <sarber@xxxxxxxx>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Floor Trader Pivot Points
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 19:56:51 -0500
> From: "RAY RAFFURTY" <rrraff@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <staylor@xxxxxxx>,
> "RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> Seem like every few months we have to go thru an exchange like this
> (do you remember Murray Math or Gary from Hawaii?) They seem to last about
> a week to 10 days, then one of two things happen, either the two antagonists
> will agree to disagree like gentlemen or one or both will go to far and get
> kicked off the list. Personally, I hope Bob and Bill will will chose the
> former, but either way it will end soon (I HOPE) as it is getting very
> tiresome.
>
> Good luck and good trading,
> Ray Raffurty
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Taylor <staylor@xxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 3:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Floor Trader Pivot Points
>
> >
> >Bill:
> >
> >I don't think its appropriate for you to constantly attack Bob,
> >particularly just after he posts something that others find useful and
> >helpful to the list
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Buyer Beware Clarification
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:47:45 -0800
> From: trade <vqualey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Couldn't agree more! Vendors should be able to produce at least a two
> year profitable "audited" track record. If they can not do this, it
> raises a red flag automaticaly.. like you said if you go to a
> professional: Doctor, Laywer, money manager, etc.. you would like proof
> of their expertice before put your trust in them, and they have to
> provide it.
>
> MS wrote:
> > Randall,
> >
> > Your point is right on the mark !!!! What I find interesting...is that in this
> > industry the vendors expect the consumer to go back to the dark ages and blindly
> > cough up $$$$ just because they say so...being a responsible and consciousous
> > consumer....I have the right to get all the information necessary before making
> > a purchase...and that includes....hard, physical evidence that the seller and
> > their product is what they say it is...not just because they say so. If I go to
> > a doctor I have the right to check out everything about him, before I accept his
> > services or have him do surgery on me...the same goes for any service provided
> > or product offered....But no...not here....Bill doesn't think he should have to
> > provide evidence to his claims, and the only way he can provide evidence that he
> > can successfully trade his methodology is his brokerage statement. No he can
> > not promise or guarentee that the student will learn and be successful. George
> > Angell sells his methodology and offers 60 day money back guarentee....If Bill's
> > or any other scam artist...oh excuse me...vendor's product and or services had
> > any merit, they would put their money where their mouth is...but guess
> > what....he doesn't.... and keeps playing off the gullability of others. I will
> > continue to warn people off of people like Bill E.
> >
> > We are the power,
> >
> > Mark Seflin
> >
> > Randall Kurzon wrote:
> >
> > > I want to clarify a couple of points that were in my earlier message that
> > > may have been taken differently than their intended meaning. When I referred
> > > to a guarantee I wasn't asking for nor even thinking of a guarantee that
> > > Bill's manual would cause me or anyone else to be a profitable bond trader.
> > > No one can promise this. I want a guarantee that the content is there. Any
> > > one with just a little common sense will agree that $377.00 (plus shipping
> > > etc.) is an AWFUL lot of money for a manual that you can not look at before
> > > you buy it. I can look at almost any other trading related book in a
> > > bookstore before I buy it. I can order from Trader's Press, Amazon.com,
> > > Barnes and Noble, and others with the ability to return the book if it is
> > > worthless to me. Why can't one have this same ability when ordering from Mr.
> > > Eykyn? Because it's too much bother to him? Well now THAT pissed me off.
> > >
> > > I asked Mr. Eykyn to provide some sort of proof as to justify the cost of
> > > his manual. That proof could have included but was not limited to account
> > > statements (yes, there ARE people that do make them public! Honest people
> > > that is), legitimate testimonials or anything else to justify such a price
> > > for his manual. His reply basically said that he would provide nothing
> > > except his word and that of someone I had never heard of. OK, I wasn't
> > > expecting results from LBR saying she traded using Bill's manual, just
> > > something from *somebody* that had all appearances of being legitimate. I
> > > received a page of printed testimonials from Mr. Eykyn after the fact but
> > > none of the testimonials had names, addresses, or phone numbers. If I were a
> > > vendor offering a product for any price, large or small, I would certainly
> > > plan to ask some of my most successful customers if they would provide a
> > > testimonial showing that their success is related to my product and allow
> > > people to contact them. Otherwise the vendor can write all the glowing
> > > testimonials he wants. If no one was willing then I would then have to prove
> > > the value some other way, possibly through my own account statements.
> > >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 18:42:55 -0800
> From: Norman Phair <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Brent:
>
> The most important fact about any pattern. method, system or whatever, is
> like you said, how many times did it work. 3 out of 4, good percentage
> but not enough examples. 30 out of 60, enough examples probably but %
> is no good. What is the ideal? Hard to say, for example 21 out of 30
> maybe enough, 70%. But has it been tested back enough years to cover
> all types of markets. When I take a stock market indicator and back
> test it
> I like to do the period from 1966 through 1974. It boils down to the
> fact that you must do the research. Unfortunately, wall street experts
> so to speak, do not do this. Opinions by people on TV in my opinion are
> detrimental, they like to hear themselves talk. Enough said.
>
> Norman
>
> BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> >
> > Not that I care who gets credit, but who has time to research all the past
> > writings before you can say something about something. The problem as I see
> > it
> > is that almost nobody bothers to say what percentage of the time a pattern
> > worked
> > over the last umteen years.
> >
> > Brent
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 4:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >
> > >How would this differ from Edwards and Magee's "Broadening Top" formation?
> > >Not that it necessarily applies in this case, however I'm amazed at how
> > >often, while reading an article on some original work or research, the
> > >author rediscovers E&M's work some 50+ years ago without credit.
> > >
> > >Earl
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 3:45 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >
> > >
> > >>Slight correction of my interpretation of the WolfeWave numbering scheme,
> > >>as gleaned from "Street Smarts" and the basic architecture faxed to me by
> > >>Wolfe. Comments by someone who actually studied under Wolfe would be
> > >>helpful since it appears that there are projection and predictive
> > qualities
> > >>to the Wolfe Wave.
> > >> Russ-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 8:25 AM
> > >>Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Kevin,
> > >>> My interpretation ofr the Wolfe Wave is slighlly different. We're
> > >not
> > >>>quite to the top of Wave 6 on the SnP, with a potential for a down
> > >>>Wave 7(or shifting one cycle to the right, 7 becomes a new 5). The top
> > >of
> > >>>Wave 6 is closer to the trendline drawn from point 1 through point 4.
> > >>Again
> > >>>just my interpretation, never took Wolfe's $2500 course
> > >>>Russ
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: Kevin Shin <kalalex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 2:57 AM
> > >>>Subject: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I wonder if there's any Wolfe Wave follower.
> > >>>>It seems like SP's posing for the wave setup.
> > >>>>I'm not saying that we saw the top by any means.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Vendors
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 21:51:47 EST
> From: OatTrader@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> RT's,
>
> This is not an attack towards Bill, but he used the word "leech" and
> inspired to respond. I believe any newsletter that is trying to teach is just
> as informative as spending over $400 for a manual and shipping. I am not
> recommending either though because I have not purchased either.
> Many on this forum know that I teach and many know that I do not charge
> up front, which means that my students get the bulk of my methods to backtest
> to their delight and until I feel they know the material. This is approx.
> 200-300 occurrences then use a my simulated broker and then maybe real time. I
> am booked for the year for long term trading, not looking for more students!
> I only know of two other "teachers" that are willing to teach without upfront
> fees. I believe that there would be many less vendors and more dedicated
> teachers if given the above fee structures.
>
> Oat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:24:26 +0800
> From: Norman Phair <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (by way of Kishore Rochey <kish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Just a note that Jeff (a trader) and I spotted this pattern
> before the Asian Crisis occured.
>
> Kishore Rochey
>
>
> Brent:
>
> The most important fact about any pattern. method, system or whatever, is
> like you said, how many times did it work. 3 out of 4, good percentage
> but not enough examples. 30 out of 60, enough examples probably but %
> is no good. What is the ideal? Hard to say, for example 21 out of 30
> maybe enough, 70%. But has it been tested back enough years to cover
> all types of markets. When I take a stock market indicator and back
> test it
> I like to do the period from 1966 through 1974. It boils down to the
> fact that you must do the research. Unfortunately, wall street experts
> so to speak, do not do this. Opinions by people on TV in my opinion are
> detrimental, they like to hear themselves talk. Enough said.
>
> Norman
>
> BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> >
> > Not that I care who gets credit, but who has time to research all the past
> > writings before you can say something about something. The problem as I see
> > it
> > is that almost nobody bothers to say what percentage of the time a pattern
> > worked
> > over the last umteen years.
> >
> > Brent
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 4:26 PM
> > Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >
> > >How would this differ from Edwards and Magee's "Broadening Top" formation?
> > >Not that it necessarily applies in this case, however I'm amazed at how
> > >often, while reading an article on some original work or research, the
> > >author rediscovers E&M's work some 50+ years ago without credit.
> > >
> > >Earl
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 3:45 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >
> > >
> > >>Slight correction of my interpretation of the WolfeWave numbering scheme,
> > >>as gleaned from "Street Smarts" and the basic architecture faxed to me by
> > >>Wolfe. Comments by someone who actually studied under Wolfe would be
> > >>helpful since it appears that there are projection and predictive
> > qualities
> > >>to the Wolfe Wave.
> > >> Russ-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 8:25 AM
> > >>Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Kevin,
> > >>> My interpretation ofr the Wolfe Wave is slighlly different. We're
> > >not
> > >>>quite to the top of Wave 6 on the SnP, with a potential for a down
> > >>>Wave 7(or shifting one cycle to the right, 7 becomes a new 5). The top
> > >of
> > >>>Wave 6 is closer to the trendline drawn from point 1 through point 4.
> > >>Again
> > >>>just my interpretation, never took Wolfe's $2500 course
> > >>>Russ
> > >>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>From: Kevin Shin <kalalex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 2:57 AM
> > >>>Subject: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I wonder if there's any Wolfe Wave follower.
> > >>>>It seems like SP's posing for the wave setup.
> > >>>>I'm not saying that we saw the top by any means.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Wolfe Wave.htm
> Wolfe Wave.htm Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)
> Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 06:09:49 -0700
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Evaluation of patterns is not mechanical which is one reason so many traders
> prefer to use indicators. Thus, it is nearly impossible to objectively
> measure the success or failure rate of a pattern. That said, a pattern is
> the expression of market psychology and the failure of a pattern is often as
> good or better a trading opportunity than is success of the pattern e.g.
> failed bull/bear triangles often run farther than the anticipated thrust in
> the direction of success. Further, the observation of patterns, particularly
> on the daily charts contributes to the action of the market as traders place
> entry stops along the boundaries of the evolving pattern. Observation of the
> early action along the pattern boundaries provides further clues to trading
> opportunities as large and small traders jostle to safely accumulate
> inventory for the anticipated ride out of the pattern.
>
> Earl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Phair <ericrogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
>
> >Brent:
> >
> >The most important fact about any pattern. method, system or whatever, is
> >like you said, how many times did it work. 3 out of 4, good percentage
> >but not enough examples. 30 out of 60, enough examples probably but %
> >is no good. What is the ideal? Hard to say, for example 21 out of 30
> >maybe enough, 70%. But has it been tested back enough years to cover
> >all types of markets. When I take a stock market indicator and back
> >test it
> >I like to do the period from 1966 through 1974. It boils down to the
> >fact that you must do the research. Unfortunately, wall street experts
> >so to speak, do not do this. Opinions by people on TV in my opinion are
> >detrimental, they like to hear themselves talk. Enough said.
> >
> >Norman
> >
> >BrentinUtahsDixie wrote:
> >>
> >> Not that I care who gets credit, but who has time to research all the
> past
> >> writings before you can say something about something. The problem as I
> see
> >> it
> >> is that almost nobody bothers to say what percentage of the time a
> pattern
> >> worked
> >> over the last umteen years.
> >>
> >> Brent
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 4:26 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >>
> >> >How would this differ from Edwards and Magee's "Broadening Top"
> formation?
> >> >Not that it necessarily applies in this case, however I'm amazed at how
> >> >often, while reading an article on some original work or research, the
> >> >author rediscovers E&M's work some 50+ years ago without credit.
> >> >
> >> >Earl
> >> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 3:45 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>Slight correction of my interpretation of the WolfeWave numbering
> scheme,
> >> >>as gleaned from "Street Smarts" and the basic architecture faxed to me
> by
> >> >>Wolfe. Comments by someone who actually studied under Wolfe would be
> >> >>helpful since it appears that there are projection and predictive
> >> qualities
> >> >>to the Wolfe Wave.
> >> >> Russ-----Original Message-----
> >> >>From: R.E.Turner <rturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 8:25 AM
> >> >>Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>Kevin,
> >> >>> My interpretation ofr the Wolfe Wave is slighlly different.
> We're
> >> >not
> >> >>>quite to the top of Wave 6 on the SnP, with a potential for a down
> >> >>>Wave 7(or shifting one cycle to the right, 7 becomes a new 5). The
> top
> >> >of
> >> >>>Wave 6 is closer to the trendline drawn from point 1 through point 4.
> >> >>Again
> >> >>>just my interpretation, never took Wolfe's $2500 course
> >> >>>Russ
> >> >>>-----Original Message-----
> >> >>>From: Kevin Shin <kalalex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>>To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >>>Date: Saturday, March 20, 1999 2:57 AM
> >> >>>Subject: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>I wonder if there's any Wolfe Wave follower.
> >> >>>>It seems like SP's posing for the wave setup.
> >> >>>>I'm not saying that we saw the top by any means.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:02:52 -0500
> From: "Dtrader" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> certainly you do not mean to say that patterns are strictly judgmental and
> indicators are strictly objective.
>
> true, edwards-magee patterns have traditionally been an exercise in
> 'judgement.' but anyone who wants to quantify these types of patterns can
> do so in strict mathematical terms just as one can also quantify, say, a
> stochastic signal. it is up to the trader to what extent the 'pattern' or
> the 'indicator' is quantified.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Earl Adamy <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 8:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
>
> :Evaluation of patterns is not mechanical which is one reason so many
> traders
> :prefer to use indicators. Thus, it is nearly impossible to objectively
> :measure the success or failure rate of a pattern. That said, a pattern is
> :the expression of market psychology and the failure of a pattern is often
> as
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: P&F Charting - in need of desparate help
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 09:41:47 EST
> From: BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> To: sospl@xxxxxxxxx, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ROB: If you're using a P&F chart, you should use a box size & count that makes
> sense for the product you're trading. Personally, I like to use at least a
> couple of percent change or 3 to 5 ticks as a target guideline. So, for
> example in bonds, I use 2 ticks (.066) and 3 boxes for a "slow" P&F and 1 tick
> (.033) and 3 boxes for a "fast" P&F. In YOUR example, based on a security
> priced at $1.25, I'm assuming that trades in 1/8's(12.5 cents) or 1/16's(6.25
> cents) as a minimum "tick". If so, I'd use 6.25 cents and 3 boxes as my P&F
> parameters. Of course, that's a wide swing for a security priced at $1.25 to
> begin with. But the point is, you have to select your box size and count
> based on the price of the underlying security, while taking the "price" of a
> minimum tick trade in that security into consideration. A better example
> would be gold. Priced around $280 and trading in minimum tick of 10 cents,
> I'd want to see at least, say, an $8 move before I got a reversal (anything
> less is noise) on a "slow" P&F.... if you divide $8 by 3 you get roughly $2.70
> (which is divisible by 10 cents). So, for a slower P&F you might use a box
> size of $2.70 w/ 3 count in gold. For a "faster" P&F you might use 90 cents
> and 3, to keep reversals outside of $3.00 (anything less being shorter-term
> noise), etc.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Trin?
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:04:53 EST
> From: BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> To: linda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Linda:
> in general, the higher the intra-day trin, the greater likelihood of an
> impending intra-day top. I've not been able to construct an intra-day trin
> indicator that reveals much beyond that
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Trin? / clarification
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:07:08 EST
> From: BOTTrader@xxxxxxx
> To: linda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Linda: i plot an inverse trin so that the peaks & valleys roughly correspond
> to the market
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Wolfe Wave on SnP
> Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 13:26:59 -0700
> From: "BrentinUtahsDixie" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>,
> "RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Someone better tell Eddie Kasanjian about this;-)
>
> I'm joking of course.
>
> Brent
>
> PS. The forum is getting many posts that have a ton of past correspondence
> still attached to them.
>
> >Evaluation of patterns is not mechanical which is one reason so many
> traders
> >prefer to use indicators <snip>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: GEN - Andrews Pitchfork
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:17:17 -0600
> From: clydelee <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
> To: Peter Ryan <pryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Peter,
>
> There have been some changes in this indicator since I started
> taking a course on Andrews techniques from:
>
> PitchforkPrimer <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> and I am sure there will be others before I get through. One in
> particular is the 0-3/4 fork which I had not heard of before.
>
> Using this indicator you must have sufficient data points and you
> must have maxbarsback determination set to automatic -- not user
> defined.
>
> There are problems at times plotting the parallel lines -- not
> quite parallel but that is because of the way Omega does things.
>
> You can use multiple sets with different time frames and it works
> well.
>
> The following is the frontend documentation and .ela is attached.
>
> This was written for TS5.0 and may be close (or over) memory limits
> for TS4.0 -- no I don't intend to retrofit if it is out.
>
> Some of you who know Andrews techniques might post some examples
> using this indicator so we can all benefit. I can make the
> indicator but do not have the experience to recommend how to
> (or in fact if) use it.
>
> Clyde Lee
>
> {
> ********************************************************************
>
> Study : LOS+AndrewsPitchfork
>
> Last Edit : 03/07/99
>
> Provided By : Clyde Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (c) 1998,1999
> : This version shall not be distributed without
> : The written consent of the author.
>
> Notes: Uses Swing_Lee function which uses
> HighestHigh and LowestLow for n days
> to determine Turning Points for Swing Analysis.
>
> This is an enhancement?? of the original LengthOfSwing
> indicator which has added an input parameter
> AndrColo which when entered causes the system to
> perform normally and add the last two "pitchforks"
> which can be drawn with the swings picked by LOS.
>
> Set ATRMult to value which fits risk
> desired relative to current swing
> position.
>
> User may select to plot TRUE turning points
> (i.e. actual dates when TP was determined).
> User may or may not have channels generated.
> User may or may not have end extensions plotted.
>
> ********************************************************************
> }
>
> Input: EndDate(991231), {Used to study behavior of indicator in }
> {the past. Set to earlier date to see. }
> NumFork(3), {Number of Pitchforks to generate 3=max }
> NumBars(13), {Determines what "strength" of a swing to }
> {use for determining turning points. }
> ATRMult(-1), {Sets channel width. If set to ANY }
> {NEGATIVE value width determined by NumB..}
> {set to zero for no channels -- advised }
> PlotTru(False), {True=show where TP'S were determined. }
> Plot034(False), {Plot a 0/3-4 fork plus 2/3-4 fork(s) }
> ChanColr(1.0), {Do Channel plots in this color }
> {Tool_Black=1, Tool_Blue=2, Tool_Cyan=3 }
> {Tool_Green=4, Tool_Magenta=5, Tool_Red=6 }
> {Tool_Yellow=7,Tool_White=8, }
> {Tool_DarkBlue=9, Tool_DarkCyan=10, }
> {Tool_DarkGreen=11, Tool_DarkMagenta=12, }
> {Tool_DarkRed=13, Tool_DarkYellow=14, }
> {Tool_DarkGray=15, Tool_LightGray=16 }
> {Decimal portion multiplied by 10 is the }
> {width of channel lines. }
> AndrColr(4.1), {Do Andrews Pitchfork plots in this color }
> {Set value to 2 less than ChanColor. }
> {Decimal portion multiplied by 10 is width}
> {of line for plotting median and parallels}
> {Omega only allows 650 "trendlines" to be }
> {plotted so it may be necessary to turn }
> {off channel lines with small NumBars }
> ExtProj(True); {False=don't extend last channel lines }
>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Clyde Lee Chairman/CEO (Home of SwingMachine)
> SYTECH Corporation email: <clydelee@xxxxxxx>
> 7910 Westglen, Suite 105 Work: (713) 783-9540
> Houston, TX 77063 Fax: (713) 783-1092
> SM available at: ftp://intrepid.com/pub/clyde
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Los_andr.ela
> Los_andr.ela Type: unspecified type (application/octet-stream)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Question on risk management
> Date: 21 Mar 1999 17:38:51 GMT
> From: oattrader@xxxxxxx (OatTrader)
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I use a figure between 1% to 2% on my trades based on the duration of the
> trend. When trend has just changed I will risk up to 2% of my account. Since I
> never risk more than $500, unless gaps occur or trading coffee, ie. if trading
> a $25,000 account, $500 is exactly 2%. All this means is if my setup requires
> $500 risk, I can trade one contract, if my setup requires risk to be $160, I
> can trade 3 contracts, if the setup requires a risk of $550 I will pass on the
> trade or trade Mid-Am. Now let's say that 8 months go by and we are still into
> the same trend, since I do not know when the trend will end, but since I have a
> belief that trends only last about eight months, on any trade, I will reduce my
> risk to half, meaning is the max. I will risk is $300 per contract. So if my
> setup requires more risk than $300, I will pass on the trade. This keeps me
> looking for only the best of setups. I have found that when volitility is up,
> trading is rather wild and usually at market extremes, this occurence happens.
> I do not take positions when the market is wild, I rather wait patiently till
> it is more quiet and take my position at my price.
>
> One of my better setups is when there is a reversal bar touching the 18
> moving average, buy/sell above/below it 5-6 tics so as not to get caught buying
> the high selling the low and using the extreme as my protective stop. This is a
> great place to add on to a position is a good trending market. On February 11th
> there was a reversal bar and touching the 18ma in May Wheat, the next day I
> sold at 272.50 and made some good profit.
> Many ask me what kind of a stop to use in long term trading, one method is
> using last weeks extremes plus/minus a few ticks or a firm close beyond it
> works very well.
> Oat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 12:55:00 EST
> From: TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 3/19/99 8:26:28 AM Central Standard Time,
> rjeanhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << hi there
> on your trades what amount/ticks did you incur as drawdown
> thanks
> keep investing in yourself
> robin >>
>
> oops meant to send this to the list but think I replied individually.
>
> Hi Robin
>
> The only trade that went against me 4 ticks was the 4 tick loser. The only
> trade that went against me 3 ticks was the 3 tick loser. The other trades went
> against me one, two, or zero ticks.
>
> Initially the risk in the trades was 3 or 4 ticks, but if the market went
> sideways too long or didn't prove me right, then I got out, instead of waiting
> for my stop to get hit.
>
> Have a good day
> Todd
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: MKT - S&P monthly charts 1 of 2
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:31:07 -0700
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "List-RealTraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Updated S&P Earnings Yield / TBill Ratio - obviously very extended.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: SPYIELD.gif
> SPYIELD.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: MKT-Ru2000 June Contract
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:39:58 -0700
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "List-RealTraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Small cap stocks anyone? Note Friday's 10+ point reversal from open to
> close.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: RU2000.gif
> RU2000.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: MKT S&P monthly charts 2 of 2
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:40:07 -0700
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "List-RealTraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> S&P is getting very close to the upper channel trendline
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: SPMONTH.gif
> SPMONTH.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: MKT Asia Pacific
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 10:56:49 -0700
> From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "List-RealTraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Here's the vanguard asia pacific fund which has been handily out performing
> the s&p with considerably lower valuation risk near last fall's lows.
>
> Earl
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: ASIAPAC.gif
> ASIAPAC.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:07:16 EST
> From: TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 3/19/99 8:26:28 AM Central Standard Time,
> rjeanhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << hi there
> on your trades what amount/ticks did you incur as drawdown
> thanks
> keep investing in yourself
> robin >>
>
> opps meant to send this to the list but think I replied individually.
>
> Hi Robin
>
> The only trade that went against me 4 ticks was the 4 tick loser. The only
> trade that went against me 3 ticks was the 3 tick loser. The other trades went
> against me one, two, or zero ticks.
>
> Initially the risk in the trades was 3 or 4 ticks, but if the market went
> sideways too long or didn't prove me right, then I got out instead of waiting
> for my stop to get hit.
>
> Have a good day
> Todd
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: RT Help for the Newbie
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 18:16:27 -0000
> From: "T-Bondtrader" <t-bondtrader@xxxxxxx>
> To: "RealTraders Discussion" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Okay, let's move on from whether one route is better than another.
>
> What does a 'service' or a 'publication' or a 'system' or a 'learning
> process' or whatever else people buy to 'help' them trade actually cost?
> What is the bottom line of what you have bought (if you are pleased) or
> sold (if you are not pleased!)
>
> Hopefully, that is not getting at anyone! But it is asking an important
> question, I suggest, for a lot of people on this list.
>
> Whatever anyone produces, whatever that 'something' is and there is a
> charge associated with it, then most people before they buy it will try and
> establish some form of perception of what the value is against the bottom
> line of what the total cost is.
>
> If the product has an upfront price and there are genuinely no strings
> attached (upgrades, new versions on the horizon, etc) you know where you
> are so far as cost is concerned. You will pay a precise amount to have
> whatever it is. The terms have to be clear, of course: demo, trial,
> guarantees, etc, which you may or may not like, but which you have to
> accept before before you make your decision.
>
> But if you buy something on an instalment plan, a fee, a commission or some
> money at the end of a period of time, you have to be real sure that you are
> not going to be paying a heck of a lot more for the product or service.
> $500 up front may turn out to be a much better bet than say a percentage of
> profits later or a fee as you go along. It is easy to do the maths for
> how much a month for a year or a lump sum, what is decidedly not so easy is
> evaluating just how long it is going to take you to profit from whatever it
> is you are buying. That is the rub!
>
> As markets, instruments and other facets of trading are different, so too
> are the people and their circumstances. And as for the small guy...
>
> The really great problem with trading is the suitability or otherwise of
> those attempting to do it. I know nothing about mechanical systems or
> computer programs that generate buy and sell signals, but I bet there are p
> eople using them who will do well because of the way they interpret the
> flashing lights and ring bells, and there will be those who don't. Much
> the same (albeit in a different kind of way) will be true about
> discretionary methods and those who use them. Given the same degree of
> individual 'competence' the huge difference between the two is money.
>
> Money for learning, money for accounts, money for drawdowns, money, money,
> money...
>
> People opt for discretionary day trading because it is possible to learn
> what is required to be successful. It is possible to be able to do
> everything for yourself, with minimum computer aids. But for systems and
> longer term trading, there is a need for more money - on virtually all
> fronts. The smaller guy aims to make a living out of the markets, the
> bigger player is looking to increase his wealth. Same market, different
> approach - and of course, different results.
>
> The small guy would do better to find out, in the shortest possible time,
> whether or not the business is for him. He has to find out whether he can
> trade or not - and find out fast. He will not have a lot of capital and if
> he is the wrong temperament, he needs to know before he digs too deeply
> into his limited resources. Paying and/or living on the never-never and
> trying to find out over time, is not an option, for a full-time bread
> winner. But how does he know?
>
> Difficult!
>
> Most of us have had to go through the apprenticeship. Be conned left right
> and centre by people I call vendors (and of course, as soon as I write
> something to cut through all the BS, I am no longer termed a trader, but a
> vendor!). That's life! But as someone said, if you are in the public
> eye, you have to expect to be shot at. If you are in broadcasting,
> television, etc, as I have been a few moons ago, you get used to it. If
> you are part of the judicial system, you can expect much the same. So it
> is nothing new to me to be shot at. But I don't often fire back! I
> usually do so on the basis that if I don't, probably no one will - and if
> it needs saying, it need saying.
>
> Without harping back, I reckon what I said needed saying, so I said it.
>
> Furthermore, I do think that we ought to have a great deal more discussion
> on the best way for those new to trading to start. There really ought to
> be some form of structured approach that this forum can offer. The
> perceived wisdom as it were. (By the way, count me out, I have quite enough
> to do trading and supporting the people who have my manual. I am not
> suggesting the idea for me to play some leading part!!) I do just feel
> that, to avoid if you like, people getting off on the wrong foot, one ought
> to be able to put them on the right track - without any contention.
> Either/or, but not contention. Good advice, as put out by RT. It could
> almost be done as a sort of starter pack for new members - or something
> members could call for from the moderator's office.
>
> Anyway, I hope it is worth a thought and a few people might voice their
> opinion...
>
> Bill Eykyn
> www.dbceuro.com/bille.htm
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: RT Help for the Newbie
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:47:30 EST
> From: OatTrader@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bill, you have an excellent idea about a starter pack for new traders,
> but just like you had mentioned you nor I and I'm sure many simply do not have
> the time to invest to create a package for the new traders. Between trading,
> students calling and researching, I know that myself, I do not have the time
> to man the phones when a new trader comes on board. There is much hand holding
> when new traders arrive, most of them want to start trading now and they don't
> even know what a tic is worth.
> If someone has ideas on how to do a starter package and wants to invest the
> time and be in charge of it, I would certainly contribute, anyone else?
>
> Oat
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Fut: Sugar
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 11:49:13 -0700
> From: "BrentinUtahsDixie" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "RealTraders Discussion Group" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> RT's,
>
> The price of sugar with almost any inflation at all has to be at historic
> lows. Less than 3 cents with just 100% inflation over the last 20 years or
> so. Possible ½ of a head and shoulders pattern on there too. I'm not
> necessarily calling a bottom but it looks interesting.
>
> Brent
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: Sugar.gif
> Sugar.gif Type: GIF Image (image/gif)
> Encoding: base64
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: smarter trading
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:00:35 EST
> From: TraderJR@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> hello,
> anyone using Ryan Jones smarter trading newsletter, looks pretty
> good..offering large profits and small loses using options and futures
> thanks for any reply
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: T-Bond Manual Results
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:11:45 EST
> From: TTrue61470@xxxxxxx
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In a message dated 3/19/99 9:05:17 AM Central Standard Time,
> gmkramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << Enjoyed this post!
>
> Question please: Does the manual have specific target and stop levels for
> trades and are these based on a $ amount or based upon market activity?
>
> Thanks
>
> Gary >>
>
> RT's sorry about the earlier repeat send I'm new to this e-mail stuff.
>
> Gary
>
> The manual has targets where the market is likely to go. There are logical
> places to place stops, and the manual is very against using dollar based
> stops. The distance between entry and stop is very reasonable. Even so, I've
> found in many cases with certain types of patterns I can patiently wait to get
> in the trade closer to the stop thereby decreasing my risk and increasing the
> reward if I'm right. Other patterns are more go with the flow where you have
> to just enter, and it usually moves in your favor rather quickly, but still
> with a logically placed stop.
>
> Todd
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: "What if Day Traders Had to Pass a Test?"
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:11:48 -0500
> From: Dick Crotinger <richinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Some of you may find interesting this little ditty in today's NY Times,
> entitled "What if Day Traders Had to Pass a Test?"
>
> It may be necessary to subscribe to read it, but it's free and
> no-hassle.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/sunday/032199invest-watch.html
>
> Dick Crotinger
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 23:25:20 +0200
> From: Stavros Hadjichristofi <stavrosc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Does anyone know of any good Technical Analysis books or any books that can help
> in trading stocks over the internet.
>
> Thanks
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:37:59 -0500
> From: Ketayun <ketayun@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: stavrosc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> CC: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> l. Martin Pring's Intro to Technical Analysis
>
> 2. Candlestick charting explained by Gregory Morris
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ketayun RustomStavros Hadjichristofi wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know of any good Technical Analysis books or any books that can help
> > in trading stocks over the internet.
> >
> > Thanks
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 16:51:11 -0500
> From: "Dtrader" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> good technical analysis books
>
> How Charts Can Help You in the Stock Market,
> by William Jiller
>
> traders press has it, i think.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stavros Hadjichristofi <stavrosc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sunday, March 21, 1999 4:26 PM
> Subject: Re: GEN Technical Analysis books
>
> :Does anyone know of any good Technical Analysis books or any books that can
> help
> :in trading stocks over the internet.
> :
> :Thanks
> :
> :
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Day Trading Success
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:25:01 -0500
> From: Bernard Finn <sarber@xxxxxxxx>
> To: zaheer@xxxxxxxxx
> CC: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> If you neither want to share it nor sell it what is this post all about?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Pivot trades
> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:46:04 -0500
> From: Bernard Finn <sarber@xxxxxxxx>
> To: swp@xxxxxxxxxx
> CC: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Do you still the web address for this freebie?If you do could please post
> it.
> Bernie
> sarber@xxxxxxxx
|