|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Got a automatic delivery of heating oil at 9:30 Sunday morning at my home.
Throughout the day the oil trucks were out in force in my area making
deliveries. I take this to mean one of two things, either I have a very
conscientious oil company that likes to work on Sunday mornings, or the
correction from the sharp run-up in prices is at hand.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jack</DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 24 06:43:49 2000
Return-Path: <listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.thetrellis.net ([208.179.56.11])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA17380
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:41:56 -0800
Received: from REALTRADERS.COM
([208.179.56.198])
by mail.thetrellis.net; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 06:34:18 -0800
Received: from mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net by realtraders.com
with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R)
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 06:28:50 +0000
Received: from rheisler.swbell.net ([216.62.95.228]) by mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net
(Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8)
with SMTP id <0FOU009QMGB3JB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:30:40 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:30:44 -0600
From: Bob Heisler <bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] Re: System vs. disc continued
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <008301bf6677$9a5d2440$e45f3ed8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0080_01BF6645.4E748960"
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3612.1700
X-Priority: 3
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Return-Path: bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDMailing-List: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDSend-Notifications-To: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx
Status:
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3713.600"' name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>You just don't get it.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Scot Billington <<A
href="mailto:scot.billington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>scot.billington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B><A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
<<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Monday, January 24, 2000 8:22 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>[RT] System vs. disc
continued<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>>I take the same trades each day, but how I manage each
trade is dependent upon my read of the environment (discretion). You
cannot trade the exact same size and exit the exact same >way for every
trade/environment. For example, a trending market requires a different
approach than a range bound market. In the end it boils down to your
ability to read the PRICE >action and adopt your game plan to the current
conditions - AND THEN EXECUTE. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Many successful money managers trade systems that do take the same
trades without trying to measure 'market environment'. The size of the
trade is determined by the money management parameters which again are
systemized rules. They do not change from trade to trade. One
could also build rules to react differently to different 'market
environments'. That would be part of the system. System or
mechanical trading is not limited to anything but a set of rules that govern
each and every trading decision. These rules are decided before
hand.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This example also assumes that one has a system that provides a market
edge. This also assumes that the trader has the ability to correctly
follow the system. Both of these are large assumptions and would be
excellant discussions in themselves; however, they are outside the scope of
this discussion.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A system will have winning trades and losing trades, but the winning
trades either from their number or their size, will make up for the losers
and leave a profit. From this scenario the trader MUST trade the exact
same way for every trade/environment. He/she has an edge. If the
edge is used the same way every time over a large enough set, a profit will
be made. The trader acts as the HOUSE in a casino. The edge
works for him. You apply the edge the same way over and over.
While you know certain market action will produce losing trades, you also
know that the winning trades will overcome that. You do NOT want your
judgment getting in the way. If someone was paying you 7-5 every time
you correctly guessed heads but only 4-5 every time you correctly guessed
tails, you would not sit out flips or throw in some tails guesses. You
would sit and guess heads until you had all the money you wanted. IF
you can correctly determine 'market environment', then you should work that
into your system. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Most good systems have fewer than three parameters, filters etc.
They are very simple which adds to their 'robustness'.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Scot Billington</DIV></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jan 24 06:58:15 2000
Return-Path: <listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.thetrellis.net ([208.179.56.11])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA17629
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 07:49:22 -0800
Received: from REALTRADERS.COM
([208.179.56.198])
by mail.thetrellis.net; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 06:43:09 -0800
Received: from psgmail.psgib.com by realtraders.com
with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R)
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 06:38:05 +0000
Received: by PSGMAIL with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <DS107V8D>; Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:38:02 +0200
Message-ID: <A3434B201402D311AAF70008C75B7AFC279442@xxxxxxx>
From: Zaheer Bhyat <Zaheer@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [RT] RE: Re: System vs. disc continued
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 16:38:01 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Return-Path: Zaheer@xxxxxxxxx
Sender: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDMailing-List: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDSend-Notifications-To: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: Zaheer@xxxxxxxxx
Status: O
Bob, I like your website and your mode of thinking, but then I like Scot's
ideas too. Maybe I don't get either. Can you elaborate?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Heisler [SMTP:bheisler@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 4:31 PM
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [RT] Re: System vs. disc continued
>
> You just don't get it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scot Billington < scot.billington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:scot.billington@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> < realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Monday, January 24, 2000 8:22 AM
> Subject: [RT] System vs. disc continued
>
>
>
> >I take the same trades each day, but how I manage each trade is
> dependent upon my read of the environment (discretion). You cannot trade
> the exact same size and exit the exact same >way for every
> trade/environment. For example, a trending market requires a different
> approach than a range bound market. In the end it boils down to your
> ability to read the PRICE >action and adopt your game plan to the current
> conditions - AND THEN EXECUTE.
>
> Many successful money managers trade systems that do take the same
> trades without trying to measure 'market environment'. The size of the
> trade is determined by the money management parameters which again are
> systemized rules. They do not change from trade to trade. One could also
> build rules to react differently to different 'market environments'. That
> would be part of the system. System or mechanical trading is not limited
> to anything but a set of rules that govern each and every trading
> decision. These rules are decided before hand.
>
> This example also assumes that one has a system that provides a
> market edge. This also assumes that the trader has the ability to
> correctly follow the system. Both of these are large assumptions and
> would be excellant discussions in themselves; however, they are outside
> the scope of this discussion.
>
> A system will have winning trades and losing trades, but the winning
> trades either from their number or their size, will make up for the losers
> and leave a profit. From this scenario the trader MUST trade the exact
> same way for every trade/environment. He/she has an edge. If the edge is
> used the same way every time over a large enough set, a profit will be
> made. The trader acts as the HOUSE in a casino. The edge works for him.
> You apply the edge the same way over and over. While you know certain
> market action will produce losing trades, you also know that the winning
> trades will overcome that. You do NOT want your judgment getting in the
> way. If someone was paying you 7-5 every time you correctly guessed heads
> but only 4-5 every time you correctly guessed tails, you would not sit out
> flips or throw in some tails guesses. You would sit and guess heads until
> you had all the money you wanted. IF you can correctly determine 'market
> environment', then you should work that into your system.
>
> Most good systems have fewer than three parameters, filters etc.
> They are very simple which adds to their 'robustness'.
>
> Scot Billington
>
|