Daffy Trades Micro Patterns under $1

[pixel]

But in any case the thread was always about managing trades and application of a method rather than the next making of an internet Hero. You would have to give Tech a 9 outta 10 as far as the original aims of the thread.

That was my main point, TH and Valued;
Great that we have consensus on this. And if "Valued's Shorts" had ever come off the ground, the limits of that method would soon have become evident too.

 

[Valued]

Lol, I am not sure how I feel about it being suggested though that I lose all my money on stupid trades and start a thread for everyone to watch though. I like my money, I think I will keep it

I was just taking a guess that perhaps shorting every pattern here would be profitable (but obviously market conditions were a factor in this sample) It doesn't mean I am going to go and start doing it with real money! If I say "I guess" or "I wonder" it means I am not actually going to do it. If I say something more specific like "I am bullish on the USD" then I almost always would have a position in some form that would have exposure to that view. In this example it may take a number of forms, so I would class being short on a basket of commodities as exposure to a bullish USD, without perhaps actually taking a direct position in the forex market.

 

[Volume]

I am sorry, but I can't take this seriously...your suggested link to SKC's thread tells me the proposed trades were just that - proposals - not actual trades (as he inferred in one post). At least Tech/a was actually making real trades and for that he gains my respect and appreciation. It is such a shame to see a REAL trader vilified. Over to the new experts to convey their trades for all to see and follow...

 

[Trembling Hand]

I am sorry, but I can't take this seriously...your suggested link to SKC's thread tells me the proposed trades were just that - proposals - not actual trades (as he inferred in one post). At least Tech/a was actually making real trades and for that he gains my respect and appreciation. It is such a shame to see a REAL trader vilified. Over to the new experts to convey their trades for all to see and follow...

Yeah its a shame because it is rare that anyone puts together any meaningful amount of trades to track like Tech has here. And its always interesting how everyone waits in the wings till the end and then adds their on what the poster did wrong.

But SKC has certainly put up more than his fair share of trades and info.

 

[pixel]

I am sorry, but I can't take this seriously...your suggested link to SKC's thread tells me the proposed trades were just that - proposals - not actual trades (as he inferred in one post). At least Tech/a was actually making real trades and for that he gains my respect and appreciation. It is such a shame to see a REAL trader vilified. Over to the new experts to convey their trades for all to see and follow...

hear hear!

 

[Joe Blow]

Many times I think these kind of situations are the result of miscommunication and/or misunderstanding. Tone is often hard to convey in writing and it is easy to misinterpret what someone is trying to say.

It's a shame to see good threads like this die because of a disagreement or misunderstanding.

Hopefully this is not the end of this thread but just a hiatus.

 

[fraa]

I am a noob but I honestly doesnt understand this.

Regardless of the details of his trades (I have not followed this thread), tech/a is not trying to sell anything (unlike that FX guy that got run off a while back) and anyone with a brain knows you take everything on the internet with a grain of salt, especially related to money. If the numbers dont add up, then just drop a note and move on - no point waging online battles it just wastes time.

 

[craft]

Yes you are correct.

I'm done.

I don't have the time or inclination.
All the best to everyone.
Hope you all find financial freedom.

Ducks left the building for good.

That's not a rational response for a genuine mistake when somebody points out that the numbers don't add up. SKC should not be held accountable for TECH/a's reaction.

So, SKC, I assume you will be giving us the benefit of your trading expertise by posting your trades from this point on?

Look at the trade analysis - THAT is a valuable contribution of how somebody that actually trades for a living goes about their work.

If some numbers didn't add up - So What!

Seriously? Reality in the market I suggest would beg to differ.

I think everyone should be thanking skc for the professional and honest breakdown and summary of the journal.

In trading, honesty with one's process and outcome is absolutely essential.

I second that.

I am sorry, but I can't take this seriously...your suggested link to SKC's thread tells me the proposed trades were just that - proposals - not actual trades (as he inferred in one post). At least Tech/a was actually making real trades and for that he gains my respect and appreciation. It is such a shame to see a REAL trader vilified. Over to the new experts to convey their trades for all to see and follow...

Was he actually trading it?

Who vilified Tech? Is pointing out the numbers don't add up vilification?

Nobody drove tech away or rubbished his thread - they just pointed out a fact - Tech chose to leave again.


If vilification is going on here it is of SKC - Tech storms off and the person asking a legitimate question gets reamed by the followers. This seems to be a repeating Modus operandi.

I am a noob but I honestly doesnt understand this.

If the numbers dont add up, then just drop a note and move on

Isn't that what was done - even joked it was the accountant stuff up. We could have had "Thanks I'll get it corrected." But that's not the response that was chosen.

 

[Valued]

I don't think anyone is upset at tech/a at all. Everyone seems appreciative of the trades he has shared. We are now just discussing the results of this trading style in an objective fashion.

I don't think any objection or an offence can be taken simply because of a suggestion that money may have been made if every setup here was short. It would actually just confirm that strategies are market condition dependent and also that money management and trade management is of vital importance. No objection can also be taken on the basis that I nor anyone else took a short trade on every one of these stocks, since the observation came out of the end results so the opportunity is now gone and most of the stocks in this thread are not able to be shorted, making it a hypothetical scenario. The temptation here is then to say "well if it is hypothetical, why talk about it, it makes no difference". However, this is very far from the truth. Hypothetical are used all the time to increase intuitive understanding. In complex games, this is the only way game theory can be applied, to use very simplified models that are far from the real world. Macroeconomic models are based on simplified versions of the economy and are in essence all hypothetical. However, they give us an insight into how the real world may react to our actions.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

...most of the stocks in this thread are not able to be shorted, making it a hypothetical scenario.

System makers will know that there is a huge and reliable edge in shorting small stocks, especially after a big day. The resultant equity curve is a very steep and straight 45 degree line. But no point even mentioning it, because it's not tradable. If it was tradable, then of course much of that edge would disappear.

The same systems applied to shortable small stocks has no edge. I've tested it.

 

[sinner]

I think the input from skc is amongst the most important in the thread, especially after having read this book review yesterday.

http://gestaltu.com/2015/10/diy-financial-advisor.html

For every investment strategy that needs to be assessed, the FACTS framework (Fees, Access, Complexity, Taxes, and Search) can be employed to clarify important considerations for the prospective investor.

No FACTS type analysis was completed on this strategy until skc rolled around, and we are still missing an analysis of post tax, i.e. holding times < 12 months for unincorporated traders and resulting impact from CGT.

Isn't that what was done - even joked it was the accountant stuff up. We could have had "Thanks I'll get it corrected." But that's not the response that was chosen.

What was done is less confusing to understand from this perspective

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave#Return_to_the_cave

 

[Volume]

Thanks for you opinions, Craft et al.
This thread reminds me why I never enter forums of this kind. I was introduced to this thread by a fellow trader kind enough to suggest I take a look, as the trading style is right up my ally. Charting, pattern recognition, risk management and all in the section of the market I prefer, was a breath of fresh air. I logged in every day for an update and was pleasantly surprised to find a trader using similar methods to my own. I was not concerned about his profits or losses, but I was very interested in his methods. Profits, or stops, follow a good trading plan and Tech/a was kind enough to give us a snapshot of his trading plan on each chart. Also a great learning tool for all traders, not just beginners. That is all is was, as far as I could see - a quick view of Tech/a's trades. Trading doesn't allow time to expand on every option, as you all well know being traders of obvious merit. Thankfully or not, the market is about as interesting as some of these messages today, so I can vent my spleen by saying I am happy to join Tech/a and never return. Happy trading everyone.

 

[CanOz]

I am happy to join Tech/a and never return. Happy trading everyone.

See ya later....the great thing about this forum is the thirst for facts and the intolerance for anecdotal evidence. If you don't like then join the plethora of dodgy forums...

SKC, thank you for your contributions, truly valuable.

Tech, i know you're reading this. Your reaction was really overblown and you could have been a little more manly about it, frankly speaking. If someone came to you with your facts as they were you would have likely done the same thing, i know plenty that would have done the same.

Man up, take it and move on.

SKC is a professional equities trader. His analysis of Tech's system would have been done in the same manner that he and likely his firm would analyze his performance. Its a great insight into the workings of a real trader and firm.

CanOz

 

[notting]

We should also remember that Tech\a was also very strict and quick to jump on anyone spinning BS.
Just a bit of hurt pride.
He'll be back!

 

[trainspotter]

Over 25,000 views and 354 comments would put this thread up in the most popular on the ASF boards.

My views on trading have been well picked over but I don't make it a living nor do I profess to being a skilled trader such as Tech/a has evidenced time and time again. His analysis and understanding has made my trading strategies more successful than my previous attempts. And I thank him for that.

SKF is of the same ilk as Tech/a and I have learned many skills and read as to WHY this or that has happened from what he has posted. As it is his profession he certainly knows his **** and I thank him for that as well.

SKF gave Tech/a an out by calling the accountant to task. Nothing more and nothing less. It was taken to task by the reciprocant and I am sure no malice was meant by the accounting jibe.

As for me I would rather The Duck on the boards JMHO

 

[Wysiwyg]

No FACTS type analysis was completed on this strategy until skc rolled around, and we are still missing an analysis of post tax, i.e. holding times < 12 months for unincorporated traders and resulting impact from CGT.

I doubt the uninitiated would consider the actual return. The time taken to trade like this is demanding (stressful?). Low brokerage is a must with frequent buying and selling. The discretionary aspect of selling makes this trading approach extremely skill based. As many should know, the trick is in the trade exit.

 

[DeepState]

Successful investment could be regarded as a competition to find the truth of a situation and benefit from this knowledge ahead of the discovery by others. When a greater truth is identified, it is usually a cause for satisfaction.

By contrast, fiction is an abstraction from reality. A story is spoiled if too close to the truth. We enjoy the willing suspense of truth in pursuit of escapist fantasy. We generally hate it when the plotline is given away. Imagine being told that James Bond really can't shoot that well and is more interested in dialog on ASF than rooting the next Bond Girl [a problem I face with annoying regularity, admittedly].

It is interesting how participants are reacting to the release of truth which, at least to this point, has not been contested. The calculation errors were egregious. If an oversight, the goggles must have been rather thick. It is not the first time.

Once again SKC has pulled out the black flag:



Seekers of truth would feel better off for having a useful data point. Seekers of fantasy would feel cheated and shoot the messenger as a spoiler in a cinema.

SKC has found that the Duck made money but it wasn't statistically significant. Like 95% of attempts that could be made. Importantly, he has found that the figures produced and reported were compiled inaccurately from the stated data. Shadenfreude? Analytical report? Enforcer of truth?


Will, the Duck be back? Based on past patterns, I see support for a binary outcome of at least one post to collect against Rainman or otherwise explain why it didn't matter [GMA-AU]. Of the strength of support:

I'm certain

I am surprised that these 'oversights' keep happening when it is evident there are people out there following the calls very closely and examining whether the set-ups and discretions really did work. Typically, these people pack heat. They would have no problem if the claims were accurate or if the whole thing were clearly labelled a fiction in the first place...or it is identified when it moved from fact to fiction.

Whatever it is you are producing, there is clearly demand for your product and a desire to supply into this. An 11 year, 16k post, identity will be too powerful to release. Too much has been invested and the loss will not be taken. See you soon.

 

[trainspotter]

Successful investment could be regarded as a competition to find the truth of a situation and benefit from this knowledge ahead of the discovery by others. When a greater truth is identified, it is usually a cause for satisfaction.

By contrast, fiction is an abstraction from reality. A story is spoiled if too close to the truth. We enjoy the willing suspense of truth in pursuit of escapist fantasy. We generally hate it when the plotline is given away. Imagine being told that James Bond really can't shoot that well and is more interested in dialog on ASF than rooting the next Bond Girl [a problem I face with annoying regularity, admittedly].

It is interesting how participants are reacting to the release of truth which, at least to this point, has not been contested. The calculation errors were egregious. If an oversight, the goggles must have been rather thick. It is not the first time.

Once again SKC has pulled out the black flag:

Seekers of truth would feel better off for having a useful data point. Seekers of fantasy would feel cheated and shoot the messenger as a spoiler in a cinema.

SKC has found that the Duck made money but it wasn't statistically significant. Like 95% of attempts that could be made. Importantly, he has found that the figures produced and reported were compiled inaccurately from the stated data. Shadenfreude? Analytical report? Enforcer of truth?

You spelt dialogue wrong, for mine the Duck has earned his dues ... I am not seeking a fantasy. I am contributing to keep ASF strong.

Like most posts on here and any other forum you wish to name most of it is BS and then some. I have studied and participated in some of the most expensive selling Brooohaha techniques available to man. I take what I want from them that works for me and leave the rest behind. Out of all the BS that gets online only 1% is the truth IMO.

Tomorrow I will be an astronaut and make magnificent claims but unfortunately I will be a poor dirt merchant (land developer) that owns a pearl farm that dabbles in shares occasionally.

By the way Daniel Craig (James Bond) did not pass his gun test in Skyfall

 

[skc]

So many posts... I won't respond to each individually but allow me to clarify a few points using DeepState's post.

It is interesting how participants are reacting to the release of truth which, at least to this point, has not been contested. The calculation errors were egregious. If an oversight, the goggles must have been rather thick. It is not the first time.

Once again SKC has pulled out the black flag:

Nice T-shirt but that was not the message I was trying to send. It is clear to me that it was a simple tally error that happened mostly because Tech/a is doing a monthly P&L on a public forum thread. Tech/a wanted to show the state of play at the end of a month, so it makes sense to include the open P&L. He made the mistake of adding the previous month's open P&L again the following month. This was not pick up by anyone in the first few months because the open P&L were insignificant in the early goings. But then the differences started to add up as open profit numbers were larger in the last 2 months.

Was the error careless and slightly embarrassing? Yes.
Was Tech/a trying to cheat everybody? No. He listed every trade on his monthly summary and anyone following the thread can check for themselves.

Indeed, I pointed out another tally error a few months back. Tech/a acknowledged the error, made the correction, and the thread continued. So as I say, I am baffled as to why Tech/a would respond in a completely different manner.

Yeh it helps to deduct losses!!!

Trade cost is $6 in an out.

Thanks I'll take your post as corrected
Will update---correctly next month.

The truth is, whether the trades returned 5% or 35% over this period is neither here nor there. The nature of this strategy is that one or two good wins will move the results greatly. The actual number is not important... but having it correctly calculated is (at a minimum for tax purpose!).

And to anyone who seems to be upset with me for Tech/a's reaction... WTF?

 

[DeepState]

1. You spelt dialogue wrong,

2. By the way Daniel Craig (James Bond) did not pass his gun test in Skyfall

3.
View attachment 64922

4. only 1% is the truth IMO

1. I had to check in case I too had to apologise for an accounting error. Apparently it depends on whether you favour the traditional English spelling or the American upstart spelling.

2. Mummy (Mommy?) was very bad.

3. Get back on-line Duck. Who gives But if you write like you take yourself seriously expect to be questioned seriously. You are currently on the receiving end of what you dish out. Like it? This is a discussion site with at least some concrete content after all.

4. In relation to keeping ASF strong, I would have thought that an investment site which ostensibly caters to investors would benefit from efforts to lift the quality of what is posted rather than condones, or otherwise leaves unchecked, total BS (oversights?) posing as an education in exceptionally profitable trading. We need the Ducks to put up ideas and try things. We learn even from failure. We also need the SKCs to maintain truth in advertising.