The Markets, Trading & Charts Thread

[oifvetforreason]

ok, see this is more the kind of thing I was hoping for. because I would be willing to bet a decent sum of money that you couldn't start out with ten accounts, make 10 trades on each of them, and still be in profit on any of them.

In theory, you could open a few, put one trade on each with no stoploss (and so genuine 50/50 odds) and come back to see if any were in profit, then work that one

but practical however is NOT the same as theory and I am willing to bet you any amount of money that you cannot methodically bash an account, any account, up 2-5% per day with multiple trades.

how about you open two demos, give me the logins to one and I'll do it on your other one while you go backwards?

Ok, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I have been hoping for.

I accept your bet that I can't open ten accounts, make ten trades on each and not be in profit on any of them. Since you said you would be willing to bet a "decent" sum of money, let's make it $4,000. (i picked that number because it would only be a week's worth of work for you at $100 an hour ((although I notice that number has been revised down from your earlier claim that you charge more than $300 for two hours worth of work)).
I would want the "contract" in writing, though, since that is almost two months salary for me. Shouldn't be a problem, I'm sure we could get some one to write it up. I am more than willing to do this, but I need to make sure it is worth my time.
For your other bet, that you would be willing to put ANY amount of money on, I would also accept it, with the following conditions (you've got some weasel words in there that I don't like):

1. I have to make 27 trades (that is how many were on the profit chart you posted earlier). on a $10,000 demo account. I don't know how to quantify "methodically bash[ing] an account," but I would also agree that there has to be at least 10 separate days of trading over at least a twenty day span (again, mirroring your profit chart).

2. At the end of 27 trades, I have to be up more than 2177.22. The "2-5% per day" clause I would reject, because looking at your profit chart, it looks like August 14 saw you close two trades which were over $1000 profit each (that's more like a 20% day!) and August 8 saw you close a whole bunch of minor losers. So even you don't have this "consistent bashing" you claim.

If those were the two conditions of the bet, I would be willing to bet $40,000. That's only about 10 weeks' earnings for you (and really, with the riches you are soon to amass from your iron-clad trading system, it would end up being a drop in a the very big bucket, and a fun little story you tell your other super-wealthy friends - "Man, I remember paying a guy 40 grand over a bet back when I was getting started printing money. Those were the good old days, weren't they chap!" All while sipping champagne at a private beach resort, occasionally looking at your accounts and all the millions you have to blow!)

 

[kevsta]

Ok, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I have been hoping for.

I accept your bet that I can't open ten accounts, make ten trades on each and not be in profit on any of them. Since you said you would be willing to bet a "decent" sum of money, let's make it $4,000. (i picked that number because it would only be a week's worth of work for you at $100 an hour ((although I notice that number has been revised down from your earlier claim that you charge more than $300 for two hours worth of work

lulz, bet on, but not that much, you're having a laugh. you might be some shizzle hot trader for all I know. and I do charge that for consulting but did I ever mention my working week hours to you? or how it is split between multiple tasks? I am not wealthy by any means, I have a small amount of savings and have never implied otherwise. All I have implied, is that I have another algorithm based skill that people value fairly highly when required.

so earlier in the thread I offered $50 to anybody who could take 20 trades on one account and still be positive, as you have now got half as many trades as a target to still be positive on, and x10 chances to do it, the actual probability of the bet reduces to 50/10 =5 /2 = $2.50.

but as I still don't think you'll manage it I'll stand with the original $50 and even double it for you, so $100. you're not worth more than an hour of my time unfortunately.

I would want the "contract" in writing, though, since that is almost two months salary for me. Shouldn't be a problem, I'm sure we could get some one to write it up. I am more than willing to do this, but I need to make sure it is worth my time.

it'll be worth your time alright, but not financially I fear.

For your other bet, that you would be willing to put ANY amount of money on, I would also accept it, with the following conditions (you've got some weasel words in there that I don't like):

1. I have to make 27 trades (that is how many were on the profit chart you posted earlier). on a $10,000 demo account. I don't know how to quantify "methodically bash[ing] an account," but I would also agree that there has to be at least 10 separate days of trading over at least a twenty day span (again, mirroring your profit chart).

2. At the end of 27 trades, I have to be up more than 2177.22. The "2-5% per day" clause I would reject, because looking at your profit chart, it looks like August 14 saw you close two trades which were over $1000 profit each (that's more like a 20% day!) and August 8 saw you close a whole bunch of minor losers. So even you don't have this "consistent bashing" you claim.

well, see, I was hoping someone would notice this. what you are observing there is a demo testing account for the Nikkei & USDJPY only that switched from taking 1% risk trades, to 3% risk trades and so was going up steadily at the slower rate, then ran into a bad day and a series of +3% losses first, before the higher 3% wins started coming back.

so, no, that particular image does not necessarily represent the ultimate in consistency, but this 2 days old one, which will go up the same next week as this week, surely does..? Day 1 +2% Day 2, +4% locked in, another 3 floating

make a note of the account number, it will not change.

If those were the two conditions of the bet, I would be willing to bet $40,000. That's only about 10 weeks' earnings for you (and really, with the riches you are soon to amass from your iron-clad trading system, it would end up being a drop in a the very big bucket, and a fun little story you tell your other super-wealthy friends - "Man, I remember paying a guy 40 grand over a bet back when I was getting started printing money. Those were the good old days, weren't they chap!" All while sipping champagne at a private beach resort, occasionally looking at your accounts and all the millions you have to blow!)

you're being ridiculous. sorry, but you are. now I really do have to go and do some work for a couple of weeks and will return with a verified small live 500x leverage and get to work on it.

this has nothing to do with you and your offer, others will verify I periodically have to focus elsewhere from time to time, I'd really like to be able to focus on trading only, but not yet.

look forward to your screenshots, keep us informed of your progress and strategies here

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ok, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I have been hoping for.

I accept your bet that I can't open ten accounts, make ten trades on each and not be in profit on any of them. Since you said you would be willing to bet a "decent" sum of money, let's make it $4,000. (i picked that number because it would only be a week's worth of work for you at $100 an hour ((although I notice that number has been revised down from your earlier claim that you charge more than $300 for two hours worth of work)).
I would want the "contract" in writing, though, since that is almost two months salary for me. Shouldn't be a problem, I'm sure we could get some one to write it up. I am more than willing to do this, but I need to make sure it is worth my time.
For your other bet, that you would be willing to put ANY amount of money on, I would also accept it, with the following conditions (you've got some weasel words in there that I don't like):

1. I have to make 27 trades (that is how many were on the profit chart you posted earlier). on a $10,000 demo account. I don't know how to quantify "methodically bash[ing] an account," but I would also agree that there has to be at least 10 separate days of trading over at least a twenty day span (again, mirroring your profit chart).

2. At the end of 27 trades, I have to be up more than 2177.22. The "2-5% per day" clause I would reject, because looking at your profit chart, it looks like August 14 saw you close two trades which were over $1000 profit each (that's more like a 20% day!) and August 8 saw you close a whole bunch of minor losers. So even you don't have this "consistent bashing" you claim.

If those were the two conditions of the bet, I would be willing to bet $40,000. That's only about 10 weeks' earnings for you (and really, with the riches you are soon to amass from your iron-clad trading system, it would end up being a drop in a the very big bucket, and a fun little story you tell your other super-wealthy friends - "Man, I remember paying a guy 40 grand over a bet back when I was getting started printing money. Those were the good old days, weren't they chap!" All while sipping champagne at a private beach resort, occasionally looking at your accounts and all the millions you have to blow!)

I'll bet $4,000 that your offer is rejected. I wonder why?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'll bet $4,000 that your offer is rejected. I wonder why?

but as I still don't think you'll manage it I'll stand with the original $50 and even double it for you, so $100. you're not worth more than an hour of my time unfortunately.

OK, where's my million? Or was it too obvious?

 

[kevsta]

OK, where's my million? Or was it too obvious?

if you want to be a trader you'll have to be quicker than that, you cant wait until the answer is up before you bet.

and you especially like the "I'm richer than you (and so is Buffet)" play too, dont you, irrelevant though it always is, to any subject matter

 

[kevsta]

this is quite funny if you havent seen it.

it made me think I bet I could do that.



ps, in all seriousness, I should caution anyone with an addictive nature, this is not for you.

well, unless youre really serious about wanting to do it, then it could work.

 

[kevsta]

US treasuries play along perfectly too, apparently.

I just drew all over a BOA analyst's technical chart from the post here

mine makes much more sense than his. system unfazed as always. (except bitcoin)

anyway ladies, catch you in a bit.

 

[oifvetforreason]

Instead of putting up youtube videos, you should go read some of the Challenge entries on this site. Your attitude and constantly changing claims when challenged are pretty similar to dowsers.

How can you not understand that claiming that a "2 day old" account represents the ultimate in consistency is irrational?

As far as your $100 challenge, I would gladly do it, except I know I would never get the hundred bucks, and you wouldn't like my "strategy." Since I am not a trader, have never traded, and plan never to trade (casinos are more fun), I wouldn't be able to draw imaginary lines on charts. So my strategy would be to place opposite bets with huge leverage on 2 different demo accounts (I wouldn't need ten, that's for sure), see which one hits, and then place nine extremely small bets with no leverage. You, of course, would say that this isn't a legitimate long term strategy. And you would be right. What everyone here is trying to show you is that your strategy is no different. You think the difference is that you can see patterns in random noise. My opinion is that you cannot. However, you have convinced yourself that a TWO DAY OLD DEMO ACCOUNT is good evidence of overturning a proven concept like the randomness of markets.
The only people getting rich off this type of belief are the people who are selling "strategies" for 300 bucks and then going for the kill with even more expensive seminars. They want you to think that the wins are from their "techniques" and the losses were just "bad execution" on your part. Once they have you believing that, they can't ever be wrong. It's classic woo. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.

 

[kevsta]

Instead of putting up youtube videos, you should go read some of the Challenge entries on this site. Your attitude and constantly changing claims when challenged are pretty similar to dowsers.

How can you not understand that claiming that a "2 day old" account represents the ultimate in consistency is irrational?

no, ok I take your point, but on the other hand you can't know that I really can and have been just doing this to every account the last few weeks. really, nobody's more amazed than me how simple its becoming.

As far as your $100 challenge, I would gladly do it, except I know I would never get the hundred bucks, and you wouldn't like my "strategy." Since I am not a trader, have never traded, and plan never to trade (casinos are more fun), I wouldn't be able to draw imaginary lines on charts. So my strategy would be to place opposite bets with huge leverage on 2 different demo accounts (I wouldn't need ten, that's for sure), see which one hits, and then place nine extremely small bets with no leverage.

whats more I even specifically said that wasn't allowed (one winner and 19 tinys) on the $50 challenge the first time round, they needed to be as though you were actually trading it, because there is no way you would be just leaving a real account wide open to implode, to get into profit, is there. c'mon now be reasonable.

You, of course, would say that this isn't a legitimate long term strategy. And you would be right. What everyone here is trying to show you is that your strategy is no different. You think the difference is that you can see patterns in random noise. My opinion is that you cannot. However, you have convinced yourself that a TWO DAY OLD DEMO ACCOUNT is good evidence of overturning a proven concept like the randomness of markets.

nope, a lot lot lot more than that. and if this hadnt been working day in, day out for months and months, do you think I would be so excited about it? really?

The only people getting rich off this type of belief are the people who are selling "strategies" for 300 bucks and then going for the kill with even more expensive seminars. They want you to think that the wins are from their "techniques" and the losses were just "bad execution" on your part. Once they have you believing that, they can't ever be wrong. It's classic woo. And you've bought it hook, line and sinker.

ok, well you are entitled to your opinion, but I think you're 100% wrong. there are no expensive seminars, and one on one training is probably better before youve lost all your money to be honest, I never needed it though.

added in. also on the "execution / system fail" no, again absolutely wrong, that is entirely my methodology, early on I decided it was necessary to classify the difference, ie completely wrong on direction never going to work, or just hit my stoploss by 3 pips and then ran +120. there is quite a difference, you know. how else would you test the optimum stop levels over time on a pair?

In fact I only mentioned them at all because I wanted to make clear I wasn't claiming it was my system or anything. Time will tell. I was shown basic principles by them, and then like always, taught myself the rest. I hardly attend anymore because I don't need to, and they spend most of their time with the brandnoobs trying to stop them doing stupid things with real money lol.

on the other hand, then you do have to admit then, you are arguing from complete ignorance on the subject, don't you. How about you have a go with one account anyway, just to know yourself, you dont have to tell me or the world about it I'd almost open you a $100 micro account to play with I'd like you to try it so much. almost.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

About those waves...

From the Elliott Wave Theory Wikipedia page:

Criticism

The premise that markets unfold in recognizable patterns contradicts the efficient market hypothesis, which states that prices cannot be predicted from market data such as moving averages and volume. By this reasoning, if successful market forecasts were possible, investors would buy (or sell) when the method predicted a price increase (or decrease), to the point that prices would rise (or fall) immediately, thus destroying the profitability and predictive power of the method. In efficient markets, knowledge of the Elliott Wave Principle among traders would lead to the disappearance of the very patterns they tried to anticipate, rendering the method, and all forms of technical analysis, useless.

Benoit Mandelbrot has questioned whether Elliott waves can predict financial markets:
But Wave prediction is a very uncertain business. It is an art to which the subjective judgement of the chartists matters more than the objective, replicable verdict of the numbers. The record of this, as of most technical analysis, is at best mixed.

Robert Prechter had previously stated that ideas in an article by Mandelbrot "originated with Ralph Nelson Elliott, who put them forth more comprehensively and more accurately with respect to real-world markets in his 1938 book The Wave Principle."

Critics also warn the wave principle is too vague to be useful, since it cannot consistently identify when a wave begins or ends, and that Elliott wave forecasts are prone to subjective revision. Some who advocate technical analysis of markets have questioned the value of Elliott wave analysis. Technical analyst David Aronson wrote: The Elliott Wave Principle, as popularly practiced, is not a legitimate theory, but a story, and a compelling one that is eloquently told by Robert Prechter. The account is especially persuasive because EWP has the seemingly remarkable ability to fit any segment of market history down to its most minute fluctuations. I contend this is made possible by the method's loosely defined rules and the ability to postulate a large number of nested waves of varying magnitude. This gives the Elliott analyst the same freedom and flexibility that allowed pre-Copernican astronomers to explain all observed planet movements even though their underlying theory of an Earth-centered universe was wrong.



Me again: does that not echo themes that a lot of us have been pointing out?

 

[oifvetforreason]

nope, a lot lot lot more than that. and if this hadnt been working day in, day out for months and months, do you think I would be so excited about it? really?

I think if you had months and months of evidence to show us, you would have. I didn't post that profit chart. You did. And I have to believe that you would have posted one that made your system look more consistent if you had it. But I doubt you do, and I doubt you will. You will continue to start new demo accounts, and talk about them when they are confirming your bias, and then discard them when they no longer do. Do you have an update on the chart you posted earlier with 27 trades? How is that demo account doing now?

 

[ThunderChunky]

this is quite funny if you havent seen it.

it made me think I bet I could do that.



ps, in all seriousness, I should caution anyone with an addictive nature, this is not for you.

well, unless youre really serious about wanting to do it, then it could work.

Video is too long for me to watch, does he tech his trainees to use technical analysis and do you know if the original TurtleTraders used technical analysis?

 

[stevea]

Been away for a bit, sorry I havent participated, nor do I have time or inclination to read 11pgs of posts. I must say that I like the thread a lot. In post#1 ...

[...] Trading introduces you to powerful emotions you might never have felt before, and certainly not in this context (unless you are progressing from gambling addiction ) , and many defer to their reptilian brain to actually make their decisions, while deluding themselves that they are acting logically. (I have been this retail trader and been caught in every way possible) It is actually incredibly difficult to retrain yourself to buy low and sell high, as the human psyche is programmed to chase moves, not press the buy button while the price is plummeting. I previously have illustrated this exact moment [...]

That is very well said. Altho' I'm an investor and not a day trader - the tendency to engage one's emotional side (both in trades and analysis) is so strong that it's quite challenging to avoid. The wife doesn't seem to appreciate that the pointless nag over a broken garden hose can translate to massive financial mistakes.

Let me suggest a few things that may have already been considered.

The high ~70% failure rate among retail investors may be nothing more than a random walk beyond their account limits. Like approaching a $20 ante poker game w/ $100 in assets - your chance of failure is not merely determined by skill and chance of the draw.

In less regulated markets, esp ones not regulated with small-fry as a significant consideration - yes its possible/probable that the large players will manipulate prices to their benefit. (And yes you can use this to your advantage if true).

Market prices are always discontinuous functions so to expect a linear or analog result is not reasonable. When there are fewer traders (fewer trades) we expect the discontinuities to be more dramatic.

Systems for successfully day trading do exist and are real, but perhaps the success will be temporary. Obviously these schemes successfully model *something* about these markets, but to expect an explanation, is a step beyond the evidence. So I find technical analysis, Elliot Wave principles and other forms of numerology to be fairly misguided, except that they *seem* to capture some *limited* aspects of system behavior. Beware that all of these fail to provide generalized explanations and are only schemas that seem to work in certain regimes.

I didn't see where you showed evidence that any retail forex traders CONSISTENTLY win. Are the 30% of winning trades evenly distributed across retail investors or clustered among 'winners' ?

If I were you I'd also reconsider whether attacking Forex is a bright move. It's certainly bold, and that has emotional appeal, ego gratification - which is exactly what we want to avoid. As an investor I'm searching for market inefficiencies with some transparency. I'm looking for risk adjusted returns that make comparative sense. You seem to be approaching a less transparent (opaque as you put it), highly efficient market. It's a great deal if you can crack the code, but ... I wouldn't bet a lot on your chances. Your successes may ultimately impact the utility of your method.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Well reasoned and well stated post.

In less regulated markets, esp ones not regulated with small-fry as a significant consideration - yes its possible/probable that the large players will manipulate prices to their benefit. (And yes you can use this to your advantage if true).

I may have posted this before, but earlier this year the Radiolab podcast did an episode on "Speed". The entire podcast is worth a listen, but especially the segment on computerized trading.

http://www.radiolab.org/2013/feb/05/

This should point to the segment itself:

http://www.radiolab.org/audio/m3u/267195/

If computers are involved in market manipulation, it remains a very profound question whether a speculator monitoring charts in "meatspace" time can ever tease out the machinations of computers that are manipulating in computer time.

Also, an interesting discussion of that episode here:

http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blogland/2013/feb/06/fast-cash-flash-crash-mad-dash-clash/

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If computers are involved in market manipulation, it remains a very profound question whether a speculator monitoring charts in "meatspace" time can ever tease out the machinations of computers that are manipulating in computer time.

Without knowing the algorithms, no.

And, trust me, they don't know the algorithms.

 

[kevsta]

Been away for a bit, sorry I havent participated, nor do I have time or inclination to read 11pgs of posts. I must say that I like the thread a lot. In post#1 ...

thank you, I was rather hoping someone somewhere would, (publicly, anyway, thanks to those who have PMed) although as I thought you had me on ignore at one point, I never thought it would be you

That is very well said. Altho' I'm an investor and not a day trader - the tendency to engage one's emotional side (both in trades and analysis) is so strong that it's quite challenging to avoid.

it's as good as impossible, in my experience. I find trading things that I have no innate bias about helps a lot though, in the same way I only want to take longs on gold and shorts on the S&P, I have no innate biases about FX pairs and can trade in either direction as per the red and blue lines ONLY.

The wife doesn't seem to appreciate that the pointless nag over a broken garden hose can translate to massive financial mistakes.

no, they're like that, aren't they? although to be fair, if we were doing it properly, then there should be no way that can happen.

Let me suggest a few things that may have already been considered.

The high ~70% failure rate among retail investors may be nothing more than a random walk beyond their account limits. Like approaching a $20 ante poker game w/ $100 in assets - your chance of failure is not merely determined by skill and chance of the draw.

yes, very true, I have been relearning this lesson this week in fact, due to the limitations of position sizing imposed by a very small account at very high leverage. scaling in and out of positions with different sized tranches is only possible if I want to trade at 5%+ per trade risk and above, and Im not comfortable with that using real money.

In less regulated markets, esp ones not regulated with small-fry as a significant consideration - yes its possible/probable that the large players will manipulate prices to their benefit. (And yes you can use this to your advantage if true).

I concur, through close observation and testing of my own, primarily.

It also seems completely obvious to me that if major institutions are trading their own books whilst processing large order flow for customers every day, that they can affect the price by temporarily processing (eg more sells than buys) and then take their own BUY own positions at the new lower prices (from other traders stoplosses - sell orders)

Market prices are always discontinuous functions so to expect a linear or analog result is not reasonable. When there are fewer traders (fewer trades) we expect the discontinuities to be more dramatic.

was this addressing my questions about "Gaps" ? this is one of the most mystical phenomena I see, check this from a few minutes ago on cable GBPUSD

one of the largest and most liquid FX pairs in the world, just "happens" to gap past the 200ema (world most widely watched moving average) - that's a 14 pip gap and most retail shorting there might have been using 10-15pips. once again, it IS interesting how gaps always seem to run in line with my perceived cycles, isnt it?

how many retail do you think were looking at that thinking "L3 reversal here", rather than "short at the 200ema, in line with trend" ? I bet it's less than 10%, and the Trend wasn't their "Friend" then was it?

irritatingly (as always) I am long EURUSD instead of Cable, and EURGBP dived as Cable spiked so the EURUSD hasnt done the same, yet. (When EURGBP bounces again the relative movement on Cable and EUR reverses)

Systems for successfully day trading do exist and are real

Prove it (joke)

Obviously these schemes successfully model *something* about these markets, but to expect an explanation, is a step beyond the evidence. So I find technical analysis, Elliot Wave principles and other forms of numerology to be fairly misguided, except that they *seem* to capture some *limited* aspects of system behavior. Beware that all of these fail to provide generalized explanations and are only schemas that seem to work in certain regimes.

I do agree completely about ALL retail trader methodology, it is a joke, worse than useless, I believe it is the facade that is promoted while the real business goes on continuously underneath, chewing up fresh new traders every single week.

As a retail trader, you have to ask yourself a few "Whys"

1. Why has my broker paid over $100k per annum for an MT4 licence?
2. Why do they (often) employ high pressure sales staff to induct and "teach" you?
3. Why are they prepared to give me leverage of 500x the sum I can come up with?
4. Why do they promote super-simple basic "education" - candle patterns etc?
5. Why do they warn me in their TOS to not believe anything they tell me, and that my losses can be their wins?
6. <CT ON>why do they have a button on their side of MT4 that allows them to hit all stops to a pre-programmed number? (seen slides of it in a video)</CT>

but really this system is based primarily on probability.

1. there is always a decent probability of 3 pushes, followed by one counter-push, in every single timescale
2. there is ALWAYS the stop-taking at (through) previous highs or lows before a major reversal.
3. As shown here, there IS a very high probability of price breaking through, and then reversing on our high probability lines, only if it reverses ON the line, exactly as we are looking for, should we be trading. (its not always like this, obviously)

So if people could show me countless examples of series of 2, 4 and 5 pushes, (not including Bitcoin) and price reversal without first taking out traders stops in the other direction, I might be persuadable, but if /when these things exist, they are the exceptions, the rule is very much as I have demonstrated here: 1,2,3, 1..

So the essence of it is this, IMO. There ARE stopruns before major reversals, every. single. time.

So the who / what / why although interesting, are not important, because successful identification of a stoprun through a likely low or high point where traders will have the stop orders clustered, DOES have a high probability of reversing there. whether it hangs around there for another day to let a new lot of orders build up, then hits them (me) again in the middle of the night before then doing exactly what I had bet it was going to, IS another question entirely.

I didn't see where you showed evidence that any retail forex traders CONSISTENTLY win. Are the 30% of winning trades evenly distributed across retail investors or clustered among 'winners' ?

No, I didn't, but I think the figures are more like 90% lose, and I cant find any stats about consistent winners (apart from the Forex marketmakers 100% trading quarters) which is one of the things that makes me deeply suspicious, how can chance, be SO difficult to beat? surely it should be more like 50/50?

If I were you I'd also reconsider whether attacking Forex is a bright move.

every day, I do this, but thanks anyway

It's certainly bold, and that has emotional appeal, ego gratification - which is exactly what we want to avoid.

well it's also potentially a very high paying job if I can get there, with potential for returns way beyond what I could hope for, from investing with the smallish amount of money I have as savings.

As an investor I'm searching for market inefficiencies with some transparency.

er, yea.. it's my turn to say good luck with that

I'm looking for risk adjusted returns that make comparative sense. You seem to be approaching a less transparent (opaque as you put it), highly efficient market. It's a great deal if you can crack the code, but ... I wouldn't bet a lot on your chances. Your successes may ultimately impact the utility of your method.

Yes, I cant really argue with any of this. It's certainly efficient alright, at getting just past your stoploss point before reversing and going without you. The more I watch this (probably 3000 hours close observation by now, maybe more even) the more certain I become that it is NOT chance.

But irritatingly, whether ultimately I can best such an efficient system is much more to do with me, than it, at this point.

 

[kevsta]

About those waves...

From the Elliott Wave Theory Wikipedia page:

Criticism..

ok, I am not arguing that Elliott Wave is correct, far from it. On page 1, post 4 I said that "the 3 wave cycle is what Elliott has been trying to crack with his nonsense all these years." I also said a bit later on about it somewhere that: "you are always trying to work out whether it is a "B" wave extension or the D wave back down, and it only works in hindsight." this is just his attempt at defining and explaining the visible movement, and it is wrong, I am not in any way endorsing Elliot Wave.

however I personally do not put much value in the "Efficient market Hypothesis" either, through reading, from observation, and through being able to profit from basic cyclical behavior with slowly increasing efficiency with practice and time.

although there is zero doubt that the Forex market is superbly efficient at doing what it is supposed to do, and that is taking your money.

Here is what I think the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" means. It is almost impossible to win at a 50/50 bet except by taking trades from very few places, that's pretty efficient, eh, I bet some of those casinos wish they were this good.

The premise that markets unfold in recognizable patterns contradicts the efficient market hypothesis, which states that prices cannot be predicted from market data such as moving averages and volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis

Investors and researchers have disputed the efficient-market hypothesis both empirically and theoretically. Behavioral economists attribute the imperfections in financial markets to a combination of cognitive biases such as overconfidence, overreaction, representative bias, information bias, and various other predictable human errors in reasoning and information processing.

These have been researched by psychologists such as Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, Richard Thaler, and Paul Slovic. These errors in reasoning lead most investors to avoid value stocks and buy growth stocks at expensive prices, which allow those who reason correctly to profit from bargains in neglected value stocks and the overreacted selling of growth stocks.[citation needed]

A key work on random walk was done in the late 1980s by Profs. Andrew Lo and Craig MacKinlay; they effectively argue that a random walk does not exist, nor ever has.[32]
Their paper took almost two years to be accepted by academia and in 1999 they published "A Non-random Walk Down Wall St." which collects their research papers on the topic up to that time.

Economists Matthew Bishop and Michael Green claim that full acceptance of the hypothesis goes against the thinking of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, who both believed irrational behavior had a real impact on the markets.[33]
....

Late 2000s financial crisis

The financial crisis of 2007–2012 has led to renewed scrutiny and criticism of the hypothesis.[37] Market strategist Jeremy Grantham has stated flatly that the EMH is responsible for the current financial crisis, claiming that belief in the hypothesis caused financial leaders to have a "chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles breaking".[2]

Noted financial journalist Roger Lowenstein blasted the theory, declaring "The upside of the current Great Recession is that it could drive a stake through the heart of the academic nostrum known as the efficient-market hypothesis."[3] Former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker chimed in, saying it's "clear that among the causes of the recent financial crisis was an unjustified faith in rational expectations [and] market efficiencies."[38]

translation, practice, is not the same as theory, which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.

Me again: does that not echo memes that a lot of us have been pointing out?

ftfy?

the basic fact is nobody "officially" understands how the markets work and there are lots of theories that are accepted as fact by the vast majority who have never actually been involved at the daily price movement connected-directly-to-your-bank-account end.

and as all everybody else's theories seem to do is make excuses for why it cannot be done, while the indisputable evidence is that it is being done, very successfully by a small group (the winners) who are on the other side of a very large group of loser's trades, daily, and what's more I am certain I can see how, and sometimes replicate.

so as far as I am concerned, until something changes my end, it can be done. so I'm more interested in the actual phenomena that are making it possible, than whether it is possible or not.

the really hilarious thing about it, is that IMO it can only be done, by treating it like a game of Pacman, just red and blue spikes trying their utmost to get you all the time, with me standing at the edges of the range firing 5 or 10:1 shots back at them, and hopefully hitting anywhere near a 50/50 win loss rate. But the very simple fact that this can only be achieved by forgetting everything I ever thought was true and playing the very simple game in front of me, kind of says it all.

 

[psionl0]

[qimg]http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/1377259306-clip-31kb.png[/qimg]

I don't understand any of the notes on that chart.

 

[kevsta]

I don't understand any of the notes on that chart.

once again, you really need to be in trader mindset, to get it.

say you have been watching GBPUSD sliding yesterday, and think its going to go further down, and activate a short earlier this morning?

the gap up past the 200ema will have hit your stoploss unless youre using a very wide one, but the bigger your stoploss, the bigger the risk you are exposed to?

average retail trader stoploss for close in trades (5min chart etc) is 6-15 pips. so a 14 pip gap against you took your money and you lost?

then retail see it breaking out upwards instead, there are a million different retail strategies but they basically (nearly) all involve getting onto moves once they start and so the buying starts coming in as price heads upwards..

so say you (or any of a few million you's) got stopped out on the short, now see it rushing upwards and hit "Buy" instead? now price runs into an immediate wall of selling and now the real move of the day starts. this is how the market moves, Hit the stops, hit the stops, pop/drop. always, and forever, with only slight variations between markets.

and lets think about what happened with that gap? if we are to assume that it's just normal market activity, somebody (or bodies) somewhere, between them managed to drop an order/s of such immense size that one of the top 2 currency pairs IN THE WORLD gapped 0.15% instantaneously?

How many hundred billion do we think it would take to do that and who really has the weight to be able to do that? and then, these highly rich and powerful uberlords having bought (say) £500billion GBP (and sold dollars) in less than an hour later are now 65 pips (0.65%) UNDERWATER. my calculator makes that $3,25 billion ?

so do we really think this trading was done with their own money? or maybe just occasionally processing order flow in a way that suits themselves best?

edit, 500 billion is obviously way too high, thats 1/10th of the total daily market volume, but thats a good few billion to do that, IMO

 

[Fast Eddie B]

So if people could show me countless examples of series of 2, 4 and 5 pushes, (not including Bitcoin) and price reversal without first taking out traders stops in the other direction, I might be persuadable, but if /when these things exist, they are the exceptions, the rule is very much as I have demonstrated here: 1,2,3, 1..

I tried to do that in my prior post where I honestly could not discern why you had defined "pushes" in what seemed to be an arbitrary manner. IOW, some extended pushes could have been broken into two or more and I saw what looked like pushes as valid as any others glossed over and ignored.

It reminded me of a "Bull***t" episode where various Feng Shui experts were shown the same room and each confidently made proclamations about where the energy was strongest and the like.

The critique I linked to did mention that subjectivity in discerning what a "wave" was made its usefulness as a predictor questionable. I think the same thing applies to your "pushes".

Which does not, of course, mean they're not there. But I still hold that as soon as the patterns are clearly seen, more people will start acting on them which will dilute the effect until its refined, and so on.

BTW, have we chosen one real money account to track over time? If so, how is it doing right now? And remember how bad my memory is when responding!