short-selling, selling to open (STO)
an ontological frame-work,
as an undertaker must have a clean workbench before an autopsy
here's what i learned shorting the markets from march 2003 thru 2005
"stop selling an up-trend"
plus this little ripper
"selling price that ticks up is not selling with the price it's selling the
anticipation of an unknown and unconfirmed logic found, within and about, a price that's ticking up"
anyone can apply any (emotive) logic to price but that's not trading price that's pre-empting price
apply logic to price and trading price are incisively two separate things
book building a position is different in that we need to gather evidence from an existing event(s) that qualifies
that we go further into that venture, in other words, we expand our position on a proof, that proof being, as an example,
a series of lower lows that are framed in tiers
proof is workable in that it provides levels of risk that are already measured, whereas, anticipation of proof is
not workable on that basis as there is nothing but emotive logic regardless of how much we
invoke the words "..but what about..?"
we can say that proof is provided by print
even tho we may have recently seen print that ended price in that prior direction, when we have no proof that that
price was the final print in that direction, it is because we have not seen the proof, even to it is now there for us to see
...this is a critical moment of reason, it has its own presence, we must be present to it.....
that last sentence is a wide-ranging set of suppositions, it supposes much about the viewer than it does about the price being viewed
if we were to ask or proposition ourselves with the questions of
what is it i need to see
what is it i have not seen
what is it i am not seeing
that is causing me to play against the price being printed
we may at that point untether ourselves from the vacuous disposition of being owned by an idea that is not ours
it is fair to say and hard to argue against that we cannot know everything at all times about price
however it is also fair to say that not knowing about price at all times is a workable proposition if we ask
what is it i am not seeing
what is it i need to see
what is it i have not seen
as those questions keep us in the present of what is printing and not what can or should be printed
if we were to ask those questions and realise that we simply do not have enough
procedural knowledge then that is a different proposition, however, we must have honesty about time versus task
and we must be honest to question if it is the procedural knowledge or if we have strayed from what we do know into
into the area of laze of being right
the market is never wrong, that does not mean the market is always workable
this is balanced by the truth of our conscious and unconscious competence to work within its design
keeping in mind that the auction is designed of itself, that being, always in the present,
it does not require us to lend it our intellect or emotions
so if we think of the auction as a place where we do not have to offer a forward-thinking logic
we can rely on the auction to always tell us the truth within the confines of what we know in the procedure of engaging with the auction
the auction places up us an onus to understand the mechanics of what makes price print as a guideline and not as an absolute
in that way by taking out the absolute-ness of an outcome we can give up second-guessing the future and participate in the present
if participating in the present is a challenge for the trader it is fair to say that the auction does not care
if second guessing the future extracts money from the trader it is fair to say the auction does not care
the trader who is on the other side of your trade ......does ......not ......care
you, the reader of this, you being right about price direction .......no one cares
even you.....even you do not care about being right about the price, you only care about looking good when you are right
that is the essence of trading against the trend
the for-seeing/far-seeing, anticipatory logic, emotive logic and the "what-about-isms" ....these are not of the present, rather, they are a disposition of being right
and that rightness is not connected-to, or workable-for, a longerterm profit, where that profit is soundly sought
merely giving someone a set of instructions to complete a task is not enough as price ticks over, price always ticking over does not ensure
we'll be in the present with that price to use the procedure we already have, no matter how well proven, as price is always in the present our procedure may not now be workable
what is it that i am not seeing that makes that clear to me
what is it i need to see to know my procedure is workable
what have i seen that dictates to continue or discontinue that procedure am using
the market is always right, my procedure is not always right within it
how do i know
the auction has a specific criteria, a dynamism of plays within plays that are instantly exhausted as they are instantly made available,
the further we move away, from that moment of being present, into the area of supposition, we fulfill the need to be right,
therefor it is fair to argue that being present to what price is printing and affirming the available and quantifiable risk within that idea
shall separate us, you, me from the qualitative assumptivity, that is, the need of being right and it's historic propensity to hand us our ego in a garbage bag
i cannot, over any length of time, be right about the market and expect to extract value from the market being wrong
the market is never ever wrong, it maybe weak it may transition it may be strong, it is never wrong
being in tune with the right-ness or the correct-ness of the market is brought about by asking what is workable that suits what the price is printing
having a guess is not workable
engaging all phases of an auction is not workable when the procedure is out of step with that phase
this is fine, it is a perfect and correct response to dis-engage with price when we know this is what we see from our procedure
has nothing to do with being right
to re-engage
what do i need to see
what am i seeing
what is it i have not seen
when these questions are answered yet price is still antithetic to our procedure,
we must then go further into asking what is it about procedure that is missing
and dis-engage from the auction at that time without correcting our procedure
keeping in mind that procedures are not dynamic they are at best a linear application even tho they maybe tiered to mimic dynamism
to keep you balanced, please re-read that sentence:
that (trade) procedures are not dynamic they are at best a linear application even tho they may be tiered to mimic dynamism
if it is true that price is three things:
always dynamic
always correct
always present
we can say that we are subservient, if you will, to what price ALLOWS us to see, therefor we cannot be faulted for not knowing the future as
we barely know what is beyond the immediate present
in the instance where my presence is suppositional about price
then i am in the present of supposition not of price
sure they may happenstance occur and that momentary luck needs to be seen as luck of that moment
if youre still reading, an ontological agreement is being made
by you, for yourself !
honesty is one of those tricky things, you know, thou shalt not bullsh!t thyself thing
all good on paper, great in the pithy socmed self-enamoured keyboard legend shtick
to apply honesty and have integrity while trading one must first have the technology of a self-ontological preposition
where that technology is lacking guessing is comfortably waiting
your best friend in the world is the guesser, you are available to each other 24 hours a day
to quote a great servant of the health profession
"People love to hear good things about their bad habits" *
the best bit of good news for your guessing self is a colleague who agrees with you
keep in mind that your preposition and your ontological technology are not the same as your best-guessing mate
and in most instances you do not want them to be, where, when the result expected requires a precise value by
applying an imprecise vagary borne out of a wishy-washy dialogue
the times when you do want a colleagues opinion is when you have already had a concise
dialogue and invented an ontological technology between you
if you use the same old talk it devolves into trash talk, you get trashed, price trashes you, in
the present, while your thinking is off in the hinterland
be present to price
make procedure fit that
where procedure does not fit decouple
at best you are correct and inline with price as it prints, some of the time, run with it
this is the only saying i am aware that i have thought of to be original regarding short selling an uptrend
"when you're right you get some of the points, when youre wrong you get all the points"
from 2003-2005 i got a lot of points and had a lot of best-guess-mates who agreed with me
J C-T
* sited John A. McDougall (Dr. MD)