# Technical Analysis = Astrology?



## onemind (20 April 2007)

I know people on this forum have a strong aversion to the academic side of trading so if you would, "Rather make money than talk about it", then please see other threads.

Anyway, according to random walk theory and the efficient market hypothesis day to day price movements are random. Therefore making all technical indicators useless as past prices have zero effect over the probablilities of future price movements. Then tech/a people counter that by saying the markets cant be random because they trend and yes, the trend is your friend. Then that gets countered by a demonstration of a random data model with stochastic distrubution, fat tails and other statistical jargon showing clear trends in the random data.

Then in comes mandelbroit with his fractal theories ect but they are in such beginning stages to be un usable for day to day practical purposes.

Now, i figured that the best way to settle this would be to back test each indicator over years and years worth of historical data across many different markets to see if the indicators do have any predictability elements. I then found this book: 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cu...omer-reviews.sort_by=-SubmissionDate&n=283155 

Which did all the statistical work for me and it is shown that 6400 technical indicators turned out to be useless.

So how do people make money with tech/a? The answer is that millions of people use tech/a with proper money management. Out of that many people doing it there are bound to be a small percentage of winners from luck and a large amount of losers which would make sense of the often quoted statistic that 90% of traders lose money.

So is it fair to conclude that successful chartists are just luckier than their fellow losing chartists?

I meant no offence by this thread and am not interested in hearing people defend their egos because they cant accept the possibility that what they have been doing all these years was a total waste of time.

All opinions and counter arguments are greatly welcomed, lets just try not get personal.

Kind regards,

onemind


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

Agree indicators are useless.

t/a => There are many different schools and it is a broad church... and the role of "luck" should never be underestimated. I can demonstrate that quite easily. But money management, though imperitive, is not the half of it. It comes back to, as so often discussed, to expectancy (as a mathematical formula). There are methods where only the "unlucky" would lose. Tech/a's or Stevo's systems prove that because they have positive expectancy.

Good money management will still not save you if expectancy is negative, proving that it is not the only factor.

On the other hand, speaking of astrology, did you know that the origins if the bible are based on astrology? LOL


----------



## motorway (20 April 2007)

> Which did all the statistical work for me and it is shown that 6400 technical indicators turned out to be useless.




Not surprised.



> Out of that many people doing it there are bound to be a small percentage of winners from luck and a large amount of losers which would make sense of the often quoted statistic that 90% of traders lose money.




90% of a certain universe of traders lose money.


motorway


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

That is the whole point, there can be no reliable way to determine the expectancy of any future system based on tech/a.

Some excerps from the book:

------------------

Our brains are so strongly inclined to find patterns in nature, perhaps as evolutionary compensation for limited processing power, that we often see patterns where none really exist. This tendency toward spurious correlations, evident in subjective chart analysis, is maladapted to modern financial markets. 
Erroneous knowledge (superstition) is resilient due to biases in our thinking processes such as: 
Overconfidence; 
Optimism; 
Confirmation (discounting contradictory data); 
Self-attribution (smart when right and unlucky when wrong); and, 
Hindsight (overstating past successes and understating past failures). 
Good stories well told can make people misweight or ignore facts. 
People are not naturally rigorous logicians and statisticians. A need to simplify complexity and cope with uncertainty makes us prone to seeing and accepting unsound correlations. We tend to overweight vivid examples, recent data and inferences from small samples. 
In summary, the scientific method is a reliable path to validity, mitigating the misleading effects of our cognitive biases.

Subjective TA practitioners protect themselves from falsification with vague, ambivalent and conditional predictions. "Because they are not testable, subjective methods [of TA] are shielded from empirical challenge. This makes them worse than wrong. They are meaningless propositions devoid of information." 
Similarly, proponents of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis (EMH) have repeatedly (after the fact) circumvented falsification by defining new risk factors when confronted with unexpected abnormal returns, thereby weakening the credibility of EMH. 
The scientific method requires skepticism, objectification and relentless testing as counterbalance to active speculation about new TA possibilities. 
In summary, those who state that TA is more art than science deserve the status of astrologers, alchemists and folk healers.


Support from a sound theory makes luck less likely as the explanation of success for an outperforming TA rule. Purely empirical TA rules sacrifice this advantage. 
EMH, which precludes or impedes successful TA, is reasonably vulnerable to both logical and empirical challenge. Behavioral finance exploits the logical challenges, limits of human rationality and limits of arbitrage, to offer alternative (but less sweeping) hypotheses that support successful TA. 
Cognitive biases (see Chapter 2 key points above) are important building blocks for the hypotheses of behavioral finance. 
Competing hypotheses of behavioral finance include: 
Biased processing by investors of public information; 
Biased processing by investors of their private information; and, 
Interaction of news (fundamentals) traders and momentum (trend-following) traders. 
Even efficient markets in which participants have different sensitivities to risk, leading to risk transfer opportunities (risk premiums), offer support to TA methods. 
In summary, theoretical support is available to help squeeze randomness out of TA.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

The only way to profit from financial markets is to be an inside trader, market maker, book/system/knowledge seller, exploit market inefficiencies via technological advantage over your broker which will promptly get you banned, become a broker, or several other illegal practices..


Going by fundamental economic common sense has its place but the future is unpredicatable so even they suffer from the same problems as the tech/a guys..


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

Hi onemind,

what did you think of the book? I was contemplating buying it when it first came out, but then I read this on their website-

http://www.evidencebasedta.com/index.html



> EBTA rejects all subjective, interpretive methods of Technical Analysis as worse than wrong, because they are untestable. Thus classical chart patterns, Fibonacci based analysis, Elliott Waves and a host of other ill defined methods are rejected by EBTA. Yet there are numerous practitioners who believe strongly that these methods are not only real but effective. How can this be? Here, EBTA relies on the findings of cognitive psychology to explain how erroneous beliefs arise and thrive despite the lack of valid evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. Cognitive psychologists have identified various illusions and biases, such as the confirmation bias, illusory correlations, hindsight bias, etc. that explain these erroneous beliefs




they come out and say that something is worse than wrong because *THEY* can't test it.

Evidence based indeed


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

> they come out and say that something is worse than wrong because THEY can't test it.




Exactly, it is worse than wrong because it is based on zero information therefore making it "magic" just like alot of human thinking before science. If you cant test it it means it is based on superstition, making it no different to god, religion, and black magic. I dont know about you but i need more than blind faith before betting my life savings making tech/as little more than gamblers at vegas.

I thought the book was excellent. Just the primer on poppers philosophy of science and clarity of thought is worth it but you really dont need to read a whole book to find out that t/a is nonsense do you?


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

Ho hum!

Another academic sprouting ill-informed nonsense. Of course the author is correct regarding a certain brand (and the most commonly taught form) of t/a, and that is on the reliance on indicators and/or in "prediction". But he conveniently ignores mathematically provable methods.

A good way to profit from financial markets is to be an inside trader, market maker, book/system/knowledge seller, exploit market inefficiencies via technological advantage over your broker. But to say it is the only way is utter nonsense.

Go find Curtis Faith and and propose this hypothesis.


----------



## motorway (20 April 2007)

> The only way to profit from financial markets is to be an inside trader,




or by recognising what the intention of inside traders (those that Know, are better informed, Or whose pockets can make the markets) IS.

And following along 



> that we often see patterns where none really exist. This tendency toward spurious correlations, evident in subjective chart analysis, is maladapted to modern financial markets.




Yes... How else does that smart money manipulate the dumb money?

motorway


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

Hang on>

What you are saying onemind, seems to be at odds with what is apparently being proposed in this book.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

How do you figure?

Ignore the EMH stuff, that is just my uni brainwashing coming out..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

motorway said:
			
		

> or by recognising what the intention of inside traders (those that Know, are better informed, Or whose pockets can make the markets) IS.




Same thing, a crook is a crook..


----------



## motorway (20 April 2007)

> In summary, theoretical support is available to help squeeze randomness out of TA.




Sounds right

make things objective

minimize the randomness

And make $$$$

motorway


----------



## motorway (20 April 2007)

> Same thing, a crook is a crook




Do you think the seller you buy from
or the buyer you sell to

Is doing you a favor  out of the kindness of his/her heart ?

Crooks ?

Not applicable

there is risk there is return

EVERYONE is trying to sell one and buy the other
and Everyone is coming from a different starting place

motorway


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

> Crooks ?
> 
> Not applicable




As far as i know, trading on insider information that is not publicly availabe is illegal making such practicioners crooks..


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Exactly, it is worse than wrong because it is based on zero information therefore making it "magic" just like alot of human thinking before science. If you cant test it it means it is based on superstition, making it no different to god, religion, and black magic. I dont know about you but i need more than blind faith before betting my life savings making tech/as little more than gamblers at vegas.
> 
> I thought the book was excellent. Just the primer on poppers philosophy of science and clarity of thought is worth it but you really dont need to read a whole book to find out that t/a is nonsense do you?





I'm glad you enjoyed the book onemind. By the way you've replied, I'm quite glad I didn't buy it.

Enjoy your evening


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Yes, the PhD mathematician couldnt test it but professor fink could 

such arrogance..


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Yes, the PhD mathematician couldnt test it but professor fink could
> 
> such arrogance..




I never said I could test it. I objected to them stating that it is useless and worse than wrong because *THEY *couldn't test it. 

I'd appreciate it if you didn't get personal about it.

Cheers


----------



## motorway (20 April 2007)

> such arrogance..




hmmm.

Whats the point 
and whats your purpose.

And haven't We been there and done that
already ?

Markets are great things
They = opportunity

If We are up to making that most of that opportunity


cheers
motorway


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

So if you cant test it what is it? A hunch? Intuition? Devine guidance?


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

motorway said:
			
		

> Markets are great things
> They = opportunity
> 
> If We are up to making that most of that opportunity




And I am not saying they aren't. My purpose is to get to the bottom of t/a, not all the other viable ways of extracting money from the markets.

The list of ways to make money that I listed is as far as I have got, for all I know, there are better ways that I havent thought of yet but for now, this thread is about t/a.

And by the looks of it, you are in agreement and the other 2 have an untestable method of t/a that works which the author describes as delusion..


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> So if you cant test it what is it? A hunch? Intuition? Devine guidance?




It's subjective. That doesn't mean it's 100% wrong.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

I think the whole point of science it to be objective.

If you have some kind of subjective ability that works for you but i lack, then thats great but of no use to anyone but yourself..


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> And I am not saying they aren't. My purpose is to get to the bottom of t/a, not all the other viable ways of extracting money from the markets.
> 
> The list of ways to make money that I listed is as far as I have got, for all I know, there are better ways that I havent thought of yet but for now, this thread is about t/a.
> 
> And by the looks of it, you are in agreement and the other 2 have an untestable method of t/a that works which the author describes as delusion..




Some mathematics are not testable, these are called Theorems.

You will find many subjective methods work to similar principles i.e. theorems. They obviously work but cannot be tested in retrospect. 

For instance "expectancy" cannot be proven forward in time, but obviously it is mathematically sound.


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I think the whole point of science it to be objective.



Agreed. 
So how can this guy be seen to be objective, when he's critical of methods that he can't test?



> If you have some kind of subjective ability that works for you but i lack, then thats great but of no use to anyone but yourself..




Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> but obviously it is mathematically sound.




How is it obvious? If past prices have zero effect on future prices there is zero way to test the probablities of certain things happening making expectancy uncalculatable.

Like i said, if you have a working system that you cant explain, that is great for you. But good luck writing an unexplainable book but you wont need to since your system works and you will be rich soon..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

professor_frink said:
			
		

> Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.




In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them, especially with an un sociable prick like me


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them, especially with an un sociable prick like me




I don't trade with a "system" as you'd probably define it. It's a combination of some of the things that the author of that book describes as 'worse than wrong', and some things that he would be able to prove scientifically don't work, and has some other things thrown in that are pretty well gut feel.

Combined, it's one very subjective set of principles that I trade with, but one I think could be taught. To some people


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Sounds good  I can be open minded enough to try it out if you want to pm the method.

Do you think it will keep working when the market changes? Or could it just be the result of a bull market?


----------



## professor_frink (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Sounds good  I can be open minded enough to try it out if you want to pm the method.




The way I trade isn't uncommon, there is information all over the net, I mentioned some of the methods I use on this site on the spi trading thread.



onemind said:


> Do you think it will keep working when the market changes? Or could it just be the result of a bull market?




I'd be lying if I said I knew the answer to that From my subjective understanding of the markets, I'm going to say yes, it should be fine. Ultimately time will tell.


----------



## yogi-in-oz (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> In my experience, working systems aren't for sale and people aren't keen to share them .....




 

Hi onemind,

Given the enormous amount of time and effort, that goes into reseaching,
testing and documenting a reliable and profitable system ... why would you
think anybody should share them with you for free, anyway ...???

What possible reason could there be, except out of pure altruism ???

=====

That aside, there's no better indicator than a price chart to show
market SENTIMENT, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with
price, itself.

Truth is, many people on this forum have seen Gann's astrology 
beat the pants off the EW crowd and the fundamentalists ... and
frequently, astroanalysis performed on individual stocks will reveal
some very accurate turn dates.

So, while your title may be tougue-in-cheek, you may want to test
some astroanalysis, on any ASX, NZSX Dow or S&P stock, for the 
year ahead ..... 

..... then have proponents of the other methods, post their analysis
on the same stock ... then, let's see what happens over the next year.

And to be more than fair, you can designate which stock is to be
analyzed, for this test ... yes???

have a great weekend all

       paul

P.S. ..... regarding bible astrology, Gann did not put more 
than 150 bible references in TTTTA, for no reason ... and
it was the Pythagorean Jews in Alexandra, who translated
the Septaguint, from Hebrew into Greek ... so, for those
with a mathematical bent, they will very soon pick up 
the Pythagorean's agenda, making the Bible a GOOD book
to study, as well.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> Given the enormous amount of time and effort, that goes into reseaching,
> testing and documenting a reliable and profitable system ... why would you
> think anybody should share them with you for free, anyway ...???




I wouldnt and that is my whole point. If people enter an academic debate about whether t/a works or not in spite of ample evidence disproving it the only way to prove it would be to show a working system hence my skeptisism about professor sharing his. And i was right, he shared nothing except for vague descriptions that are useless. Its funny how nobody ever takes me up on that offer 



			
				yogi-in-oz said:
			
		

> So, while your title may be tougue-in-cheek, you may want to test
> some astroanalysis, on any ASX, NZSX Dow or S&P stock, for the
> year ahead .....




No thanks


----------



## stoxclimber (20 April 2007)

One thing to note is that to many academics, EMH is a RELIGION, in the ~1970s it was hereitical to question the EMH..I didn't bother to find out this author's background, but one should keep in mind that EMH proponents are not necessarily presenting unbiased opinions.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 April 2007)

professor_frink][QUOTE]Here said:


> Exactly, it is worse than wrong because it is based on zero information therefore making it "magic" just like alot of human thinking before science. If you cant test it it means it is based on superstition, making it no different to god, religion, and black magic. I dont know about you but i need more than blind faith before betting my life savings making tech/as little more than gamblers at vegas.
> 
> I thought the book was excellent. Just the primer on poppers philosophy of science and clarity of thought is worth it but you really dont need to read a whole book to find out that t/a is nonsense do you?



I think you are abusing pretty important work.

In _Popper's_ philosophy, he clearly states that science comes from such things as "magic" and "myths". After all, there wasn't such a thing as an elipse until about 1500.

The point is that tech/a is PROBABALISTIC, and it can be falsified. Therefore it IS scientific.

Tech/a is a valid technique and SP movements etc. are not random because the limits of the properties or frequencies are not absolutely free.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

stoxclimber said:
			
		

> One thing to note is that to many academics, EMH is a RELIGION, in the ~1970s it was hereitical to question the EMH..I didn't bother to find out this author's background, but one should keep in mind that EMH proponents are not necessarily presenting unbiased opinions.




I think you will find he is not aan EMH proponent and if you read the quotes you will see he speaks against it which is what i meant by the comment:

Ignore the EMH stuff, that is just my uni brainwashing.

If anything, t/a's use the EMH as the explanation that patterns are created by market inefficiencies..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Hi Chops,

All i'm saying is that if there were patterns that had decent probability then one would be found as a certainty under rigorous backtesting yet none are found.

All you have are assumptions with no facts.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The point is that tech/a is PROBABALISTIC, and it can be falsified. Therefore it IS scientific




The flying spaghetti monster can be falsified but it doesnt make flying spaghetti monsters scientific..

Its the same old story with t/a's. Their only defence is the same old, "poo hoo, more academic drivel". I know it works because it feels right. Cant prove it though just like god so i'll keep praying..


----------



## chops_a_must (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Hi Chops,
> 
> All i'm saying is that if there were patterns that had decent probability then one would be found as a certainty under rigorous backtesting yet none are found.
> 
> All you have are assumptions with no facts.



A big part of the problem, fundamentally at least, is that there is no consensus with what the word "probability" actually means.

Is the last years data an assumption?

The probabilities of outcomes when rolling a dice are easy to work out. But naturally, the bigger the numbers, the larger the variables, the larger the probability limits.

The XAO opening at -500 on Monday is random. It opening anywhere between 0 and I don't know, 15,000, is not. There is at least one limit there, therefore, the next open on the XAO cannot be fully random. However, the placement of figures between the 0 and 15,000, would be random. Just as the sequence of rolls on a dice is, as the probabilities of each roll remain the same.


----------



## markrmau (20 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> For instance "expectancy" cannot be proven forward in time, but obviously it is mathematically sound.




That is where statistics comes to the rescue when used properly.

Statistics can tell us the probability a result (eg positive expectancy) is real, and the probability we could have obtained the result by chance. 

Unfortunately the number of people who truly understand statistics is small. This is especially true among professions where statistical analysis is the most important - medicine. The level knowledge is depressingly low.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

> A big part of the problem, fundamentally at least, is that there is no consensus with what the word "probability" actually means.
> 
> Is the last years data an assumption?
> 
> The probabilities of outcomes when rolling a dice are easy to work out. But naturally, the bigger the numbers, the larger the variables, the larger the probability limits.




The probabilities are will it go up, or will it go down.

And there is no way of knowing which way it will go until it happens. There is not a pattern in the world that can predict it enough times to be profitable long term. If there was, there would be a ton of gazillionaires getting rich off the reliable compound interest from their reliable system. What your saying is finding something with a greater probability of going your way in essence, removing risk and obtaining unlimitied rewards. There is no such systems and these probabilities you think you can work out are unattainable with historic data.

Show me one pattern that has a statistacally relevent probability and i will eat my hat..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

markrmau said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the number of people who truly understand statistics is small. This is especially true among professions where statistical analysis is the most important - medicine. The level knowledge is depressingly low.




Well the guy that wrote the book is a statistician and his findings are the exact opposite. If you think you can prove him wrong with your statistical mastery i take my hat off to you..


----------



## chops_a_must (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> There is not a pattern in the world that can predict it enough times to be profitable long term. If there was, there would be a ton of gazillionaires getting rich off the reliable compound interest from their reliable system.



The point is, you don't have to predict squat to make money trading.

And there are a ton of gazillionaires out there, and they have got rich off of people with poor risk and money management.


----------



## markrmau (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> The probabilities are will it go up, or will it go down.
> 
> And there is no way of knowing which way it will go until it happens. There is not a pattern in the world that can predict it enough times to be profitable long term. If there was, there would be a ton of gazillionaires getting rich off the reliable compound interest from their reliable system. What your saying is finding something with a greater probability of going your way in essence, removing risk and obtaining unlimitied rewards. There is no such systems and these probabilities you think you can work out are unattainable with historic data.
> 
> Show me one pattern that has a statistacally relevent probability and i will eat my hat..




Uhm, actually, I am agreeing with you. All of the published indicators are statistically useless. I have tested them. 

You should also read http://www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

chops_a_must said:
			
		

> The point is, you don't have to predict squat to make money trading.




So what are you talking about? This isnt a discussion about money management which in turn has nothing to do with t/a.

You were talking about finding positive expectancy and i was talking about how there is no such thing..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Thanks for the link Mark, I'll check it out..


----------



## chops_a_must (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> So what are you talking about? This isnt a discussion about money management which in turn has nothing to do with t/a.
> 
> You were talking about finding positive expectancy and i was talking about how there is no such thing..
> 
> There is not a pattern in the world that can predict it enough times to be profitable long term.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

you've got nothing mate..


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> So what are you talking about? This isnt a discussion about money management which in turn has nothing to do with t/a.
> 
> You were talking about finding positive expectancy and i was talking about *how there is no such thing.*.




ROTFLMAO You're taking the p1ss aren't you?


----------



## Magdoran (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I think the whole point of science it to be objective.
> 
> If you have some kind of subjective ability that works for you but i lack, then thats great but of no use to anyone but yourself..



I don't know why I'm bothering with this puerile nonsense… but…

Ever heard of the “uncertainty principle” by Heisenberg?

Einstein came up with much of the foundations in theory that later provided the key foundations to develop the atom bomb at the start of the 1900s…  

Just because you can’t demonstrate a scientific proof about something that works in the present up to an academic standard doesn’t mean you can’t do so in the future.

Next you’ll be telling me my recent calls to within +/- 1 trading day and one call within 1 index point, and the other within 7 index points were “lucky” huh?  Look at my DAX call on the Trading the SPI GANN thread, and see the key dates I gave well in advance, and where the index changed trend on these dates…

But in reality I’m deluding myself, aren’t I “onemind”.  It really didn’t happen, did it?  Nor all the other calls I’ve made in private.  These were just pure luck, weren’t they, because really the markets are totally random, aren’t they - or was that totally manipulated?  Same thing isn’t it?  

Actually, I see the light, it’s whatever you say it is “onemind”.  If you say some crank book of random walk doctrine is true, then I believe you.  Night is day, white is black, “onemind” is GOD!!!!

Wow, I can forget all the years of research I put into derivatives and technical analysis, and scream Halleluiah!  My saviour “onemind” will deduce methodically how to trade the market for me “objectively” and give me the scientific formula, won’t you?

Look forward to your unification of particle and wave theory too, and your dissertation on string theory, super gravity and membrane theories, and why your perspective should become the dominant paradigm.

Of course George Soros was lucky, Jim Rodgers was lucky, Robert Prechter was lucky, Bill McLaren was lucky… just add anyone in the market that built a fortune…  just luck, wasn’t it?


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Sorry, i just seen the word gann and everthing in my mind turned to ridicule..



> Of course George Soros was lucky, Jim Rodgers was lucky, Robert Prechter was lucky, Bill McLaren was lucky… just add anyone in the market that built a fortune… just luck, wasn’t it?




Read the link Mark posted..


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

> ROTFLMAO You're taking the p1ss aren't you?




Nope..


----------



## wayneL (20 April 2007)

We are wasting our time here. 

Over and out.


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

likewise..

to each their own


----------



## Magdoran (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Sorry, i just seen the word gann and everthing in my mind turned to ridicule..
> 
> 
> 
> Read the link Mark posted..



I have read the article, and Soros’ “The Alchemy of Finance”, and Frank Partnoy’s “Infectious Greed" (which chronicles the game of derivatives including the demise of “Long Term Capital Management” as mentioned in the article).  

I am very well versed in “reflexivity”, and “dynamic disequilibrium”, and use then constantly as the backdrop to my whole financial approach.  Wether Gorge actually fobbed it off or not as an aside is irrelevant, it is still a very powerful perspective, particularly if you understand Karl Popper's philosophy, and what Soros in effect does with this (Soros was trained in philosophy under Popper – bet you didn’t know that now did you?).

There is so much apocryphal nonsense in the article despite it being well written with some knowledge of financial markets, but its premise is wonky.  The idea that a minority will randomly move to the top financially is fanciful. That was why Soros was my first listed person, and Jim Rodgers the second (you probably don’t know that Rodgers was the key partner with Soros when the Soros fund quadrupled in a year – of course this was just random though, wasn’t it?).

Yes, chance and luck play a part in finance, but this is because no one is entirely objective, omniscient and omnipotent (except you of course), but it seems ironic that one minute you are championing scientific objectivity, and then postulating that the financial world is entirely random.

You could have argued that Collateralised Debt Obligations and Collateralised Mortgage Obligations have random yields too and the demise of ENRON was just unlucky, right?  … But instead you cheaply fob me off with a pathetic one liner.

Come on “onemind” let’s get serious, if you think “Gann is bunk” how much are you willing show your financial prowess against one of my calls?  Bring it on buddy!

Let’s see if you can do better than a cheap one liner next time since you are the “savoir” for a slow Friday night’s entertainment!


----------



## onemind (20 April 2007)

Wow, stock boxing 

He did fob it off and its your backdrop.

Gann, well, need i say more?


----------



## Magdoran (20 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Wow, stock boxing
> 
> He did fob it off and its your backdrop.
> 
> Gann, well, need i say more?



Coward


----------



## Magdoran (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Wow, stock boxing
> 
> He did fob it off and its your backdrop.
> 
> Gann, well, need i say more?



Is that all you've got?


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

I cant gamble with you because if i won i would know it was luck but if you won you would think you are psychic..


----------



## nizar (21 April 2007)

Magdoran - so your a Maclaren fan?
I read he recently called a June top for our markets, thats mad, two months to PARTAY!


----------



## Magdoran (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I cant gamble with you because if i won i would know it was luck but if you won you would think you are psychic..



But you can’t lose because you are omnipotent…


----------



## Kimosabi (21 April 2007)

I use Sun Spot Activity to determine my trades...


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

I am omnipotent enough to not fool myself into thinking i know more than i do, like you..


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

> I use Sun Spot Activity to determine my trades...




hehe, i use tea leaves..


----------



## Magdoran (21 April 2007)

nizar said:


> Magdoran - so your a Maclaren fan?
> I read he recently called a June top for our markets, thats mad, two months to PARTAY!



Hello Nizar,


How are you?  Just watching the DAX rallying up 1.56%...  CAC up 2%, FTSE lagging at 0.88%... could be interesting.  A lot going on right now…  Shanghai gained much of its lost ground… up 3.92%.

Now, re McLaren’s call, not sure about this, he’s running a 90 day cycle from the US low…  not sure about this, I don’t think that’s the dominant cycle.  I have my own projections, but they're too premature to call right now.  Depends what happens in the next few days since there were some terminal cycles in Asia and Europe, but not apparently in the US.

The various metals in the CRB index I suspect may still be rallying, and if so, puts paid to the bearish scenarios right now…  Zinc for instance is up 2.22%, hence my projection for a bullish blow off move into 21 May (or beyond).

So, yes, tend to agree with the bullish appraisal at present, but with some caution, and suspect that the 90 cycle McLaren is running may not be correct, even though the cycle isn’t a bad fit, just doesn’t “feel” right to me at the moment, hence watching to see how Europe (especially the DAX) and Asia pan out.


Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Magdoran (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I am omnipotent enough to not fool myself into thinking i know more than i do, like you..



Hey “onemind” since you are a god (in your own mind), you probably know less than you actually do, but more than you think you do, since the amount of THC  consumed is inversely proportional to the alcohol digested.


----------



## Kimosabi (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> hehe, i use tea leaves..




I saw a program on TV where people actually do this  ...


----------



## Magdoran (21 April 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> I saw a program on TV where people actually do this  ...



Wow, did they use black tea, red, or green tea?


----------



## Kimosabi (21 April 2007)

Magdoran said:


> Wow, did they use black tea, red, or green tea?




Not tea, Sun Spot Activity


----------



## wayneL (21 April 2007)

Magdoran said:


> Wow, did they use black tea, red, or green tea?



I use chamomile.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

> Not tea, Sun Spot Activity




I saw that too. Commodities traders use it to determine what effect sun spots will have on future crops.

Right up there with gann


----------



## yogi-in-oz (21 April 2007)

onemind, 

Have you ever really studied any of Gann's work, at all ... ???

happy days

  paul


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

sadly, yes


----------



## professor_frink (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I wouldnt and that is my whole point. If people enter an academic debate about whether t/a works or not in spite of ample evidence disproving it the only way to prove it would be to show a working system hence my skeptisism about professor sharing his. And i was right, he shared nothing except for vague descriptions that are useless. Its funny how nobody ever takes me up on that offer



LOL! I told you it wasn't a system onemind. And I never offered to teach or share it with *YOU*. 

Since when was this an academic debate I thought this was a stockmarket forum.

I don't think anyone is going to simply hand over all of their hard work to you, so maybe it would be best for you to stick with your index funds and leave the TA to the astrologers.


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

One Mind.

4 yrs of Trading a system here.
100s of threads on the topic and 1000s of posts.
You can look back and also follow it week by week.
Fully disclosed.

http://lightning.he.net/cgi-bin/suid/~reefcap/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=74

Ive also P/Md you.

There are a few around that you can follow.

Stevo has a blog and Rosella (Don) has been live demonstrating his for a few years now.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

> LOL! I told you it wasn't a system onemind. And I never offered to teach or share it with YOU




*Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.*

How could i possibly give it a go if i dont know what it is?



> Since when was this an academic debate I thought this was a stockmarket forum.




*I know people on this forum have a strong aversion to the academic side of trading so if you would, "Rather make money than talk about it", then please see other threads.*

That was the first line of this thread..

So what are you saying? If your a stock trader you should ignore all academic literature about the stock market? Total bs..

You will find the best quants on wall street with PhDs in Physics, Maths, finance, computer science ect ect and i doubt any of them got a job without understanding the statistics of the stock market.. Stick to gann but dont confuse brains with a bull market..



> One Mind.
> 
> 4 yrs of Trading a system here.
> 100s of threads on the topic and 1000s of posts.
> You can look back and also




Thanks T/A but i got banned from reefcap and my ip is blocked so i cant view the forum. I looked in to T/A. What i found interesting on reefcap is if you go back to posts from 2002 you will find yourself and nick saying how hard it is to make money in the current market. It wasn't your systems fault, it was the markets. But now in a bull your success has nothing to do with the market and it is a great system.. 

This may or may not be the case, however, the T/A system cant be accessed and even when i could, i couldnt get by all the jargon in that thread with the convoluted explainations.

Thanks anyway.


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

*Onetime.*

I have all the posts on disk right from day 1
Radge had no input what so ever,never made a comment on any thread.

*As for success in Bullmarkets.
I have to laugh everytime I see this.*

Most systems and in particular Techtrader are designed to trade trends.
Thats what they do.
If they dont make a profit in a Bullmarket then they arent worth the disk space.

Your proof of profitable systems is there both Rosella and Stevo have links to their methods accessable to you.
However you'll stand by your conviction with arguement regardless of what is presented.

$30k to $400K on 2:1 margin over 4 yrs.

*Brainless bullmarket trading*---fine Ill take my 370K and be brainless.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

I never said it didnt work because I haven't even looked at it. And my assumptions weren't meant to be insults.

I would be willing to learn your system, back test it and trade it if I knew how to use it. If you are still offering I would be interested to see that disk. Is it just a floppy therefore being a small file that could be emailed or uploaded somewhere? And does it use t/a indicators for buy and sell decisions?


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

And just a quick question about your $30k to $400k.

That is a 1330% ROI in 4 years.

On the reefcap forum nick revealed he was making around 30% per year and i assumed you were on around 25% per year since you subscribe to his newsletter and you seemed quite happy with that assumption.

25% per year is a lot different to 1330% in 4 years. Is this backtesting results or did you really make it with this system? And if so, why would you dump this system in favour of a discretionary charting system that nick makes 30% per year with?


----------



## professor_frink (21 April 2007)

onemind-



> *Over time, I'd venture a guess that almost anyone of average intelligence could do it. Maybe you should give it a go.*
> 
> How could i possibly give it a go if i dont know what it is?



Sorry, I was referring to trading in general in that statement, not my methods. I said I thought it would be possible to teach someone my way of doing it, but that was never an offer to give you 5+ years of my own work on a silver platter.



> *I know people on this forum have a strong aversion to the academic side of trading so if you would, "Rather make money than talk about it", then please see other threads.*
> 
> That was the first line of this thread..



I'll apologise here- it was fairly early this morning when I typed that reply out, I didn't have enough coffee in me! I had forgotten the exact details of your first post.



> So what are you saying? If your a stock trader you should ignore all academic literature about the stock market? Total bs..




No, I'm not saying that at all.



> You will find the best quants on wall street with PhDs in Physics, Maths, finance, computer science ect ect and i doubt any of them got a job without understanding the statistics of the stock market..




Yes, you will. You'll also find these kinds of people running hedge funds. Despite the obvious intelligence of these people, there are still numerous blow ups. So what exactly is your point here?



> Stick to gann but dont confuse brains with a bull market..




Yet another assumption 
I don't use gann.
I was trading in 2002, which means I've seen a cyclical bear. Yet to see a secular bear trend, so you may well have the last laugh here- I may fall to pieces when that day arrives. Considering I haven't previously had a problem trading the short side of the market, hopefully it won't be a problem, but then again, you just never know.


----------



## yogi-in-oz (21 April 2007)

... have you ever actually studied, Gann's astrological trading methods
or any financial astrology for that matter, onemind ..... ???

happy days

 paul


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I never said it didnt work because I haven't even looked at it. And my assumptions weren't meant to be insults.




Never took it that way.



> I would be willing to learn your system, back test it and trade it if I knew how to use it.




I dont care wether people use it or not.It was designed to see if it could actually be done.I'd never system traded myself.Stevo started his at about the same time.



> If you are still offering I would be interested to see that disk. Is it just a floppy therefore being a small file that could be emailed or uploaded somewhere? And does it use t/a indicators for buy and sell decisions?




PM your postal address and I'll send off a copy.



> And just a quick question about your $30k to $400k.
> 
> That is a 1330% ROI in 4 years.
> 
> On the reefcap forum nick revealed he was making around 30% per year and i assumed you were on around 25% per year since you subscribe to his newsletter and you seemed quite happy with that assumption.




Radge doesnt have a newsletter. But I am a subscriber to the "Chartist" interested in Radges Adaptation of Elliot.
T/T does about 25-30% a year nett. Pyramiding profits and the Margin leverage is far more powerful than the nett return on ANY system.Just using your money/equity more effectively.Its all there week in week out---no smoke and mirrors.



> 25% per year is a lot different to 1330% in 4 years. Is this backtesting results or did you really make it with this system? And if so, why would you dump this system in favour of a discretionary charting system that nick makes 30% per year with?




Have no intention of "dumping" anything until the Longterm Long system trades outside its "blueprint" which one day it will.As for shorter term trading simply you can make more profit. I must be talented because I trade both ways.A bit of Diversification in trading methodologies.I have limited time so longer term suits but I'm looking into a way of setting up in my office a shorter term methodology which doesnt detract from running a Company (Mine).

Yes it (Techtrader) is purely technical for Entry/Exits and Stops.
Buy the way I think its a pretty average method.---I'm happy with average.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

Thanks T/A.

I have managed to hack onto reefcap and am reading the system now.

I wouldn't call 1300% profit an average system 



> ... have you ever actually studied, Gann's astrological trading methods
> or any financial astrology for that matter, onemind ..... ???
> 
> happy days
> ...




Now you are just being funny..


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

> Sorry, I was referring to trading in general in that statement




Lol, what do you think i have been trying to do all this time? If i found something that worked i would already be trading. I think all that happened there was your bluff got called..



> You'll also find these kinds of people running hedge funds. Despite the obvious intelligence of these people, there are still numerous blow ups. So what exactly is your point here?




Lol, just because some of them run hedge funds doesn't negate what the rocket scientists manage to pull of on the markets and the overwhelming evidence they find..So what exactly is your point here?

I once read in a trading book that people wouldnt verse tiger woods in professional golf or compete in the plastic surgery business as amateurs yet millions of people take on these wizards of the markets thinking it is easy..

*Pulls out star charts*


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

Onemind.

Those that do make consistent profit from the markets,do spend and have spent just as much time learning how to as a Tiger Woods or a Plastic surgeon.

Tiger Started hitting his first Golfball and Traders start with their first trade.
Your no different to anyone else starting out.
You want to know if the effort to do a 5 yr apprenticeship is worth it.
A few here including myself would say sure is.
I've enjoyed/enjoy the challenge and the diversity---you never stop learning.
Even Yogi does some amazing things-- yeh with Astrology.


But in the end its APPLICATION of knowledge and thats where you come in.

Learning is one thing and applying the knowledge another---evident in my Golf.


----------



## professor_frink (21 April 2007)

onemind,
If you are having problems getting started in trading, then you are most definitely going about it in the wrong way. Instead of this thread, you could have started one asking questions. Explain what you want to achieve, and ask for some advice. It probably would have gotten you alot further than this thread will

Best of luck.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

> Instead of this thread, you could have started one asking questions.




I have asked many many questions over the past year on various forums and its not like i am a total noob. I doubt many total noobs would be going on about random walk and there numerous metastock/tradesim backtest results..




> Explain what you want to achieve




money



> It probably would have gotten you alot further than this thread will




If the answers i get are going to be astrology and vague descriptions of discretionary trading and mechanical systems which the author doesnt use even though it makes 1300% then i am probably better off sticking to my own research results..


----------



## wayneL (21 April 2007)

Perhaps your problem is one of psychology.

Profitable systems are not rocket science, but as Tech/A says its in the application.

Finding a system suitable for your own psychology is the tricky bit, this is where the application part can be messed up, if the system is not suitable for you.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

Maybe..


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

Ah Wayne beat me to it.



> If the answers i get are going to be astrology and vague descriptions of discretionary trading and mechanical systems which the author doesnt use even though it makes 1300% ..




Craig,this is my last post here.

Where did you get that I dont trade the method from?
I infact trade Techtrader and 2 hybrids of it.
I'm firmly convinced after your posts here and on Reef that you cant pull the trigger.* Evidenced with this comment*



> then i am probably better off sticking to my own research results





*and this*



> I have asked many many questions over the past year on various forums and its not like i am a total noob. I doubt many total noobs would be going on about random walk and there numerous metastock/tradesim backtest results..




*You've not taken part in one of the strongest Bullmarkets in history*
Yet you berate those who have.

Your too afraid of loss and your looking for something that if it fails you'll be able to blame.
*You'll have all here who attempt to help you running in never ending circles.*

*Try GOLF----atleast you'll get a HANDICAP*


----------



## chops_a_must (21 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> *Try GOLF----atleast you'll get a HANDICAP*




No tech... he clearly already has one.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

I didnt participate because i am a young, broke student who is still studying so when i am 50 i can make 1300% too.

It has nothing to do with fear, but undercapitalisation


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

Onya chops. Dont think too hard mate. Chuck another snag on the barbie..


----------



## tech/a (21 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I didnt participate because i am a young, broke student who is still studying so when i am 50 i can make 1300% too.
> 
> It has nothing to do with fear, but undercapitalisation




Understood and explains everything---everything.
Goodluck.


----------



## onemind (21 April 2007)

Thank you


----------



## CanOz (21 April 2007)

tech/a said:


> Understood and explains everything---everything.
> Goodluck.




Some of your most diplomatic efforts to date here Tech, well done. 

Interesting debate here onemind, i've thoroughly enjoyed it. Seriously.

cheers,


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

Glad you like it 

Hopefully you got something useful out of it.

If you are interested, I posted the same thing on other forums. One forex and one commodities just to see the different perspectives of traders on other markets. 

Here is the forex one: http://www2.oanda.com/cgi-bin/msgboard/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=008339;p=1

And i'll have to look the other one up in a sec.

Its interesting to note that most of the forex traders were in agreement, a little less were in commodities and a lot were against it in stocks as demonstrated 

I think the reason for this is because the forex is probably the closest thing on the planet to perfect competition with its liquidity and 2 trillion dollar size making this stuff obvious to forex traders. Next the commodities like wheat ect have price takers and again are pretty close to perfect competition but with things like weather and government trade polocies ect having its effects leads some traders to dispute my random theories. Lastly, the stock traders are adamant that there are repeatable patterns, especially in ASX because of its tiny size and the ablity of investors to know more about companies etc leads them to believe in even bigger inefficiencies that supposeddly show up in the price charts which they think they can exploit. Which is ironic considering the book used stock data.

P.S Here is a link on an obscure forum just to see what the king of forex backtesters had to say about it:http://forum.forexsb.com/viewtopic.php?pid=391#p391

It will be interesting to see what these guys say 

I think I have been pretty thorough and have got a lot closer to cracking this nut 

Have fun..


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

professor_frink said:


> onemind,
> If you are having problems getting started in trading, then you are most definitely going about it in the wrong way. Instead of this thread, you could have started one asking questions. Explain what you want to achieve, and ask for some advice. It probably would have gotten you alot further than this thread will
> 
> Best of luck.



I agree fully with Professor Frink’s comments, onemind,


It’s got a lot to do with attitude and application.  Firstly, if you ask the right questions the right way, you’ll find ASF has many people that have gone out of their way to help others.

If you take the time to read through both threads of interest and particular posters with some knowledge, there truly is a wealth of ideas to be reaped here, but you’ve got to want to do this, and do it with a good grace, an open but discerning mind, and with a positive attitude.  

Try using the search function for threads of interest, and try the find all posts from your favourite posters, and go through what they have to say. Go right back to their earliest posts, and follow the dialogues that speak to you.  You’d be surprised what you can glean here.

Otherwise if you antagonise people and play games, you’ll just get on the wrong side of the people you could learn from.  Why do that?  Do you want to learn or not?  It’s all about attitude – your attitude.  If you’re seeking knowledge, you have to look for it.  It’s all here, believe me, lots of good starting points and pure gold posts in terms of real comments and wisdom from real people who are out there in the market place.

Also, be a bit careful about dismissing any concept out of hand.  Sure, once you’ve studied it, ask questions, probe a bit, many ideas are flawed, but sometimes there are glimpses of wisdom and inspiration that are worth the effort of wading through dialogues to find them.  

But you have to apply yourself, develop an understanding of each school of thought, then venture out and try your hand at them (even if it’s only in theory paper trading until you can build real capital in the future). Listen carefully.  Observe, imagine, think, access the knowledge, and build your own unique but educated view of the market.

My advice to succeed in the long run in the market, is to master the most important element in trading and investing – Psychology (I’d say it’s 90% of the game).  That is master both your own psychology, and master market psychology.  If you can do this, then success may well flow to you.  Ignore it, and the market will teach you this lesson, probably at the worst time in the most ruthless manner.

The best book I have read on this is Mark Douglas’ “Trading in the Zone”, and “The Disciplined Trader”, but also Phantom of the Pits is definitely worth a read too.

Analysis, system, and strategy are the next key elements in the mix.  If you have an interest in this view point, feel free to search back into the threads where I and others have discussed these concepts.  There are many good threads where a variety of competent people contribute their viewpoint, and some of these may well assist you in your journey if you choose to make it.  But it’s up to you onemind.  

Until you develop a positive mental attitude, you really will be your own worst enemy.  Consider resolving to change this state of mind, and to seek out positive ways to approach life… until then, you will be battling with those who may otherwise help you.  In the end, it is not them you are fighting, it is yourself, and your future.


Kind Regards


Magdoran


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

Golly geepers, Onemind, please go and buy some managed funds!  

Thanks for the discussion guys. It's been an interesting day.


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

Thanks Mag.

But why patronize me? I have read the books you have read. Van Tharpe, wizards and all the rest of them. I have searched many many forums and read tons of threads. I have posted on many foums and asked tons of questions. I have paper traded stocks, forex, futures.. I have did the maths, stayed up late with excel, metastock, tradesim and many other apps. I have written my own software..

The list goes on and on and on..

I didnt come to my conclusions lightly.

Personally i find all the psychology stuff so cliche. If i hear the word psychology one more time i will eat my laptop. Thats all you ever hear on forums. Every wise guy reading star charts telling you that psychology is 80% and money management is 90%.

Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,Psychology, money management, psychology, money management,


I get it i get it. I have read the same blogs as you. I have paper traded for large profit. I have turned a $500 real money forex account to $1230 in 1 week and lost the lot in the next 2 days.

All i have learned has led me to random walk and the falsification of technical indicators.

You guys just seem to find my conclusion premature, immature, unexperienced and feel the need to patronise me over and over until i agree with your views because then of course i would be right if i thought like you.

The bottom line is, i dont think like you. I think gann was a kook. I think most of t/a is astrology and my new approach to trading is more realistic, more business like and more in line with the big players who succeed ultimately in this game.

So again, thanks for actually trying to post something positive to me after all your put downs, appreciate it. But again, to each their own..

-----

Golly geepers kenny, eat me..


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> I have asked many many questions over the past year on various forums and its not like i am a total noob. I doubt many total noobs would be going on about random walk and there numerous metastock/tradesim backtest results..
> 
> If the answers i get are going to be astrology and vague descriptions of discretionary trading and mechanical systems which the author doesnt use even though it makes 1300% then i am probably better off sticking to my own research results..



onemind,

Random walk is antithetical to my approach to the market.  The sum total of my posts on this forum stand against this viewpoint, as do many others. Have a read and see what you think of the posts, then come back and tear them to pieces if you can. 

If you fervently believe in this paradigm, and exclude all others, there is no point logically discussing this further in practical terms.  What you should be doing then is really studying this theory and mastering it, and ignoring all others.  The fact you are pushing this wheelbarrow into such a forum as this belies the possibility you really aren’t that sure of it in your heart of hearts, are you?

While I have reservations about the astrological schools you refer to, some of them (a minority) do come up with some pretty interesting forecasts…  I’d be careful writing Yogi off too quickly, not to say I fully agree with him either, but be careful about imposing preconceived notions before fully researching what you are challenging.

As for technical analysis, sure, a lot of it is bunk, it has to be.  But the challenge is to find a unique approach that works for you.  If you are already set in your perspectives and paradigm, what’s the point of ramming an inflexible view around the net.  Maybe a bit of stirring, but that’s about it.  If you’re serious, then try to stop forcing a viewpoint, and start examining ALL the viewpoints intelligently and try to understand the alternative perspectives – that’s how you’ll develop, not by preaching and stirring… think about it. 


Mag


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Golly geepers kenny, eat me..



You're still at Uni, right? And never traded? Been banned on some other forum? The name's kennas, please ditch the y. Cheers.  

I can't believe how much band width this has taken up.


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

> As for technical analysis, sure, a lot of it is bunk, it has to be. But the challenge is to find a unique approach that works for you.




Of course, i know where i'm at and certainly havent given up.



> . If you are already set in your perspectives and paradigm, what’s the point of ramming an inflexible view around the net. Maybe a bit of stirring, but that’s about it.




Its all part of my research. I was just interested to hear what fellow traders had to say about my view on various markets, not trying to win bonus points in debate or anything. Just another forum post to me, nothing serious and i'm not trying to win converts because i couldnt care less what other peole think..


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> i couldnt care less what other peole think..



Classic  , why post?


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

> I can't believe how much band width this has taken up.




Wow, a whole 20kbs, you cant be that rich if you cant afford it kenny


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

> Classic, why post?




It means I couldnt care less if other people agree with my view or not. I post to learn..

I cant be fegged wasting my time with yet another pedantic, patronising trading legend wannabe..


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Thanks Mag.
> 
> But why patronize me? I have read the books you have read. Van Tharpe, wizards and all the rest of them. I have searched many many forums and read tons of threads. I have posted on many foums and asked tons of questions. I have paper traded stocks, forex, futures.. I have did the maths, stayed up late with excel, metastock, tradesim and many other apps. I have written my own software..
> 
> ...



onemind,


I was not being patronising. You imposed this view, not me. Why would I bother to do that, gets me nowhere and you nowhere?  Either you are a person in distress, or are just tugging chains.  I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are sincerely in turmoil.

I was actually trying to genuinely help you.  If you can’t accept that from the people here with a good grace, then you have burnt bridges for yourself.  Your choice.

Have you read Douglas???  If you have, why do you think this isn’t helpful exactly?

If you think Gann is bunk (fine with me if you believe this, it may not suit you), but have you read all my posts? Hey, bring it on and tear me to shreds… maybe you can teach me something.

Have you seen all of Bill McLaren’s DVD sets in full and really studied them?  If not, how do you know they’re wrong?  They worked for me, best material I’ve ever accessed…  again read the posts and make up your own mind…

But this is just my personal unique viewpoint.  Others on ASF have ventured some really interesting approaches too, maybe one of these may work for you.  There are a host of really good people on this site that have been posting for years too, and I bet you haven’t read half of them, have you?

The fact you made a loss needs to be evaluated.  Why did it happen?  Was it risk management, maybe it was flawed thinking at some level rather than random walk in action?  If you really expect me to believe you have tried everything to a sufficient level, I take my hat off to you.  I still have years to learn material and will probably die before I get it all done…

As for me posting put downs, you got what you asked for.  Read my posts from post 1 and see what kind of person I am.  I have gone out of my way for no reward other than the satisfaction of helping others in a variety of fields for genuine polite and positive people.  But when faced with negativity I just won’t stand for it.  It’s that simple.

Treat others with respect, and they may reciprocate.  Pretty simple really, wouldn’t you agree?


Mag


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

kennas said:


> Classic  , why post?



Spot on Kennas!


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> It means i couldnt care less if other people agree with my view or not. I post to learn..
> 
> I cant be fegged wasting my time with yet another pedantic, patronising trading legend wannabe..



Well, I hope you learn something here. I certainly have! And congratulations on getting the best minds on the forum to respond to you: WayneL, Professor Fink, tech/a, Magdoran, markaumau, chops, stox....sorry to have missed anyone. You've obviously stirred something up. Now, the manged funds I recommend are.....


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

snore..

I'm done with this forum.



> WayneL, Professor Fink, tech/a, Magdoran, markaumau, chops, stox....




Best minds? There are better on the net..

I will leave now before you read my star sign.

Happy trading


----------



## motorway (22 April 2007)

> and my new approach to trading is more realistic, more business like and more in line with the big players who succeed ultimately in this game.




Can We look forward to a thread called "realistic trading" ?
Where You share something of yourself , Your insights and approach ?

What is the defining definitive characteristic that these "big players" have that allows them to ultimately succeed ?

And in what way can little players be successfully like them ?


How do producers  hedgers and speculators differ ?

Someone speculating on Gold ?
A user of the metal Hedging their  future demand ?
A producer forward selling Gold they already own but currently in the ground ?

motorway


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

kennas said:


> You're still at Uni, right? And never traded? Been banned on some other forum? The name's kennas, please ditch the y. Cheers.
> 
> I can't believe how much band width this has taken up.



Hi kennas,


I was bored the other night watching the European indexes and the LME futures, and needed to stay awake long enough… hence thought I’d have a little fun.

Then I realised this guy may have serious problems… or is a sociopath… hence felt compelled to suggest a positive path… but if no positive response comes back will move to ignoring silly comments…

Oddly enough controversy can generate interesting responses, and perspectives.  A person putting up a radical/unorthodox view can stimulate some unique responses, but it’s probably better when the person is like the Duc in my view…

Mag


----------



## Magdoran (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> snore..
> 
> I'm done with this forum.
> 
> ...



onemind,


You are a gem.  A paragon of virtue, aren’t you?

You’re done with this forum because you’re out of your depth.

Forget trading, with an attitude like yours you are doomed to failure.

Ever heard of a “troll”.  Well, you’re getting close to wearing that badge.

I actually think you are a deeply troubled person, and maybe you will find the help you need from someone.


----------



## Sean K (22 April 2007)

Magdoran said:


> Oddly enough controversy can generate interesting responses, and perspectives.  A person putting up a radical/unorthodox view can stimulate some unique responses, but it’s probably better when the person is like the Duc in my view…Mag



 Well, you need a brain to generate the responses that this character has so I'll give that to he/she/it. Well done! That's what I love about this place.


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

Well, half a brain and no heart as discovered on reefcap along with my sociopathic personality..

Anyone else want to psycho analyse me?

Why does everyone think they are dr phil and pillars of sanity?

Most traders are nuts..


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2007)

Magdoran said:


> “troll”



Trolls need to be fed, without feeding they shrivel up and go away.

Choice is ours (other members of ASF) to feed or not. Let's see.


----------



## CanOz (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Glad you like it
> 
> Hopefully you got something useful out of it.
> 
> ...




Ahhh, i meant that i enjoyed the responses to your antagonistic prodding. 

For some reason everyone has been so patient with you, and i'm impressed with the way they've responded.

This forum is a community, they (the elders if you like) welcomed you and your debate into the community.

But i get the feeling your doing this as some kind of experiment, or paper?

Surely you must have better things to do?

cheers,


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)

wayneL said:


> Trolls need to be fed, without feeding they shrivel up and go away.
> 
> Choice is ours (other members of ASF) to feed or not. Let's see.




I thought I get this in before this thread gets locked.

This is just silly...


----------



## ducati916 (22 April 2007)

Actually, it shouldn't really matter whether he is a troll or not, that is entirely irrelevent.

What should matter is that if he is in point of fact incorrect, that you should be able to demonstrate with a logical, coherent argument and demonstration that he is in point of fact incorrect.

The claim is a *random walk*.

This should be easily shown to be *misguided* and the factors that underlie the *proof* demonstrated via referenced material & evidence.

jog on
d998


----------



## yogi-in-oz (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Now you are just being funny..




... not at all !~!

Having an "open mind", instead of "onemind", 
may be the greatest asset, that any trader 
can have, period ... 

have a great weekend

    paul


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

No, i think having critical thinking skills are better than being so open minded that your brain falls out.



> Actually, it shouldn't really matter whether he is a troll or not, that is entirely irrelevent.
> 
> What should matter is that if he is in point of fact incorrect, that you should be able to demonstrate with a logical, coherent argument and demonstration that he is in point of fact incorrect.
> 
> ...




Now there is your best brain on this forum.

I have found it is a lot easier for people in their unexplainable comfort zones to label any anomaly in their philosophy a troll rather than having to actually use their brain.

The same things come out of these peoples mouths, the same bs canned responses.

Money management, psychology, money management, psychology, troll, troll, troll..

Yes, i'm sitting under my bridge as we speak charging people a toll to cross..



> coherent argument and demonstration that he is in point of fact incorrect.




Ahh but, their methods are beyond science and are unexplainable parts of conciousness that can only be proved by demonstration, and i'll be damned if i am going to demonstrate something that took me 20 years of hard work to discover. But i will use the excuse that i am a forum elder here to answer questions, but only ones where i can quote the same cheesy money management and psychology lines that are in every trading book, blog, website, seminar ect ect..Nothing actually useful will be shared..


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)




----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

Just like you..


----------



## Kimosabi (22 April 2007)

onemind said:


> Just like you..






onemind said:


> Thanks T/A but i got banned from reefcap and my ip is blocked so i cant view the forum.




Why did you get banned from reefcap?


----------



## onemind (22 April 2007)

Seems i am bad for the book selling business..


----------

