# $5000 to $50000 in two years - let the odyssey begin



## damok (29 August 2006)

First time poster, and to be honest just discovered the forum tonight.... but enjoying the learning process.

So a bit about my plan.  I have signed up for the SITM Smarter Starter Pack and am doing the course this weekend.  Now after reading some of the forums I had second thoughts for a while, but I stand by that decision.  I guess my rational is that 4 weeks ago I knew nothing about shares, now I have a reasonable idea of the mechanics.  I understand the trading system that they propose, and it works well in my head.  Outlaying the $4000 hurt a bit, but I figure that I will have the skills the rest of my life, and considering how much uni costs... well it doesn't sound so bad in perspective.  Plus that outlay certainly inspires me to learn the material!!

So, I have just submitted the application for my CDIA Commsec account, which I guess I will only need to use for trading execution (the SITM software seems to tell me everything else I need as to when to enter/exit the trade).  I'm starting with $5000, will invest a further $500 per fortnight (alloted from my salary) and hope to have $50000 in two years.  

Now I'm not sure if this is a realistic goal or not.  I have papertraded, and I've had some success.  Though I have not made a single real trade as yet.  My calculations would require me to make an annual return of about 40% to achieve my goal (happy to be corrected, I'm no maths guru).  Once again, I'm not sure if this is a little over confident.

I intend to to trade purely in shares for the first six months or so before transitioning to either Options or CFD's.  I'm quite happy with leverage and managing risk with stop losses.  I would spend the first six months getting a better 'feel' for the market, getting my trading plan just right, and learning as much as possible (probably from you guys) on higher leverage trading.

I (like many) am attracted to the idea of only spending a couple of hours a day, wherever I am in the world trading shares.  I fully appreciate that $50000 isn't a good capital base to plan to retire on or invest professionally - if it extends my holiday in Rio from one year to two, then I would be more than happy!

So my questions are: 
*is this a realistic goal?
*is 40% expecting too much?
*what does a competent trader working with CFDs or Options expect as an annual return?
*how much time would your average swing trader need to spend per day trading (VERY subjective I know, or how much time do YOU spend trading)?

over to you and your expertise!

cheers,
damok


----------



## carmo (29 August 2006)

Good luck, have you ever heard of Territory Bonds


----------



## damok (29 August 2006)

thanks! and no i haven't.


----------



## bunyip (29 August 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> First time poster, and to be honest just discovered the forum tonight.... but enjoying the learning process.
> 
> So a bit about my plan.  I have signed up for the SITM Smarter Starter Pack and am doing the course this weekend.  Now after reading some of the forums I had second thoughts for a while, but I stand by that decision.  I guess my rational is that 4 weeks ago I knew nothing about shares, now I have a reasonable idea of the mechanics.  I understand the trading system that they propose, and it works well in my head.  Outlaying the $4000 hurt a bit, but I figure that I will have the skills the rest of my life, and considering how much uni costs... well it doesn't sound so bad in perspective.  Plus that outlay certainly inspires me to learn the material!!
> 
> ...




damok

I don't want to rain on your parade, but if you can possibly do it I'd advise returning the Starter Pack for a full refund. Four grand is highway robbery for a system that simply buys dips during uptrends, and shorts rallies during downtrends. Not that there's anything wrong with such a system, it's just that you can learn it for less than 10 bucks.
How? Go to 'Pro Trader' website and purchase Frank Watkins booklet 'Darvis Box Trading'....it'll cost you about $8.
I don't know if SITM's 4 grand deal includes software, but even if it does, it's still a rip off. Good trading software can be bought for prices ranging from about $300 to $900.

Your 40% per year return is unfortunately an unrealistic expectation for a new chum trader. You'll be far above average if you can achieve half that return in your first couple of years.
Once you learn your craft then yes, 40% is achievable, but you have little chance of achieving that sort of return initially.

Bunyip


----------



## rex (29 August 2006)

Damok

Bunyips reply is of the highest of quality.

SITM is a complete joke. Paying $4,000 is as bunyip said, highway robbery.

You must realise that the best systems are simple. Frank Watkins perhaps teaches the most simple strategies in the world, and I would place a bet with anyone that his approach makes more money than any other system.

SITM make it all seem too easy and good to be true, a real expert will never come across like this. They simply make their living ripping suckers off who pay ridiculous prices for their software (no offence)

Of course huge returns are possible but it takes years and hard work.  I advise you ditch the smarter pack and get the refund, I have seen many people go down your road, it inevitably leads to disaster

Rex


----------



## michael_selway (29 August 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> Damok
> 
> Bunyips reply is of the highest of quality.
> 
> ...




Not only that, but a big recession may be coming, so u may get a negative return!

http://www.depression2007.com/

thx
MS


----------



## MichaelD (29 August 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> So my questions are:
> *is this a realistic goal?
> *is 40% expecting too much?
> *what does a competent trader working with CFDs or Options expect as an annual return?
> *how much time would your average swing trader need to spend per day trading (VERY subjective I know, or how much time do YOU spend trading)?



For the great majority of people, the answers are;
Realistic goal: no.
Is 40% expecting too much: yes
Competent annual return: dependent on system traded
Time trading: I don't swing trade, but spend about 15-30 minutes per day on my real system and a further 1 hour paper trading two other systems I'm trialling. I've also spent probably 30-40 hours per week for the last 6 months on learning and system development and expect to spend much more time on this.

A realistic goal for a new trader is to learn to control your losses first, then when/if you work that out, the profits will come as a side effect of trading well.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 August 2006)

Hey Damok,
                In reference to the 40% ....the most I have seen one mob go up in 48 hours was 550%.Not often and you need the gear to find them.(Which I don`t have).


----------



## wavepicker (29 August 2006)

michael_selway said:
			
		

> Not only that, but a big recession may be coming, so u may get a negative return!
> 
> http://www.depression2007.com/
> 
> ...




was that site not called www.depression2006.com last year???


----------



## RichKid (29 August 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> ...........
> I don't know if SITM's 4 grand deal includes software, but even if it does, it's still a rip off. Good trading software can be bought for prices ranging from about $300 to $900.
> 
> Your 40% per year return is unfortunately an unrealistic expectation for a new chum trader. You'll be far above average if you can achieve half that return in your first couple of years.
> ...




I wish you luck Damok but bunyip is right imo, it'll be a rarity if you make your target from what I've heard, you can get some great software from www.Egoli.com.au (or search ASF for others resources) for free and imho a $4k SITM is nowhere near a uni degree or some time spent on your own studying it from freely available books and forums like this. Let us know how you go though.


----------



## RichKid (29 August 2006)

wavepicker said:
			
		

> was that not site called www.depression2006.com last year???




I recall seeing the material posted there sometime earlier, not sure what the url was, it was referred to elsewhere on ASF...guess it's like Armageddon ('the end')....but as markets move in cycles this bull run will end at some stage and then we'll have another one much later.


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

RichKid said:
			
		

> I recall seeing the material posted there sometime earlier, not sure what the url was, it was referred to elsewhere on ASF...guess it's like Armageddon ('the end')....but as markets move in cycles this bull run will end at some stage and then we'll have another one much later.




In my opinion the bull run ended 4 months ago.


----------



## banamate (30 August 2006)

Damok, I signed up for the SITM starters pack and went through their material and software for 4 weeks before the seminar dates. I was new to share trading like you and felt comfortable with the knowledge gained from these. But then I read reviews similiar to the ones in this thread. This got me wary of the decision and I did bit more research on the internet and forums. I also attended 2.5hrs of the first seminar day (I had the option of a refund by 12:00pm of the first day) For the 2.5 hrs I was presented with glorified rag to riches stories of the presenters. The course contents at best could be described as for a beginner ($4K is a steep price for a beginners course). The sucess stories of David were good for advertisement but starter's pack won't get you there. After the starters pack SITM will try to sell their advanced course costing $8000 and then further advanced course of $20K. I backed out at 11:30pm and am so glad that i made that decision. 

I bought Frank's protrader and am happy with it. I also use incredible charts - free software. On learning side, I bought Leon Wilson's Business of Share Trading and Guppy's trend trading. Both are excellent books. Also, there is plenty of material on the web. A couple of good sites - www.incrediblecharts.com and www.investopedia.com. 

If you are bought on gann's methodology, then your money will be better spent on buying a software based on his methodology such as hottrader or market analyst. I don't own these or use them but I researched them when Gann was all I 'knew' through SITM. 
I eventually decided on learning other basic before coming back to Gann so I looked for other softwares and ended with Protrader.

Good luck with whatever you decide.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (30 August 2006)

Damok,

I couldn`t resist.


> First time poster, and to be honest just discovered the forum tonight.... but enjoying the learning process.




Welcome!  



> So a bit about my plan.  I have signed up for the SITM Smarter Starter Pack and am doing the course this weekend.  Now after reading some of the forums I had second thoughts for a while, but I stand by that decision.  I guess my rationale  is that 4 weeks ago I knew nothing about shares, now I have a reasonable idea of the mechanics.  I understand the trading system that they propose, and it works well in my head.  Outlaying the $4000 hurt a bit, but I figure that I will have the skills the rest of my life, and considering how much uni costs... well it doesn't sound so bad in perspective.  Plus that outlay certainly inspires me to learn the material!!




Judgemental bias. Does it actually work in reality not just in your head?
Sounds like you won`t buy skills just a system and software.



> So, I have just submitted the application for my CDIA Commsec account, which I guess I will only need to use for trading execution (the SITM software seems to tell me everything else I need as to when to enter/exit the trade).  I'm starting with $5000, will invest a further $500 per fortnight (alloted from my salary) and hope to have $50000 in two years.




So it is a system. What are its assumptions?



> I intend to trade purely in shares for the first six months or so before transitioning to either Options or CFD's.  I'm quite happy with leverage and managing risk with stop losses.  I would spend the first six months getting a better 'feel' for the market, getting my trading plan just right, and learning as much as possible (probably from you guys) on higher leverage trading.




Why would that be necessary?  Maybe, rushed in my opinion.



> I (like many) am attracted to the idea of only spending a couple of hours a day, wherever I am in the world trading shares.  I fully appreciate that $50000 isn't a good capital base to plan to retire on or invest professionally - if it extends my holiday in Rio from one year to two, then I would be more than happy!




Sadly, many aspire to be more, but bomb out from events.



> So my questions are:
> *is this a realistic goal?
> *is 40% expecting too much?
> *what does a competent trader working with CFDs or Options expect as an annual return?
> *how much time would your average swing trader need to spend per day trading (VERY subjective I know, or how much time do YOU spend trading)?




Only you can answer these - too varied. What are your daily goals etc?

Have fun..
Snake


----------



## swingstar (30 August 2006)

1. Watch https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4158

2. Get a refund


----------



## stink (30 August 2006)

Hey Mate,

I am a nooby to trading as well mate, however the biggest problem i have with your post is the title. Now i am sure based on your experience that this idea has been put in your head by the company in question.

There is no system mate! period, some of the guys on here have developed there own systems that trade profitably (Tech/a and others) but they are professionals and have been at this game many years.

I to had the same problem when i first wanted to get into trading, "how do i learn?" I spent alot of money, more than your 4k and that was my own decision and against some of the recommendations on this forum. The reason i did so was i bought an education.
I got 12 months training (Classroom)
Oniline training and support for basically as long as i want
Advanced courses on options blah blah waiting for me when i am ready.
A full trading platform that IMO is excellent (i have trialled a couple and they not half as good)
An online trade management program where i buy and sell etc etc and monitors my accounts and all that jazz.
24hr support on the software and lifetime downloads and updates
Mentoring from real traders whenever i want it.

Since doing this the company has not once made any claims about how much you can make. At the training i have attended so far i have been able to speak with other members that have been with the company for awhile and they all have good reports mate and keep coming back.

Now its true i am sure there are books out there that can tell you how to trade, different methods etc. This was no good for me at the start because i am not the kind of person to dive into the market based on a book i have read, spending the money the way i have has given me the motivation to learn because.
1. I spent alot of money so want to get my moneys worth
2. I am confident that if you dont rush and look, listen and learn mate. You can be successful at trading.

When you can see the trading opportunities yourself and execute the trade and come out on top, thats a great feeling. And when a trade goes against you and you go back and analyse it and can see why you shouldnt have entered the trade in the first place, again a great feeling. Will your system teach you that?

I must say the profit i have made thus far from the market is only on paper, but it is real just no $ exchanged.

It comes down to you making your own decision and being comfortable with it, i just say that unless they are teaching you how to trade from the basics then its a waste.

By the way i am not recommending you do the course i did, just wanted to give you my experience so far.

Good Luck Mate
Stink


----------



## damok (30 August 2006)

A crisis of faith – somewhat urgent

I am having a crisis of faith as to wether to follow through with the training.  In short I can get a full refund if I choose to hand back all of the course by lunch time of the first day of the residential training – this Saturday.

Here is my current mindset.  I have learnt a heap in the past month or so going through the course materials.  I understand the system, and through paper trading see that it does work at least some of the time (how much I can’t really say).  

I am a little disappointed by the customer support from SITM.  This is one of the major selling points of the package, but to be honest I don’t believe I will use it much in the future.

As I said I have gone through all of the material, and every impression I get is that the two days will only re-affirm what is in there.  Whilst I might be a little over confident, I don’t think I need to go over how to construct swing charts and identify ABC points.

Finally - the software.  Obviously the software is highly customised to suit the ABC system, and it basically does the ‘hard’ work for you.  

So considering all of the above, the only reason that I should not get a refund is for:
*Moral reasons because I feel I have learnt a lot (I’m not so morally bound, praise to capitalist society)
*Future development and support (that I feel has been lacking and can be subsided by forums such as this)
*Re-affirm the lessons learnt (but I don’t think I need this)
*Keep the software (which is the main sticking point)

So in many ways it is: is this software worth $4000?  Almost all of you will say no, and I would agree.

Are there any specific software products that will make it as simple as what the SITM ABC Software makes it.  My preferences would be (in lessening order):
*Make swing charts (day, 3 day and weekly preferably)
*Automatically identify entry points (of defined criteria, or similar/identical as that of SITM – a genuine higher bottom after a genuine higher top)
*Affordable
*Available on Mac

I need to make this decision on Friday night (prior to attendance of seminar).  It would be great if you can suggest any software (that I could trial in the next couple of days) that meets the purpose.  Any other readings and recommendations (I have read them from the previous posts) would also be appreciated.

Many thanks
damok


----------



## Joe Blow (30 August 2006)

Damok, no need to create a separate thread for your last post. Lets keep it all in this thread please.

Thanks!


----------



## stink (30 August 2006)

hmm quite the conundrum mate!

you know what i think so i will leave it to someone else.

Cheers Stink


----------



## TraderPro (30 August 2006)

Is the software worth $4000?

It depends... Personally I would say no. I have never bought a product like it... But for the countless others who have it may have been worth it...

SITM is a business... they've been around for years... it it were a scam, then they would have been eliminated a long time ago...

$4000 is the price of knowledge.

I gather that most of the people in this forum (and myself) have picked up trading either naturally or learning from their own mistakes and educating themselves through books, mentors and experience...

I believe that the markets aren't for everybody... some people just can't handle the risk... etc... 

=====



> I intend to trade purely in shares for the first six months or so before transitioning to either Options or CFD's. I'm quite happy with leverage and managing risk with stop losses. I would spend the first six months getting a better 'feel' for the market, getting my trading plan just right, and learning as much as possible (probably from you guys) on higher leverage trading.




When I first started trading I was excited as hell... I wanted to do everything... I had vast plans... that was until I found my own niche in trading and I stuck to it ever since...



> I'm starting with $5000, will invest a further $500 per fortnight (alloted from my salary) and hope to have $50000 in two years.




So over two years your pot will be $5000+$13000+$13000 = $31,000

At $5,000 - how much are you going to invest?
Based on the 2% rule you can only invest $100 at a time... So I guess you will be risking the whole lot on one share. If you choose to spread yourself further and trade 2 or three shares - that will simply be a diversification strategy and it will just slow your progress (IMHO). If you risk the whole lot...  and the shares fall, then your capital base is seriously eroded...

Maybe your best bet is to simply put it into a high interest account...

But if you're willing... go try the markets...

Is the goal realistic? Well coming from you it seems to be a dream, to other traders it may be just another day at the office 

Good Luck.


----------



## GreatPig (30 August 2006)

Damok,

One thing to ask yourself about the software: if it can generate a return of about 40% pa with little effort, why are those guys putting in so much time and effort promoting and selling it for a measly $4K when they could be trading with it instead and spending most of their time lazing on the beach?

If I had a system that gave that sort of return regularly, I certainly wouldn't be telling anyone else about it. I'd be up to my neck in margin loans and derivatives just counting the cash as it rolled in!

GP


----------



## Fugazi (30 August 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> *Available on Mac




Probably the minor point in the scheme of things, but I'm having a mare trying to find some decent charting software for Mac, especially Intel. I've given up and installed boot camp, and I'm going to give Parallels a go. If you do come across any good software please let me know - Windows on my MacBook Pro really is a last resort.


----------



## dubiousinfo (30 August 2006)

You have stated that your starting capital is $5,000.
If you dont do the course, you save $4,000 dollars and your starting capital  is $9,000.
Thats a return of 80%. 
Sounds like a good investment decision to me


----------



## clowboy (30 August 2006)

I remember reading on the forums somewhere that Nick Radge tutors people on a one on one basis.  Does he still do this?  If so what is the cost?

I guess it would be far higher than the 4k you are planing to spend on this software and it would probally involve moving to queensland (i think that is where he lives) but I would personally much rather spend the money on something like that than some "software".

I am far from experienced or professional etc etc but from my limited understanding if you have what it takes to trade sucessfully then you would be able to do it with a newsparer, some graph paper and a pen.  Yes it would be very time consumming but my point is that it is not the software that maketh the trader.


----------



## Milk Man (30 August 2006)

I'll tell you my story. I first started reading books on trading about two years ago after I got info on a different expensive program. It was twice as dear so that was a no-brainer not to buy. Then I found ASF to help seek out a profitable method. After about 15mths? here I got the confidence to trade a method I had concocted. The system has been running about 2 months now and I am 12k in the black on 50k outlay (could well be $1200 off $5000 coz its forex trading  ).  This is well within the blueprint of the system. Risk is an acceptable 3% per trade. Takes about 15-20 mins out of my day.

What has it cost me? (All what I needed anyways  )
Amibroker software: $250
My system programmed by Kaveman (on these forums): $50
Nick Radge's 'Adaptive Analysis': $20-30 or something 
Aussie stock forums: TIME

In summary: you can run rings around these turkeys if they need to sell software to make a living. TELL 'EM TO GET STUFFED!


----------



## rex (30 August 2006)

damok

To answer your questions there are heaps of programs that will do swing charts for you.

To give a few examples

bullcharts do it, as does protrader.

Both give you free trials.  My advise is you try protrader, Frank is a no 
bullS&^% moral man and a good bloke. His service is cheap and he doesn't promise miracles.

Leon Wilson is also a good man, you can learn from him, he supports bullcharts etc.  A mentor is a good idea, you will find many experienced rich traders are very willing to help you out on an email basis, you just gotta find someone

In short use $1000 for software and books etc and use the other $3000 to invest.  There are many kinds of scammers, SITM is just one breed of them.

Rex


----------



## rubles (30 August 2006)

Hi damok

If you bail on your course at this point, you will get your money back as well as a little time to think about things. Take your time to check out this forum - it is truly a great forum - and you will pick up a lot of ideas and thoughts on what to do. Anything from tips on what will help you create a trading plan to what software or data provider you could use, or even books that can get you started (Saturday afternoon, glass of wine, new trading book = bliss).

Give yourself a little time to see what you might be able to learn yourself from this forum and some relatively inexpensive books - if this doesn't work for you, you've lost nothing and you can always go and do the course later.

If you're even thinking you should pull out on Saturday, maybe the course isn't for you either now or for good. If you're going to do it, do it with conviction and no regrets!

Good luck, whatever you decide to do.

Rubles


----------



## bunyip (30 August 2006)

TraderPro said:
			
		

> Is the software worth $4000?
> 
> SITM is a business... they've been around for years... it it were a scam, then they would have been eliminated a long time ago...
> 
> ...




Scammers are not necessarily eliminated. If they have outstanding marketing skills and are prepared to pour enough money into advertising, they can keep getting a new crop of unsuspecting clients to replace those who drop out after realising they've been duped.
I don't know exactly what pricing structure SITM are using these days, but I imagine it's not so different to what they used back in the early days of the company.
It used to be $995 for the Starter Pack, which was a simple system of entering a trending market once price retraced temporarily, then resumed trending.
There's nothing wrong with that system at all......it's a good robust system and anyone who implements it consistently will make money, providing he controls his losses and sticks with his winners as long as they keep trending.
The thing about the Starter Pack back then was that there were any number of books that taught a similar system, and these books only cost about one tenth of the Starter Pack price.
So it wasn't that the Starter Pack was a scam, it's just that it was a rip off.
It's even more of a rip off now that SITM has jacked up the price to four grand. Even if it includes the software, it's still overpriced to hell.

So SITM fleeced unsuspecting people by selling them a ridiculously overpriced system, and implying that trading is simple......you just do this and this and this and the money will roll in like waves on an ocean beach. 
But the fleecing didn't stop there. Once they hooked a client by selling him the Starter Pack, they did their utmost to convince him that now it was time to take his trading and his education to the next level, and the way to do it was to buy their next course called 'The Number 1 Trading Plan', which from memory had a price tag of $495.
Next it was the video series at a cost of roughly $8000. The video series consisted of a number of trading videos (I think it was eight in total but I'm not 100% sure on that). 
So far they had extracted approximately $9500 from unsuspecting clients who thought they were getting the key to untold riches. But it didn't stop there. The grand finale was when they extracted another several thousand dollars from their clients by selling them a 5 day trading congress at a swish hotel on Queenslands Sunshine Coast.
I'm not sure if that five day course had a price tag of almost 25 grand, or if the combined cost of all their courses came to almost 25 grand. Whatever, it was a colossal amount of money to pay for a system that supposedly would teach them how to use Gann analysis to forecast the markets with uncanny accuracy that would enable them to extract obscene amounts of trading profits.
I've spoken to at least ten people who went right through all SITM's courses and spent around the 25 grand mark, but they were unable to trade profitably. Some of it could have been their own fault.....the Starter Pack is definitely a workable system. But I think where they came unstuck was when they did the supposedly more advanced courses which convinced them that Gann analysis would enable them accurately forecast what a market was going to do.

My dentist was one who did all of SITM's courses. Every time I went to his surgery to get something done with my teeth, he'd haul me out to his back room where he had three massive tables set up, all butted up against each other to make one big table. He had hand drawn charts laid out on the table, in fact he had numerous charts stuck together with sticky tap to make one big chart. On this mega chart he was plotting the SPI. He had lines drawn everywhere, and he'd point to one of the lines and tell me that once the market reached that line, it would change direction, but if it went straight through that line without reacting, then it would probably reach this other line a bit higher up. And if it didn't react at that line, then it was likely to go even further up to this third line. And so on and so on.
Seemed to me that it was a bit like saying it'll rain on Monday, but if it doesn't then try Tuesday, and if not Tuesday, then maybe the rain will come on Friday.
To me it just seemed a ridiculous way to try and trade. I told my dentist he should just go back to the Starter Pack and buy dips during uptrends, and short rallies during downtrends, and that would likely be a far more profitable and simple system than all this forecasting business he was attempting to master.
The long and short of it was that he never did make any money from this forecasting style of trading.

Anyway, that's just a brief history of how SITM operated in the early days. I suspect that their present day operations are similar, with just a different and more expensive pricing structure.

What new traders should understand is...
1. You don't need to forecast markets to be able to trade profitably.
2. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars, or even hundreds, to get yourself a profitable trading system.

Back in the 1950's Nick Darvas developed a simple trading system that enabled him to amass tens of millions of dollars of trading profits in today's values.
I can tell you that his system still works today, and thanks to Frank Watkins, we can learn the system for less than $10.
If you try the Darvas system and find it's not for you, then there are other inexpensive courses you can do, such as Nick Radge's course. 
But whatever you do, PLEASE don't go handing several thousand of your hard earned dollars over to unscrupulous people who charge obscene amounts of money and make grandiose claims about how profitable you're going to be. 

Bunyip


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

Great post by Bunyip.

Yep $4,000 is not the price of education, it's the cost of marketing plus markup.

You will get far more from Radges material, for a whole lot less. 

I studied marketing in a previous life and there is a thing called "percieved" value. Basically if something is expensive it must be valuable.

Well, as the song goes.. "It ain't necessarily so"

Good Luck


----------



## bunyip (30 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Great post by Bunyip.
> 
> Yep $4,000 is not the price of education, it's the cost of marketing plus markup.
> 
> ...




Wayne

Talking of the power of marketing, here's a story that was told by the presenter at a small business workshop that I attended a few years back.

This was an experiment designed specifically to show the effectiveness of good marketing.
One of the very well known perfume businesses like Estee Lauder or Elisabeth Arden, put out a new perfume, but didn't put their company name to it. 
They put it in a very plain looking bottle, gave it an uninspiring name, put a very cheap price tag on it, then gave out free samples in an upmarket women's clothing store.
The shop assistant sprayed a small sample on the arm of any woman who wanted to try it. She reported that most of them looked at the plain bottle with disdain, had a sniff, turned up their noses in distaste and said something along the lines of "Oohhhhhh....I don't like the smell of that"!

Next, the same company put the same perfume in an expensive crystal decanter, put their company name to it, gave it an exotic name and an outlandishly expensive price tag.
They gave out free samples of it in the same women's clothing store, and it sold like hot cakes!

Such is the power of marketing.

Another story.
A friend of mine has a cousin who owns an exclusive women's clothing boutique on Sydney's north shore. Some of her dresses carry price tags of $6,000.
He asked his cousin "How can you justify charging six grand for a dress".
Her reply was "If I charged six hundred instead of six thousand, nobody would buy them".

I guess this illustrates the mentality that so many people have......."If it's expensive it must be good".
SITM are experts at exploiting this mentality.

Bunyip


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> Wayne
> 
> Talking of the power of marketing, here's a story that was told by the presenter at a small business workshop that I attended a few years back.
> 
> ...





 Amazing! Yet similar examples are literally everywhere around us.


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

My mind is whirring!

Do you think I could get away with charging $50,000 for a few trading cliche's scratched out on the back of an envelope if I made a flash website to market it?


----------



## dubiousinfo (30 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> My mind is whirring!
> 
> Do you think I could get away with charging $50,000 for a few trading cliche's scratched out on the back of an envelope if I made a flash website to market it?





Where do I send the cheque?   :


----------



## bunyip (30 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> My mind is whirring!
> 
> Do you think I could get away with charging $50,000 for a few trading cliche's scratched out on the back of an envelope if I made a flash website to market it?




It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility if your marketing skills were good enough, you sunk enough money into promotion and advertising, and you developed proficiency in lying.

Bunyip


----------



## smoothsatin (30 August 2006)

Gday,
If you are only betting on price rises (ie not short selling), then it my be more realistic to achieve a market result + X%?
Also remember brokerage and tax when working out actual $$ returns. 
Good luck with it,
Cheers


----------



## Pager (30 August 2006)

Good luck damok.

If you still have your $5K after 12 months IMHO that is a fantastic result for a newbie.

As others have already pointed out the SITM course is a complete rip off, if you want a good education, spend some time doing searches on this site and the Reefcap forum, some great stuff and all for free.

If you do outlay for some course’s and education then Nick Radges (Runs the Reefcap forum) are by all accounts very good value and a fraction the cost of SITM.

Remember trading may sound like its just a matter of a bit of education and understanding of entries and exits but believe me this is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> and you developed proficiency in lying.
> 
> Bunyip




ROFL


----------



## Crazy Shark (30 August 2006)

Isn't the whole reason why SITM are "educators" is because they cannot hack it in the real world!


----------



## Milk Man (30 August 2006)

> Isn't the whole reason why SITM are "educators" is because they cannot hack it in the real world!




Hahaha, "those who cannot do can teach" huh? My oldies _*paid*_ for my *education* and got *crap results* too (OP15). :


----------



## nioka (30 August 2006)

Damok

I feel you have probably wasted at least 75% of the fee payed to date. I had a very rich uncle many years ago. He was a bookmaker. He would only give me one hot tip, it was don't bet. He believed that most gamblers eventually went broke unless they could afford to lose regularly or unless they only bet on something they knew what was going to happen . On the share market 
that is called insider trading.

Any one can make money on a rising market. At other times there are winners and losers.To be awinner you have to do your own homework.

 Enjoy the exercise.


----------



## bunyip (30 August 2006)

Crazy Shark said:
			
		

> Isn't the whole reason why SITM are "educators" is because they cannot hack it in the real world!




That's possibly true in the case of SITM. However I don't think we can make a blanket statement that all educators are doing it because they can't trade themselves.

Darvas became an educator of sorts when he was talked into writing a book about his method after news of his astounding trading success leaked out.
It would be ludicrous to suggest he couldn't trade.....he made his trading statements available for scrutiny by a team of experts.

Nick Radge is an educator, but also a successful trader himself.

My observation is that the shonky educators all have a few things in common with each other. First, they charge an outlandish price of many thousands of dollars. Second, they come on strong with grandiose claims about their own trading prowess, and the prowess you'll supposedly develop yourself once you've completed their course.

The genuine educators who are competent traders themselves don't need to make outlandish claims or fleece people by charging excessively.

Bunyip


----------



## insider (30 August 2006)

PAYING 4000 DOLLARS FOR A COURSE IS NUTS.... I RECKON MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT ON A STOCK BROKER'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION... OR EVEN BETTER READ MANY OF THE FORUMS AND ABSORB THE EXPERIENCE, EXPERTICE AND SUGGESTIONS NOT ONE BUT MANY INVESTORS SHARE.


----------



## Milk Man (30 August 2006)

insider said:
			
		

> PAYING 4000 DOLLARS FOR A COURSE IS NUTS.... I RECKON MONEY COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER SPENT ON A STOCK BROKER'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION... OR EVEN BETTER READ MANY OF THE FORUMS AND ABSORB THE EXPERIENCE, EXPERTICE AND SUGGESTIONS NOT ONE BUT MANY INVESTORS SHARE.




I agree. Except for the STOCKBROKERS part.


----------



## nevieboy (30 August 2006)

I agree. Damn stockbrockers, they gave me nothing but grief in the last few years.


----------



## bunyip (1 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> A crisis of faith – somewhat urgent
> 
> I am having a crisis of faith as to wether to follow through with the training.  In short I can get a full refund if I choose to hand back all of the course by lunch time of the first day of the residential training – this Saturday.
> 
> ...




So, Damok........Keep us in suspense no longer! 
Will you return the SITM materials tomorrow and get a refund?
Or will you keep them and the accompanying $4,000 hole in your bank account?

Bunyip


----------



## nioka (1 September 2006)

michael_selway said:
			
		

> Not only that, but a big recession may be coming, so u may get a negative return!
> 
> http://www.depression2007.com/
> 
> ...



Todays news that the current account deficit is nudging $500billion must surely bring THE DAY closer?


----------



## GreatPig (1 September 2006)

nioka said:
			
		

> Todays news that the current account deficit is nudging $500billion must surely bring THE DAY closer?



Every day that passes brings it a day closer... 

GP


----------



## damok (1 September 2006)

well, my decision is.......

I'm going to get a refund.  I have taken all your good advise and am going to go the more sensible and economical solution.  

But to make sure I keep down this path of eternal wealth, or at least learning... I'm also taking some of your recommendations.  

I am evaluating three pieces of software:
AmiBroker
Incredible Charts
Pro Charts Egoli

I have downloaded a bunch of Ebooks on technical analysis, and have ordered copies of both Nick Radge's 'Adaptive Analysis' and Frank Watkins 'Darvis Box Trading'.

I will obviously be coming back here often to get further advise.  I've discovered in the last few days just how much is available online, and how much I really have to learn!!

So thanks everyone for your advise.  If anyone has any other suggestions - please let me know!!

Warmest thanks,
damok


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> well, my decision is.......
> 
> I'm going to get a refund.  I have taken all your good advise and am going to go the more sensible and economical solution.
> 
> ...




Damok,

I see you have decided to dispense with the investment of a system and software. 
It`s "advice". Professionals "advise" which we cannot do. 

Good luck with it.
Snake


----------



## bunyip (1 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> well, my decision is.......
> 
> I'm going to get a refund.  I have taken all your good advise and am going to go the more sensible and economical solution.
> 
> ...




Damok

I believe you've made a wise decision. 
I suggest you also get a free trial of Frank Watkins 'Pro Trader' software. And I've heard good reports about 'Bull Charts', which is also available for a free trial.
My further suggestion is to avoid putting too much study into Technical Analysis. There's an enormous amount of information available with regard to TA, just as there's an enormous number of TA tools and indicators.
Much of the information and many of the indicators and tools are irrelevant....all they do is clutter a traders mind and make it difficult for him to reach rational trading decisions. The average beginner works on the premise of "the more information I have, the better".
But believe me, with TA it's very much a case of "the simpler your system, the better you'll trade".
The simplicity of the Darvas method is one of the reasons why it's such an effective and robust trading system.
Understand one thing about trading......THE MOST YOU CAN ACHIEVE IS TO TAKE BITES OUT OF TRENDING MOVES.
You can do this by using simple methods such as buying dips during uptrends, and shorting rallies during downtrends. 
Or you can attempt to use complex methods.....Astro, Gann, Elliott Wave etc.
If there's a simple way to do something, and there's a complex way, I'll take the simple way every time. In trading, it doesn't get any simpler than just finding a good trend, then hitching a ride on the damn thing. A simple system like Darvas will enable you to do this consistently. And if you do this consistently, and make sure you strictly limit your losses, you can trade very profitably.

Enjoy the journey. All the best.

Bunyip


----------



## coyotte (2 September 2006)

40% of WHAT ???
 Total Capital ?, Turnover Over ? or Trading Cap @ Risk ?  

Trader Pro what do you mean by only $100 per $5000 ?
Should that not be stated as "the Stop-Loss should be set a Max $100/ 2% Rule and not the max amount invested ?

Damok:
I will probably get howled down for this --- but get out of fairyland , Trading takes years of continuing learning and ever changing tacticts to  the constantally changing markets --- first read and understand Guppy's ShareTrading , this will put you on a solid foundation of HOW and WHY T/A trading works .

Then go through the the forums to select the recomended reading (only a handfull of  books worth their salt) --- settel on the style of trading to commence with ----- then open a account with IG Markets --- keep the trades to a low $ level so as to build up  on hand expericence of the markets ( NO PAPER TRADING ) --- REINFORCE ESSENTIAL TRADING HABITS --
Then after around 12 months of constant practice,  you can set claim to having started your appenticeship .

In the final round up though you will find most traders go full circle , dump all the frills and just settel on a few KISS  methods that have naturally evolved 
and revelled themselves during the learning process.

Programmed Software is only a tool to find the trades --- managing a trade becomes more a matter of instinct around the "price action" --- takes time , but the earlier you start well the quicker you get there  

Cheers


----------



## BentRod (2 September 2006)

Damok,

         If you want to learn TA then get Nicks Book and join The Chartist.

You'll probably learn more there in 1 month for $55 than you will for $4000 @ SITM....lol

My opinion  only BTW.

Bent.


----------



## damok (2 September 2006)

ladies and gentlemen, I am now $4000 richer (or something like that)

thanks for your advice.


----------



## wayneL (2 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> ladies and gentlemen, I am now $4000 richer (or something like that)
> 
> thanks for your advice.




Well done damok, I think you have made a good decision.

Don't forget to check out the bookshop here at ASF  (Of which I have no financial interest)

Cheers

PS agree with BentRod


----------



## michael_selway (2 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> ladies and gentlemen, I am now $4000 richer (or something like that)
> 
> thanks for your advice.




which stock(s) did u buy?

thx

MS


----------



## bunyip (2 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> ladies and gentlemen, I am now $4000 richer (or something like that)
> 
> thanks for your advice.




Damok

What was the reaction from SITM when you told them you were bailing out?
Did they try to change your mind?

Bunyip


----------



## Milk Man (3 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> Damok
> 
> What was the reaction from SITM when you told them you were bailing out?
> Did they try to change your mind?
> ...




Well duh! :  I'd know, I used to sell Kirby vacuum cleaners.


----------



## TraderPro (3 September 2006)

This has been an interesting thread! Damok - you made a good decision... 



			
				bunyip said:
			
		

> What new traders should understand is...
> 1. You don't need to forecast markets to be able to trade profitably.
> 2. You don't need to spend thousands of dollars, or even hundreds, to get yourself a profitable trading system.




I totally agree... 

Yeah I did say: "if it were a scam, then they would have been eliminated a long time ago..."

What I meant was that they weren't some illegal scam like pyramid selling. 

There was this business from US that came to Australia trying to sell their web hosting products (StoresOnline) ... They totally overpriced their products and services and sold these to people under false promises. FairTrading and ACCC got onto their coattails and had them refund the people who bought into their dream. Now that's a scam...

The point is... with that case, the internet hosting prices can be benchmarked to the  market prices - they charged something like $3000 for a website+ hosting at $30 per month etc... when you can have it done up for less than that starting at $10...

With trading education there is no benchmark to match it with. 

Of course, if SITM makes and false or misleading claims in their presentation -that too will classify them as scamming their way to make a buck...


----------



## dj_420 (3 September 2006)

I agree about the comment of stockbrokers, i asked some advice of a relative's stockbroker on these particular stocks CBH, JML, CTO, MTN, SMM. a day later he came back and his response was that "these stocks are all highly speculative uranium explorers and i wouldnt invest in them". 

obviously he didnt even look at what each company does/strategy/fundamentals anything!! 

to start CBH are currently producing, JML will be producing zinc, CTO will begin pouring gold, MTN and SMM are sitting on large u deposits.

If i took this particular brokers advice i would have missed out on a run from all these stocks. i say do your own research and not trust the opinions of people who dont understand your trading plan.

my plan is to find undervalued stocks and invest for the long term, which i think ive done.

anyone else had a bad experience with stockbroker??


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

damok said:
			
		

> First time poster, and to be honest just discovered the forum tonight.... but enjoying the learning process.
> 
> So a bit about my plan.  I have signed up for the SITM Smarter Starter Pack and am doing the course this weekend.  Now after reading some of the forums I had second thoughts for a while, but I stand by that decision.  I guess my rational is that 4 weeks ago I knew nothing about shares, now I have a reasonable idea of the mechanics.  I understand the trading system that they propose, and it works well in my head.  Outlaying the $4000 hurt a bit, but I figure that I will have the skills the rest of my life, and considering how much uni costs... well it doesn't sound so bad in perspective.  Plus that outlay certainly inspires me to learn the material!!
> 
> ...



Damok, 


Please have a good look at a range of threads for a broader discussion about technical analysis approaches than are listed here which are quite narrow.  Why not try reading the following threads (I have certainly ventured a host of ideas on these threads that I don’t want to duplicate here):

•	“Books on Technical Analysis”, 
•	“Good TA books: Any suggestions?”, 
•	“Testing a mechanical plan”, 
•	“Is T/A based on hope?” 

Also, if you're interested in software with a Gann swing chart capability, have a look at Gannalyst (not sure if will do Mac though):

http://www.gannalyst.com/


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> damok
> 
> I don't want to rain on your parade, but if you can possibly do it I'd advise returning the Starter Pack for a full refund. Four grand is highway robbery for a system that simply buys dips during uptrends, and shorts rallies during downtrends. Not that there's anything wrong with such a system, it's just that you can learn it for less than 10 bucks.
> How? Go to 'Pro Trader' website and purchase Frank Watkins booklet 'Darvis Box Trading'....it'll cost you about $8.
> ...





Hello Bunyip,


While I have agreed strongly with your comments on other threads about respecting other individual’s methods, I hope you don’t mind me raising a few questions about your T/A approach.  I am very interested in having a dialogue with other technical analysts about their experiences and approaches, so I do hope you don’t see my comments below as an attack on your personal preference, it is not.  But I would like to probe a bit to find out more about your perspective given that you have been quite outspoken as a T/A advocate (an area I identify with along with you).

I would also like to give a critical appraisal from my perspective on what I gleaned after having scanned through the Watkins book you referred to.  I read through Watkins book last week in my local Borders book shop.  If you’re advocating this as a very basic introductory text for general broad trading concepts, fair enough, it would certainly offer some grounding for trading.  But most of this I would have thought is pretty much common sense, but perhaps a complete novice would glean some basic ideas of value if they didn’t have any other source.

The T/A though from Frank Watkins I thought was very light on. Sure, it gives some basic “ABC’s” in technical analysis, but I found myself disagreeing with the majority of the T/A in the book.  It is written in my view from an extremely narrow perspective, and totally misses whole rafts of modern T/A thinking.  Consequently as a T/A primer I found it pretty threadbare – again, just my opinion.  

Just out of interest, have you researched any other T/A styles beyond the “Darvas” approach ventured in Watkins?  Are you still using the Darvas approach to trade from currently? I was under the impression you were very accomplished in T/A, but looking at the Darvas system makes me reconsider this view.  What exactly have you looked at outside of this T/A approach Bunyip?  

Don’t get me wrong, if Darvas works for you great, but consider that it may not be the best approach for many traders, or that there may in fact better approaches to it (I certainly think there are a host of significantly better T/A approaches – many which you may be totally unaware of – but this is just my personal perspective, not gospel).  If you have not researched and evaluated a range of approaches, would you accept that this may significantly impair your capacity to be objective?

You’ve questioned SITM (no argument about the price), but have you actually looked at their Gann approach in order to evaluate it?  What concerns me is that you’ve totally subverted Damok from gaining a grounding in Gann, and replaced this with a kind of (I’d say threadbare) beginner approach – but a very narrow and not very comprehensive beginner book regarding the T/A.

Why some traders go through the process of evaluating a variety of approaches before developing a set of trading rules is that it is necessary for their development to go through this process to gain perspectives that later become unconscious (but would probably never have existed without going through the learning process).  

Certainly some T/A styles are more suited to one individual than another, but by studying a range of approaches can allow you to be more objective, especially if you recognise your own bias (not only in what you see in the market, but also understand your own thought processes – including your own preferences, strengths and weaknesses).

Sure, boiling it all down into a simplified approach is an aspect of developing a consistent trading system, but to achieve this, and in order to obtain the capacity to evolve, you need to be able to critically evaluate your system, and adapt both your own capabilities and your systems as the market throws up new challenges, wouldn’t you agree?

I’d be interested to hear your experiences, Bunyip, and I’m trying to restrained here, but seeing how much you’ve lionised Darvas, makes me wonder just how advanced you really are in T/A to be giving advice to a beginner. It is starting to look to me like you have a very narrow grounding in T/A from what I’ve seen now that I’ve read Watkins, so please feel free to outline any other base of knowledge you’re drawing from.  Please understand that my comments stem from a genuine concern for beginners, and that they be given every chance to develop to their maximum potential.


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

I’ve been investigating Frank Watkins, pro trader and the “Darvas” system since it has been touted as such a panacea, only to find a vanilla mechanical offering on a par with a host of other “black box” approaches (and I’ve seen a few).

You cannot tell me that this overly simplistic approach is on a par with Nick Rage’s T/A, Elliott Wave/Fibonacci approach for beginners.  From my perspective there is no comparison.  What Rage does is to introduce a range of T/A approaches in a effort to give a beginner a solid foundation in charting, not in becoming wedded/addicted to a proprietary “black box”.  There is a chasm of difference here.

Then I read comments like this in the thread:


			
				rex said:
			
		

> Damok
> 
> Bunyips reply is of the highest of quality.
> 
> ...



What I find interesting is the conviction of the author, making what they believe to be an unbiased objective statement of truth.  

It’s almost like they really believe that everyone knows that Frank Watkins is the foremost trader in the world, and that his system is THE cash machine of the century – We are led to believe that it’s so simple; all you have to do is to buy “pro trader” and you’ll make heaps of money! Right? 

And of course SITM is “too easy”, and “too good to be true”, no “real expert would come across like this”. 

Does anyone see a glaring contradiction here?

Then we get this follow up testimonial:



			
				rex said:
			
		

> My advise is you try protrader, Frank is a no bullS&^% moral man and a good bloke.  His service is cheap and he doesn't promise miracles.



Followed by:



			
				rex said:
			
		

> There are many kinds of scammers, SITM is just one breed of them.



This advocacy of Frank Watkins and pro trader may be genuine and sincere, but wouldn’t others agree that these comments seem a bit co-ordinated, or at least a little biased?

While I think banamate is a genuine poster, they recently started a thread “Market Analyst/Protrader/Metastock” on 26 July as a beginner trying to locate software, hence has very little experience outside of this area, and only a few weeks experience using pro trader. 



			
				banamate said:
			
		

> I am in the learning phase and want the first important decision (buying the right software) to be a good one. I have finally narrowed my options to these three. Any insights? I plan to trade only ASX stocks at this stage.



Does anyone see a pattern emerging here?  I’m concerned that beginners may be swayed by some of the comments on this thread which seem to me to be exaggerated and a little too slick for my liking.  While I don’t have a problem with people expressing an opinion, I really do hope that beginners reading this thread research as much as possible, and recognise that all the posters (me included) are just expressing an opinion.


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## stink (5 September 2006)

HI there,

Good points Mag, I haven't heard of the systems these guys are talking about so dont know what that says about myself lol.

I would say its people looking for that solution because its the easy option, its harder to learn and research yourself.

I must admit before finding this forum i looked at a couple of these systems, none of the above mentioned though. However a bit of searching and a couple of questions on this forum put me on the right track.

I went to a home show actually and there was like three stands all selling these type of things, it was funny you know because the sales pitch they were using in response to questions about difficulty or learning curve etc were e.g "So how much do i need to know about the market?" answer "Oh nothing our system makes all the decisions for you". Scary to think of how many people must go down this track.

Cheers Stink


----------



## rex (5 September 2006)

Settle down magdoran

I don't care what damok does with his trading, I simply saw a hardworking beginner in need of help and I didn't want him to waste his paypacket on SITM without finding out some facts, I know people who have been burnt by them and I saw a chance to help someone out.

Of course these are just opinions.

I never stated that making money was simple through Frank's methods, I just stated that his method of trading is simple, there is a big difference. Leon wilsons methods are also simple and I would recommend him over Gann, elliott, fib.. star gazing anyday. Guppy is also simple, as is Alan Hull, I think all these guys are better than some elliott wave rubbish, hell don't go to protrader, there is nothing magical about it. This is where people like you miss the point, there is no holy grail. The only reason I even mentioed protrader was because bunyip did above so I though it fair enough to back him up.

I would bet that the majority of people who use protrader still don't make money, this is the same with all systems, it's the trader that makes a system work, not the system. I don't use protrader, never have and never will, but I still recommend it.

If you want to go off and explore elliott wave and gann and the stars and moon then thats fine, but don't claim that you are unbiased, while I am. Of course we are both bias, that is pretty common sense.  You get on here and talk up Nick Radge like he is some wizard of trading, so don't be so hypercritical. 

I never stated all one had to do was buy protrader or bullcharts etc to make money, don't be an idiot.  You left out the bit where I stated it takes years of hardwork. Metastocks or egoli is completely adequate.

I also recommended bullcharts. I was just trying to point out the fact that in my opinion simple methods make more money.  I don't doubt that you aren't making money through gann and fibs etc etc but you are the 1 in a hundred. The average trader has a better chance if they just keep it simple.


Regards


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

stink said:
			
		

> HI there,
> 
> Good points Mag, I haven't heard of the systems these guys are talking about so dont know what that says about myself lol.
> 
> ...



Thanks Stink,


You’ve identified an important distinction between people who just want a simple “plug and play” approach, and people who want to learn technical analysis techniques using the “computer between their ears” (as opposed to a PC driven “black Box”).

If an investor/trader really wants a vanilla solution, they’re out there, and this may well be appropriate to their needs.  But for someone like Damok who ostensibly has high aims, the black box is unlikely to cut it anywhere near to what developing good charting skills can.

And you’re spot on when you say “its people looking for that solution because its the easy option, its harder to learn and research yourself”, this is the crux of the difference.

In my view though, beginners should be made aware of the difference so they can make their own choice which path is more suitable for them.

Also, a black box is only as good as the programming.  If these systems actually made millions then why wouldn’t the developer just do that like the major investment houses and merchant banks do?

I’d like to make a distinction though between software that is designed as a tool to aid the chartist from software that is a proprietary “black box” approach.  One is essentially a tool box, the other approach is more like one of those battery operated “decision makers” where the lights flash, and a random answer comes up like “yes”, “n”, etc…


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> Settle down magdoran
> 
> I don't care what damok does with his trading, I simply saw a hardworking beginner in need of help and I didn't want him to waste his paypacket on SITM without finding out some facts, I know people who have been burnt by them and I saw a chance to help someone out.
> 
> ...



Hello Rex,


While I commend anyone genuinely trying to help newer investors/traders as you claim to have, perhaps you would consider how your sweeping comment below may be perceived by others as not conforming to the standard you suggest in post 65?

Does your latest comment mean that you’re not going to stand by your original claim?



			
				rex said:
			
		

> “I would place a bet with anyone that his approach makes more money than any other system”?



What I find amazing is your now furious back peddling from the above statement to:



			
				rex said:
			
		

> *I would bet that the majority of people who use protrader still don't make money,*
> 
> this is the same with all systems, it's the trader that makes a system work, not the system.
> 
> *I don't use protrader, never have and never will, but I still recommend it. *




So now you tell us you don’t use protrader and never will, and that the majority of people using it still don’t make money?

Yet in the second post you say:



			
				rex said:
			
		

> “My advise is you try protrader”



Rex, can you see any inconsistencies here, or do you honestly think that your reasoning is sound?  With all due respect, if you re-read your two posts on this thread, would you accept now that the manner in which you approached the subject may have been a little inconsistent and perhaps exaggerated? 

I agree that you never said that making money was easy literally, that is true, but by inference many could have interpreted your statement along those lines, it really wasn’t that hard to “join the dots” (please reread the post…).  And certainly the part where you said it takes years of hard work I agree with, hence there was no need to address it.

Of course I accept that you have your preferences for Guppy, Hull, Wilson etc, that’s up to you, and I respect that if this works for you, that’s great.  This is my core approach with other people; let them find what works for them.  But I would argue that your approach seems to be quite close ended when it comes to the advice you gave.

Now, as for Nick Rage’s “Adaptive Analysis”, if you were a novice wanting to gain a foundation in technical analysis and money management, it’s not a bad place to start, but if you read my comments on the threads listed in my earlier post on this thread, you’d get a fuller picture of the fairly well structured approach I’m suggesting to aid different types of traders…

So, you are an expert in Elliott Wave, Fibonacci and Gann too now are you?  So you could comment head to head with any of the technical analysts in detail on Elliott Wave principles and why they are inferior to Wilson for instance?  If this is so, why aren’t we seeing your book in print like Nick Radge’s book critiquing Elliott Wave theory?

Interestingly I have consistently stated what my bias is, and what exactly my opinions are based on, and have openly conceded some points when appropriate.  I have never said there is one correct way to trade or invest.  This is false.  I have maintained a healthy respect for the diversity of approaches in the market, and acknowledged that there are many valid paths to trading and investing.

Another assumption you have made is that I somehow believe that there is a holy grail.  Again, if you read through the years of my posts on various forums and the posts on this forum, you’d know that I patently do not believe this is so.  Furthermore, I have openly stated my position with regard to Douglas and his concept of the “probabilistic” mindset – quite the antipathy of the Holy Grail credo.

So, there is something we agree on.  There is no holy grail.  But let’s try to help other traders by allowing them to look at a variety of alternative approaches and make up their own minds, how does that sound?


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## insider (5 September 2006)

Hey what's a good book on charting? Rene Rivkin hates chartists (even when his dead) what's your opinion?


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2006)

insider said:
			
		

> Hey what's a good book on charting? Rene Rivkin hates chartists (even when his dead) what's your opinion?




Rene who??


----------



## bunyip (5 September 2006)

Magdoran

Yes, Watkins book is basic but I don't think that makes it any less relevant.... Like you I don't agree with everything he says, nevertheless, it contains much good advice.
You thought most of this was pretty much common sense? You're right, but common sense methods are not necessarily adopted by the majority of traders. After speaking with hundreds of traders and getting to know dozens of them personally,  I've noticed a leaning towards complex methods rather than just sticking to simple, basic concepts like trend identification, price and volume, retracements, support and resistance, money management etc. Seems that many traders think it can't be much good if it's simple.

Have I looked at anything outside the Darvis approach? I've read more than 50 books on TA, not only read them, but studied them in detail, everything from Gann to Elliott Wave to Fibonacci, Guppy, Gartley, Landry, Miner, Nison, Gilmore, Arnold, McLaren, Williams, Elder, Weinstein, Hull - swing trading, trend trading, day trading, breakout trading, candlestick trading, Fibonacci trading, and various other methods as well. Having read  50 books and having done a couple of courses doesn't make me an expert but at least it exposed me to a number of different trading approaches and gave me the opportunity of evaluating their strengths and weaknesses. And I assure you I put considerable time and effort into doing exactly that.
Therefore I believe I'm reasonably well qualified to give an objective viewpoint on trading methods to newbies like Damok.
After years of reading and study I developed my own system that incorporates ideas from a number of different methods, Darvas among them, as well as some ideas of my own.
If at the start of my trading journey someone had given me the Darvas method and said "Here you are, trade this and you won't need anything else", I believe it would have got me trading profitably right from the outset and allowed me to avoid the years of study I put in. Not that I begrudge my time and effort. Such was my interest in trading that all my work seemed more like recreation than work.

I take your point that Darvas might not be the approach that suits some traders. That's why I told Damok that if he finds it's not for him, he has the option of other inexpensive courses such as Nick Radge's.
There's a couple of reasons I suggested he start with Darvas. First, it's a cheap and easy method to learn. Second, it'll give him a good foundation in the basics of trading, such as identifying a trend, finding timely entry points into that trend, showing him how to control losses and let profits run while the trend moves in his favour.
In my view, these are the most important things for a beginner to learn. If he wants to go to higher level technical analysis after mastering the basics, he has the option of doing so.
However, I maintain that the basics are all you need to know, and that higher level, more complex analysis methods are not going to help you achieve anything more than to simply take bites out of trending moves. Since these very same trend-biting objectives can be achieved with the simple, basic, common sense approaches, I see no need to go for the more complex methods that will only achieve the same thing. I tried damn near every method I came across but in the end I kept coming back to simply hitching rides on decent trends, and jumping off when they finished. For me, this always proved to be the simplest and most profitable way to trade.
That's why my posts mention only the simple, basic methods rather than those that are more complex. It's not that I haven't studied other methods, it's just that I and many other traders I correspond with have found that 'simple is best'.

But I can see you disagree with me on this.....your view is that there are a number of significantly better approaches. Perhaps, in the best tradition of 'traders helping traders', you might like to elaborate on some of these approaches so that forum members can make their own assessment. 

Have I looked at SITM's Gann approach? No, my Gann work was done with McLaren, who has a far better reputation as a Gann expert than SITM does.
I know many people who studied Gann through both SITM and McLaren, and they tell me that McLaren left SITM for dead, and only charged a fraction of the price that SITM slugged them.

You've stated that I've totally subverted Damok from gaining a grounding in Gann. I disagree......I haven't subverted him from gaining a grounding in anything. I've simply pointed him in the direction of a simple and effective system that will give him a solid grounding in the basics of TA, quickly, and without spending much money.
I've told him that a simple approach of hitching a ride on trends is all he needs to consistently profit from the market. This is 100% correct, and is some of the simplest yet most powerful information that any trader can ever possess.
If Damok wants to go on to further and more detailed study of TA, then he is of course free to do so. In fact that's almost certainly what he'll do if he develops the passion for trading and TA that many traders develop. 
To hit a new trader with a barrage of information and trading strategies would be to his disadvantage I believe. Too much information, and next thing he won't know if he's Arthur or Martha. Better to steer him in the direction of a simple approach that covers the basics and can be learnt quickly. Darvas fits the bill nicely. Then he can go on to further studies if he wants.

You talk about adapting your own systems and capabilities as the market throws up new challenges. This tells me you believe that markets are constantly changing, and the strategies that worked in yesteryear no longer work today, hence the need for a trader to be constantly changing/adapting his strategies to stay in front of the curve, so to speak.
I'm sure there are some changes in the market, but let me tell you about one aspect of market behaviour that hasn't changed, and I believe never will.
The aspect of market behaviour I refer to is TRENDS. Look at charts in any month or year you care to name. No matter whether it was 3 years ago, 10 years, 50 or 70 years ago, there were always some strongly trending stocks, either up or down, regardless of overall market conditions.
And those trends exhibited pretty much the same characteristics exhibited by today's trend.....they go for a run, they retrace a little, they go for another run, they may go sideways for a while before taking off again. And so on and so on until the trend comes to an end.
This trending behaviour of stocks is caused by the human nature of traders and investors. If they're overwhelmingly bullish on a stock, they'll buy it and push up the price.
They'll take profits along the way, hence the retracements we see during trends. They'll buy the stock when a retracement makes it cheaper, hence the resumption of the trend after a retracement. If they're overwhelmingly bearish on a stock, they'll cause the stock to exhibit the mirror image of the above pattern.
Given that human nature causes these patterns, and that human nature never changes, it's no surprise that these patterns are the same today as they were decades ago. And it's reasonable to believe that human nature will ensure the same patters will still be evident 20 or 50 or 100 years from now.
Considering that Darvas was exploiting these patters as the basis of his trading system 50 years ago, and further considering that these very same patterns can be found in today's markets, it's not surprising that the Darvas system is proving itself to be a robust system that works as well today as it worked back in the fifties.
This, I believe, is the hallmark of a decent trading system.....one that's simple and profitable but above all robust enough to keep working decade after decade without needing to be constantly changed or adapted.
There are various other systems, Weinstein's and Elder's systems being two of them, that have similarities to Darvas, and are equally robust.

You state your genuine concern for beginners, and that they be given every chance to develop to their maximum potential.
No disagreement from me on that score. However, maybe we disagree on the best way for them to develop their potential. My way is to start them off on a simple system that's easily understood, one that covers simple, basic stuff. Plenty of time and opportunity for them to go on to more advanced TA after that if they want, but for God's sake don't go starting them off on complex methods such as Gann. Not only can such a method be overwhelming in its complexity for a beginner, but it's not going to enable them to do any more than simply take bites out of trending moves.
But as I say, if their leaning is towards those more complex methods a little further down the track, then they're free to study them.

Bunyip


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

Hello Bunyip,

Interesting, I’d just been doing a bit of research and found that you actually are an old hand and have spent a lot of time doing T/A over the years.  I salute your research and acknowledge your breadth of knowledge.

I hope you understand that when I went and looked at Watkins I was surprised since your previous comments gave me the impression that you had studied T/A in depth.  I’m glad to see that my initial estimation was correct. 

I take your points on how Watkins may help a beginner to recognise trends, looking at it in the way you outlined makes much more sense, and I can see your point of view here.  Interestingly it seems that both you and I recommend Weinstein to beginners, this I thought was a good place to start, and perhaps Schwager (for charting), Radge (for basic Elliott Wave theory), and Bigalow (for candlesticks)…

Now here is where we line right up – McLaren is probably the most influential work I’ve ever encountered.  I still study it daily and have done so for years.  So I fully concur with your estimation here.

As for the simplicity, I certainly agree with your points, but would add that to get there you have to do what you and I have done – do the hard yards reading everything you can.  What I’d argue is that much of your wisdom is probably drawn unconsciously from this bedrock of knowledge.  Essentially, to get to the simplicity you have to have gone through all the experiences.  It is the journey of the trader, isn’t it?

I also agree with you that to hit a new trader with a barrage of strategies will only serve to confuse the individual.  It has certainly been my approach over the years too.

Fully agree with your comments on the nature of trends – I certainly study markets way back in history too… As for adapting, perhaps I should have called it “evolving” since I was referring to the gradual improvement and refinements an individual can make with all aspects of trading – their analysis, instruments, trading rules, etc.  If you’re talking McLaren, even his approaches have changed in the last 10-15 years – the square of nine is no longer used much for instance, and he has pioneered a range of new observations of past trends, even this year.

Also, I have slowly pioneered new mixes of instrument approaches over the years (look at the Krieger's, Allen Wheat’s, John Meriwether’s for instance), and looked to improve the style of T/A to suit the instruments and vice versa.

So, the adaptation I’m talking about is multifaceted, looking at the explosion of instruments and how these can be harnessed with the same old trends, but in new and more effective ways.  If you’ve studied McLaren’s time factor, the approach I’m working on involves recognising vibrations in key markets, and then determining key time points to trade as well as price.  Did you do time cycles with McLaren? I’m still blown away by this, and have spent years looking at markets to understand it (I’m still learning this and discovering new aspects every few days or so – actually had a breakthrough this week!).  

You may have read my comment regarding options to you today (and I recognise that you do understand counter trends – hence please disregard that comment), hence just imagine the potential if you can combine the two effectively (time based T/A with structured derivatives).  This is what I’m spending the bulk of my time doing currently – and I must admit, it’s really challenging.

Now as for Darvas, I’m not so sure about this approach.  I agree that there are robust systems, but the approach outlined seemed to me to be breakout driven.  I subscribe to the McLaren approach that this is high risk trading – better like you say to buy the dips in an uptrend, and sell the rallies in a downtrend – essentially look for probable areas for a counter trend and enter there.  Add in wave structure, and you can identify probabilities to trade – essentially determine when the trend is at risk (ala McLaren).  So no, I just don’t buy Darvas at all from what I’ve seen.  

Weinstein is a different matter.  I do subscribe to his concept of sectoral analysis and essentially go long the strongest stock in an uptrend, and short the weakest stock in a downtrend.  Elder, I’ve got no real time for.  If you subscribe to McLaren, you know what his view on momentum is and about moving averages and oscillators, or perhaps you still use stochastics and MACD and moving averages?

Actually, with new traders I definitely do not start with Gann, it’s way too complex and advanced.  Just read through all the posts I’ve made on this site, and I am so reluctant with new people to even mention it… only when it is entirely relevant.  What I do think is worthwhile is McLaren’s foundations first once someone has gained a sufficient level to understand it…

Ok, seems we’re not so far apart on this issue.  It is refreshing to find a fellow traveller in T/A that has studied so widely.  Now that you have fleshed out your perspective, I can see where you are coming from.  Thankyou for taking the time to give such a comprehensive response, it is much appreciated.


Warm Regards


Magdoran

P.S. I couldn't fit the quote in it hit the word limit!


----------



## rex (5 September 2006)

Magdoran

you make a few valid points, at times perhaps I am not the best at expressing my views, forums are a bit like that.

But I was simply trying to make the point to Damok that making money doesn't has to be so complicated and overwhelming as what SITM and other complex strategies makes it out to be.  

I will stand by my claim. My comments about protrader making more money comes from e-trade, I worked for e-trade for 2 years. Protrader have a broking firm through e-trade and statistically the returns of protrader clients far outperformed/outperform the returns from any other clients.  Call e-trade and they will confirm this.   

And no I wasn't backpedelling from anything. Very few people make money trading any system, because they lack what it takes in the head. The education that watkins gives would no doubt help rectify this fault better than say SITM whose support network are next to useless. The fact I don't use protrader is irrelevant.

You need to calm down and get some facts before you make stupid claims. I was simply stating my observations and opinions after working for nearly a decade for companies like e-trade, I have seen em all.

You are being very childish.  People could also take " inference " from stuff you write about Radge. Just take a step back from this all.  I have done nothing different than you have ?

You quoted
 "  You cannot tell me that this overly simplistic approach is on a par with Nick Rage’s T/A, Elliott Wave/Fibonacci approach for beginners. From my perspective there is no comparison. What Rage does is to introduce a range of T/A approaches in a effort to give a beginner a solid foundation in charting, not in becoming wedded/addicted to a proprietary “black box”. "

Watkins is not into black boxes, he is a pattern trader, get your facts right.

I didn't mean to make any sweeping comment, protrader is not the holy grail, just like Nick Radge is not the holy grail, just like Gann, elliott, fibs, etc etc etc isn't the holy grail.  A trader with discipline and a plan is far more important, the strategy is just the start.

Hopefully now this matter is now closed, all I was trying to do was show damok that people always don't have to take the complicated road in life. In future I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Best wishes.


----------



## NettAssets (5 September 2006)

Hi Rex

I hope you don't keep your mouth shut - or your keyboard.
The different points of view here are what makes the site great.
When the discussion gets a bit charged it also gets more meaningful as peple start expressing what they have left written bet=ween the lines in their previous posts.
Both yours and Bunyips replys to Magdoran have firmed up a lot of areas of discussion.
I hope it continues
Regards
NA


----------



## coyotte (5 September 2006)

Rex :  Magdoran :

Do you guys have any time left over for trading ?

IMHO   after you mastered the basics you  will gain far more knowledge from the experince of a constant month of " Day Trading " than any book or course seems to be capable of revelling  ie: time of day ; different week days, effect of the SP500 on different days, etc etc

The CHART becomes only the "focul point" for the intuition to concerntrate on the only thing that matters :  "PRICE ACTION "


Cheers


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> Magdoran
> 
> you make a few valid points, at times perhaps I am not the best at expressing my views, forums are a bit like that.
> 
> ...



Hello Rex,


My intention was not to silence your voice, oh no not at all, I’m a strong advocate of freedom of speech.  I’m sorry if you feel this way, and agree with NettAsset's comment along these lines.

What an interesting story about the experience at e-trade.  I wish you’d led with that first… 

Now why I was focusing on your comment in detail was because I perceived there may have been a potential spruiking of a product (especially with the claim I focussed on) hence the probing and detailed examination.  Now that you’ve outlined where you’re coming from, there are some very valuable points that you’ve raised, thank-you.

As for protrader, what I saw looked like a set system drawing a box from a low to a high with the entry and exit conditions set by the PC – are you saying the Darvas system doesn’t work like this?

Ok, Rex, I accept that you did not intend to make a sweeping comment, and I’m glad you clarified this, this will help readers make up their own mind with the balance you’ve bought to this discussion.

As NettAssets suggests, by having these dialogues it can help to draw out interesting perspectives that may not have been ventured, so I’m glad you have contributed, and I hope you can accept that my comments were made with good intentions, as I am sure yours were too.


Best Regards,


Magdoran

P.S. General observation:  I must say that I find it odd when I read comments like “calm down” or “you are being childish” when responding to what is written in a methodical and adult manner.  Mag


----------



## Magdoran (5 September 2006)

coyotte said:
			
		

> Rex :  Magdoran :
> 
> Do you guys have any time left over for trading ?
> 
> ...



Hello coyotte,


Interestingly I spent the day charting and researching derivative instruments… while responding to the odd comment (I’m actually looking at Brent crude as we speak!).

Now, as to your comment on “price action”, in my school of T/A, time is sometimes more important than price.  Think about it!

Sometimes I’d argue you have to look at the pattern, as well as the price action…  Interestingly I day traded warrants for a long time, but found I was a much better position trader, and that sometimes price action didn’t matter at all when there is an arbitrage on… so there are many horses for courses, aren’t there?

Indeed researching charts from the past probably taught me more than trying to day trade ever did… but that’s just what I found…

How about you coyotte?


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## rex (5 September 2006)

Thanks for that.

Mag. No prob, you make very good points, I will make an effort to be more clear in the future.  To answer your question, the protrader clients didn't just trade darvas from what I gathered. Watkins is big on pattern recognition, flags, triangles, saucers.  I supose if we are just talking about darvas then yes that is more mechanical, however once again watkins uses filters such as volume patterns, moving aves., on balance volume and volume spikes, it is more than just letting some piece of software pick a stock.

re e-trade, the number of traders who actually made money really was scary, hardly any, even in a bull market. So many just blew it all.  I worked for sonray for a  few years as well. For the average $10,000 cfd account. 80 percent of these were bust within 10 months.  Fx. and futures accounts had the same stats.  Once a pilot came along and opened a fx. account with 3 million $$, I watched his account over the next 13 months as he withered that down to $200,000. It was scary and of course has shaped the way I view the business.

Regards
ps: you were not being childish, there was just a better way to sort the thing out without making ludicrous claims before you knew where I was coming from - doesn't matter though, who cares.
Cheers


----------



## NettAssets (5 September 2006)

Hi Rex,

From your experience has the frequency of trades got any relationship to the return.  I think in the "Art of Trading" Tate suggests that whatever your time scale less frequent trading with wider stop losses will win over time.


----------



## rex (5 September 2006)

Hi NA

Yes. I agree. Successful traders all in all have the ability to do absolutely nothing until a real opporunity comes along. People who feel like they need to take a trade everyday in order to call themselves a trader genuinely don't do well. But of course this is a general statement, there are a few day traders out there who scalp very well, day in day out, but even they have the patience to sit on their behinds and do nothing until a real opportunity presents.
Regards


----------



## MichaelD (5 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> re e-trade, the number of traders who actually made money really was scary, hardly any, even in a bull market. So many just blew it all.  I worked for sonray for a  few years as well. For the average $10,000 cfd account. 80 percent of these were bust within 10 months.  Fx. and futures accounts had the same stats.  Once a pilot came along and opened a fx. account with 3 million $$, I watched his account over the next 13 months as he withered that down to $200,000. It was scary and of course has shaped the way I view the business.



Now THIS is extraordinarily interesting information, rex. I for one would be INTENSELY interested in hearing more about your observations on WHY this happened.


----------



## wayneL (5 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> Once a pilot came along and opened a fx. account with 3 million $$, I watched his account over the next 13 months as he withered that down to $200,000.




Right! I'm gonna find a pilot with a 3 mil a/c and fade every trade he does


----------



## rex (6 September 2006)

Sure michael, but my opinions on the reasons is nothing new.

A list of reasons in no particular order

- ego, there is no place for ego. The pilot thought he was a hotshot cause he flew for qantas, the market didn't care that he flew for qantas.
- Having no plan. Many people simply have no plan, which is idiotic.
- People often move to derivatives before they have even been successful just buying and selling stocks, this basic attribute needs to be attained before stepping up.
- too many orders. Overtrading is a killer. Traders need to be patient and wait for good set-ups to come through.
- boredom, I really think many people are bored and they thus just take trades to lighten up their day.
- news, many try to trade on news, which is very hard, i have only ever seen a couple people actually succeed with this method.
- Dual accounts. Partners trading together, mixing opinions, rarely succeeded.
- education, people try to bottom fish too much, bottom fishing just doesn't work.
- complication. people think the more complicated the better. The accounts I watched grow and grow were just people who did the same thing over and over again, they didn't stray from this.
- personality: people shouldn't follow anyone elses system just cause that person may have been a success.  A system needs to suit someones personality, this is very important.
- Human contact: the best traders we never heard from, they just never needed anything from anyone. The worse traders would be calling up every few minutes wanting to ask stupid questions.
- perserverence: many traders would wipe out an account and that would be it. Others (very few) would wipe out an account and then realise that they didn't know what they were doing. so they went away, studied and came back. People who came back for a second time usually did very well, they were committed and didn't give up.
- stop losses. successful traders are often wrong, they admit this and take small losses. and then they sit with winners
money management: I often saw people with a $10,000 account take on for eg a $50,000 position (margin). very stupid.

I could go on but that covers some of them

Hope that is what u were after.


----------



## tech/a (6 September 2006)

Great stuff REX.
Particularly as your commenting from experience,having had personal contact with many.

It seems the Old adage of 90% of traders end in failure isnt to far off the mark.


----------



## MichaelD (6 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> The accounts I watched grow and grow were just people who did the same thing over and over again, they didn't stray from this.
> 
> Others (very few) would wipe out an account and then realise that they didn't know what they were doing. so they went away, studied and came back. People who came back for a second time usually did very well, they were committed and didn't give up.



Fantastic info, rex, all of it. As Tech/A said, it looks like there is indeed truth to the 90% of traders fail adage.

It's so simple to succeed...and yet so hard.

Thank you for this - it's rare to get an insight from "the inside".


----------



## nizar (6 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Great stuff REX.
> Particularly as your commenting from experience,having had personal contact with many.
> 
> It seems the Old adage of 90% of traders end in failure isnt to far off the mark.




I second that

Great post rex,

Thanks


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (6 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> - complication. people think the more complicated the better. The accounts I watched grow and grow were just people who did the same thing over and over again, they didn't stray from this.



.

The most accurate comment I've observed on the forum.


----------



## bunyip (6 September 2006)

Excellent information Rex. I hope you keep posting to this forum. Don't be put off by people who try to discredit you.

Talking of brokers and losing traders, I once had an interesting conversation with a former futures broker who spent five years in the industry.
What you've said about share traders is similar to what he told me about his futures clients...most of them lost money, usually for the same reasons you've outlined. Topping the list of losers were his SITM clients who tried to trade by using Gann analysis to forecast the markets rather than react to them.
Running a close second in losses came the Elliott Wave fanatics.
He said his winning traders were almost invariably those who hitched rides on trends, controlled their losses, and jumped off the trend after it finished.
The simpler their methods, the better their results.
He gave me all this information without any prompting from me. He was quite adamant that people invariably wrecked their accounts if they thought they'd trade consistently well by forecasting  the market.

Bunyip


----------



## Luke6450 (11 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> damok
> 
> I don't want to rain on your parade, but if you can possibly do it I'd advise returning the Starter Pack for a full refund. Four grand is highway robbery for a system that simply buys dips during uptrends, and shorts rallies during downtrends. Not that there's anything wrong with such a system, it's just that you can learn it for less than 10 bucks.
> How? Go to 'Pro Trader' website and purchase Frank Watkins booklet 'Darvis Box Trading'....it'll cost you about $8.
> ...






Couldnt agree more... Darvas trading is the way to go... I use the protrader software and nothing more then darvas scans and I have had a great start in such an average market.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 September 2006)

True.....there`s prolly a million reasons on WHEN to get in and WHEN to get out.


----------



## coyotte (11 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hello coyotte,
> 
> 
> Interestingly I spent the day charting and researching derivative instruments… while responding to the odd comment (I’m actually looking at Brent crude as we speak!).
> ...







As REX points out : A simple method used consistantly will usually win out for the long term.

The point I was trying to get over is ( with a SMALL $$$ AMOUNT ) that the pressure of DAY TRADING consistanly over a month , accelerates the learning process  , so that after that period is up you can settle down to the style of trading that is suitable ---- most things that are applicable to med/long term trading can be found within a 5 min chart -- but on top of that you are also finding   out the best TIMES of the day/ week to be placing orders --- one myth that may have been true at one time is " the pros come in near the close " would seem to be utter nonsense now --- last week for example , the day before Copper took off , the miners where being dumped in the last hour of trade  


Cheers


----------



## happytrader (12 September 2006)

coyotte said:
			
		

> As REX points out : A simple method used consistantly will usually win out for the long term.
> 
> The point I was trying to get over is ( with a SMALL $$$ AMOUNT ) that the pressure of DAY TRADING consistanly over a month , accelerates the learning process  , so that after that period is up you can settle down to the style of trading that is suitable ---- most things that are applicable to med/long term trading can be found within a 5 min chart -- but on top of that you are also finding   out the best TIMES of the day/ week to be placing orders --- one myth that may have been true at one time is " the pros come in near the close " would seem to be utter nonsense now --- last week for example , the day before Copper took off , the miners where being dumped in the last hour of trade
> 
> ...


----------



## coyotte (12 September 2006)

HappyTrader
               No not a isolated event at all .
eg: last Friday OXR opened down , then rose to a range bound , then from around 1 to 3 made a steady decline, from 3 (when the pro's are supposed to be in ) it made a steady advance to around 3.45 with a mild decline , but still up on the hour/day (put this down to weekend setteling ).

As I had gone SHORT OXR on Thurs ,I took particular notice of this , but took the lead from the 1-3 time frame and held over the weekend --- the rest is history.

Today ( Tues ) closed the Short as it became obviouse around 2pm that OXR may have hit support @ 2.75 , with an exhuastion gap and Doji forming  .

Last hour of trade the Pro's ??  Sold off

Cheers


----------



## happytrader (13 September 2006)

Hi Coyote

I see what you mean about OXR price action last Friday. That appears to be an indecisive, consolidating day with no clear direction for an entry. With that low volume, are you sure the pros were even in there or do you think they might have waited for clear direction like the breakout on Monday to make a move which the volume might suggest? Just looking at hourly charts over the last 10 days - are you sure they are getting in at 3 or do you think they might be slipping in there just a bit earlier?

Cheers
Happytrader


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

Has anyone been wondering about what kind of information brokers are privy to?  I was not aware that any in-depth studies were being done by online brokers to find out what kind of systems their clients were using. I’ve been pondering this one for a while, and I must say, I’m quite concerned about privacy issues.  

Specifically, how would online brokers gain access to privileged information sufficiently to draw valid conclusions about the behaviour of their clients, especially about the reasons/methods used by their online clients for how and why they traded the way they did?  Especially if they only had contact with people when there were problems, and not related to trading/investment approaches?

The online brokers I use have never issued any questionnaires to my knowledge, and I only ever had contact with them when there was some technical problem to be rectified, otherwise I just put my orders in and nothing more.  I didn’t register as one kind of trader or another either.  So, how would they know why I traded the way I did?

Perhaps where an organisation has a relationship with a broker, and funnels clients into that broker (probably with a pecuniary incentive), then maybe a pattern may emerge, but that raises some questions about propriety too, doesn’t it?

Otherwise, surely brokers would be more interested in the commission/brokerage wouldn’t they?  I’m kind of concerned about how they might be going about finding out precisely which analysis style/package/system their clients are using without their consent.  Isn’t this a breech of the privacy legislation if it is going on? 

Also, the feedback I have received from the full service brokering/financial fraternity that I know is that it is primarily the unprepared Mum’s and Dad’s that lose the most.  But how representative is this observation?  I don’t know – it could be true, it could be false...  without a comprehensive study, how can we be sure of any generalisation?

Most of the brokers I know don’t even comment about such things as Elliott or Gann, and certainly not SITM (although this may have changed in the last 6 months for all I know). They may talk about technical and fundamental analysis, but that’s about the depth of it.  So how do we get a statistically viable sample to draw conclusions from? Surely one conversation is insufficient to draw solid conclusions about behaviour that is meaningful isn’t it? - It’s just one voice out of many.  

If you asked enough people, you’d have hundreds of different opinions wouldn’t you?   And that’s about it, isn’t it?  It is just opinions, and there are many of those, aren’t there?


Magdoran


----------



## rex (13 September 2006)

Magdoran

You are exactly right. Privacy standards are quite low and you are correct in questioning it.

Some big firms get smaller firms using their platform etc, so sometimes things are pretty obvious. Yes deals get exchanged, but I am no expert in the details behind them, business is business. I suppose the answers are always sitting next to the honey pot.

Of course some brokers have access to account details, what they do with this is an ethical issue which I am not going to waste my time on, except to say that humans in general are not to be trusted, although you seem like you are pretty switched on, so I suspect you already are thinking this.

Most brokers are completely clueless, this is why they remain brokers for ever instead of becoming traders. But there is the odd interested switched on one that will ask questions, interview people, do what it takes to find stuff out etc (these are usually the ones who intend to quit one day and trade their own account). 

There is no way for a broker to know your strategy without either studying every trade you make and making correlations, or just calling you(pretending to call for one reason and slipping in the old so what is your strategy question?)

Most people love talking about themselves, I always found if I just asked the person a question and gave them a compliment that they would get a dose of verbal diarrhoea and it would usually be me making an excuse to end the conversation.

Most brokers don't blink an eye at a trader unless they are trading parcels in excess of say a mill consistently, then they may get curious. This is just human nature, if one wants to be successful they must associate themselves and learn from successful people.

Over the years brokers also meet thousands and thousands of traders at trading expo's and the like, information just gets accumulated. 

Yes most brokers are interested in just commissions, unless they intend to quit soon and trade (maybe 1 in 100)

Yes you are dead right, every1 has their own opinion, but all in all I think the majority of experienced traders or brokers etc will pretty much give you the same story, but thats just my opinion.

I hope this answers some of your questions, I need to stop spending so much time writing posts, I'll never get any work done.


Regards
Rex


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

In defence of forecasting approaches to Technical Analysis:


Just because many traders fail in the market does not necessarily invalidate the trading style they have adopted.  That includes people failing with Guppy, Wilson, Bedford, and other moving average/stochastic/MACD/Oscillator based approaches in addition to Elliott Wave, Gann, and even Darvas approaches.  You have to look at why they failed, not just the technique they were using.  There can be a range of reasons for failure (many have been listed on this thread and on this site).  

Effective forecasting is about estimating probabilities, and assessing how the market has moved in the past, and evaluating how it might unfold in the future, and looking at a range of patterns and concepts to make a defined assessment to prepare a detailed plan of action.  

Let’s use the analogy of how blitzkrieg was used in France in 1940 when both sides had similar numbers of men and equipment, but used different techniques.  The old trench warfare (“simple approach”) was ineffective against the co-ordinated method of blitzkrieg (fully developed forecasting).  

Using concepts such as patterns – especially trends and counter trends, looking at patterns of trend, using concepts such as division of the range for price (price extensions and retracements), wave structure (such as Elliott Wave theory), examining market cycles (including a range of time cycle approaches) can be used as aids to estimate probabilities for trading, and form the bedrock for developing detailed trading plans with specific profit and capital protection objective clearly defined. – Essentially probabilities overlaying established risk and reward.

Contrast this with a moving average crossover/histogram approach, or a breakout entry and exit system, and you have a rigid inflexible approach as opposed to a more fluid adaptable plan (much like the French Maginot line vs the Germans blitzkrieg).

When it comes to Elliott Wave theory and Gann principles, it’s like flying a sophisticated jet fighter plane.  As a complete novice you can’t expect to just saunter up and jump in the cockpit, turn on the ignition and fly the thing straight off the runway.  Obviously you need to have sufficient training and experience, and an understanding of aerodynamic principles, and are psychologically fit to do so, don’t you?  

The same is true for people who get into derivatives – some people go to a CFD meeting and expect to instantly use them to trade with a very limited understanding.  This kind of approach might explain why many people fail trying to use any kind of analysis techniques or instrument when they can’t trade successfully in the first place just using bar chart and volume with shares.

Elliott Wave analysis and Gann are certainly involved disciplines to learn and require in my view at least 3 years of solid work to sufficiently master to trade effectively (and then even this might not be enough – also, some people just aren’t cut out for this kind of approach). But to assert that because they require more application to learn initially and that a person can trade immediately with a “simple approach” because it is easier to understand is a short sighted viewpoint.  

So called simple approaches may well return mediocre or even negative results, and certainly in the long run when compared to seasoned traders who are able to become proficient at forecasting styles – but this is impossible to measure.  There are no reliable statistics available, and essentially, everyone must find what they are most comfortable with. Hence with beginners I’m happy to say, “Look at all the different approaches, keep an open but discerning mind, and find what works for you, then modify and evolve it when you’re ready”.

The point I would make though is when you have become a veteran flying the (Elliott/Gann/derivative) jet in the market for real, the equation changes significantly in terms of performance against many of the rigid inflexible approaches. I’ve worked with rigid players who got stuck on moving averages, and I’d be in and out of positions long before their indicators told them what was obvious in the chart – when to get in, when to take profits/losses, when to add, when to take partial positions off.  I had time/price targets, they waited for moving average crossovers…  But this is just my experience, and I’m sure there are many forms of effective charting systems out there that work well.

My suspicion of why some people “crash and burn” initially using forecasting approaches like Elliott and Gann is because, like flying a jet, you have to learn a lot of concepts in theory, and then successfully implement them in practice.  Not an easy thing to do. No wonder many who jump straight in fail – there are so many things you have to get right – psychology (discipline), analysis, strategy (which market/instrument), System (entry and exit rules & money management/expectancy).  But this is to some extent true of trading generally with other so called “simpler approaches”.  Just because many fail using any system does not necessarily lead to the conclusion the approach is wrong if people are not using it correctly.

But there is a chasm of difference in using a so called simple system in that it may not be adaptable to different market conditions.  When I talk about market conditions, I’m referring to market situations such as accumulation and distribution consolidations which may be part of long and medium term economic cycles that effect wider trends in markets, and that trading and investing in smaller time frames in part is affected by the major trends in the longer time frames.  

For instance, a 90 day correction may be a counter trend to a larger bullish drive in a 10 year cycle.  The 90 days of downward trend is the dominant trend in the daily chart while it is trending, but it is a counter trend in the weekly chart for instance.  Hence a swing trader would be successful using a bearish approach perhaps during this correction, but not once the secular bullish trend resumed, unless they were specifically trading counter trends (but would need to understand counter trends to do so).

Another example is a consolidation that may last for 90 days where the underlying trades sideways within a range for this period in a secular bear market in the weekly chart.  Trying to use a bearish swing trading approach in these conditions with 30 day time frames would not be effective generally in these conditions, hence a non directional strategy may be a better approach in these circumstances.  What is at the core is an understanding of the way markets trade, and determining the best strategy to suit the individuals market view.

This is where it gets interesting, because a breakout based system is limited to specific market conditions, and if the individual is not seasoned in a range of charting principles, may end up buying (or selling) false breaks (especially if they aren’t versed in recognising this approach), especially in sideways consolidations.  McLaren goes into a lot of detail I can’t here about this style of trading as being high risk.  This is where many lagging indicator/ black box styles come unstuck if the person can’t recognise this kind of market phenomenon that has been recurring right back to the earliest market records.

So, the so called “simple system” can actually be a trap for the inexperienced.  It may work fine in the conditions it was designed for, but is effectively very narrow in charting terms, and certainly has severe limitations depending on the prevailing market conditions.

The straw man interpretation of forecasting is flawed.  The reality is it’s horses for courses.  Each person who wishes to participate in the market is on a journey of discovery, and the mission is to try to find what works for them.

What I’m saying is, the style I have found that works for me (and certainly a lot of the T/A concepts) would probably benefit a significant proportion of the readers on this thread.  Some will find Guppy/Wilson/Bedford/Watkins really beneficial, and I say, if it works for you, and you’re can benefit from it, great!  

But there are many who have the potential to become very proficient at technical analysis, and really develop strong capabilities to trade the market and prosper.  

It is to the more serious traders and investors that I am appealing to.  Those who don’t want to spend much time or effort on learning technical analysis should stick with the simpler approaches.  I hope all budding technical analysts recognise the distinction being drawn here. The choice is yours!



Regards


Magdoran


P.S. A point of distinction – I’d rate the effort people like tech/a has gone to for instance, not in the category of a “simple approach”, although he may have boiled his trading system into “simple rules”, the system and it’s development are not simple – I’d rate this style as requiring significant effort, and in the same class as I’m referring to, just a different style, but just as valid.


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2006)

Note also the use of the term "forecasting" by Magdoran and not "predicting".

Quantum difference IMO


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Note also the use of the term "forecasting" by Magdoran and not "predicting".
> 
> Quantum difference IMO



Hello Wayne,

Aren't they interchangeable?  Perhaps we need to define this better?  What do you understand by the two terms?


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

rex said:
			
		

> Magdoran
> 
> You are exactly right. Privacy standards are quite low and you are correct in questioning it.
> 
> ...



Aha!  So you’re the broker that rang me up the other day! (Just kidding – I don’t use e-Trade).

Hello Rex,


Yup, I know what you mean about typing up responses.  Fortunately I can touch type… which helps.

Interesting perspective.  You must have had some varied responses!


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hello Wayne,
> 
> Aren't they interchangeable?  Perhaps we need to define this better?  What do you understand by the two terms?
> 
> ...




Well, errr... hurrummphhh! The dictionary itself has destroyed my hypothesis as indeed they are interchangeable  

Cancell that comment! (the difference in semantics appears to be a creation of my own mind)

See! I just can't think properly during daylight LOL!


----------



## professor_frink (13 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> In defence of forecasting approaches to Technical Analysis:
> 
> 
> Just because many traders fail in the market does not necessarily invalidate the trading style they have adopted.  That includes people failing with Guppy, Wilson, Bedford, and other moving average/stochastic/MACD/Oscillator based approaches in addition to Elliott Wave, Gann, and even Darvas approaches.  You have to look at why they failed, not just the technique they were using.  There can be a range of reasons for failure (many have been listed on this thread and on this site).
> ...





Geez Mag, 

I've read novels shorter than some of your posts  

I'm not quite sure if I just accused you of waffling on, or if I've just revealed to the entire world what kind of books I read  
Anyway, I have a question-

What books/educational material would you recommend for a young professor type who is interested in getting his feet wet in a bit of Gann? Which one of his books would you say is good to start with?


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Well, errr... hurrummphhh! The dictionary itself has destroyed my hypothesis as indeed they are interchangeable
> 
> Cancell that comment! (the difference in semantics appears to be a creation of my own mind)
> 
> See! I just can't think properly during daylight LOL!



Hahahaha, Wayne,


I can just see you sprinting for the crypt!


So funny!


Mag


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hahahaha, Wayne,
> 
> 
> I can just see you sprinting for the crypt!
> ...




See you after sundown


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> Geez Mag,
> 
> I've read novels shorter than some of your posts
> 
> ...



Hello professor_frink,


Yup, just call me “Mr Brevity”! Hahaha…  

It’s funny, when I get going… I’m worse in person, I assure you!   - Especially when I’ve had a nice glass or two of Grenache!

Ok, Gann is not an easy subject, and I’m careful not to confuse people with it since there’s so many aspects to it (and the style I use is pretty out there)…

Oddly enough, reading the original Gann material off the batt is really hard going, and confusing - although a lot of the original work is surprisingly well written and makes a lot of sense even now.  But you have to realise a lot of the course work spans across his entire lifetime, and hence is really open to interpretation – just look online at all the texts on it…

Rather than throw you into it, I may just open a PM conversation with you based on where you’re at.  Some materials will just confuse you, and others may hamper your development depending on how you want to develop (for instance you may want to follow Yogi’s astrological style which I do not understand or practice at all…).  So I’d like to individually work out what will give you a good grounding and take it from there if that’s ok?

I find everyone is quite different, so giving a comment here may not help others, and I don’t want to risk stuffing their natural development up either…


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## wayneL (13 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hahahaha, Wayne,
> 
> 
> I can just see you sprinting for the crypt!
> ...




BTW

Did I ever point out that us vampires get all the hot women?  

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e111/sloneandbrock/Vampire_Women.jpg


----------



## coyotte (13 September 2006)

On top of the trading methods mentioned has anyone tried " Bill Wormald's --  Trends & Tripwires " method.

Had limited sucess with this back in the Bear market of the early 2000's , but found the Trend Lines could be very subjective ( my failure ) .

Have recently bought the " Wilson -- Slide Screen and Wilson Grid " found that these have made a vast improvement to the method .

Appeciate any comments

Cheers


----------



## bunyip (13 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> In defence of forecasting approaches to Technical Analysis:
> But there are many who have the potential to become very proficient at technical analysis, and really develop strong capabilities to trade the market and prosper.
> 
> It is to the more serious traders and investors that I am appealing to.  Those who don’t want to spend much time or effort on learning technical analysis should stick with the simpler approaches.  I hope all budding technical analysts recognise the distinction being drawn here. The choice is yours!
> ...




You're almost implying that those who opt for simple trading methods are not serious traders and investors.
I assure you they are.

Proficiency in technical analysis is all well and good.......providing it equates to excellent trading results.
But the most knowledgeable market technicians are not always the most profitable traders. In fact I know some very knowledgeable TA people who've done half a dozen courses and spent years studying everything about TA they could lay their hands on. Yet they still can't trade profitably.

I know others who have limited knowledge because on my advice they latched on to just one simple method. They trade this method over and over again, just like Rex was saying his most successful clients did. They don't get sidetracked by other methods......they don't even know any other method.
They don't seek or listen to advice from anyone. They trade very profitably. In fact I'd say they're well above average in terms of profitably.
Their simple method enables them to take bites out of trends. Sometimes they get half the trend, sometimes they'll nail two thirds of it, occasionally more. 
The reason I steered them towards a simple method is that I've studied and traded both simple and complex methods, and the one thing I know with absolute certainty is that no method can achieve any more than simply taking a bite out of trends. I don't care what the method is, how complex it is, what U beaut forecasting methods it uses, whether its predictive or reactive....it doesn't matter. It will not achieve any more than consistently taking a sizeable bite out of trends.
The simplest of systems can achieve this. Find a new but strong trend. Wait for the retracement. Enter when there's evidence that the retracement has finished and the trend has resumed.
Various systems accomplish this quite nicely. Four that come to mind are....
*Weinstein's system.
*Darvas system.
*Alan Hull's system.
*Elder's Triple Screen system.

Any of these four systems can be traded as a stand alone system without the trader having any knowledge of TA over and above what these systems teach.
All four of them are simple to understand, can be learnt quickly, and are easy to implement. 
All four are very profitable.

Bunyip


----------



## wavepicker (13 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> Magdoran said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bunyip,

Nothing wrong with trying to keep things simple as you say.

However in Mags defence what I think he is saying is that nothing comes easy in the market. The market is a treacherous environment.  Very few are successful without effort, work and study, just like any other professional discipline.

It does not matter if it is complex or simple. In fact what you guys class as complex others could find quite simple. However, if one does not have the discipline to follow a method then it’s useless in the market. It sounds almost like a clichÃ©, but so very few people have it!!

I like you have studied quite a few methods in my time from simple MA crossovers, trading from a bar chart and volume and the one I have stuck with Elliott Waves which I combine with what I hope will be a proprietary form of Cyclic Analysis. This I am very comfortable with and it suits my trading style.

One of the problems with using some of the methodologies that many trend followers use is that they get whipsawed. Especially in sideways consolidations. To be quite honest with you , if you ever looked at one of their typical monthly trading statements, all you will see is a long string of stopouts and an occasional  profitable outlier.

Rex mentioned some common traits needed to be successful. For example, Money management, discipline, not listening to news, and patience.

However if  you want to beat the market consistently  you need an edge. You don’t have to be perfect, as that is not possible. But you need to have an edge/method has a proven track record in markets and  that will put you one notch above 90% of the crowd consistently, and puts you on the right side of the market.  Money management is useless without defining your edge. Otherwise you will just end up with a heap of stoplosses. Sure they are great to use when the market is trending. But when it’s not, you need to know which tool to use for the right job.

I agree with Mag about the fact that most brokers/dealers would have bugger all idea or interest what systems their clients are using. I have been trading over 11 years and changed many brokerage houses. Never ever did I ring up a broker and they question what methodology I was using. Now how would a broker obtain this information unless they conducted some sort of survey?. As far as I am concerned they are only interested in their bottom line commissions.


Cheers


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> You're almost implying that those who opt for simple trading methods are not serious traders and investors.
> I assure you they are.
> 
> Proficiency in technical analysis is all well and good.......providing it equates to excellent trading results.
> ...



Hello Bunyip,

I think you are missing an important piece of the puzzle – and that is the extra dimension of time and price forecasting being used in tandem with instruments like options.  Concepts such as delta, volatility, if used correctly can greatly augment profits based on a variety of trend types.  I’m saying you can bite off more than just that conventional part of the trend with this added approach.

For instance being able to effectively forecast what McLaren defines as blow off trends, or capitulation moves and trading them with options which gain added performance when volatility peaks during strong capitulation moves can allow significant gains to be made well out of the realms of normal share trading, or even using instruments like CFDs.

This requires an ability to assess volatility, and project the likely outcome based on time and price forecasting.  It’s kind of like a topspin forehand in tennis.  If you can hit the sweetspot, you can deliver a crushing drive shot.  Same with options, if you can buy low volatility and sell it on strength when volatility is high during a blowoff/capitulation move, you can hit some significant returns.

Sure, I accept your comment about people using the same strategy over and over, and becoming good at it.  What it requires though is that the specific conditions the strategy is effective at exploiting exists. The approach is limited to being used in the conditions it was designed for.  

This of course is what it’s all about, finding what works for you.  The idea is for people to find what they want.  If they want the approaches you are suggesting, no problem with me. All I’m saying is there is a smorgasbord of choice, and if there is a more rewarding approach around that makes more money with less risk, and allows trading in more types of trends, why not let the people who want to explore different methods to expand their repertoire?  Wouldn’t you adapt a range of approaches to have in your armoury if you wanted to improve your performance?  If you’re happy with an approach and don’t want to change that’s fine too, I don’t have an issue with that.

As for Weinstein which I know well, it is quite limited to specific conditions, sure it can work (quite well sometimes – I still use parts of Weinstein – it has a great sectoral approach), but the risk to reward characteristics are significantly different to the scenario method I’m suggesting.  It’s also a long term strategy at its heart, and has deficiencies using lagging indicators such as moving averages.  As a grand strategic approach it is great, but it lacks the fine detail for precision position trading outside of its core conditions.  Again, it can work fine for people who don’t want to spend much time doing it – fully agree here, and if they are prepared to wait for the key conditions to surface.  It’s great for that and fairly effective at the level it is aimed at.

Isn’t Darvas a breakout system, and is limited to those specific conditions?  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it can’t make time projections to assist in determining option time frames can it?  If it can’t, it really reduces it’s effectiveness to use this kind of instrument, doesn’t it?  Also, from what I saw of it, it can’t get anywhere near the whole bite of the trend even conventionally – isn’t that right?  Also, it’s at high risk of buying false breaks too isn’t it?  Also, it is not very effective for dealing with consolidating markets is it?  Again, I’m sure it may help with finding prospects which are clearly trending, and ride a normally trending stock (ala McLaren’s definition).

I didn’t really find Elder’s system that inspiring personally, but I’m sure there are some who love it and do well using it – personally I’ve never met them, but maybe there is one around to comment on it.  Good luck if you can make a buck using the triple screen system.  I suspect though that if we found someone who uses it successfully, you’d also find a good chartist in action.

Hull I know nothing about, so can’t comment here, but may have a look someday.

The other thing these systems have problems with is choppy markets, don’t they?  Surely you’d agree that their effectiveness is significantly reduced in consolidating/sideways markets?  This is not good if you’re trading options and time frame is relevant to the equation.  Don’t forget, long CFD positions accrue interest costs too…

Sure, all of these can be profitable – but in the right hands.  Also, why are they so often not profitable? – because they’re in the wrong hands.  Find the right system for the right person.  But I’d argue that most of these in the average hands at best gets average results – but I could be wrong – I just don’t know.  Also, if people trial these systems and make money consistently with them, great – do what makes you money, I have no issue with that.  

What I do say is that forecasting methods in the right hands (that’s who I’m really addressing my comments to) operated the right way can be very effective.  Combine it with the right derivative capability (newbies be careful with this approach it is very complex – please don’t start here!), and the results can be augmented significantly.  But also, please understand that this requires a marriage of derivative and T/A approaches, hence it’s highly specialised.  I have never ventured this as a solution for beginners, or for people who are not prepared to do it full time.



			
				bunyip said:
			
		

> Find a new but strong trend. Wait for the retracement. Enter when there's evidence that the retracement has finished and the trend has resumed.



Yup, sounds great.  How many people actually do this?  A good chartist can, but an imposed system I would argue can obscure actually looking at the chart with nothing else.  That’s where it all starts, doesn’t it?  Recognising trends, and more importantly recognising counter trends, wouldn’t you agree?

Now, I have said, you should consider learning charting first if you’re going to use Elliott or Gann.  I didn’t say, try and make it complex for the hell of it.  I just think that there is a lot of hidden complexity involved with trading period.  To be a really good T/A practitioner you have to study a lot of charts, and start to recognise a whole host of patterns in the way markets trend.  Some bodies of knowledge can help to develop the “vocabulary” of charting by recognising commonly understood patterns.

So, no I don’t say that serious traders don’t have a simple set of rules, they do.  What they do though is to have the knowledge to figure out a consistently profitable approach.  Sure, they can do this in isolation, but they have to have some ability to recognise a tradable pattern, and the ability to successfully execute it.  I really don’t think we disagree here.

I’m not saying that some people using the approaches that you are suggesting won’t be successful, I’m sure many will, and will be happy with the result. What I am saying is that there are also people who are serious about T/A and want more precision and flexibility, and that I’m highlighting a segment of T/A that exists in the vast quadrant of approaches available, but recognising that there is a lot of work involved to become proficient at it. 


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (13 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> See you after sundown




No wonder you're so popular!

Stop it Wayne, you're killing me!


Mag


----------



## bunyip (14 September 2006)

Magdoran

I don't know what return you've averaged on your trading capital over say the last six or eight years. And I have no wish to know....your trading results are your private business. However,  I doubt if your use of forecasting methods combined with options has consistently outperformed those who are competent at riding big trends for big profits. But of course I can't say this with any degree of certainty.

Yes, a trend riding approach is limited to being used in the conditions it was designed for. These conditions exist ALL THE TIME. 
Regardless of the condition of the broad market, at any given time there are more strongly trending stocks, hence more trading opportunities, than we can ever utilise.
Those who zero in on these strong trenders can do well in any market. At present I'm in a couple of trades that are rattling along very nicely.......even though the overall market is choppy at best.

No, I wouldn't have a whole range of approaches in my armoury. I tried that, but I kept coming back to the one simple approach because it worked the best, and it worked regardless of overall market conditions.
Over the years I've made a point of reading about the truly great traders who amassed millions upon millions of dollars. The one characteristic they all had in common was that they specialised in one strategy, made it their own, became expert in it, traded it over and over again. And their system was usually very simple.
They didn't have half a dozen different strategies to fit different market conditions. They didn't need to....their strategy always gave them plenty of profitable trading opportunities.
Maybe you have a strategy that outperfoms these people, maybe you don't. If you do, there should be nothing to stop you from amassing even more money than they did.

You asked how many people actually implement the simple trend following approach I've outlined. From my observation, very few. The thinking seems to be "This is too simple, it can't be any good, let's improve it by adding some complexity".

You've asked me a host of questions about Darvis strategy. In an earlier post you were quite dismissive of it, as you were of Frank Watkins book and his Pro Trader software. The nature of your questions shows you know very little about the Darvas system. Rather than answer your questions, I'm going tell you that the best way to clear up your misconceptions about Darvis is to firstly learn about the method, then check it out over a thousand or so charts going back ten or fifteen years. In my earlier posts I outlined a cheap and simple way of learning the Darvas strategy. You might want to look into it further. However, be warned that it's very basic, very simple, very commonsense. Nick Radge described it as 'simple, logical, robust, profitable'.
Considering your leaning towards complex strategies, I really don't think Darvis would suit you at all.

Re the question about how would brokers know which system their clients were trading? I think Rex did a pretty good job of answering that one already.
As for the former broker I spoke to, he dealt with his clients over the phone in the days before online trading. He got to 'know' many of his clients, what systems and strategies they were using'. 

Bunyip


----------



## Magdoran (14 September 2006)

Hello Bunyip,


I love your style - indefatigable just like me!  Love it!

Ok, this focus on complexity VS simplicity I must admit is not something I’ve really thought about in the way you do.  I just didn’t think it was that relevant.  You obviously really hug this concept and take it to bed with you, which is fine, but I much prefer nicer bedfellows…

I suppose that my focus is to find high probability trades using an instrument (or instruments) which will deliver the best risk to reward characteristics I can find.  If the probability or the risks to reward characteristics don’t measure up, I just don’t take the trade.  It’s that simple.  The complexity stemmed from working out how to do this by research and trial and error (and continues to be an ongoing challenge).  

Turning the “on” switch to supply power from of a nuclear reactor is easy, it’s conceiving the theory behind atomic power, and adequately designing building and running the thing that is the challenge, isn’t it?

You see Bunyip, I see this as a kind of exploration on one level as well as a fiscal paper chase.  I like to make it fun while recognising the serious aspects. Let’s just see how things pan over the next few years, and if either of us gets our names up in lights, then we can each salute the other – I’ll even buy you dinner if I hit my fiscal target, how does that sound?  We can share a good meal with whatever you like to drink (Grenache for me please! – But then you’d have to deal with the result! Haha – Better get you some earplugs).  I’ll even fly you over to wherever I am – how’s that?

Now, you talk about market players who made millions.  Try this one – George Soros.  Ever heard of “Reflexivity”, “dynamic disequilibrium” for instance – sounds pretty challenging, doesn’t it?  But it’s really simple – once you’ve studied it enough to figure out what it all means.  Soros used a range of strategies to amass millions.  If you don’t know the stories, there are many books on the subject like making billions on the currency markets shorting the UK pound, and quadrupling the Soros fund in around a year.  Using Reflexivity and dynamic disequilibrium theories formed the foundations of how he adapted to the market conditions using what you might call “complex strategies” – but his solutions were really elegant (some may say “ballsy”).  That’s where I want to be…

What you don’t seem to want to accept is an alternative point of view from a polar opposite discipline to yours in one specific dimension of T/A, combined with a viewpoint which doesn’t embrace financial instruments as much as I do.  This is an observation, not a criticism.  For me this isn’t a “mines bigger than yours competition”.  I love what I do, and I get a kick out of figuring strategies out.  I just love to share some ideas, and sometimes some really interesting questions come back which inspire me to think of things I hadn’t considered.

Where I think we differ is that you seem (I could be wrong here – just an impression) to think that if you have experienced something, and have drawn a conclusion you believe in, that it must be universally true (come on, you know it’s true! – rattle rattle!).  Once again I come from a polar opposite viewpoint (Ala Soros) that all knowledge is flawed (note the paradox here), and that my mission is to locate the flaws (including the ones in my own thinking) and correct them.  Simple really, isn’t it?

Ok, perhaps I could have been a little more diplomatic about the comments on Darvas, and I did note Nick’s comments on it, fair enough… but you see, having read and agreed with many of your previous posts on other threads, and seeing what I thought was a seasoned trader in action, I was really disappointed when I finally read through Frank’s book.

Now, if you have studied under McLaren as you seemed to indicate, you’d understand what his perspective may be on the matter.  Let’s face it, he’s very strong in pure straight T/A, isn’t he?  If you’d really studied his approach, buying breakouts runs the risk of buying false breaks.  Surely you can understand this perspective.  Also, you miss either an earlier entry on a higher low (lower high), or if you’re trading options you’d probably be buying volatility rather than entering with a lower volatility entry.  You may not agree with it, but it is an obvious potential point of contention when talking pure T/A concepts is it not?

What I read from many of your current posts is a kind of love affair with Darvas (or is it Darvis???).  You’d almost think you’d written it yourself and were receiving the royalties from it sometimes – just read your glowing praise for it.  Interestingly, I believe you had some very different approaches in the past – does this mean that you have abandoned all other methods and only trade using the Darvas method now?  If so, are you finding that it is outperforming your previous systems (even in a sideways market since the May top)?

As for my leaning towards “complex strategies”, I’m rethinking the definitions here.  I think what I’m trying to do is to find effective high return and small risk approaches.  These can be “involved” because they have more than one dimension to them such as using derivatives – which unfortunately you have to understand, which does take time to research and implement.  I think wavepicker got it right, I do think the market is actually involved.  If you don’t do the “due diligence”, surely your probability of success is less assured, isn’t it? 

I still think this market is big enough for the two of us (maybe even this thread – as long as you agree with everything I say Mwahhhaaa!).  The beauty of the market is that there are so many ways to play it, isn’t it?  There’s nothing like diversity.  We just happen to be on opposite ends of the spectrum on one level, and in entirely different quadrants on another – what we both share is a passion for the market, and the courage of our convictions – that’s something I value Bunyip, and hope you do too.


Yours in mirth



Magdoran


----------



## WaySolid (15 September 2006)

I recently read that the reasons the arguments in academia are so fierce is that the stakes are so low. I think that nicely summed up what I see now and then on forums.

Of course trading results are important, I am very open with mine and would be even more about my methods if I was seeking kudos or started trying to educate people, I have seen plenty of systems and ideas that range from the simple to the so complex you have to laugh. And I have only been in the markets for a few short years.

Asking for a few simple stats cuts like a hot knife through butter in the end when comparing any of the two million ways to make money in the markets.

I'm more inclined to believe the main reward for trading is making money, so you can start with this and work backwards to reveal simple truths about anything related to systems trading.

Darvas's book is a top read btw, have to track it down for a 2nd read.


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2006)

I agree W/S.

All I see is pointless hypothesis and theory with no practical use to anyone.


----------



## Magdoran (15 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> I agree W/S.
> 
> All I see is pointless hypothesis and theory with no practical use to anyone.



There’s no point in discussing anything with you tech:

You’ve got blinkers welded so firmly to your head you couldn’t even see the flash from a 10 trillion kiloton nuclear bomb going off beside you, let alone learn how to spell or punctuate.


----------



## tech/a (15 September 2006)

That may appear so.
But actually I would love to see some clear concise demonstration of Gann principles (Other than swing trading) by someone.

What gets a lot of people wound up is that nothing is clear.
Even a simple,*ahead of time*,Entry at X because of---(as Gann is predictive) and exit at Y because of-----(as Gann is predictice),seems to be beyond practitioners.

Ive even sat and watched a so called Gann expert trade.
If he had any idea what he was doing I'll eat Bugs Bunny!

You maybe very different.

You seem very forthcoming I'm happy to follow you and not give you a hard time,but I will ask questions.
I promise I wont get personal!!


----------



## Magdoran (15 September 2006)

WaySolid said:
			
		

> I recently read that the reasons the arguments in academia are so fierce is that the stakes are so low. I think that nicely summed up what I see now and then on forums.
> 
> Of course trading results are important, I am very open with mine and would be even more about my methods if I was seeking kudos or started trying to educate people, I have seen plenty of systems and ideas that range from the simple to the so complex you have to laugh. And I have only been in the markets for a few short years.
> 
> ...



Look waysolid, 


Why don’t you just come over and live at my place for a while? (it’s a little colder in Melbourne than the Gold Coast I know, but you’ll get used to it).  You could even sleep in-between my wife and I and take notes.  In fact, why not record all my phone calls while you’re at it, copy all my files, come and sit in on all my meetings, especially with my accountant, lawyers, Doctor… 

Hey, why stop there?  Maybe I should detail all the IP I and others working with me have developed over the years especially in derivatives, and let you publish the lot on the web?  I won’t mind if I get creamed in the market as competing market players eat me alive and systematically take out my positions.  That’s perfectly reasonable, isn’t it?

In fact, why don’t I just give you complete power over everything, will that satisfy you?  Then I could come over to your house and do the same.  How does that sound?  You can fly me to Europe, that’d be nice, hope you don’t snore!

Ok, let me just make a couple of comments:  firstly, where I come from your stance would be considered quite rude.  Secondly I’m an ardent supporter of civil liberties – ever heard the term privacy?  Despite Bunyip and I coming from different schools discussing T/A, we actually agree on a lot of things including the concept of privacy of our own affairs.

I am not prepared to reveal either IP I have developed, or have co-developed that could potentially financially disadvantage any of the people I co-operate/work with, including my own positions.  I will share what I can, but not to the detriment of myself or others.  If you had developed IP at this level, then you wouldn’t be making the comments you have.  Try researching the history of financial instruments and you may start to get the picture.  If you still can’t read between the lines, then you should just accept that there are events happening that you just don’t understand (not that I’m saying I’m “omnipotent” either – I’m not, I miss things all the time, but I do see some things others don’t).


Since you are a busy body prying kind of person: 

I have had no negative months for over 18 months.  The best month I had in this time period more than doubled my entire trading capital (the majority of my capital - that’s more than 60% of it is used for trading).  My wins tend to return 300-500% and above usually in under one month, but some can run longer than this period.  The top level returns exceeded 1000% (Best to date was 1350% in around 2 weeks).  Losses usually range from 10% to 30%, (my worst loss due to a derivative error in this time frame was 100% - but there was only this one).  The win to loss ratio varies a lot, but in this time frame depending on the outcome of current trades is around 64.4%.

Part of the result though is affected by trialling new approaches which take time to bed in and adjust using derivatives.  Initially some of these can be quite costly even when test flying them, and sometimes there are flaws in them that are not obvious until the market deals you a “body blow” where the flaw is.

There can be a range of shorter and longer term approaches that run concurrently depending on the market conditions.  Some of the trades are arbitrage based, some are based on trends, some are counter trend plays, some are volatility based, etc.  I’m still in the experimental stages for many of these approaches and probably will need a further 3-5 years to perfect using a range of approaches to suit various market conditions.

My blackest day several years ago was trading an unhedged derivative with around an $80K exposure, only to nearly have a heart attack when a trading halt was called on bad news, and I was long.  Very, very sobering.  I learnt a lot from that little episode.  It is engraved on my memory.  Since then I woke up to learning more about risk to reward and probability as you can imagine.

So, WaySolid, does that satisfy you?  I kind of resent having my integrity gouged while making the effort to inform people on the derivative thread about the intricacies of these instruments along with the requisite warnings.  I’ve been very careful to furnish information for newer traders and investors in a way that warns them of the pitfalls, and allows them the flexibility to make up their own minds.  I’m even upfront about my biases and recognise that I’m only putting up my opinion, and have said countless times it’s not gospel.  

But I do try to be sure of my facts, and have been prepared to argue consistently, honestly and logically where I can – even concede points when appropriate.  Just read my posts, and tell me if you’ve contributed as much?  I’m happy to have discussions, but traducing everyone’s comments on this thread is pretty poor show in my opinion.

Please do question and comment on the posts as you see fit, but attacking someone’s integrity is pretty ugly WaySolid.  Not cool.


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (15 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> That may appear so.
> But actually I would love to see some clear concise demonstration of Gann principles (Other than swing trading) by someone.
> 
> What gets a lot of people wound up is that nothing is clear.
> ...



I’m stunned. Here I was hunkered down in my bunker with full protective clothing and supplies waiting for the Nuclear “tech/a” to go off.  And what happens? Fizzle... pop... not even a “1” on the Richter scale.

What’s going on tech, you’re being all conciliatory?  You’re not supposed to do that!

Are you sure that it’s you, and not a duplicate left by aliens?

Well well, just goes to show you “anything can happen, and every moment is unique”.

I don’t know that I’m the foremost Gann expert – I’m a practitioner still earning my stripes...

The core of how I trade is pure pattern T/A, with added wave structure when appropriate, and time factor when a vibration seems to be evident, but this is the hardest part to learn.  I use Gann squares, and sometimes true trend lines and zero angles as confirmation.  But to do all this is based on a grasp like all good chartists on understanding trends and counter trends, and is necessarily subjective like any form of analysis.

You’ve looked at McLaren, it’s all there, the challenge is to really understand in practice what he’s on about, and how to use it effectively.  That’s the problem, a lot is based on the creative side of the mind working freely (at least that’s the conclusion I came to).

How’s that for a start...

Must away, Friday functions to attend!



Astonished Regards


Magdoran


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2006)

I don't know whether it's because I'm in the middle of an extensive "test drive" of the new Little Creatures Bright Ale,  ( http://www.littlecreatures.com.au/happening/ )but I'm getting some good belly laughs from this forum this arvo.

Very funny posts Mag 

Cheers (been saying that several times today   )


----------



## bunyip (15 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hello Bunyip,
> 
> What I read from many of your current posts is a kind of love affair with Darvas (or is it Darvis???).  You’d almost think you’d written it yourself and were receiving the royalties from it sometimes – just read your glowing praise for it.  Interestingly, I believe you had some very different approaches in the past – does this mean that you have abandoned all other methods and only trade using the Darvas method now?  If so, are you finding that it is outperforming your previous systems (even in a sideways market since the May top)?
> 
> ...




I'll have a love affair with any trading method which is simple and very profitable.

My approach for many years has been, and still is, to find strong new trends, wait for a brief retracement, then enter the trade once the retracement ends and the trend resumes.
That is precisely what the Darvas method does......even though you seem to have yourself convinced that it's a highly risky breakout strategy.

As I said in an earlier post, I don't trade Darvas exclusively, my approach includes ideas I've picked up from several methods, combined with a couple of my own ideas.

Bunyip


----------



## wayneL (15 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> My approach for many years has been, and still is, to find strong new trends, wait for a brief retracement, then enter the trade once the retracement ends and the trend resumes.
> That is precisely what the Darvas method does......even though you seem to have yourself convinced that it's a highly risky breakout strategy.




Bunyip,

(?)

Not to criticize your approach (which I think is absolutely fine within the context of trend following), but I thought Darvas was a breakout of all time highs, with a  few pattern filters ( the box setup etc )

I've never read the book, but this is from what several people I know who hav e read the book.

Just seeking clarification.

Cheers


----------



## tech/a (16 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> You’ve looked at McLaren, it’s all there, the challenge is to really understand in practice what he’s on about, and how to use it effectively.  That’s the problem, a lot is based on the creative side of the mind working freely (at least that’s the conclusion I came to).
> 
> How’s that for a start...




Followed McLaren many years ago when he was posting daily market summary's.Did so for 9 mths.

I found he altered the goal posts when predictions werent adheared to,and that was pretty well everyone.

There was and still is "No Practical use" as a trading methodology for *predictive* GANN

But happy to have it demonstrated to me.


----------



## Magdoran (16 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Followed McLaren many years ago when he was posting daily market summary's.Did so for 9 mths.
> 
> I found he altered the goal posts when predictions werent adheared to,and that was pretty well everyone.
> 
> ...



Hello tech/a,


You and I have essentially done the same thing.  We have each built our own knowledge of the market through experience, and developed an approach suited to our personality.

Where our approaches differ is that the system/mechanical approaches are generally easier for the general population to grasp and implement in terms of time and effort initially.  The intuitive/discretionary/forecasting styles (and there are a host of very different approaches) tend to take more time and effort to develop, and are more reliant on the capacity of the individual.  

But this is a gross generalisation, and I suspect in your case tech, you’ve moved well beyond a black box approach welding all sorts of modifications on as you’ve developed. Interestingly, and this may come as a surprise, but I actually believe that you are strongly driven by your intuition (certainly in business), and that ironically your system approach is the result of strong hunches you’ve had.  Sure you’ve done the Rage “Prove - Disprove” waltz, but driven by a determination to succeed – a core emotion.

Let’s put all of this in a technical analysis in context.  I believe that market knowledge is imperfect and incomplete.  Technical Analysis attempts to synthesise and graphically represent the aggregation of market transactions on a chart in order to interpret the available price information. 

Rather than post a “War and Peace” response (professor_frink might breath a sigh of relief), I might just break down a few concepts for you to mull over in pieces…

What I want to do is to recognise that different people have different talents, then move onto a synopsis of what I do, followed by a brief outline of McLaren and why you may have come to the conclusions you have, and venture a different interpretation:

People have unique abilities and preferences:
Everyone has their own preferences and unique talent. The way you and I work are unique.  Different people have different sets of skills and capabilities.  I suspect this stems from a combination of genetic predisposition, environment, application to learning, which is in part affected by access to knowledge, and by the quality of the available knowledge.  Add to this psychological disposition, drive, cunning, ingenuity, determination, and perhaps Douglas’ concepts on psychological make up should be included.

So, tech, you may have already found what works for you, hence what I do may well be totally alien since you and I in some of our choices are polar opposites (this doesn’t mean one is better than the other – just different – hence the idea of diversity and “horses for courses”):  You seem to have a preference for System/mechanical approaches, while I lean more to Gann/Elliott discretionary/intuitive approaches – maybe it’s just in our make up.

Following this post I’ll flesh out the rest of my thinking for today for you to consider.


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (16 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Followed McLaren many years ago when he was posting daily market summary's.Did so for 9 mths.
> 
> I found he altered the goal posts when predictions werent adheared to,and that was pretty well everyone.
> 
> ...



Hello tech/a,


Bunyip got me thinking about simplicity recently, and now that I think of it, what I do in terms of T/A at its core is really straight forward:  

•	Identify the type of trend in the daily, weekly and monthly charts.
•	Look for tradeable patterns – find a trend.
•	Imagine how the underlying might trend into the future
•	Map out a plan of action including entry points, failure criteria and profit taking; based on pattern, time and price. (Look for counter trends to enter, and set exit rules).

To identify patterns, you essentially need a technical analysis “vocabulary” based on researching how different markets move. At its core is learning to recognise counter trends, bar chart and volume, types of trend, topping and basing patterns, consolidations (accumulation and distribution), wave structure, price extension/retracement ranges, and later time cycles where appropriate.

Try visualising the future like Napoleon.  Battles are chaotic and fluid, so is the market.  Having a fluid battle plan was at the core of his military victories.  Napoleon would study the ground, study the enemy (both the nature of the opposing commander, as well as the strengths and weakness of the opposing force), account for logistics, environment, morale, fatigue and would consider with great care the timing of different units tactics.

So it is with the market, it is dynamic, and like many chaos and quantum theories (Like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for example) as events unfold, there are countless possibilities.  So, I believe that a plan should be intuitively developed to account for a plausible and workable range of contingencies.  If a pattern yields a potential entry, the idea is to bolt in a range of exit strategies including price and time points and patterns. Specific examples are to use McLaren’s partial profit approach at key points of support (if short) or resistance (if long).  Then identify re-entry points if correct, and exit points if wrong.

The stress is on assessing probabilities, and looking for points in time or price or both to take profits, or when certain patterns emerge when the trend you are trading becomes at risk.  When trading options it is exiting these on strength if long an option, and aiming to enter when the volatility is favourable for the chosen strategy. 

Underlying this is studying lots of charts in different time frames in different markets, and learning how markets have traded in the past, picking up a “vocabulary” of patterns and clues.  Then it’s looking at various concepts such as wave structures (Elliott Wave for instance), time cycles, price range extensions and retracements. 

The idea is to map out how the underlying might behave based on the patterns that you see, and then establishing entry criteria and exit criteria. You actually define a unique exit for each trade, but using your own intuitively built methodology.  The core idea is that every situation is unique, and the challenge is to assess the probabilities and develop a fluid trading plan to suit your understanding of the market in a way that gives the trader an edge.

Grasping the concept:
Did you attend any of McLaren’s seminars, and/or study the two sets of DVDs, and/or the read the book “Gann Made Easy”?  If not, there are a lot of concepts you need to understand, and just reading his musings would really not make much sense in isolation.  In addition, if you did do all the above, did you actually read all the Gann original works armed with this knowledge, and study them?

If you have not gone through this process, then my trying to give you examples are not really going to help if we don’t share the same building blocks and “vocabulary”.

I know you’ve said you were following the reports at one stage.  Just reading the reports in isolation is not sufficient to understanding the way he asses probability, or fully understand the analysis or the system behind his “musings”.  

McLaren’s reports are not telling you how he is trading.  He’s musing about what he’s seeing and thinking for educational purposes.  What you may interpret as shifting goal posts I interpret as him reacting to events as they unfold and re-evaluating the probabilities, essentially discarding or demoting the possibility of a scenario, and postulating what is likely from the information available.  Like any good trader one has to be open to a range of possibilities.  

If you read between the lines, and understand the material, it becomes much clearer what he’s getting at.  But you have to understand the source material to get it.

One more quick post to go…


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (16 September 2006)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Followed McLaren many years ago when he was posting daily market summary's.Did so for 9 mths.
> 
> I found he altered the goal posts when predictions werent adheared to,and that was pretty well everyone.
> 
> ...



Hello Tech,


It is really difficult to put all the core concepts that I know into a post or two on a site like this and do it justice.  There are hours of material to cover, and in this medium a lot of critical ideas just won’t translate well.

What might be worthwhile is to find out if you really want to know more about this, since you already have a very mature system, and perhaps some of the style I have adopted may not translate easily onto your approach, unless you’re looking to radically change.

If you’re curious, sure, go for it and look at the material.  If you’ve done that, I’d be happy to have a dialogue with you, and even sign post some avenues for you to think about.  But this approach in part embraces the concept of the individual building a store house of knowledge and experience to draw from (much as you have already done in your own way).  

What you need to do is to think about wether you should just stick to what you have and maybe incrementally bolt new ideas onto it, or if you want to look at radically different ideas, and incorporating them on a wider scale into your current outlook…  

These are serious choices for you tech since you have a well established “home” at Reefcap, and an established reputation with your techtrader system.  As bunyip says, some people just find a niche and keep doing it – maybe you’ve found your niche already?  Key question: Are you willing to push the envelope with an open but discerning mind?

You may not feel comfortable with this alternative approach, it may not suit you.  On the other hand, you may see what you’re doing from a different angle, and this might really benefit your perspective and open some possibilities you hadn’t considered  - you may find a chink of inspiration.  Have a think about what you want to do here.  If this is just a bit of sport, hey, we can entertain Wayne some more… If you’re serious I’ve given you the basis of a roadmap here to be expanded on.  Your choice.


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (16 September 2006)

bunyip said:
			
		

> I'll have a love affair with any trading method which is simple and very profitable.
> 
> My approach for many years has been, and still is, to find strong new trends, wait for a brief retracement, then enter the trade once the retracement ends and the trend resumes.
> That is precisely what the Darvas method does......even though you seem to have yourself convinced that it's a highly risky breakout strategy.
> ...



You know bunyip,


Ive been thinking about comments that you and coyote have made, and on reflection I think I’m going to recant on a couple of perspectives I had.

I was musing through borders again (my wife loves that place, so I get to review different books while we have coffee), and I picked up Wilson and Guppy, and realised much of the way I work now was a process of looking at everything that moved.

Now that I think about it, maybe I had to try these approaches out to find what did work for me, even if I threw the lion’s share of it out later.  So, maybe it is a good thing for newer players to at least have these concepts in their “technical analysis vocabulary”?

The jury is still out for me though...  Those who are familiar with my music learning analogy would understand my emphasis on getting the emotions right from the start.

Maybe newer players should look at all those basic books, and try them all to learn.  Perhaps this would give them a really good grounding, and allow them to walk through whichever door they wanted to.  Hard to say.

I held the belief that using too many gizmo’s actually obscured the individuals ability to “see” the market…  maybe you need to discover this by using the gizmo’s and then trying NOT using them.  Maybe Watkins isn’t bad for beginners in that context.

Just thinking out loud…


Hmmmm, if bunyip thinks that there is something to Darvas, maybe I need to revisit it again.

Bunyip, never let it be said that I’d stand in the way of true love.  You have my blessing! (hehehe).

Just a quick clarification.  Did you go through the McLaren DVDs?  If you did, what did you make of his comment of buying breakouts?


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## tech/a (16 September 2006)

Mogdoran.

Its Simple.
All I and many others here would like to see is a practical demonstration of Gann trading (other than swingtrading) right here.

Ive been able to do it for 4 yrs on Reef,why cant *ONE* Gann trader do it for say 10 trades on a forum?

There is always so much complexity in replies I honestly doubt Gann can be traded profitably (Consistently)---as even Gann traders cant get it to perform---consistantly.

10 trades show us how its done?---demonstrate.
Win lose or draw.

I have no choices to make,Im just interested like everyone else in seeing a practioner of a methodology at work.

There has to surely be one of you out there.


----------



## robots (16 September 2006)

hello

put it all into the banks, continually

cba been returning around 34% pa for many many years

forget the trading 

thankyou
robots


----------



## bunyip (16 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Bunyip,
> 
> (?)
> 
> ...




Wayne

Strong trends accompanied by surging volume are the starting point for Darvas analysis. Any reference to a previous high, whether it's an all time high or 12 month high or whatever, is for trend identification, the thinking being that a stock must be strongly trending if it's made an all time high or a new high for a specified time period. The system doesn't automatically buy if price breaks above an all time high or six month high...it needs to form a Darvis box, which can only occur if there's a retracement within the trend. And then for the entry to be triggered, the retracement must end and the trend must resume by moving above the top of the box. 
Watkins and Guppy in my view give a better analysis of the Darvas system than Darvas himself gave. In addition they've added a thing or two that Darvis didn't have access to. 
Personally I don't think a stock is necessarily trending strongly just because it's making a 3 month high or 12 month high or whatever. It could be staggering sideways at or near a 12 month high, and every so often poking it's nose above the 12 month high, then pulling back into it's trading range again.
Such a stock would clearly be in a flat trend rather than a bullish trend, even though it's trading at high levels. I use a couple of my own criteria for identifying strong trends...I believe these do a better job of trend identification than a break above the high of a specified period of time.

Although I don't think he actually says so in his book, Frank Watkins told me in person when I spoke to him at the Brisbane Traders Expo, that he's quite happy for the stock to be making 30 day highs prior to the formation of a Darvas box. During this rising price action prior to the formation of the box, he also likes to see surging volume and rising On Balance Volume.
Basically he likes to see a sleepy stock 'wake up' by surging in price and volume, with price going out to at least a 30 day high. This surge tells him a strong new trend is underway. Then when there's a pullback, the top of this pullback becomes the top of a box (providing it fits a couple of simple criteria). The bottom of this same pullback forms the bottom boundary of the box, (again, providing it meets certain criteria). When the box is formed, the entry signal is a tick above the top of the box. 
In effect the system buys when price moves above the most recent resistance level, i.e. above the top of the last pullback. 
In view of this requirement that it must break out above the top of the box to trigger an entry, I guess it could be argued that it's a breakout system. 
But then, it could also be argued that Elder's Triple Screen system is also a breakout system, since it puts a buy order above the second last bar of a pullback that's still underway, and buys when price breaks out above the second last bar.
However, in reality what both the Darvas and Elder systems are doing is firstly identifying a trend, secondly waiting for a pullback, then buying when the pullback ends and the trend resumes.
This all pretty much fits in with the description Darvas gave of his first couple of trades with his system. He noticed a couple of stocks that started surging in price and volume. He waited for them to pause briefly, then he bought them once they resumed their trends. From memory he made no reference to whether they were at an all time high or 6 month high or whatever.

Cheers
Bunyip


----------



## bunyip (16 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> You know bunyip,
> 
> Just a quick clarification.  Did you go through the McLaren DVDs?  If you did, what did you make of his comment of buying breakouts?
> 
> ...




Magdoran

I bought and studied McLaren's 'Gann Made Easy' course. In addition I've been given access to various McLaren materials by friends who've spent a fair bit of money on his courses. That was about eight years ago and in all honesty I don't recall if I've seen his DVD's. Maybe not, since DVD's probably weren't widely in use eight years ago.
I don't rate McLaren as highly as you do. In some ways I think he's trying to reinvent the wheel. He's unnecessarily complicating what is essentially very simple.
He said himself that the people who've made money selling Gann courses outnumber those who have made money by trading Gann methodology.

Like Tech, I've yet to find anyone who can demonstrate trading proficiency by using Gann technique, and has the results to prove that he's made consistently excellent returns over many years. 
I've known several blokes who claimed to have repeatedly picked the top or bottom of a trend or market by using Gann analysis, yet they never could produce the sort of trading results that would have supported their claims about their forecasting ability.

Many years ago I attended an ATAA presentation by Neil Costa, when he was employed by SITM. It was early in the year, and he gave us a number of Gann based forecasts for the All Ords for the coming year. 
I followed all of those forecasts over the next nine months or so to see how accurate he was. 
He was so far out, it was a joke.

Bunyip


----------



## wavepicker (17 September 2006)

Hello Bunyip,



> Maybe not, since DVD's probably weren't widely in use eight years ago.
> I don't rate McLaren as highly as you do. In some ways I think he's trying to reinvent the wheel. He's unnecessarily complicating what is essentially very simple.




I have seen the Mclaren "Foundations for Succesfull Trading ".  This is part 1 of 2 part DVD course that Mclarens sells. This DVD barely deals with any Gann Methodologies. It primarily prepares one on how to trade from a bar chart and volume alone. It introduces to the trader such things as dealing with:
-identifying types of trends ie normal, creeping, and blowoffs, consolidations
-identifying countertrend moves and learning to position correctly from a counter trend move
-looking at the pattern of the trend(not things like H&S) but how the market is trending
-things to look out for when entering a trend and staying with that trend until it becomes at risk of ending
-volume
-wave structure(this is a very simlified form of EW)
-momentum
-price level

The main theme of the DVD is to recognize and trade good strong trending markets BUNYIP!!!

There is NOTHING complicated about this DVD. It is great for both beginners and more experienced traders alike. It's main purpose as the title says is as a "foundation" or base before moving onto more advanced TA studies.
I met Bill about 4 years ago and I also wanted to buy his part 2 DVD on the Gann Time Factor. The man talked me out of it!!! I was using EW as my primary trading tool(and still do) back then, but all I knew was how to apply the rules and guidelines of the wave principle. I didn't know enough about how prices moved. Once you know how trade from a barchart and volume alone, then you can move onto Elliott he said. Things will make much more sense then. I took the mans advice and my trading has changed dramatically over the last 4 years. 

What has helped me is applying what I learnt in fast markets like the FX and futures markets. It's amazing how quickly you can learn simply by looking at how and why prices move. I would recommend it to anyone. I have studied many courses and books over the years and this would have to be one of the best in my opinion.

Guys using mechanical systems in long positions on stoxx are kidding themselves. Especially when we have a bull market with a trend as strong as we have seen in the last 3 years. You don't need a mechanical system when 95% of stocks in a sector rising. All you need is eyes to look at a chart.
When the market starts to get choppy and reverses trend is a completely different story.  Learn how prices move!! Learn to trade the market both ways and to recognize when trends are at risk of ending.





> He said himself that the people who've made money selling Gann courses outnumber those who have made money by trading Gann methodology.




This probably true of most people selling books and courses on any anyways




> Many years ago I attended an ATAA presentation by Neil Costa, when he was employed by SITM. It was early in the year, and he gave us a number of Gann based forecasts for the All Ords for the coming year.
> I followed all of those forecasts over the next nine months or so to see how accurate he was.
> He was so far out, it was a joke.




I would have to agree with you there, but in my opinion there are probably better practitioners out there. (No offence to the guy as he is not around to defend himself anymore!!) HOWEVER, I have listened to some of Watkins forecasts and they are not much better!! 

According to tech/a Mclaren always changes the goal posts. Well hell, Radge is not much better, it's called "adaptive analysis" or so he says!!
The market service that does not make mistakes does not exist. Long term success in the market demands recognition that error and uncertainty are part of any effort to asses future probabilities


cheers


----------



## tech/a (17 September 2006)

> Long term success in the market demands recognition that error and uncertainty are part of any effort to asses future probabilities




Hell I dont mind error.
All I /We wish to see is practical application of Gann in trading.

Like the practitioners who sell the long winded courses,there is far more rhetoric than practical application.


----------



## bunyip (17 September 2006)

Wavepicker

That DVD of McLarens sound like useful material, particularly if, as you say, its main theme is to recognize and trade good strong trending markets.
In fact I'm reasonably sure I've seen it, I believe it may have been among the materials my mates lent me.
You're right, not all of Bill's stuff is complex. I recall him telling me in person over the phone that price and volume are more important than anything else.
However, he does get into more complex stuff as well - unnecessarily in my view.
I'm not surprised he talked you out of buying his two part DVD, he's a genuine bloke and not at all the type who will sell you something just for the purpose of lining his own pocket. In that respect he's very different to SITM and many others who sell courses.
I actually like Bill McLaren - I've met him a few times and spoken to him on the phone on other occasions, and always found him helpful. And I don't in any way criticise his level of knowledge, it's just that I think it's unnecessary to go beyond simplicity in trading.

Interesting comment you made about the ease of trading over the last few years when the market has been bullish. Yes, you need to learn how to trade the market both ways, recognise when trends are showing certain characteristics such as potentially coming to an end, blowoff moves, etc etc.
A competent trend trader can do all that. He'll make money in any market conditions. I made good money from playing the short side in the bear market of 2002 for example, when most people were losing their shirts. I'm not trying to big note myself here, just making the point that if you're in tune with the market and in particular, in tune with the strongly trending stocks in the market, then you can trade profitably regardless of market conditions.
There are traders making money right now in this choppy market. I'm one of them, and I know many others. Unfortunately however, most people seem to get carved up by choppy markets and bearish markets.

You mentioned Watkins forecasts. What forecasts are you taking about? To the best of my knowledge he doesn't do forecasts. He may have opinions about the future direction of a market or stock, (don't we all!) but he doesn't trade from forecasts. He reacts to what the market is doing.

Bunyip


----------



## wavepicker (17 September 2006)

Hi Bunyip,

To be quite honest with you I am not sure if he makes forecasts or just a commentary about the All Ordinaries Index as whole.

I have just listened to him talking about the market at various occasions and what he expected from it in the near term future. 
These were links that were sent to me by fellow tarders that currently use or have used his services.
I cannot comment on his products or system as I have never seen or tried it, and at this stage have no need to.

You mention the need to use a system/method that is simple. This is ideal, but it all depends if you are comfortable using a particular methodology. What others find complex, others may find easy. 

Personally as well as looking at the pattern of the trend, I like to use EW and Cyclic analysis. Over the years I have trained myself to look at the market from an EW perspective/Cycles perspective. 
Chart formations which have stood the test of time are as a result of interactions between price cycles. Not only does the cyclic approach explain the formations, but thinking cycles leads to easier and more accurate interpretations. One of the problems with EW is that it leaves you watching and waiting to see if a pattern is in fact going to be completed as there may be a number of alternate counts . However thinking in terms of cycles allows you to tell ahead of time whether the formation will occur. This can be valuable when assesing the probablities of a market trend ending, and helping you determine the probable type of pattern to follow. This can make the world of difference as to how you approach the market with a potential trade.

I am looking for markets and patterns of the trend that adhere to EW rules and guidelines, and more importantly they must have the "right look". It's all about stacking the cards in you favour. Being patient and taking what I call the 80/20 or high probability trades, whereby you have a chance at perhaps capturing a very large portion of a swing, not just part of the pie.   On the other hand, your trend following techniques in many cases will stop you out and whipsaw you in a choppy market. Out of ten trades for examlpe you end up with 5 stopouts, 3 small gains and 2 outliers to win the bread. Nothing wrong with that, but I think better and more consistant results are possible. A lot of it has to do with the psychological makeup of the trader however.

All of this is not complicated but they can be quite time consuming. like any profession it requires work, study, commitment, perseverence and discipline. Unfortuntely most new traders are not prepared to put in the hard work. It's estimated that of the ones that do succeed it takes a good 7-10 years and probably 50K in losses if not more in some cases before it gets drummed into them what they should, and should not be doing. 

Cheers


----------



## Magdoran (21 September 2006)

Hello bunyip,


How interesting that you’ve talked with McLaren. Small world, isn’t it?

I was wondering, what was the most beneficial source you have found for your technical analysis?

I hope it’s a case of “great minds think alike” rather than “fools seldom differ” when it comes to wavepicker and I, because we share a lot of T/A concepts via McLaren’s foundation DVD and methods.  The DVD is nothing like the book “Gann Made Easy” which was published much earlier, and is not as polished or coherent as the DVD sets.

As wavepicker says the foundation DVD is pure charting, probably the best I’ve ever seen, and so full of subtleties that you can play it over and over, and still pick up all sorts of observations.  It covers all the ground listed in wavepicker’s post, and seeing it visually and being able to play it back, pause it, rewind it, etc, really helps to absorb the concepts that you might have missed in a seminar.  

The Time Factor was the one that blew my mind though, but it is strongly Gann focused using concepts from the first DVD set.  While it is involved, and there is a lot of ground covered, I must say I learnt the most out of this DVD than any other source on technical analysis, and I’ve probably read to the same level as you, give or take.

Interestingly, your description of the Darvas box, actually parallels one of the patterns McLaren identifies.  However, using straight charting, you may actually get an earlier entry just looking at the trend and picking the counter trend, but then I suspect you already know this.

I’d be interested what you thought if you looked at the DVD, everyone who I know that has done it has really benefited their T/A (although you’d probably already know much of the content from the materials you had – but maybe not…).

Also, just out of interest, you mentioned Gilmore, what did you think of his materials – did you read the two pieces of geometry of the markets?

Not sure I know of Landry or Arnold you were referring to – anything worthwhile here? Also, you mention Gartley, did you find the shapes of value?

Thanks again for sharing your views, and I certainly think we covered a lot of ground.  From my perspective it has been very productive, and hope it has for you too.

Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (21 September 2006)

For those who are interested I posted up an example as requested by tech/a in the “Improving Chart Analysis” thread (although I gave tech a hard time, but meant in good humour!).


----------



## swingstar (21 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Not sure I know of Landry or Arnold you were referring to – anything worthwhile here? Also, you mention Gartley, did you find the shapes of value?




Mag, you would probably despise Landry.  

His website is here: http://www.davelandry.com/


----------



## Magdoran (21 September 2006)

swingstar said:
			
		

> Mag, you would probably despise Landry.
> 
> His website is here: http://www.davelandry.com/



Hey Swingstar!


How are things going?  Hope all is well.

Thanks for the update.  What do you know about him?  You know, I try to keep an open mind till I get the gist of what’s going on.  I had a look at the website, but it didn’t tell me much, other than the usual marketing hype…

What’s the story, do you know?


Mag


----------



## swingstar (21 September 2006)

Magdoran said:
			
		

> Hey Swingstar!
> 
> 
> How are things going?  Hope all is well.




Things are going pretty well. The McLaren DVD is so next on my to read err watch list. 



> Thanks for the update.  What do you know about him?  You know, I try to keep an open mind till I get the gist of what’s going on.  I had a look at the website, but it didn’t tell me much, other than the usual marketing hype…
> 
> What’s the story, do you know?




I have both of his books, and they are fairly Guppy-esque (from what I know of Guppy), and pretty much breakout entry based. Both of which I know you aren't very fond of.


----------



## proudwanderer (15 January 2007)

I am in exactly the same situation as the OP.

I bought the Trading Tactics pack early December for $4000.

This includes:

- The Smarter Starter Pack
- 2-day Trading Tactics seminar
- Free 24-hr phone support
- Free repeat seminars

At the time it seemed like a great deal - I suppose the presenter's sales pitch was really good.

After going over the material for a month, I started to question whether my $4000 was buying a good value package as I felt the material didn't cover a lot of ground and I didn't like the fact that they will try to sell me the more advanced courses.  A whole chapter of the 300 page manual is devoted to this - called Your Future Development (or something like that).

The manual is written in a simple narrative by David Bowden and it seems to me that scattered throughout, he likes to boast how accurate his predictions are, and how succesful he has become as a trader, and that you are part of his family now that you have bought his product.

Anyway, I did some research on the net about SITM and the starter pack in particular, and it seems that most "real" traders would not recommend it - not that the material is completely useless - but because it is a complete rip-off for what the price of it is.

In addition to the 300 page manual, you get 2 DVDs - which basically regurgitates the info in the manual, and a CD-ROM of exercises (and this is only 3.5MB so hardly much at all)

Then you have some graph paper and a poster of a chart.

After I have read some posts by Travis Morien, and found this thread, I have decided that I am going to do what the OP has done - return the material and get a refund.

However, I am still undecided if I should call them up and tell them I want to return it for a refund, or if I should just rock up to the 1st day of the seminar (which is this Friday) and return it there (as I have until 12pm to return it as the conditions stipulate)

I am leaning towards the latter - as I am not too confident of sending $4000 worth of material in the post.

So if the OP (and others who have returned it for a refund) is reading this could you answer some questions:

1. Do they ask you WHY you are dropping out and try to convince you to think otherwise?

2. What exactly happens at the seminar - can you just show up at 8.30AM and say you want to return it, or do you have to sit through several hours of the seminar and do the return at 11.30AM like banamate did?

3. Do you have to physically get up midway through the seminar (and before 12pm) and tell them that you want to drop out, or will the recess before 12pm and give participants a chance to decide if they want to continue to stay - or drop out and get a refund?

4. Do you just leave the material there with them?

5. Do you need to fill out certain forms or similar?

6. How long does it take them to get the refund to your credit card?  Do the process it immediately?  I read the refund policy on their website and there's no info about refunding at a seminar.  They only have info about refund via post - that you have to send it back to them in Sydney via a Registered method, then they take about 3 days to do QA on their material and you will get a refund to the same card used for the purchase within 30 days.


Thanks all.

P.S.
I'm glad I found this forum, and will be visiting it more regularly for help in learning how to start trading.


----------



## damok (16 January 2007)

Don't fret mate, the return process was quite simple.  All the people who want to return the package are given a form, and are processed after those who are staying.  So arriving at 0830, I walked out by 0910 or so.  They do ask why you are returning it, and I had no problem in giving them a number of reasons regarding the quality of support and the text itself.  Obviously I didn't stay until the allowed lunchtime, but people have said that the first half a day is just selling the package to you again and how good it all is.

I got the refund within about a month.  I still sometime recieve letters in the mail, but no one has rang me questioning my decision any further.  In the end, the system is quite simple, and even without the software and learning package, I could still apply the principles with little difficulty.

I don't regret my decision to return it at all.

All the best,
damok.


----------



## proudwanderer (17 January 2007)

Thanks for the reassurance damok.

Were there many people returning it when you were there?

On retrospect, how much value do you think the Smarter Starter Pack is for the beginner?  Do you think the pack is very useful? (disregarding the whopping cost of it)

Let's say it was $200 maybe for the SSP as a home study unit - would you buy it?  Do you think it is a good package for what it is?


----------



## proudwanderer (19 January 2007)

Well I returned the SITM trading tactics back today for a refund, and glad I made that decision as $4k is not worth it.

I didn't bother staying for the session.  I just said I wanted to return the pack for a refund and filled in the form and left.  Surprisingly they did not ask me to give a reason at all, and in fact the guy stated that it was a "no questions asked" refund so I do not need to give a reason.

Looking in the conference room, I saw around at least 100 people in there - imagine that - $400k worth of tuition fees from their "students"

Sure enough the presenter was starting off saying "how succesful" he was as a trader.

It seems to me that this mob seem to really enjoy telling us their great success stories and bragging about David Bowden's great ability for prediction.

Even in the starter pack manual, littered throughout every chapter, David Bowden likes to brag about his great predictions in the late 80s/early 90s.  Whilst I can see that a prediction is possbile with the right application of mathematical analysis .... but the prediction can only be accurate in ideal circumstances and many assumptions must be made.

There can be thousands of things that can affect the stock market that cannot be worked into an analytical prediction - war, natural catastraphes, majore accidents to name a few that cannot be predicted.

David Bowden's claim to fame is apparently to have predicted the gulf war low of Jan 1991 6 months before it happened, and well before anyone was aware of Saddam Hessein's activities.

Logically, I cannot fathom how this can be possible.  War affects the market - not the other way around.

The only explanation I can come up with is Bowden must've fluked it somehow.


----------



## ROE (27 January 2007)

wavepicker said:
			
		

> was that site not called www.depression2006.com last year???




and the year before that www.depression2005.com?
maybe he will get it right this year if not there is
www.depression2008.com next year


----------



## michael_selway (27 January 2007)

ROE said:
			
		

> and the year before that www.depression2005.com?
> maybe he will get it right this year if not there is
> www.depression2008.com next year




lol yeah can he be more exact please?

thx

MS


----------



## crazyjimsmith (27 January 2007)

> David Bowden's claim to fame is apparently to have predicted the gulf war low of Jan 1991 6 months before it happened, and well before anyone was aware of Saddam Hessein's activities.




I actually knew what to do back then! One week before the war started the market started on its mother of all rallies!

Why did the market start to rally? Well that is the easy part.

War require resources. Commodities boom during wartime. Also when George Bush won his first election there was a lot of controversy and it actually took months of recounting votes to finally determine the actual winner. I remember that time well because I was long on the SPI and I lost a stack of money because the indecision caused the market to tank.

Once it was determined that Bush had won then the market started to go up!. By that time I had lost all my money!   

So when the war on Iraq started it was a no brainer for me! Unfortunately I didn't have any money to trade it. It was actually 1 week before the war started that it became clear that the US was going to invade. That was when the market started to rally like hell and I was sitting there watching it all with no money!

There was a quick 3000 points to rip out of the SPI!  

I don't know if this Bowden character picked up on the first war but look at the chart on the second war and you will see how the market ran. The second invasion was the one I picked up on.

There was a similar situation at the beginnning of this year when oil hit US50. That told me that the market would run and sure enough the All Ords went from 5600 to 5750 in less than a month! If you had bought some SPI contracts at 5600 you would have done very nicely up to now!


----------



## Little1 (28 January 2007)

I'm new to this forum and just looking at getting back into the market after some time away. Overtraded back then and burned some cash. I'm really interested in the views expressed about the expensive seminars.

We are looking at Universal Wealth Creation's pack by Jamie McIntyre. $4000

Does anyone have any experience with this course or his money back guarantee. I did find some posts going back several years. Perhaps a leopard does not change its spots?

Thanks in advance for any advice offered.

(Chris)

Little1


----------



## tech/a (28 January 2007)

> We are looking at Universal Wealth Creation's pack by Jamie McIntyre. $4000
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with this course or his money back guarantee.




When you start seeing unsolicited posts that look like this.

*The best $4000 Ive ever invested.
or
The Universal Wealth Creation Package was for me the fast lane to consistent profit.
or 
The best value Ive ever seen.----blah blah*

You'll have no need to ask.

Ask them for AUDITED trading records for the last 12 mths,the normal response is either a blank look or lots of mumbling.

Seriously if it was as easy as investing $2000-$20000 you'd see forums full of success stories.

*You can't buy experience * but you can find great trainers who can help you create your own.


----------



## professor_frink (28 January 2007)

Little1 said:
			
		

> I'm new to this forum and just looking at getting back into the market after some time away. Overtraded back then and burned some cash. I'm really interested in the views expressed about the expensive seminars.
> 
> We are looking at Universal Wealth Creation's pack by Jamie McIntyre. $4000
> 
> ...




I had the misfortune of being given that guys book. 4 hours of my life I'll never be able to get back  

<begin sarcasm>
his "share renting" strategy was simply brilliant  
<end sarcasm>

Try reading the book and then decide if you think his seminar will be worth the money,but try not to pay for the book- unless you can get it from the $2 bin in a bookstore, it really is that bad.


----------



## bunyip (28 January 2007)

Every so often one of these self-styled 'wealth creation gurus' puts an ad in the local paper in my area, inviting all and sundry along to a free information evening, during which attendees will supposedly be shown sure-fire tactics for creating personal wealth. I always go along to these evenings, purely for entertainment value and to see who the latest con man is. Invariably these evenings divulge very little useful information......their purpose is simply to get people to come along so the company concerned can put the bite on them to sign up for a course costing thousands of dollars.

Jamie McIntyre of 'Universal Wealth Creation' is probably the same Jamie McIntyre who put on an information evening I attended three or four years ago. At that time he was calling his outfit "21st Century Academy". His spiel was that the current education system left people ill-equipped to invest money in a way that would make them wealthy....what was needed and coincidentally, what he was offering, was a new kind of education that would equip them for the 21st century by teaching them investment strategies aimed at creating personal wealth. 
According to him, three years earlier he was so completely broke that he was forced to sleep on the couch in his mates lounge room. Then he learnt the secrets for creating personal wealth.....the very same secrets that he'd teach you himself if you handed over thousands of dollars for his course......and now, just three years later, in his late twenties, he was a multi-millionaire with houses around the world and an impressive share portfolio.

The main wealth creation strategies he talked about were negative gearing into real estate, and "renting out your shares" to create extra income. This 'renting out your shares' sounded to me like writing options on shares, although he didn't mention the word 'options'. After the show, however, I asked him in person if this was writing options, and he admitted it was. 

After his presentation finished, the couple of hundred people in attendance were standing around having a cup of coffee, and I noticed quite a few people writing out cheques which were eagerly accepted by the two women  at the registration desk.

I was approached by a bloke I knew very well, let's call him Bob, who is a real estate agent and knows all about negative gearing into real estate, but nothing about options. He asked me my opinion of what this Jamie McIntyre was offering. I replied that it was unnecessary to spend a few thousand dollars on this course, as Bob already knew all about real estate investment, and there were plenty of inexpensive books available for learning about options.
Bob seemed to agree with me, but a few minutes later he walked over and started talking to the two women at the registration desk. Next thing, to my total amazement, Bob hauls his cheque book out of his pocket and writes out a cheque!
When I quizzed him about it later he gave a bit of a grin and said "Yeh - they caught me at a weak moment....I wonder if I've wasted my money"!

I rang Bob a couple of months later to see what he thought of the course he bought. He said he'd been too busy to look at it. I rang him every few  months over the next year and he always said the same thing - his real estate business had been keeping him so busy that he'd had no time to look at the course he'd bought. Finally he offered to hand the course over to me so I could check it out and tell him what I thought of it.
So I called into his office, picked up a cardboard box containing the course materials, and spent the next week or so going over it.
My opinion was that the course was worth maybe a few hundred dollars instead of the thousands that Bob paid for it. Not that the course content wasn't useful....it's just that there are many good books about real estate investment and options, and it won't cost you more than about a hundred dollars to buy them.

There's obviously big money in signing up hundreds or thousands of people for a course costing thousands of dollars.....no wonder the characters running these courses can claim to be multi-millionaires. No wonder they run around the countryside trying to sign up more and more people.
Don't be duped by these people.....they're invariably attempting to charge you thousands of dollars for information that's readily available just by reading a couple of decent books. In some cases they're attempting to sell you information that's virtually useless and will cause you to lose money.

Bunyip


----------



## mswiggs (28 January 2007)

Reading Little1's post i thought i might share an experience, which might be beneficial.

Little1, in short the Jamie McIntyre “Universal Wealth Creation's pack” is not worth the $4000 price tag. My brother and father recently purchased this pack, which I expressed my reluctance at; after I went through the content of the pack my suspicions were assured, confirming that the content of the pack was inadequate and that the $4000 cost was unlikely to be recovered by implementing strategies outlined throughout the pack.

However, I have had several debates with my father regarding, what is the best avenue for people to learn how to become financially free. I make it clear to him that these seminars are grossly over-priced, that the content of these packages generally uses strategies which are presented in a misleading fashion and does not reflect the true “real-time” performance (e.g. covered calls, another topic which provides hours of “discussion” in the home), they do not show how to implement the strategy fully (from identifying the trade/opportunity, implementing, following it up), usually designed as the opener to more expensive packages(which also fail to properly educate the student) and probably strongest reason is that people come away emotionally imbalanced meaning that their expectations are raised beyond reality and thinking that they have the magic formula to become rich (there are exceptions, some seminars advocate the opposite, i.e. low expectations, allow a long period of time for this work, etc which is the mentality I encourage, as the content required to be learn't takes a long time and you need a mentality, that allows you to “endure” the ups and downs throughout the journey).

Now my father’s (and brothers) response was that where do we start? I would say get on the net look at these forums, their response would be along the lines “Ahh its too hard” “too messy” “too confusing” etc etc etc etc etc etc (sigh) and I knew then that it wasn’t their lack of knowledge that is preventing them from achieving what they want but their attitudes. We are all human and everyone has certain behaviours and beliefs (another one is that my brother reckons he needs to listen rather than read things to be effective, but amazingly he can read technical books on cars for hours!  Which demonstrates this has more to do with beliefs and behaviours rather than his genetic predisposition) which hinder our ability to achieve what we want. 

So after discussing for hours which is the best route to learn I reluctantly said that I guess it is ok to purchase this package. My decision is based on them making a start, basically hoping by them going to these seminars that they will develop an interest strong enough that will overcome their resistance to exploring the web and quality books. Now some would say your going to pay $4000 for that? Well I guess, the answer is yes. If they don’t go their interest will dwindle or they will keep reading over and over the inadequate library of books at home, over-analysing the content while trying to see if there were any “hidden formulas” that were missed and wont get any closer to the end goal. So now they have gone and I have condemned the price tag set on the package, but now I just give them a gentle reminder of what is on the web and how much they don’t know.

Although this post is long to answer a simple question about Jamie’s package, the idea of this post is to highlight that what is hindering people the most isn’t their lack of knowledge or access to it, especially with the dawn of the internet and the magnitude of information it provides, but the necessary emotional development and emotional support to facilitate them through the journey. The underlying concepts required to mechanically trade for example are relatively simple, but this simplicity is often over-looked, or the importance of these concepts isn’t fully appreciated or only become appreciated once a large sum of their account is missing.  

Anyway good luck with your journey to financial freedom (mayb your already there)


----------



## tech/a (28 January 2007)

Ah

The power of the Testimonial!


----------



## Little1 (28 January 2007)

Thanks Tech/a and Professor Fink,

I've read heaps of posts today and I thank you for taking the time to post so much on the web, Tech/a. I now have some good tips on where to improve my education and learn about the psychology as opposed to the methodology, without wasting lots of $$$. I plan to start with Adaptive Analysis by Nick Radge.


----------



## sails (28 January 2007)

Little1 said:
			
		

> .... I plan to start with Adaptive Analysis by Nick Radge.  ...



Smart move, Little1   

We have been sucked into a few expensive trading courses over the years, however have learned far more from experienced traders freely sharing their knowledge in forums such as this one, including lots of time spent in research.  Also lots of testing of ideas to find out what strategies, time frames, etc to suit one's personality the best.

In my experience, there is usually nothing wrong with what these types of courses teach (albeit usually very basic info) - it's the huge price tags for such basic info that is unacceptable IMO.


----------



## tech/a (29 January 2007)

There is so much out there that often you find people getting 
*Analysis Paralysis*

I guess being involved in Technical analysis for 12 yrs gives one an idea of whats padding and whats really beneficial to you as a trader.

A vast majority of what could be called Mainstream analysis both Fundamantal and Technical --- in my view --- has little value.

Those that stand apart are experts in a particular field which gives them an edge.
You can be an expert and still not return consistent profit as you dont know how to run the business of trading.

Combine the 2 and you'll enjoy success.


----------



## proudwanderer (3 February 2007)

Little1 said:
			
		

> I now have some good tips on where to improve my education and learn about the psychology as opposed to the methodology, without wasting lots of $$$. I plan to start with Adaptive Analysis by Nick Radge.




I was initially unsure about whether or not to take the SITM course (also costing $4000) but now am glad I made the decision to return it for a refund.

I also plan to start with *Adaptive Analysis by Nick Radge* as well as *Trading in the Zone by Mark Douglas* 




			
				bunyip said:
			
		

> it's just that there are many good books about real estate investment and options, and it won't cost you more than about a hundred dollars to buy them.
> 
> Bunyip




Bunyip,

What books would you recommend?


----------



## tayser (3 February 2007)

heh, funnily enough, I came across this forum in the aftermath of researching whether or not to outlay $8k for a hometrader 'membership'.

Guess what I'm not doing


----------



## rozella (24 February 2007)

I have read the 8 pages of this thread & have been reluctant to post as it does not seem that anyone wants to actually post their experiences to reach $50000 from $5000

I have been asked many times about trading the dividend strategy with CFDs & my answer was always I could not make it work sufficiently to persevere with them, anyway my experience with them was about 3 years ago with a market maker provider.  However, since the popularity of CFDs since, I started again in August last year with DMA provider.

I am not one to spend a great deal of time testing & paper trading so decided to use real cash in real time & open a CFD account with the minimum $5000 to ha-ha turn it into $50000

I decided to keep 40% as a buffer & bought 4 x $15000 stocks in the S&P/ASX 20  i.e. utilising $3000 & $2000 as a buffer

After some trial & plenty of errors, I managed to reduce the pot to about $3700

CFDs are quick & not for the inexperienced, so after some thought, I set up a spreadsheet livened it up with a DDE link showing profit after interest & commission as it happens, with a column showing TRUE/FALSE when a stoploss is breached.

I only trade with the S&P/ASX 20 for the 3% & 5% margins & use a stoploss on each stock of 1.4% (reasonably tight)

As of close yesterday the account has risen to $22,418 which is very pleasing in 198 calendar days

Initial capital= 5000.00
trading profits = 20994.45 (realised & unrealised)
plus dividends = 2928.15
less interest = (4871.00)
less commission = (1633.81
portfolio value = 22417.79 as at close 23rd Feb 07

purchases = 55
wins = 33 after interest & comm
losses = 11 after interest & comm
open = 11

average win = 610.85
average loss = 474.87
(there is 1 large loss of 1231.28 that lifted the average loss when I was trying buy & hold without activating stoploss....don't do this anymore)

average days open = 27.59
return on capital = 348.36% in 198 days
free equity = 13887.51
encumbered equity = 8530.27

Stocks held atm ANZ, NAB, WBC, SUN, CBA, AMP, FGL, WOW, WDC, BXB & WES

WES was purchased yesterday & took profits on QBE, BHP & CGJ.

The initial purchase was 4 stocks x $15000 approx
now 1x $15000 & 10 x $18000 approx

I only trade stocks from S&P/ASX 20 & when all 20 stocks are being traded, I will lift the purchase price. There is enough cash atm to buy at least 4 more $18000 stocks staying clear of my 40% of portfolio buffer.

The market has been very good since I started this portfolio, however, I want to see how far I can take it before it starts to slow up.

I don't think it is impossible to reach the $50000 target & also think it is easier with bluechip stocks than the el cheapo stocks.


----------



## CanOz (24 February 2007)

rozella said:
			
		

> I have read the 8 pages of this thread & have been reluctant to post as it does not seem that anyone wants to actually post their experiences to reach $50000 from $5000
> 
> I have been asked many times about trading the dividend strategy with CFDs & my answer was always I could not make it work sufficiently to persevere with them, anyway my experience with them was about 3 years ago with a market maker provider.  However, since the popularity of CFDs since, I started again in August last year with DMA provider.
> 
> ...




Well done mate! I enjoy reading your posts in the dividend thread. I had no idea you started with only 5k.

I started with 5k too, but added capital every month as i got paid to the total of 25k. My trading account is worth 37k now. I've paid out 4.5k in brokerage  , yup...i know....and i took a 5k loss when i first started. I'm still working on my scorecard...i know slack! I could not have done this in a bear market, no doubt.

Good luck mate.

Cheers,


----------



## bunyip (24 February 2007)

proudwanderer said:
			
		

> I was initially unsure about whether or not to take the SITM course (also costing $4000) but now am glad I made the decision to return it for a refund.
> 
> I also plan to start with *Adaptive Analysis by Nick Radge* as well as *Trading in the Zone by Mark Douglas*
> 
> ...




Do a Google search for Margaret Lomas.....I found her real estate books to be worthwhile.

As for options books...one of my US contacts tells me that 'The Options Strategist' by Larry McMillan, is the bible of options trading.
However, there's so much options info freely available on the net that you might want to avail yourself of it, rather than buy any books.

Bunyip


----------



## damok (24 February 2007)

Great post there rozella, excellent to see someone with some positive news!!!

I'm also a avid fan of spreadsheets to do a lot of work for me.  I'm just wondering how the 'DDE' links work.  Would love to implement something like that.

I haven't started my trading yet as I moved overseas soon after my initial posts and have had very limited internet access.  Now I have my internet account, commsec account and a half decent spreadsheet to start my trading.  I have  managed to memorize the SITM system (don't dob on me) and will be basically applying it.  I plan to trade in normal ASX200 stocks for about two years until I feel nice and confident, then apply the same system to CFD's.

Will let you know how I get on.

Cheers,
damok.


----------



## rozella (25 February 2007)

G'day CanOz,



> Well done mate! I enjoy reading your posts in the dividend thread. I had no idea you started with only 5k.



The dividend trading thread is completely separate to my CFD trades.  I have been anti CFDs for about the last 3/4 years, but since its popularity, I decided to test it out......this time with a different slant, using $5000 rather than testing on paper.

G'day damok,



> I'm also a avid fan of spreadsheets to do a lot of work for me. I'm just wondering how the 'DDE' links work. Would love to implement something like that.



I believe you can liven your spreadsheets using yahoo finance for free, however, I use Sanford as one of my brokers & they have the facility.  So when you open a spreadsheet, along the top line you have the normal:
File, Edit, View, Insert. Format, Tools, Data, Window, Help then Sanford Pro.
The code must have the exchange attached i.e CBA.ASX NAB.ASX

You can select from a box which info you need such as volume, last price, 52 weeks low, bid, ask.......etc etc then click on the icon & the info appears.

If you do a lot of spreadsheets like I do, then it saves hours of researching individual items.  You can setup your own customised watchlist with the net profit/loss ticking over live per each individual stock after interest & brokerage with a bottom line net result.....it does keep you aware of your position at all times.



> I plan to trade in normal ASX200 stocks for about two years until I feel nice and confident, then apply the same system to CFD's



Conventional marginlending is much more relaxed than CFDs as there is more room to move with buffers etc & not so highly geared, where CFDs can be very cut throat to the unwary, so don't blink too often.

On my CFD spreadsheet I have set my stoploss as an amount after interest & comm, rather than the stock share price rate.  When the amount hits the stoploss it automatically shows "TRUE"

Keep us informed of your progress.


----------



## Sir Burr (25 February 2007)

rozella said:
			
		

> Conventional marginlending is much more relaxed than CFDs as there is more room to move with buffers etc & not so highly geared, where CFDs can be very cut throat to the unwary, so don't blink too often.



Hi Rozella,

I haven't traded CFD's or even had a margin loan so these comments maybe totally wrong.

Say the set margin for a share CFD is 5%, is there anything stopping you making it 50%?

If so, I can't see why they are any more cut throat than normal margin lending? Is there any difference between CFD's while using the same margin as you get using a margin loan?

Cheers SB


----------



## rozella (25 February 2007)

G'day Sir Burr,

As you know the market can move against us very quickly from world events. An example of this was the 11th September 2001 when the XAO dropped about 290 points in 4 days (around 9%)

The problem with these events is that the market usually opens already down about 5% & no stoploss can help except against a further drop.

Lets say that we are starting with $5000 & compare between a conventional margin loan (ML) & CFDs.  For the sake of the exercise we will disregard interest affecting the buffer.

In both accounts we buy 4 stocks, WDC, CGL, AMP & WOW.

In the ML we use the full facility & all stocks have a LVR of 75% so therefore we have invested $1250 in each stock, which means we can buy:
4 x $5000 = $20000
buffer provided by marginlender = $2000

In the CFD we use 50% of our $5000 & all stocks have a LVR of 95% so therefore we have invested $625 in each stock, which means we can buy:
4 x $12500 = $50000
our self imposed buffer is $2500

We will take 2 examples.

1. The market moves against us 2%
ML portfolio = $19600
buffer = $1960

2.  CFD portfolio = $49000
buffer now = $1500

1a. The market moves against us 5%
ML portfolio = $19000
buffer = $1900

2a. CFD portfolio = $47500
buffer = nil

The above is extreme but can happen.  If the ML portfolio had an average LVR of 70% then there would be more buffer left than the $1900

However, if you have a proven sound strategy & disciplined to act when required, then CFDs are great, but the point I am making is that with conventional marginloan there is more chance of staying in the game.


----------



## Sir Burr (25 February 2007)

Rozella,

Thanks for your detailed reply.

What I was thinking is there maybe some benefits to using CFD's over a ML. Possibly easier to manage, cheaper to use or even to short.

Anyway, is there some rule with CFD's where you must use a LVR of 95%? Taking your examples, here's my idea:

In the CFD we use the full facility & all stocks we use a self imposed LVR of 75% so we invest $1250 in each stock, which means we buy:
4 x $5000 = $20000
Buffer is $5000

1. The market moves against us 2%
CFD portfolio = $19600
Buffer = $4600

1a. The market moves against us 5%
CFD portfolio = $19000
Buffer = $4000

1b. The market moves against us 25%
CFD portfolio = $15000
Buffer = $0

Cheers SB


----------



## Dutchy3 (25 February 2007)

Hi SB

Yes is the answer ... I never drop below 25% equity is any position and generally stay around 33% ... Still the market can gap overnight so any leverage  can still be too much.

CFD's are the majority of my positions ...


----------



## rozella (25 February 2007)

G'day Sir Burr,

It is up to you on the self imposed buffer that you use.

In the example 1. we have capital of $5000
4 x $5000 = $20000
our equity utilised would be $1000 (5%)
so our buffer is the balance $4000 not $5000

If the market drops 2% we lose $400 leaving $3600 buffer

If the market drops 5% we lose $1000 leaving $3000 buffer.

In this case we are still using $1000 + $4000 buffer = $5000
We would be better off using a conventional margin loan as the interest is fixed at 75% of the initial purchase & we own the stocks.  We are still only buying $20000 of stocks so the gross profit/loss will be the same in either the ML or CFDs.  The CFD interest is mark to market on 100% of the current price on a day to day basis.

The main advantage of CFDs is the leverage, so if we leverage the same as a ML, then there is nothing to gain.

Just to make it clear, I am not knocking CFDs, as I think it is a great instrument.....& I am now using them as in my previous post, even though in a small way atm.  I am just staying with my original statement that a ML is a more comfortable position to be in than CFDs, but there is more opportunity to make much bigger returns with CFDs if you have your wits about you with the same outlay.


----------



## nioka (8 April 2010)

damok said:


> First time poster, and to be honest just discovered the forum tonight.... but enjoying the learning process.
> 
> So a bit about my plan.  I have signed up for the SITM Smarter Starter Pack and am doing the course this weekend.  Now after reading some of the forums I had second thoughts for a while, but I stand by that decision.  I guess my rational is that 4 weeks ago I knew nothing about shares, now I have a reasonable idea of the mechanics.  I understand the trading system that they propose, and it works well in my head.  Outlaying the $4000 hurt a bit, but I figure that I will have the skills the rest of my life, and considering how much uni costs... well it doesn't sound so bad in perspective.  Plus that outlay certainly inspires me to learn the material!!
> 
> ...




Remember this thread. Worth going back in time and seeing how it played out.

The thread was an inspiration for me and i decided to see if I could make it work. My results have astounded even myself.

I chose ADI, at the time a spec stock and bought 10,000 shares for under $4,000. Over time and without adding any additional outside capital into the project I have turned that investment into one worth $378,726.23 as at yesterday. This has been done by trading swaps between ADI,EKA and AUT who are three partners in the same project. Their SP relative to their interest changes almost on a daily basis and with each trade I ended up with a bigger interest in the overall project.

So I thank Damok for promoting the idea and AgentM for his informative posts on ADI which I have used as research on the project. Also the GFC made it all possible.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 April 2010)

nioka said:


> I chose ADI, at the time a spec stock and bought 10,000 shares for under $4,000. Over time and without adding any additional outside capital into the project I have turned that investment into one worth $378,726.23 as at yesterday. This has been done by trading swaps between ADI,EKA and AUT who are three partners in the same project.



About 100 times initial outlay and through the biggest stock market correction in 20 year too. Simply outstanding.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 April 2010)

Yes , seeing as no one required to provide any proof  i turned $1000 into $48,000,000 million last year ....beat dem apples.


----------



## nomore4s (8 April 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> Yes , seeing as no one required to provide any proof  i turned $1000 into $48,000,000 million last year ....beat dem apples.




You are a liar Nun, I know for a fact you started with $2000


----------



## nunthewiser (8 April 2010)

nomore4s said:


> You are a liar Nun, I know for a fact you started with $2000





 never let the facts get in the way of a good story my ole uncle chopper used to say


----------



## vincent191 (8 April 2010)

Look at Andrew Forrester.....he turned a handful of dirt into billions.
I am still a slumdog.... "potential" millionaire.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 April 2010)

Amazing considering the SP of ADI when this thread started was around 20 cents and is now around 30 cents....big peak in between of course.


----------



## MACCA350 (8 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Amazing considering the SP of ADI when this thread started was around 20 cents and is now around 30 cents....big peak in between of course.



Nioka did say:


> This has been done by trading swaps between ADI,EKA and AUT




cheers


----------



## nioka (8 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Amazing considering the SP of ADI when this thread started was around 20 cents and is now around 30 cents....big peak in between of course.




And got as low as 5c. That is why it was so easy to accumulate. It is part of the numbers game as a small change in the relative SP of the three meant quite a few shares accumulated with each trade. 

I know there are a few/many that will doubt that it happened but for those that have followed the stock on this forum and another they would have followed my progress and there are one or two that actually know some of the stock numbers that I control as a result of the trading. 

It has not been possible by just trading ADI. It has been possible by swap trades of the three partners in the same project and inconsistancies in their relative price. My best trade was selling EKA and buying ADI at the same price and shortly after selling the ADI and buying twice the number of EKA. Most trades improved the numbers by 5 to 10% after allowing for brokerage.

Compare it with going to the beach on a daily basis and bringing home a bucket of sand each time. A few years down the track and you end up with your own beach.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 April 2010)

nioka said:


> And got as low as 5c. That is why it was so easy to accumulate. It is part of the numbers game as a small change in the relative SP of the three meant quite a few shares accumulated with each trade.






nioka said:


> Most trades improved the numbers by 5 to 10% after allowing for brokerage.
> 
> Compare it with going to the beach on a daily basis and bringing home a bucket of sand each time. A few years down the track and you end up with your own beach.




Yeah but at that low point all 3 stocks were at a low point...its just that i would think to produce such a spectacular result there would have to be greater variation between the movement of the 3 stocks...you know like going in different directions so you could jump off one moving down onto 1 moving up.

The comparison chart shows fairly similar movement between the 3 of them, indicating that your switching must of been almost mistake free, the sort of return your talking about would require you to be bringing home a bucket of sand every hour -15 hours a day - 7 days a week.

And what about the CGT along the way...with no discounts!
~


----------



## nunthewiser (8 April 2010)

Great story Nioka.

But you know that i know that some here are a very cynical bunch and not willing to believe these "rags to riches" fairytales they hear so often on the internet.

maybe a bit of proof provided via trading statements etc would maybe shut these buggers up once for all .....

I personally believe everything i read on these pages so im genuinely impressed.

anyhoo just trying to help just in case anyone else questions the authenticity of your claims and they dont just blow it off as another load of "hot air" as they so often do when they read these great back slapping posts on the internet.

i hope it helps.


----------



## nioka (8 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Yeah but at that low point all 3 stocks were at a low point...its just that i would think to produce such a spectacular result there would have to be greater variation between the movement of the 3 stocks...you know like going in different directions so you could jump off one moving down onto 1 moving up.
> ~



Even the chart you show gives some indication of the variation in the relative prices but it only shows part of the story. The intraday variations made it possible to swap back and forth sometimes within the hour. There was/is a lag in the reaction of EKA to a price change in ADI and it is/was common for there to be daily swings of 5 to 10%. I seldom sell one without knowing that I could buy the other at a better deal.

Another misconception that was around was that AUT and ADI had double the interest held by EKA. That is not the case. Originally AUT and ADI had a 20% interest and EKA had 12.5%. A lot of times I saw EKA incorrectly quoted as 12%. A lot of those trading ignored market cap as well.

As my numbers increased it was possible to trade those larger numbers but this was often held back by the numbers available. There were some days where all the trades in one or the other were mine. As I have spent a lot of the last couple of years incapicated in one way or another I have had plenty of time to follow the quotes. 

Don't be so cynical truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. With a little research you may find some stocks that have similar trading possibilities. To date I have tried a few but havent found another gold strike yet. However I'm still looking.:bricks1:


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> The comparison chart shows fairly similar movement between the 3 of them, indicating that your switching must of been almost mistake free, the sort of return your talking about would require you to be bringin home a bucket of sand every hour -15 hours a day - 7 days a week.
> 
> And what about the CGT along the way...with no discounts!
> ~




Definitive chart shows little to no advantage swapping between stocks. Considering the long down trend of all three and NOT being able to short sell these stocks; I feel all the facts aren't on the table.

One would have had to pinpoint the swing highs and swing lows (even in the down trend) to have a remote chance.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 April 2010)

Wysiwyg said:


> Definitive chart shows little to no advantage swapping between stocks. Considering the long down trend of all three and NOT being able to short sell these stocks; I feel all the facts aren't on the table.
> 
> One would have had to pinpoint the swing highs and swing lows (even in the down trend) to have a remote chance.




Yep that's how i see it...every trade would have to be an almost instant winner, a 4 year mistake free run...i call shenanigans.


----------



## nioka (8 April 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> maybe a bit of proof provided via trading statements etc would maybe shut these buggers up once for all .....
> .




I may just do that. Personally I couldn't give a proverbial if I am believed or not. The plan is there for others to follow if they see fit. It works. It has no risk apart from possible failure of the initial investment but that is no more than any other purchase.

The program is;

1. Find two or more stocks with similar interests.
2. Examine the relative SP.
3. Set relative values.
4. Keep swap trading for better value.
5. Only trade when you can stay invested.
6. Hope for a GFC to create volatility.
7. Allow for brokerage.
8. For tax reasons have two completely different accounts once a reasonable level of value is established. A trading account for the swaps and an invesment account for holding the gains made.
9. Don't put all the eggs in one basket. Stay invested in all or both.
10. Choose fundamentally sound stocks or take more risk with specs.
As I see it the ADI, EKA and AUT situation is still valid with reasonable variations between the relative values. But DYOR I'm often wrong.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 April 2010)

Yes i have no idea why this bunch of cynical buggers are having a hard time believing this amazing story .... no proof needed .  

We should believe everything posted on these pages as we are all obviously great people and why would anyone in there right mind use these forums to try and impress others with tales of grandeur.

well done on hitting every swing with perfection over the last few years , its a skill im yet to master even after 15 years of this game. ... Perhaps you should start a blog for the next set.

Dunno why you other guys are thinking this story is a crock of hogwash ..its the internet for petes sake . why would anyone tell a tall story ?


----------



## nioka (8 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Yep that's how i see it...every trade would have to be an almost instant winner, a 4 year mistake free run...i call shenanigans.




Every trade IS an instant winner. A trade is only made when the alternative stock is there readily available to swap one for the other with advantage. Not mistake completely free as sometimes a buy or sell order can be taken out while you are placing your order. But a 90%+ mistake free deal and mistakes were never costly.


----------



## nunthewiser (8 April 2010)

Sorry Nioka but after reading some of these cynical buggers comments its obvious that they think your story is maybe full of holes and outrageous claims ........ I think they may definately need proof to shut them up .......... might be a good idea mate .let them really have egg on the face ......

tut tut i dont know cynicism and the internet just got no place in the modern world in my impressed opinion.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 April 2010)

nioka if we look at the comparison chart i cant for the life of me see anything other than a string of near perfect trades to achieve the 9450>% return you claim...every time ADI rose above the others you would have to magically be on it - or switch to ADI, and every down leg go to cash and stay there...like magic.

And then im struggling to see more than 8 or 10 clear in and outs, and that don't = 9450>%
at 10% return per trade that would require what 189 winning trades? my mind is going numb with the maths.

no my brains gone.
~


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (8 April 2010)

If you don't like people not believing you, just post proof. Simple really. If you do and its legit, you are proven correct and they shut their traps, if you don't, they have every reason in the world to think you are full of BS. So it'll sort it out either way, I really don't know why this happens every time.


----------



## brty (8 April 2010)

Nioka,



> For tax reasons have two completely different accounts once a reasonable level of value is established. A trading account for the swaps and an invesment account for holding the gains made.




Putting things in 2 separate accounts does not avoid ones tax liabilities. Are you claiming that you have not declared the profits from the various sales as you have gone along your journey?? Tax evasion is just plain dumb, they will get you eventually, with penalties.

brty


----------



## nioka (9 April 2010)

brty said:


> Nioka,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't avoid tax at all but by having separate trading and investment accounts the tax is different. Trading profits are straight profits and not capital gains, capital gains are made on investment accounts. Ring the tax office and talk to them about it. I did and my trading and investing is ok with them. I pay my due tax. I'm happy to pay tax, it means I made a profit.

I'm finished with this thread. Some are too dumb to understand what the program does and how it does it. Others are too critical to and disbelieving to fully research the possibilities. These forums are to provide information. I've done that. Maybe one day one person will say thanks for helping them do the same as I have done. Believe it or not believe that is your option I couldnt give a ^#*%.

I should add it is money made trading after tax that is transferred to the investment account that is used to purchase script that is held as an investment. eg. I could sell ADI and with some of the proceeds buy EKA, transfer the balance of the proceeds to the investment account and purchase more EKA.  

I really do try and think outside the square.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (9 April 2010)

nioka said:


> I don't avoid tax at all but by having separate trading and investment accounts the tax is different. Trading profits are straight profits and not capital gains, capital gains are made on investment accounts. Ring the tax office and talk to them about it. I did and my trading and investing is ok with them. I pay my due tax. I'm happy to pay tax, it means I made a profit.
> 
> I'm finished with this thread. Some are too dumb to understand what the program does and how it does it. Others are too critical to and disbelieving to fully research the possibilities. These forums are to provide information. I've done that. Maybe one day one person will say thanks for helping them do the same as I have done. Believe it or not believe that is your option I couldnt give a ^#*%.
> 
> I really do try and think outside the square.




Why get your knickers in a knot!?

Just *SHOW PROOF* and it all goes away, its really not that hard. But you would rather sit here and have a cry because people don't believe you. One way to shut them up isn't there. FFS


----------



## nioka (9 April 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Why get your knickers in a knot!?
> 
> Just *SHOW PROOF* and it all goes away, its really not that hard. But you would rather sit here and have a cry because people don't believe you. One way to shut them up isn't there. FFS




To show proof would identify myself. The numbers of ADI name me in the "top 20". I dont cry. I just dont give a #^*%. (Others who post here that are in the top 20 know the story.)

This IS the end of the matter.


----------



## nunthewiser (9 April 2010)

Hans Christian Anderson has left the building


----------



## Bushman (9 April 2010)

nioka said:


> To show proof would identify myself. The numbers of ADI name me in the "top 20". I dont cry. I just dont give a #^*%. (Others who post here that are in the top 20 know the story.)
> 
> This IS the end of the matter.




Here is the Top 20 as at 1 April 2010:

Rank Shareholder Total Units  
1 ARC Energy Limited 47,864,000 
2 Mr Alexander Forcke 3,000,000 
3 ANZ Nominees Limited <Cash Income A/C> 1,912,055 
4 Mr Dallas John William Allman + Mrs Judith Dawn Allman <D J W & J D Allman S/F A/C> 1,750,000 
5 Riley Group 1,742,779 
6 Streitberg Family  1,705,000 
7 Mrs Sharon Teresa Lydeamore 1,480,000 
8 Mr Leigh David Kalazich 1,470,563 
9 Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited 1,375,276 
10 Paleryder Pty Ltd <Palethorpe Super Fund A/C>  1,300,000 
11 J J N A Super Pty Ltd <Chatterton Family Super A/C> 1,252,446 
12 Taperslee Pty Ltd <Major Family A/C> 1,114,219 
13 Lorilaw Pty Ltd <Windsor Hotel A/C> 1,000,000 
14 Mr Ashok Verma  1,000,000 
15 Mr Thomas Brian Cannon  980,000 
16 Madeiros Pty Ltd <Visser Super Fund A/C>  940,000 
17 Ms Allison Wilkinson 900,000 
18 J J N A Pty Ltd 847,612 
19 Mrs Peta Major + Mr Andrew Major <Major Family S/F A/C>  836,400 
20 Mr Paul Nagle + Mrs Jacqueline Terri Nagle <PJ Nagle S/F A/C>  824,000 
  TOTAL 73,294,350 

So ruling out the directors, institutional investors and SMSF, you must be one of: 
8 Mr Leigh David Kalazich 1,470,563 
14 Mr Ashok Verma  1,000,000 
15 Mr Thomas Brian Cannon  980,000

Lol. Given your trading system is unlikely to produce a rounded holding of 1m or 980k, I am guessing you are Mr Leigh David Kalazich. 

This game is good fun. 

Well done on your trading success by the way. I would have thought there would be plenty of oil JVs that would throw up similar trading patterns.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 April 2010)

bugger! They've spelt my name wrong again.


----------



## brty (9 April 2010)

nioka,

I do understand the difference between trading profits and holding for investment to get the CGT exemption. However to get the CGT exemption you need to have held the investment for more than 12 months. By constantly changing in and out of a stock over a period of 3 years, the tax you will be liable for would be trading profits. Only shares you have kept for more than 12 months would qualify for the CGT exemption.

Just because someone from the tax office told you something different does not make it so. Only a private ruling from said office is iron clad. I suggest you go and chat with a good tax accountant.

On a different matter, can I apologise for others rudeness in this thread. You probably should have never put up the figure of your gains as there is this thing called the tall poppy syndrome that will always be used to drag successful people down, especially on something called Aussie.......

brty


----------



## vincent191 (9 April 2010)

I didn't know that if you held on to the shares for >12 months you get CGT exemption???


----------



## vincent191 (9 April 2010)

You guys can fight over whoever you want to be. I just want to be "Deputy Commissioner of Taxation."  I am not greedy, just a Deputy will do, you guys can be the Commissioner.


----------



## nioka (9 April 2010)

brty said:


> nioka,
> 
> I do understand the difference between trading profits and holding for investment to get the CGT exemption. However to get the CGT exemption you need to have held the investment for more than 12 months. By constantly changing in and out of a stock over a period of 3 years, the tax you will be liable for would be trading profits. Only shares you have kept for more than 12 months would qualify for the CGT exemption.
> 
> ...




 I'll break my determination to retire from this discussion to clear up this point. I have a ruling from the tax office and you will note I have advised others to do the same.

 The shares are accumulated in a seperate INVESTMENT account that is not traded. The TRADING account holds sufficient shares to trade the imbalances. The trading account deposits/transfers money for the investment account to purchase shares for the accumulation. No sales have been made from the investment account portfolio which operates as a retirement fund. It is a completely separate broker and bank account. The investment account will be entitled to Capital gains tax concessions.

I hope I have explained this OK.


----------



## trainspotter (9 April 2010)

Thanks for clearing that up nioka. Will send the info to my accountant for an explanation as well, keep up the good work on the % RoR !!


----------



## nioka (1 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Remember this thread. Worth going back in time and seeing how it played out.
> 
> The thread was an inspiration for me and i decided to see if I could make it work. My results have astounded even myself.
> 
> ...




 The critics of this post may be interested to know that recent events have added another $200,000 plus to the tally.

Now I'll try and repeat the result. I have invested $5,000 in BUL at 16c.  I'll keep you informed along the way. I may leave it as a single investment with no trading. I may trade in and out. I may find a comparable share and do swap trades. I will post any trades.


----------



## sleepy (2 June 2010)

Can someone please explain what a swap trade is?
And how it works ... Im confused!


----------



## Agentm (2 June 2010)

swap trade is easy


you swap share for cash then you buy a share and swap cash for share


easy.. thats a swap trade


----------



## nioka (29 June 2010)

nioka said:


> Now I'll try and repeat the result. I have invested $5,000 in BUL at 16c.  I'll keep you informed along the way. I may leave it as a single investment with no trading. I may trade in and out. I may find a comparable share and do swap trades. I will post any trades.




Update.  I haven't found a suitable stock for doing swap trades but I have traded with a 1c margin twice. The holding is now 34083 but the price has fallen. The value is now $5112.45.  Not exactly on track for $50,000 but there is time yet for BUL to do something dramatic.


----------



## nioka (2 July 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Why get your knickers in a knot!?
> 
> Just *SHOW PROOF* and it all goes away, its really not that hard. But you would rather sit here and have a cry because people don't believe you. One way to shut them up isn't there. FFS




Reference Type Detail Debit ($) Credit ($)  

2/07/2010  C12715074  Contract  S 1000000 ADI @ 0.420000   419,370.02  -

Balance of holding sold today. That is all the proof you are going to get.

Next up BUL in two years. See you there.


----------



## A.Cashin (7 July 2010)

Good Luck!


----------



## nioka (12 July 2010)

nioka said:


> Update.  I haven't found a suitable stock for doing swap trades but I have traded with a 1c margin twice. The holding is now 34083 but the price has fallen. The value is now $5112.45.  Not exactly on track for $50,000 but there is time yet for BUL to do something dramatic.




Update. Sold and bought BUL again

  C12739491  Contract  S 29900 BUL @ 0.160000   4,754.05  3,975.90  
  C12708734  Contract  B 35000 BUL @ 0.135000  4,754.95   4,754.95 

Another 5,100 "freebies" on the trades. Now holding 39183 @ 16c last price. $6962.28.  (slowly, slowly catchee monkey). Will place buy order for 14c and sell order at 18c.


----------



## newbie trader (12 July 2010)

nioka said:


> Update. Sold and bought BUL again
> 
> C12739491  Contract  S 29900 BUL @ 0.160000   4,754.05  3,975.90
> C12708734  Contract  B 35000 BUL @ 0.135000  4,754.95   4,754.95
> ...




Congratz. Any chance you can outline the reasons why you chose to invest in BUL?


----------



## nioka (12 July 2010)

newbie trader said:


> Congratz. Any chance you can outline the reasons why you chose to invest in BUL?




The first reason was based on fundamentals, I think it has a good chance of being a successful company. The second was based on the fact that I did very well with another company developing coal seam gas. Then it was a relatively cheap share that in the past has had some volatility that allows fairly good short term trading opportunities and regular volume of shares traded. BUL is also a share that I am prepared to hold long term.

Like compounding interest, being able to make small gains that can be compounded means that I could soon be making trades of 50,000 units followed shortly after with trades of 100,000 units and that is where the fun begins in earnest. 

However the risk is that if one is "out" when there is a sudden surge in price then it can wreck the scheme or set it back somewhat. 

With all investments there is some risk and the greater the posssible gain then the greater the risk.


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

Update;

Not doing too good here and the 7.30 report on the protests by farmers regarding polution from CSG production will not help in the short term.

The 34083 shares held are now worth  $4260. 

Guess that will make my critics happy so there is always something good in something bad. All is not lost at 12.5c I still think they are a good buy so I will continue to hold without concern.


----------



## nioka (6 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Update;
> 
> Not doing too good here and the 7.30 report on the protests by farmers regarding polution from CSG production will not help in the short term.
> 
> ...




Ended the day worth $4772. So not as bad as it was at open today. Next week is a new beginning. Still happy to hold BUL.

The reason BUL had a move up today was the release of the drilling results as under;

"The Kerlong 1 well which spudded on 19 July 2010 has been drilled to a total depth of 914 metres, logged and in the process of being suspended. On completion of these activities the rig will be released. The well encountered approximately 20 meters of net coal with early stage gas desorption indicating raw gas content in the order of 12 15m3/tonne. The well is designed to evaluate the Rangal Coal Measures at a location approximately 5 kilometres north of the producing Annandale CSG field (operated by Arrow Energy). The well is approximately 25 kilometres east of Moranbah."


----------



## nioka (9 August 2010)

In doing my last calculations I used the wrong number of shares. On checking my actual holding the number should have been 39183. Based on closing price today at 14.5c the value is $5681.50. At least I'm ahead by over 10% but still a long way to go. I will place a sell order in for the total amount. The news regarding Australias looming fuel shortage on tonights ABC mentions CSG as one of the ways out so it may give a boost to the BUL SP. I will try and trade to increase the numbers.


----------



## weatherbill (11 August 2010)

I think the best bet on this is to go with put options on the ASX (XJO)

Simply wait for the second day of a run up and buy your puts before noon and then wait for the next day down, sell for a profit..... its a great market pattern to wait on developing and happens usually at least once a week. And if there's really bad news, you bank all the more, but never try this with calls.

Calls always suck to me in this environment - makes bad news sound good.

also, be a little stubborn and get below the ask or even at the bid - have had good luck with that on the ASX - 

one exception, if the exp date is getting pretty close, leave em alone, dont buy puts within 3-4 days of exp date
5k to 50k is not hard at all with put options.  could have cashed in today and made 7 grand in a week, but I think the market goes down some more.


----------



## nioka (11 August 2010)

weatherbill said:


> I think the best bet on this is to go with put options on the ASX (XJO)
> 
> Simply wait for the second day of a run up and buy your puts before noon and then wait for the next day down, sell for a profit..... its a great market pattern to wait on developing and happens usually at least once a week. And if there's really bad news, you bank all the more, but never try this with calls.
> 
> ...



 Like to put your money up?. Post your trades and see if you can make it.


----------



## J&M (12 August 2010)

nioka said:


> In doing my last calculations I used the wrong number of shares. On checking my actual holding the number should have been 39183. Based on closing price today at 14.5c the value is $5681.50. At least I'm ahead by over 10% but still a long way to go. I will place a sell order in for the total amount. The news regarding Australia's looming fuel shortage on tonights ABC mentions CSG as one of the ways out so it may give a boost to the BUL SP. I will try and trade to increase the numbers.




Hello Nioka
I am in BUL 22500 @ 13.5 $3027.50 I may buy more 
I am not asking you to tell me what or when to buy or sell 
I noted that you are placing a sell at 18c 
how did you determin the 18c to sell
it seems to be holding at the 12c to 14c level 

Should this be in the BUL page ???

James


----------



## nioka (12 August 2010)

J&M said:


> I noted that you are placing a sell at 18c
> how did you determin the 18c to sell James




While this stock is at a low price I am going to try to trade for a few freebies. 18c is well above my buy price so if it gets there in the near future it will most likely be a high for the day. If it sells I will try and buy more at a lower price that same day. Most times these tactics work for me, sometimes it backfires as it did with my EKA trades a little time ago. If that happens I'll buy back again, probably with less numbers.

A good news release will possibly trigger the 18c level.


----------



## eyeballkid88 (21 August 2010)

Interesting stuff...


----------



## Jako (15 October 2010)

nioka, 

no updates for quite a while.

I have enjoyed reading your posts on this thread.

Are you still around ??

cheers


----------



## nioka (15 October 2010)

Jako said:


> nioka,
> 
> no updates for quite a while.
> 
> ...




Nothing good to report here. BUL was a long termer and I can see no reason to change horses at this stage.  There is still every chance that this one will do the job. Coal seam gas in queensland is a hot political potato and could be sidelined until after the next state election. In the meantime the test drilling is going ahead and a test production well is being prepared. I'm at about break even but the 10 bagger has not appeared. I still have hopes and time is still on my side.


----------



## nioka (8 December 2010)

Update or rather I should say downdate. Nothing good has been happening here with the SP at least. The coal seam gas business has been getting bad press and that has not helped. Value now $4114.

Where to from here?;

The fundamentals are still sound. The partners, Stanwell and Kogas are still "in". The company is making progress with establishing a resource. Nothing has really changed. So why sell. After all it was a two year program.

If you want a ten bagger there has to be some risk but, in my opinion the risk is still acceptable.

Items like the article in the link below give one some hope that BUL can still come up with the goods;

http://www.hyperionfinancial.com/tei/tei-intro.htm.

So I'll hang on in there. I actually think it is a good buy at the price. Maybe I'll trade the swings


----------



## TabJockey (9 December 2010)

5000 to 50000 in two years?

Buy a handful of small promising miners. Very little diversification. Forget about your portfolio. Come back in 2 years. Withdraw 50k/cry over your lost 5k


----------



## ParleVouFrancois (9 December 2010)

TabJockey might I suggest that Mr Nioka didn't want to leave it to what you just have. He's actually trying to make 50k from 5k in two years. Such a crazy man, but he made so much in ADI from swap trading... I dunno, if anyone could do it Nioka can imo .


----------



## newbie trader (9 December 2010)

ParleVouFrancois said:


> I dunno, if anyone could do it Nioka can imo .




My thoughts exactly :
I always try to keep up with Nioka's posts as they're always interesting and informative.


----------



## nulla nulla (9 December 2010)

I noticed that Damok hasn't posted for some time and that he obtained a refund of the $4,000.00 back in 2006 before the expiry of the cooling off period. I wonder if he went on with his independant learning and how he went with growing his $5,000.00.


----------

