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

[Magdoran]

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]

Hahahaha, Wayne,


I can just see you sprinting for the crypt!


So funny!


Mag

See you after sundown

 

[Magdoran]

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?

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]

Hahahaha, Wayne,


I can just see you sprinting for the crypt!


So funny!


Mag

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]

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]

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!

Regards
Magdoran

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]

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!

Regards
Magdoran

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

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 cliché, 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]

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

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.

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]

See you after sundown

No wonder you're so popular!

Stop it Wayne, you're killing me!


Mag

 

[bunyip]

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]

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]

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]

I agree W/S.

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

 

[Magdoran]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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!!

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]

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]

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)?

Yours in mirth
Magdoran

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]

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