Handbags at 20 paces

[Magdoran]

Another issue in learning about time is that there are so many different methods, and I don’t know where this knowledge can be obtained as freely as options education. Probably Gann’s book “How to Make Profits in Commodities” would help. Might be available from a local library – not an easy read though!

Exactly. This is why this kind or approach has a more “select” audience. You need to be able to spend enough time to get the concepts, and grasp the paradigm.

(Hello Margaret! Sorry to hear about your tendon, I hope it heals soon. – thanks for posting your excellent perspective!).

At the core Gann talked about the importance of past patterns in the underlying (my words and interpretation), and understanding the ongoing cycles in markets. McLaren talks about two distinct cycles – cycles that run through all markets at all times, and then cycles that are more localised and have a limited life span.

This is kind of like a leap of faith in a way because you have to decide philosophically wether you think there is an inherent order to markets or not. Me, I’m about as convinced as a diehard sceptic can be that there is order in the markets, and I never really understood this to the extent I do now having deduced how to perceive time cycles.

Is it worth it to spend a lot of time developing this skill? I don’t know, it’s up to the individual. I choose to, and others may not, and that’s fine by me. I am not promoting this or saying it’s the way to go. In fact for the majority, I’d agree that it is too hard. My responses have purely been in defence of my work which has come under abusive attack, which I resent. I have strived to demonstrate that the falsehoods raised have no bearing in fact. I am confident that anyone with a logical mind will agree with this conclusion.

So, absolutely, you don’t need time cycles or geometric techniques to trade successfully. You can use all sorts of methods and make a profit including using a blindfolded monkey with a dart board. But who was comparing styles? I wasn’t. I was asked to expand on my thinking which I thought I did fairly thoroughly. This I believe I have done to the best of my ability.


Regards


Magdoran

 

[Magdoran]

Hi Tech - I don't have a position in FTSE and don't trade daily views - this is just an example that I got in the post today that had time on it so thought I'd share it.

looking at the EW stuff - yes assuming I was long, I'd be looking to hold the long up to the wave 5 fib target. from here I wouldn't look to add - wave 5's can truncate, and we've had the meat of wave iii of 5 so the best part of the move is theoretically over. I'd look to close longs at the wave 5 fib levels, and wait for confirmation for a retrace. or depending on the action at the w5 fib (e.g., selling spike / key reversal day) I might jsut go short there - cos the retraces are usually quick.

the fact that the analyst here has a fib number of days into June 27 is neither here nor there for me, I'll be watching the price action. I know the analyst and I doubt he'd be selling on the 27th if it looked like continuing on up!

would be interesting to see if the Gann crew can pin any time significance to that date as well?

sure thing will post an update around that date

Ed

Hello Ed,

Here's my current chart: Key dates - 19 July, 24 August, 05 September. Bullish... at least till 19 July.


Regards


Magdoran

 

[WaySolid]

My key FTSE dates are:

4 & 5 July 18 July
1 & 2 August 15 August 8 August

Tis a big secret why.....

 

[ducati916]

Well that's the way I would look at it. But I often hear this "time is more important than price" quoted. I just don't get it and nobody seems willing to expand on this concept.

Genuine question here.

enzo

I'm not going to clutter the board with excessive discussion as it has moved on a little.

My version of time revolves around the "time value of money" rather than any patterns etc.

This is probably easiest to "trade" in the Bond market, rather than the stock market, altough fixed income securities [REIT's] can be adjusted to a duration measure.

jog on
d998

 

[Edwood]

Hello Ed,

Here's my current chart: Key dates - 19 July, 24 August, 05 September. Bullish... at least till 19 July.


Regards


Magdoran

cheers Mag will keep an eye on it

 

[tech/a]

Key dates--Great.

Now what do you do with them in practical application.
Well Bullish through to the 19th July so LONG.

So time has given a bullish target through to then.
Will watch with interest as well.

 

[Magdoran]

I don’t know why this topic is being discussed. It all started when questions were asked in the XAO Analysis thread about my recent forecasts I’d posted up. Interestingly I had decided to truncate posting for a while in March, and had in fact intended to just keep up a small pulse on a few threads since I’d received some PMs requesting me to post up my thoughts every so often.

I had deliberately avoided having a direct confrontation with tech for a very long time (years on fact). In reflection I could have been more dignified in my response in this thread I suppose, and for that I’m sorry that others saw an unpleasant outburst. I just felt compelled to expose what was really going on, and call a spade a spade.

Having had time to reflect on this, I asked myself, “what’s the point of all this?” My only interest has been to contribute ideas in an open and constructive way. My intentions were positive and to offer some food for thought. Apparently some people are not very tolerant or appreciative of anything that is “unorthodox” around here, and would prefer to censor anything that doesn’t conform to their view of the world. I believe the interactions I have had with tech are negative and destructive, hence I have resolved to cease such intersections and focus on the positive.

It also strikes me as supremely ironic when people who are rooted in conventional thinking try to talk with authority about a subject they haven’t fully researched or investigated. They can’t even marshal a logically argued case, but resort to assertion and repetition just like a heckler in a crowd. Remember the adage “if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth”.

What I see is summed up very well by “Trade IT” is that he sees two people with different systems – chalk and cheese. I have never attacked tech’s system or approach, although I have recognised flaws in it. So, I don’t see the benefit of his “inquisition” here since he isn’t arguing logically, and certainly in my view is not helping the conveying of an involved topic. He doesn’t address any of the logical arguments or counter arguments raised here, nor does he effectively raise a well marshalled and formulated logical critique. So what’s the point of all this?

How do we determine “reliability” of any system objectively? I don’t think this is possible, for what objective measure is there that will be reliable for all times into the future? I don’t accept that the “orthodox” method of “back testing” constitutes an objective proof, or that these programmed methods guarantee future results.

How do we demonstrate “effectiveness” of any system or approach? I would have thought that posting a price and time objective ahead of time would constitute and edge if the results were consistent?

Given the examples I’ve put up, are these not evidence of the “effectiveness”, and if they are not, then what would constitute such “effectiveness”. Who is to define this? Who sets the standard? How do we guarantee that any standard is truly “objective”?

If two or more paradigms are involved which are not compatible, how can a meaningful discussion take place. I would argue that such an interchange is unlikely to reach an agreed standard that is acceptable to the other (and so far this has not been achieved for several years now). This is because the belief systems and values are so different for each paradigm, and is not unlike expecting people of different religions to find common ground.

However, being able to both perceive this “timescape” and the way markets vibrate through it kind of makes it hard to reverse my thinking and blank out my knowledge and return to the way the majority looks at the market (it’s a bit like Columbus sailing around the world and trying to return honestly to embracing the “flat earth” orthodoxy). Is this what my detractors want?

Then we see right below the chart that I was requested to put up, (and did so with very limited time, but in a sprit of goodwill stayed up very late to get this done) a totally ignorant and provocative comment made by one of my long term nemeses – the prying “Waysolid” who wants to spy into my private affairs no less - with insulting crap like “here are my secret dates”… even after the significant effort I’ve put in to explain a monumentally complex beast. This petty nonsense comes out yet again.

What this kind of comment shows is that in “their” view it’s not ok for me to communicate with people who are interested in the topics I cover as I have done for quite a while now quietly in the background, actually ignoring tech for months until now, and it’s ok for them to attack my integrity and approach without responsibility for their actions, in any way they like with no logic in their sleights, and they believe they have every right to do this.

It’s like the medical profession where you are a specialist in a particular field, or like the legal profession where you are say a Family law barrister, or a constitutional lawyer for example trying to explain detailed concepts in your speciality to those who are interested and who have specific questions in this specialist area.

Then someone barrels in attacking your precise terms of your discipline making fun of it, but are not interested or versed in the field at all and are not prepared to contribute anything constructive about it. I don’t have a problem if people want to marshal a logically structured well researched critique. The fact is that I have attempted to respond with comments that are as accessible as I can make them, in detail.

Surely anyone reading through the body of my work on ASF can hardly claim I have not actively made every effort to help in a variety of areas, freely and in detail. Now I find this isn’t even enough, they want my blood too, to discredit everything I do, and add abuse on top.

Is this a kind of Spanish inquisition? - must I recant my “heresy”, is that the idea? If I believed what my chief detractors are saying, I would have to agree that black is white, day is night, the earth is flat, and Santa clause and the Easter bunny are real.

So if I understand the conclusion the detractors and spoilers have made, my approach just doesn’t work, it is ineffective, it is not able to be applied consistently, and that I should abandon all my methods. I also take it that it is not fine for me to post any of my “heresy” either, even if I do so to a select audience on the sidelines as I have, or I will continue to be harassed, abused and discredited without mercy, huh?

What nonsense. I have been more than patient for the most part, I have contributed knowledge freely and without reward, only to yet again receive abuse for my efforts from people who don’t even bother to discuss constructively or even have a genuine interest in the pursuit of knowledge. What do I gain from this? Answer – Having my time wasted and my integrity attacked with specious nonsense and abuse laden PMs. (other than some good discussions with some notable people, and having made some friendships that I value.)

People said forecasting couldn’t work for Elliott Wave for instance (tech was one of these for a long time before his recent back flip), and yet people like Prechter and Neely defied the odds and made significant and accurate calls, just look them up on the net and do some research.

As my parting final comment, to the minority who actually think, consider this. Have a look at the forecasts that have been posted as objectively as you can. It is up to you to decide if it is all a fluke and put it down to sheer luck and a series of “black swan” events (an unusual statistical distribution like winning lotto), or that there is possibility a modicum of truth in what I have said.

That’s it, I intended to withdraw with a lower profile in March, and said I’d reduce my posts to select areas. Even when I did this, I was hounded time after time by Tech (just look back through the history and you’ll see the pattern of incessant baiting), and I endured this not responding for months. When I finally responded on this thread I’m characterised as the bad guy and instigator. What crap. Some may see this as a personal bout between tech and I, (chops characterised this point of view with his trademark humour) but this is not so. This is a calculated vendetta by tech since wavepicker and I have intelligently questioned his uncritical promotion of his buddies and his system at the expense of balanced appraisals.

Time for me to focus on what matters, and this petty nonsense isn’t it.

 

[yogi-in-oz]

I don’t know why this topic is being discussed. It all started when questions were asked in the XAO Analysis thread about my recent forecasts I’d posted up. Interestingly I had decided to truncate posting for a while in March, and had in fact intended to just keep up a small pulse on a few threads since I’d received some PMs requesting me to post up my thoughts every so often.

I had deliberately avoided having a direct confrontation with tech for a very long time (years on fact). In reflection I could have been more dignified in my response in this thread I suppose, and for that I’m sorry that others saw an unpleasant outburst. I just felt compelled to expose what was really going on, and call a spade a spade.

Having had time to reflect on this, I asked myself, “what’s the point of all this?” My only interest has been to contribute ideas in an open and constructive way. My intentions were positive and to offer some food for thought. Apparently some people are not very tolerant or appreciative of anything that is “unorthodox” around here, and would prefer to censor anything that doesn’t conform to their view of the world. I believe the interactions I have had with tech are negative and destructive, hence I have resolved to cease such intersections and focus on the positive.

It also strikes me as supremely ironic when people who are rooted in conventional thinking try to talk with authority about a subject they haven’t fully researched or investigated. They can’t even marshal a logically argued case, but resort to assertion and repetition just like a heckler in a crowd. Remember the adage “if a lie is repeated often enough, it becomes the truth”.

What I see is summed up very well by “Trade IT” is that he sees two people with different systems – chalk and cheese. I have never attacked tech’s system or approach, although I have recognised flaws in it. So, I don’t see the benefit of his “inquisition” here since he isn’t arguing logically, and certainly in my view is not helping the conveying of an involved topic. He doesn’t address any of the logical arguments or counter arguments raised here, nor does he effectively raise a well marshalled and formulated logical critique. So what’s the point of all this?

How do we determine “reliability” of any system objectively? I don’t think this is possible, for what objective measure is there that will be reliable for all times into the future? I don’t accept that the “orthodox” method of “back testing” constitutes an objective proof, or that these programmed methods guarantee future results.

How do we demonstrate “effectiveness” of any system or approach? I would have thought that posting a price and time objective ahead of time would constitute and edge if the results were consistent?

Given the examples I’ve put up, are these not evidence of the “effectiveness”, and if they are not, then what would constitute such “effectiveness”. Who is to define this? Who sets the standard? How do we guarantee that any standard is truly “objective”?

If two or more paradigms are involved which are not compatible, how can a meaningful discussion take place. I would argue that such an interchange is unlikely to reach an agreed standard that is acceptable to the other (and so far this has not been achieved for several years now). This is because the belief systems and values are so different for each paradigm, and is not unlike expecting people of different religions to find common ground.

However, being able to both perceive this “timescape” and the way markets vibrate through it kind of makes it hard to reverse my thinking and blank out my knowledge and return to the way the majority looks at the market (it’s a bit like Columbus sailing around the world and trying to return honestly to embracing the “flat earth” orthodoxy). Is this what my detractors want?

Then we see right below the chart that I was requested to put up, (and did so with very limited time, but in a sprit of goodwill stayed up very late to get this done) a totally ignorant and provocative comment made by one of my long term nemeses – the prying “Waysolid” who wants to spy into my private affairs no less - with insulting crap like “here are my secret dates”… even after the significant effort I’ve put in to explain a monumentally complex beast. This petty nonsense comes out yet again.

What this kind of comment shows is that in “their” view it’s not ok for me to communicate with people who are interested in the topics I cover as I have done for quite a while now quietly in the background, actually ignoring tech for months until now, and it’s ok for them to attack my integrity and approach without responsibility for their actions, in any way they like with no logic in their sleights, and they believe they have every right to do this.

It’s like the medical profession where you are a specialist in a particular field, or like the legal profession where you are say a Family law barrister, or a constitutional lawyer for example trying to explain detailed concepts in your speciality to those who are interested and who have specific questions in this specialist area.

Then someone barrels in attacking your precise terms of your discipline making fun of it, but are not interested or versed in the field at all and are not prepared to contribute anything constructive about it. I don’t have a problem if people want to marshal a logically structured well researched critique. The fact is that I have attempted to respond with comments that are as accessible as I can make them, in detail.

Surely anyone reading through the body of my work on ASF can hardly claim I have not actively made every effort to help in a variety of areas, freely and in detail. Now I find this isn’t even enough, they want my blood too, to discredit everything I do, and add abuse on top.

Is this a kind of Spanish inquisition? - must I recant my “heresy”, is that the idea? If I believed what my chief detractors are saying, I would have to agree that black is white, day is night, the earth is flat, and Santa clause and the Easter bunny are real.

So if I understand the conclusion the detractors and spoilers have made, my approach just doesn’t work, it is ineffective, it is not able to be applied consistently, and that I should abandon all my methods. I also take it that it is not fine for me to post any of my “heresy” either, even if I do so to a select audience on the sidelines as I have, or I will continue to be harassed, abused and discredited without mercy, huh?

What nonsense. I have been more than patient for the most part, I have contributed knowledge freely and without reward, only to yet again receive abuse for my efforts from people who don’t even bother to discuss constructively or even have a genuine interest in the pursuit of knowledge. What do I gain from this? Answer – Having my time wasted and my integrity attacked with specious nonsense and abuse laden PMs. (other than some good discussions with some notable people, and having made some friendships that I value.)

People said forecasting couldn’t work for Elliott Wave for instance (tech was one of these for a long time before his recent back flip), and yet people like Prechter and Neely defied the odds and made significant and accurate calls, just look them up on the net and do some research.

As my parting final comment, to the minority who actually think, consider this. Have a look at the forecasts that have been posted as objectively as you can. It is up to you to decide if it is all a fluke and put it down to sheer luck and a series of “black swan” events (an unusual statistical distribution like winning lotto), or that there is possibility a modicum of truth in what I have said.

That’s it, I intended to withdraw with a lower profile in March, and said I’d reduce my posts to select areas. Even when I did this, I was hounded time after time by Tech (just look back through the history and you’ll see the pattern of incessant baiting), and I endured this not responding for months. When I finally responded on this thread I’m characterised as the bad guy and instigator. What crap. Some may see this as a personal bout between tech and I, (chops characterised this point of view with his trademark humour) but this is not so. This is a calculated vendetta by tech since wavepicker and I have intelligently questioned his uncritical promotion of his buddies and his system at the expense of balanced appraisals.

Time for me to focus on what matters, and this petty nonsense isn’t it.

Best post in this thread, so far ..... !~!

..... stick around Mag, you are needed here .....

happy days


paul





=====

 

[>Apocalypto<]

Mag,

It's time for you to hit the ignore button and move on from this.

All that matters is what you see and know works if other square thinking members can't grasp your advanced system of price and time trading tell them to read some books and get back to you.

I for one am sick of the witch hunt directed at Mag. he is a true chartist and members in here should appreciate his unquie approach to the art of trading I idolize his methods and I am on the path way to his style of trading.

I belive in Gann and no Gann is not 100% right all the time but what is unless you have 100% perfect approach or system then who r u to attack Mag and call it constructive, as it is far from it.

Mag combines price and time with patterns he is not a time trader time gives him an idea of what to expect and when based on pattern volume and angle direction and points.

How he chooses to use time is his business have any of you ever made a time based call like he has!

Please come forward with proof if you have, Mag has made many!

This is not a thread to work mag and his trading style over it was ment to be about the XAO and time usage!

Some of u owe him an apology i think a few of you in here are nothing more then simple minded kids at times!

I can tell you now what Mag can do, blows most of you and me out of the water.

Mag see past this stupidity and keep it up. I would really hate to not have your excellent analysis on these forums.

 

[reece55]

Best post in this thread, so far ..... !~!

..... stick around Mag, you are needed here .....

happy days


paul





=====

Couldn't agree more Yogi......

Mag, whilst Gann is completely outside of the way I trade markets, your posts are insightful and very interesting.

Personally, I think that getting a trader to think out of the square is the most important thing. We can all learn from one another, because inevitably our objective is to succeed, and we can do that together. As traders, we should assist one another - it's not a 100 m sprint where only one person can win - we can all win. The important part is to respect that inevitably we all have different ways of getting to the finish line and opening ones mind to alternative methods will only support your quest, not hinder it.

As always, hope to see more from you Mag, whenever you have the time or the inclination. And same goes for tech. Maybe just no more infighting between you 2, because I think I speak for most in saying we respect both your opinions and like hearing from both of you!

All the best trading
Reece

 

[tech/a]

Its not Rocket Science.

Exponents calculate both time and price from significant highs and significant lows.

I am yet to see the inclusion of time in any analysis which demonstrates an edge.
Infact in itself it appears to be no better than any other indicator with around a 50/50 success rate (from what I've seen).

Thats no big deal you can make methods/analysis which is right 30% of the time profitable.

Appreciating the efforts put in.

Moggie.
Go have a look at the 100s of questions directed at me on the T/Trader Threads. If your presenting something expect questions.
I'm not taking a personal attack on yourself ---I could---Post after post of incessent whinning.

Choice is yours I aint going anywhere.

 

[happytrader]

Hi Magdoran

You obviously enjoy what you do and you do it very well. As for your posts they definitely have nerd appeal and add value to this forum.

Gann practitioners always get hammered here. Its a given. Just check out the now defunct 'Trading the Spi' thread from September 2005 till October last year if you want confirmation.

Anyway Mags, stick around and post away.

Cheers
Happytrader

 

[wavepicker]

Its not Rocket Science.

Exponents calculate both time and price from significant highs and significant lows.

I am yet to see the inclusion of time in any analysis which demonstrates an edge.
Infact in itself it appears to be no better than any other indicator with around a 50/50 success rate (from what I've seen).

Thats no big deal you can make methods/analysis which is right 30% of the time profitable.

Appreciating the efforts put in.

Moggie.
Go have a look at the 100s of questions directed at me on the T/Trader Threads. If your presenting something expect questions.
I'm not taking a personal attack on yourself ---I could---Post after post of incessent whinning.

Choice is yours I aint going anywhere.

As Mag pointed out in an earlier post, the key is the PATTERN. The pattern of the trend, the pretty pictures the market is painting are the basis of how and when his time and price forecats are generated.

Time might be the more important than price on occasions. For example the edge could be that you know how much TIME to be in a trade before the trend might start becoming at risk, as such, as a key date is approached, one can also look at price levels and in particular price PATTERNS as well on order to make decisions.

As such, what Yogi is doing(just calculating key dates) does not even come close to the class of analysis that Mag is conducting. Does it give you an edge?? mag obviously think so, otherwise he would not be using it and swear by it. However the edge is not always the advantage. CONSISTENCY is the key, to be able to be pateient, wait for the setup, plan the trade(hopefully at a profit) and REPEAT is what counts.

Just my opinion

 

[tech/a]

Waves.

Have no problem with the introduction of Patterns into the mix.
Time obviously used in conjunction with patterns and price.
Miner is similar in his approach. So to Prechter.

Given the examples I’ve put up, are these not evidence of the “effectiveness”, and if they are not, then what would constitute such “effectiveness”. Who is to define this? Who sets the standard? How do we guarantee that any standard is truly “objective”?

.

In all honesty NO.

(1) Don Waterfields outstanding contributions here and on Reecap,certainly are transparent.
(2) So to are Stevo's trading blogs.
(3) Radge has 4 current portfolio's available to his clients all in sound profit all totally transparent.
(4) Techtrader again transparent.

All measurable all clear all presented with a CLEAR understanding of application.
My opinion.

You know years ago I went to a meeting where they were selling a $12,000 trading methodology. At the end I stood up and asked.

"If I'm to invest my $12,000 can you furnish me with 12 mths preferably 2 yrs of Audited trading records which prove that you have achieved the return that you tell us we can achieve".

The response.
"This method probably wont suit you as you appear to be one who needs quantification of result---sorry we cannot be of help".

Much of the room of "Woodducks" grumbled at my question.
You know as I left of a room of 200 atleast 40 were signing up!!

People said forecasting couldn’t work for Elliott Wave for instance (tech was one of these for a long time before his recent back flip), and yet people like Prechter and Neely defied the odds and made significant and accurate calls, just look them up on the net and do some research.

Not so.
Always had a respect for Elliott was the only type of "predictive" analysis I
could/can see merit in. Only reciently revived my interest and used in in my discretionary trading.

Others of note
(1) Steidelmayer---commonly known as "Market Profile".
(2) Volume Spread analysis.(reciently re introduced and using in conjunction with analysis.).


Gann other than Swing Trading although I have spent time investigating has to me little practical inclusion in my trading.
People keep posting on the subject and when they do I'll ask the questions I never seem to get answered.

There has been headway made in this thread now as it seems that Pattern is the most important when using time as an analysis tool.
A common thread shared with Elliott.

 

[wavepicker]

There has been headway made in this thread now as it seems that Pattern is the most important when using time as an analysis tool.
A common thread shared with Elliott.

When using this timing Tool(which is based on Mclarens interpretation of the WD Gann Time factor)-YES.
Mclaren has a whole 4 Hr DVD which delves into pattern, pattern of the trend (types of trends), EW, and price level determination. This is a prerequisite for the second DVD set which deals with adding a Time Factor on the initial analysis.

If one masters the Jedi Arts( the application of this Time Factor) from Mclarens DVD, then after establishing whether an instrument is running a 90 Day, 144 Day or any other cycle, it can be determined if this stock or whatever you are looking at “Vibrates” in Time and Price throughout the square or Cycle you are considering. By vibrating I believe it is meant that it finds support and resistance in both price and time increments of the square or cycle. The increments are established by dividing the square (cycle) up into 1/8ths and 1/3rds from start to finish for BOTH the price and TIME axis. As such if it vibrates it is doing so within various “harmonic” levels within price and time.

If you are skilful enough to find a vibration within the instrument you are looking at, then this will extend into the future in both price and time. The question is for how long? Other cycles can come into play the further you go into the future, I have found this out from my own studies into cycles.

Of more importance is where do you originate the square or cycle?? From a Mclaren seminar that I attended 4 years ago, he did this from important highs or lows, but there are no set rules.

I have found that just because a price makes a high or low at a particular time that does not automatically mean that will be a cycle low. In fact that is not very often the case. Understanding the pattern and pattern of trend can actually assist in guiding the skilfull practioner in finding the correct origin of a cycle. Then it will be necessary to calibrate the X and Y axis of the chart such that 1 unit of price will be equal to one unit of time. I think Gann called this “squaring of the Chart”.


Adding other disciplines like EW into the mix can be very helpful here in that the “significance” of a particular point in time can be validated, and moves following price hitting key price and time increments can be quantified.



I am not a Gann practioner, but have attended some of Mclarens Gann workshops.

I am currently looking at another TIME tool that is completely different to this, and DOES NOT require, pattern to be considered into the analysis mix, but compliments EW very well.

 

[wayneL]

Hi Magdoran

You obviously enjoy what you do and you do it very well. As for your posts they definitely have nerd appeal and add value to this forum.

Gann practitioners always get hammered here. Its a given. Just check out the now defunct 'Trading the Spi' thread from September 2005 till October last year if you want confirmation.

Anyway Mags, stick around and post away.

Cheers
Happytrader

Absolute rubbish and an entirely different situation.

Bronteman was hammered for hindsite trading and refusing to answer the simplest of questions.

Magdoran, while retaining some information for himself (entirely his right), has given away stacks of information for anyone interested in following this line, including education sources and is pedaling nothing for his own benefit.

Bronteman on the other hand, was trawling for clients for his services and totally evasive when simple interested questions were asked about what the support and resistance levels were etc. He would not even say if they were sq of 9 levels or not.

Bronteman was also well known for using multiple accounts, (had 7 accounts nextdoor where he is now banned) and carrying on self-congratulatory, backslapping posts with himself.

Get real Happytrader!

 

[Magdoran]

Thanks for the kind words of support, I appreciate it.

Perhaps I should shed some light behind the scenes - this may explain my comments above - I will have minimal time for posting because a series of (very positive) events on the home front are now my highest priority.

A significant factor is that today I have successfully concluded an international agreement that will significantly change my life. This is now my highest priority.

As for my trading style, I think that there is a significant distinction between formally presenting a finished system and offering it as a plug and play offering, as opposed to offering ideas for discussion in specific technical analysis and derivative areas.

I have never said what I have custom built for myself will be everyone’s cup of tea. I have not put my work on display as a show case offering, and never said that it is “the way”, or the “only way”, but have always advised people to seek what works for them, and have commented on what works for me. What’s wrong with that?

Where I think a mistake is being made is about this concept of “robust” systems. I keep saying that my work is based on Bill McLaren’s detailed work, and I draw primarily from this body of knowledge. McLaren has been around for a lot longer than Radge has for example, and has a significant public record for many years, and is a regular on CNBC. To claim that McLaren’s approach which is on the world stage is somehow inferior to a few minor entries on a (respectfully) provincial notice board is an interesting comparison. Is there also a notion that these “trading blogs” are equivalent to premium offerings at the international level?

As for trading performance, if you ask Bill for audited trading records displaying the results of his approach, (this is even covered in the DVDs), I’m sure these can be made available. As wavepicker says, his entire approach is very detailed and comprehensive. This is really what is being challenged here, and it is not my place to republish copyrighted material.

An example of how I think an exchange of ideas should have been conducted is in the “Improving Chart Analysis” thread where Lesm politely discussed points of analysis with me. There is a chasm of difference between debating issues as I have done with notable accomplished traders like bunyip for example who argues logically and thinks about what you say, and the alternative where the central theme is to impose a warped and incorrect view and argue by assertion and put downs.

In essence I’m saying that I have no problem with constructive debates based on well thought out arguments that progress logically. Repetition, regurgitation, and chanting slogans is not beneficial from my standpoint. The use of pejorative labels (which I have been guilty of too in this case), is also not helpful.

Just because some of my approaches embrace one style or another is also not an excuse for bad behaviour or disrespect. When I have raised questions in other areas, I have done so politely, asking questions in a constructive and respectful manner. Just because the word “Gann” is involved is not a passport to allow uncritical thinking, posting falsehoods, and disrespectful interchanges. I am not the first person to experience this, this is an ongoing pattern. I just refuse to have anything more to do with this, and will not continue to lower myself to that level.

My primary motivation has been to interact and share ideas constructively, and to pique an interest in looking at a range of alternative points of view. I just think the cost of enduring the ongoing negativity is unhealthy for me when I have more important pressing issues at hand.

Ironically, I am going somewhere… and I’m looking forward to it!


Kind Regards


Magdoran

 

[tech/a]

Waves

The question is for how long?

Point (1)

Of more importance is where do you originate the square or cycle??

Point (2)

but there are no set rules.

Point (3)

Then it will be necessary to calibrate the X and Y axis of the chart such that 1 unit of price will be equal to one unit of time.

Yes Understand.

To claim that McLaren’s approach which is on the world stage is somehow inferior to a few minor entries on a (respectfully) provincial notice board is an interesting comparison.

Interesting---Ive never seen this claim. Infact Ive never seen a comparison with McLaren made on this board.

Is there also a notion that these “trading blogs” are equivalent to premium offerings at the international level?

Is there?

Repetition, regurgitation, and chanting slogans is not beneficial from my standpoint.

Moggie you have proven to be the master in this art form!

I am going somewhere… and I’m looking forward to it!

It appears time and perhaps price have combined and intersected for you.
All the best in your future,whatever that is and where ever that maybe.

 

[doctorj]

We are nearly 100 posts in and I think everyone has had plenty of opportunity to contribute everything they're likely to on this topic. There is plenty of content here for everyone to read and reflect on should they so desire.

So, before this thread wanders off the rails, I think now is a very good opportunity to close the thread. Thank you to all participants for maintaining a reasonable level of decorum.