 Gold Customer
Joined: 1/18/2008
Posts: 209
|
Hi all,
Have noticed RAI, MO,LO have been very strong last few days. I plan on waiting for the sell cycle to see if they can hold thier near lows and maybe knibbling. Any thoughts here?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Don't like them here.. trends are still down and just rallying. However the Industry group has a strong Moneystream profile... It may only be due to the one issue in there that recently has been skyrocketing.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/15/2008
Posts: 58
|
QUOTE (sharppolly) Hi all,
Have noticed RAI, MO,LO have been very strong last few days. I plan on waiting for the sell cycle to see if they can hold thier near lows and maybe knibbling. Any thoughts here?
Hello sharppolly,
I just looked at your 3 picks and yes they have acted very well over the past mkt decline ! At this point & time I certainly would not add to these positions as they are a little overextended !
Their next significant moves should be to the downside. If you wish to hear my thoughts as to which day I see them reversing to the downside, drop me a note and I am more than glad to let you know what my signals are showing me as well as give you their downside targets.
Good Luck & hope this helps !
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Hey everyone...
On the topic of relative strength, since the recent Novermber 24 low, the SPY has risen 12.74%. During that time these were and are the strongest industries...
And here are the 5 weakest...
Lots of banks, no suprise.
When it comes to long range trends, there's one chart I can't avoid. It's the monthly SPY...
Looking at this chart I don't think there's any mistaking at all where we are in the scheme of things. Incidently, since the last sell signal, every signle industry but one has traded down. Giving credence to the fact that stocks move 4 to 1 in sync with the general market.
So which industry stayed positive during the entire drop?
Apparently there really is always a bull market somewhere.
But you have to ask yourself, would you rather be hunting for the single strong industry out of 239 or trading the other 238 short? Maybe you might. That's okay. There are all kinds of styles and ways to make money out here.
Here are some other industries that did better than most during the crash.
Notice the banks in there? That stood out to me. During a time when most are collapsing here's a group of banks that have held up? Could they be the last to fall? That's not for me to decide. It's up to the market and time...
David John hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (debdon) QUOTE (sharppolly) Hi all,
Have noticed RAI, MO,LO have been very strong last few days. I plan on waiting for the sell cycle to see if they can hold thier near lows and maybe knibbling. Any thoughts here?
Hello sharppolly,
I just looked at your 3 picks and yes they have acted very well over the past mkt decline ! At this point & time I certainly would not add to these positions as they are a little overextended !
Their next significant moves should be to the downside. If you wish to hear my thoughts as to which day I see them reversing to the downside, drop me a note and I am more than glad to let you know what my signals are showing me as well as give you their downside targets.
Good Luck & hope this helps !
Good to see you participating in the forum debdon !
Is this information something that you can share with everyone ?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/24/2006
Posts: 15
|
sharppolly Your picks don't provide enough upside potential. PM is the only security in the cigarette category that is ready to pop right now. (no guarantee, of course. I do not own this stock). Good luck!
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
DJH
I was tracking several of the small regional banks for a while.. they were lookign liek a rally and recovery might be headed in.. then flop.
Still Many of them have beautiful weekly moneystream profiles. Hard to ignore given the MS profile on the indexes and several sectors priot to this mess. This year has been allabout breaking records as I understand so it could be the first year that the sector that leads the crash takes a signifficant part in the recovery.
I wish we had the sector charts back to 1915. That might be telling because there have been a few other credit based market crashes.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
"Apparently there really is always a bull market somewhere.
But you have to ask yourself, would you rather be hunting for the single strong industry out of 239 or trading the other 238 short? Maybe you might. That's okay. There are all kinds of styles and ways to make money out here."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that one also has to ask themselves: How often does this
type of market condition exist? (twice in the last 70 to 80 years
the way I'm reading it.)
While we have to trade today. (by any means necessary) We
have to also think of the nature of change that the market produces.
From the "nifty 50" to the "crash of 87" to the "tech bubble" to
"subprime" the market has a way of making sure when you
think you know something that you don't.
I held OEX(SP100) index puts during the crash of 1987. While its
"fun" and "neat" to profit from a crash. One has to also
look at the odds and probabilities involved. While it was
"great". It was also over the day it happened.
I'm glad that I didn't spend the rest of the eighties or the decade
of the 90's looking for the "next great move to the downside".
I've reached this view of the markets based on my own results
but needless to say I couldn't agree more with the view of
Thomas Bulkowski:
Quote:" A study I conducted using nearly 12,500 chart patterns found
that you make more money going long than you can going short. I always
thought you'd make more money shorting in a bear market, but my research
shows that's not the case"
Be careful not to have your views of the markets "poisoned" by
recent events. Its about as smart as me thinking the downside
was "easy money" after the crash of 87 or tech was the path
to riches in 2000.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
I also noticed that shorting was not as efficient in back testing and in my live tradign.. YET looking back THIS time it wa certainly the way to go...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
Quotes scottnlena:
THEORY:
"I also noticed that shorting was not as efficient"
"YET looking back THIS time it wa certainly the way to go..."
PRACTICE:
"Even my shorts during the biggest bear market of our generation only had a 50% hit rate and gains there were fairly small before getting stopped out."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately its not what the market does. Its what you do.
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Thomas Bulkowski:
Quote:" A study I conducted using nearly 12,500 chart patterns found
that you make more money going long than you can going short. I always
thought you'd make more money shorting in a bear market, but my research
shows that's not the case"
Be careful not to have your views of the markets "poisoned" by
recent events. Its about as smart as me thinking the downside
was "easy money" after the crash of 87 or tech was the path
to riches in 2000.
Thanks for posting this Diceman; I have always thought as much but could not have said it better.
Apsll.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
The questions I would raise are:
Who sponsored Thomas Bulkowski?
Is Thomas Bulkowski like the broker who tells you keep your investment always long?
What do you think that those millions of investors who listened to their broker are saying now after 401k, IRA's, and individual portafolios are a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars evaporated into the thin air?
What about Mom and Dad who were about to retire? Do you think they would still believe that always long pays off?
How was Blukowski research conducted? What were the variables, and what were the constants? When did he conducted? In a bull market?
Come on folks - we all know that stocks drop 3 times faster than they do go up. Long trades for bull markets, and short trades for bear markets.
I made my first fortune on the bear of 2000. Much more money that I made last 5 ys of the 90's bull.
I just repeted times 2.
Take that study to Bulkowski.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 4/18/2005
Posts: 4,090
|
Interesting becasue others I've spoken to make more money trading 2003 to 2007 than they did in 1999 and they made a bundle then.
So bigblock.. heavily short is still the way to go?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
I am sure that Bulkowski knew when to hold and when to fold. Of course the idea is not to just hold long forever. He like Diceman and myself was a manager of the trade. If you are just painting a black and white canvas, then short the berar and buy the bull is a good dependable methode for trader average joe, but my name is not Joe...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Thomas Bulkowski:
Quote:" A study I conducted using nearly 12,500 chart patterns found
that you make more money going long than you can going short. I always
thought you'd make more money shorting in a bear market, but my research
shows that's not the case"
I am almost positive that Bulkowski is not saying he can make more money going long in a bear market. I believe he is saying you can make more money going long than short (to me this seems obvious as there is unlimited upside potential and only 100% downside.
It seems to me that he thought the most profitable time to trade would be short in a bear market.
I will contact his website for a response.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
I have contacted his website and will post the response.
Looking at the russell 1000 at the time of the '87 crash I see that from the market highs on 8-25-07 to the low in mid October the SPY lost 32%. During that time, only 26 stocks made money out of the 970 that I have histories that far back -- the biggest gain coming from ARDNA at 38%.
Out of the 944 that lost money, the biggest loss came from GPS (The Gap) which lost 70%. There were 156 stocks that lost over 38%.
It just seems wise (to me) to put these odds in your favor. I also believe that it is wise to trade your personality and if that means going long only, short only, or both then that's clearly the way to go.
Another thing that suprised me was that there was ample time to get short these stocks. I had always thought of the 87 crash as a one day event but there were very clear technical setups.
David John Hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
My appologies, that wasn't the Russell 1000. I looked at that first but saw that many of the stocks didn't have long enough histories so i created a pcf that would isolate all stocks with histories that far back.
David John Hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
So Bulkowski should do what didn't work. So that he could make
others happy?
Nice to know its so, so simple.
No plan necessary, no skills, no experience, no knowledge,
no ability.
You just short bear markets and buy bull markets.
Let me get pen and paper and write this down.
S-H-O-R-T bears.
B-U-Y bulls.
(I'm afraid we've let the cat out of the bag. People would pay a
kings ransom for this type of info and they can get it for free)
Well I'm off to the golf store. I want to get a set of clubs.
That way I can be Tiger Woods.
(who knew it was that easy)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Hi everyone. I contacted Tom Bulkowski who, for the record, I admire for the breadth and scope of his work. I just wanted to clear up the opinions behind the quote. Here is my email to him and below is his reply:
My email:
Hello Mr. Bulkowski,
I was hoping you might be able to offer some clarification on a discussion we're have on the Telechart 2007 forum. The discussion is centered around a quote of yours. This quote reads:
Quote:" A study I conducted using nearly 12,500 chart patterns found
that you make more money going long than you can going short. I always
thought you'd make more money shorting in a bear market, but my research
shows that's not the case"
Someone took this quote to mean that one could make more money going long in a bear market.
I take it to mean that you are discussing periods of trading and that at first you believed the most profitable period for a trader would be short in a bear market.
Would this be correct? Thank you for your time
His reply:
That's a good question, David, and I'm not sure I believe my research even as I reread it. You can find it here: http://thepatternsite.com/longshort.html
I don't think my test really proves anything. If you have a perfect short, you can make 100% (meaning the stock goes to 0), but gains can be unlimited. Thus, it's not a fair contest even if a trade works perfectly. I DO know that price drops quicker than it rises, so you can make more profit quicker by shorting. That's an easy check and I mention it often in my book "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns, 2nd edition."
The bear market was in 2000 to 2002, not the most recent one. Trying to go long in this bear market would have put a deep hole in your wallet.
Tom
********************************
After reading his study I see that he is in fact claiming you can make more money to the long side in a bear market. I am not one to argue someone else's research. I just stick with what's working for me, how I come about deciding what works best for me, and sharing that info for whoever wants it.
David John Hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Hi diceman,
I think they certainly would pay a king's ransom to believe the information and to know what to look for both inside themselves and inside the market. In fact, the ones who usually succede do end up paying quite heavily to learn those 2 pieces of information which can only come with experience.
I once posted information on the forum that you could also make more money going long below the 200 day MA than than you could going long above it. Ii believe you disagreed quite heavily on that point even though I had test numbers behind it. Isn't this thread saying the same thing but now the argument has been flipped? Now it appears we believe we can make more money going long in a bear market.
Note: I can't find that original post -- will keep looking.
You were also the one who taught me about the power of relative strength in the interesting numbers post. i think that post concluded that the weakest stocks fall the furthest while the strongest ones rise the furthest.
Continuing that line of thought I would have to say that the weakest stocks fall the furthest in a bear market but I will have to study it more.
David John hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
QUOTE (davidjohnhall) Hi everyone. I contacted Tom Bulkowski who, for the record, I admire for the breadth and scope of his work. I just wanted to clear up the opinions behind the quote. Here is my email to him and below is his reply:
My email:
Hello Mr. Bulkowski,
I was hoping you might be able to offer some clarification on a discussion we're have on the Telechart 2007 forum. The discussion is centered around a quote of yours. This quote reads:
Quote:" A study I conducted using nearly 12,500 chart patterns found
that you make more money going long than you can going short. I always
thought you'd make more money shorting in a bear market, but my research
shows that's not the case"
Someone took this quote to mean that one could make more money going long in a bear market.
I take it to mean that you are discussing periods of trading and that at first you believed the most profitable period for a trader would be short in a bear market.
Would this be correct? Thank you for your time
His reply:
That's a good question, David, and I'm not sure I believe my research even as I reread it. You can find it here: http://thepatternsite.com/longshort.html
I don't think my test really proves anything. If you have a perfect short, you can make 100% (meaning the stock goes to 0), but gains can be unlimited. Thus, it's not a fair contest even if a trade works perfectly. I DO know that price drops quicker than it rises, so you can make more profit quicker by shorting. That's an easy check and I mention it often in my book "Encyclopedia of Chart Patterns, 2nd edition."
The bear market was in 2000 to 2002, not the most recent one. Trying to go long in this bear market would have put a deep hole in your wallet.
Tom
********************************
After reading his study I see that he is in fact claiming you can make more money to the long side in a bear market. I am not one to argue someone else's research. I just stick with what's working for me, how I come about deciding what works best for me, and sharing that info for whoever wants it.
David John Hall
Mr. Bulkowsky says:
"The answer is simple. You can make more money from the long side than the short side, even in a bear market."
I say , well this man must be a real "patriot", and obviously disturbed.
Why don't you ask Mr. Bulkowsky how he can explain the game of odds. In a market in with 8 out of 10 stocks are falling - how can "going long" be more profitable than going short?
Unless you happen to know the ones that are going to go up, your chances seem to be quite reduced.
Even in the event that you knew those that will go up, I would really doubt that the percentages of increase in price would be greater than those of stocks in decline - that is in the case of a BEAR.
The opposite would work the same way for a BULL market.
It is funny to figure out the mission or objectives of folks, but you would be so surprised if you knew.
I rather take the simplicity of common sense, and the anwers provided by my own senses.
In a 10 year study it has been proven that humans can fly while jumping from a 120 story building. That is - has to be a 120 story building.
Now you can jump without worries - it has been proven.
On the other hand, I am going to trust my common sense and let the pack jump while I wait at the bottom counting bodies.
The study is up for review at any time in the internet. Credentials?
What for! Believing is powerful, I just hope it is powerful enough to make you fly.
Fly, fly little butterfly.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
I'd have to agree.
The chances for gain are unlimited to the upside, but for what time frame and how many stocks actually reach that unlimited upside potential during a bear market (meaning their gains exceede 100%)? For most traders here, I believe, who are shooting for a swing trade sized gains and time periods, we're talking about 5-20% gains. Those are well within the 100% max-gain of short trades. It is my belief that gains of that size happen far more frequently to the downside during a bear and to the upside during a bull (according to my own research based on my own trades). (with the exception of inverse etfs).
Does anyone on the forum know how we might go about testing this idea? Meaning, how many gains of 5-25% were available during this bear to the upside vs. to the downside? I think it would an interesting study.
David John Hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
"I'd have to agree.
The chances for gain are unlimited to the upside, but for what time frame and how many stocks actually reach that unlimited upside potential during a bear market (meaning their gains exceede 100%)? For most traders here, I believe, who are shooting for a swing trade sized gains and time periods, we're talking about 5-20% gains. Those are well within the 100% max-gain of short trades. It is my belief that gains of that size happen far more frequently to the downside during a bear and to the upside during a bull (according to my own research based on my own trades). (with the exception of inverse etfs).
Does anyone on the forum know how we might go about testing this idea? Meaning, how many gains of 5-25% were available during this bear to the upside vs. to the downside? I think it would an interesting study.
David John Hall"
----------------------------------------------------------
Wow there's some really shall I say simple discussion going on here.
First off.
Your talking about 5% swing trades. That applies to you not me.
(your turning stocks into casino chips)
Your talking about testing and having all your ducks in a row.
I'm talking about the trader in general.
Look at scotts quote above:
"Even my shorts during the biggest bear market of our generation only had a 50% hit rate and gains there were fairly small before getting stopped out."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened?
I thought this was the road to riches?
I thought this was a flawless brilliant plan?
(why I bet someone has even bought a stock in a bull
market that didn't go up. can that happen?)
The truth is there is a lot more to trading going on than simple
direction.
From 1982 to 2000 the was a great bull run. If it was simple
direction. Everyone who trades would be a millionaire.
We have to really talk about what you are doing and how you
are doing it. Don't we have to look at your emotions?
There's no focus on wrong entry, wrong plan, wrong timing,
wrong money management.
We have to talk about your time, your ability to work and learn.
(to be honest most seem to have trouble trading long in a bull
market. Do I really want to see them trying to trade both sides
of the fence? They risk being whipsawed to infinity)
Recently APOL was mentioned here. In 2000 What was the smart move for
me? Not to trade it? To take my 5% and run? To say this cant happen?
I shouldn't look for it. Does that sound smart to you?
One last point.
This is different. This isn't just a pedestrian
bear-market. Each recession is for different reasons.
(2000/2003 was about tech) The real question is did you know
that going in? Should you decide APOL wont be there or should
you look?
Remember one is allowed to think.
(Who knew we were allowed to think?)
Remember this market mode has been in effect for about 12
months. Why do you think all the analysis of this period starts
with: "not since the great depression"?
(because things are bullish?)
The real question is what you would have gained or
lost in other bear markets. What you would have gained or
lost from your "false alarms" in the bull markets. After all
if its risky and crazy and dumb to try and look for longs
in bear markets. Then it must be risky, crazy and dumb
to try and short bull markets. (and they were in place
a lot longer than the bears and the math isn't even in your
direction)
Oh by the way. As I'm typing this the Dow is down -275.
Who knew?
(I guess its the Obama thud)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
Great day today! Lets check the numbers
NYSE
Advancing - 224
Declining - 2701
Nasdaq
Advancing - 407
Declining - 2906
any questions about winning odds?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
He just does not get it Diceman, I say let it go.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Hi diceman,
I thought we were discussing what works here. Scott discussed what doesn't work for him and I am discussing what does work for me. It's a simple (thankfully) discussion because what works for me is keeping things simple. After a few years spent overcomplicating a great many things about the market I have arrived at:
Direction (the market's)
Psychology (mine)
I wasn't discussing turning stocks into poker chips (though it honestly wouldn't matter if I were). In fact, I'm sure it wouldn't matter if I turned stocks into cow chips as long as I find something that works for me.
What I was discussing were the type of gains most seem to shoot for here based on observations I have made from posts I've read. Based on those oberservations and those targets I was discussing where one might be better able to find a more abundent supply of them.
Going long in a bull market.
Or short a bear market.
This point was also open to discussion as I asked if anyone could come up with a way to test it.
Regarding your APOL trade it certainly was smart to do what you believed was the smartest thing to do at the time based on YOUR system on YOUR parameters on YOUR money management on YOUR timing model on YOUR available capital. In fact, it would have been impossible to do otherwise. We can only do what we do. It would be impossible to do more or less. It would also be impossible for your trade in APOL to be a direct commentary on someone else's style of trading.
Do I personally take 5% gains and run? Would I have done that with APOL. I 100% believe that you know that that is an unanswerable question. I certainly don't mind taking 5% gains. I also don't mind 50% gains. Or 100% gains.
To return to your poker chip analogy, Las Vegas builds billion dollar casinos by miniscule edges repeated over and over. Gamblers also create very large bankrolls by exploiting similar edges. And some visitors to Vegas win the 200 million dollar jackpot with one pull of the handle.
If I decide to follow a style of trading that matches my personality and works, does that mean that I am not thinking? By choosing Coke over Pepsi does that mean I think no one should be allowed to drink Pepsi? Does it also mean that there cannot be room for more than one strategy for me? To take repeated small gains AND be aware of longer trends?
And in regard to the finer details, what does it matter where I enter the market, why I enter the market, what my money management is, or what my emotions are like? That would help others as much as your answers to those questions would help me.
What I was discussing were the simple odds of catching a profit.
I've never spoke about a road to riches.
Never brought up a flawless plan.
Always tell other traders to trade their personality.
If Scott doesn't like to trade short in bear markets or has determined that trading that way doesn't suit his personality (after researching his own trades) then he shouldn't trade a bear market. It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit, isn't worthwhile, or shouldn't be attempted.
There are no right and wrong answers here. If most seem to have trouble trading long in a bull market, maybe most have trouble trading in any market. And if they keep having trouble they will either learn to overcome or decide to stop trading.
Of course i wish for all to overcome. And think. And be successful in the only way for them. Which might include going short in a bear market. Or going to vegas. Or trading with poker chips. Or cow chips.
Thanks for the thought provoking response.
David John Hall
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 1/28/2005
Posts: 6,049
|
What you have to understand davidjohnhall. We are analyzing the mind
not stocks or technique.
I told the story of folks that I offered AAPL, GOOG to in the
bull market. In one microsecond they said "no".
They rejected the stocks as too expensive and
not likely to rise much more.
(this was before GOOG tripled and AAPL did much more
than that)
What cost them the trade?
The market?
Their indicators?
Their method?
No. Their mind turned the trades off by "what couldn't happen".
They were "certain" of what they were "certain" of. It just
didn't happen to jive with the facts.
(the enemy between your ears)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the last bear.
Look at: APOL,BLUD, HOV, MTH, FLIR, HW, DRL, WTFL,GSBC
CEDC, SLM, WIBC, UCBH.
(of course I'm not going to list everything that went up)
Notice the housing, banking component? A portion of sub-prime was
playing out in the last bear.
Because there are diverging sectors should you ignore it?
Since this was allegedly a bear market. Id be willing to bet there
were actually days that had more decliners than advances.
(many of them, it doesn't matter)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now about this market. Realize that analysis of this
market is only this market and nothing else.
It would be about as smart as analyzing the period
from 1929 to 1932 and using it as our template
for the next 75 years of market activity.
We would have known what "cant" happen. We would
have known what was "impossible".
Of course we would have also been dead wrong.
You have to decide if you want to put your brain in
a straight jacket of rules and laws and decide what
"cant" happen. Then when its shown that it did
happen your goona have to decide how much your
gonna scream and cry.
Id rather keep an open mind and look at what does happen.
Unfortunately "go long a bull" and "go short a bear" is about
as deep and insightful as saying the objective of golf
is to get the ball in the hole.
There is just a little more to it than that.
Well as I type this the DOW is down about -260.
I'm short the indexes today.
(its so nice to be able to think)
Thanks
diceman
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (BigBlock) Great day today! Lets check the numbers
NYSE
Advancing - 224
Declining - 2701
Nasdaq
Advancing - 407
Declining - 2906
any questions about winning odds?
Very true ... and that was evident in the decline on the McClellan Summation index ... when on the surface, things looked much better ....
The DJIA has now spent 5 trading days hanging around support ... the second line on the supercycle chart ... and it's generally not a very bullish sign when a chart hits support and hangs around there ... rather than boucing back off sharply ...
But ... time will tell ...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 6/6/2005
Posts: 1,157
|
Yes, diceman, it is wonderful to think.
However, luckily, each of us is free to think in any manner that we choose to think. Thoughts that run contrary to yours don't imply a lack of thought -- merely a different thought.
Your thoughts about the market (that accepting all possibilities keeps you available for the best possibilities) might be in direct conflict to my thoughts (that limitless possibility and the inability to cope with it is the end of most traders) and still, it doesn't mean that either thought is correct, or that one or the other was borne out of a lack of thought.
You might think that studying the statistics of past markets to determine possible outcomes of current market conditions might be lazy. I might base my entire trading approach on it (which I can assure you is not the result of laziness), and still, we can both succeede.
As for analyzing the mind, who's mind are we analyzing? Yours? Mine? The "trader's" mind? Assuming that the trader's mind could never get him/her in trouble, what is wrong with backing up creative interpretation of market action with factual historical performance as understood through testing?
I'm glad you went short today and made money by thinking. I went long yesterday and made money by following the trend on my time frame. (which was up). I went short the day before that and made money by following the trend on my time frame. I went long today and did not make money on my time
frame. I did this all without thinking. I did it by acting.
Yet we both made money.
Yes, it's wonderful to think.
And yes, the entire purpose of golf is to get the ball in the hole.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Well lets all hope we do not have a problem with that  .
I think that both of you are correct (David and Diceman) and that the other two are wrong (BB & RC) Anything can and does happen in all kinds of markets. I know it is easy to look back on past history and say "wow" I could have bought stock "XYZ" long last month when the markets were falling off a cliff. In the end it is up to the trader to find the opportunities that he feels has the best chance for success.
Success should not be measured by statistics or pre-determined dogma. Diceman has proved that he can find value in any market, David has proved that he can follow his trading systems and still get the ball in the "Hole".
I personaly am not that evolved yet and prefer to trade heavily (long) in the Bull markets and invest into real-estate durring the Bear markets. As long as we all find our own little niche' and can stay in the green then their aint nothin wrong with that....
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
Just out of curiosity Apsll ...
What is it that you think that I'm "wrong" about ?
That the McClellan Sumation Index fell yesterday ?
Or that it is generally not a good sign when a chart falls to support and then languished there ?
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
Well lets all hope we do not have a problem with that .
I think that both of you are correct (David and Diceman) and that the other two are wrong (BB & RC) Anything can and does happen in all kinds of markets. I know it is easy to look back on past history and say "wow" I could have bought stock "XYZ" long last month when the markets were falling off a cliff. In the end it is up to the trader to find the opportunities that he feels has the best chance for success.
Success should not be measured by statistics or pre-determined dogma. Diceman has proved that he can find value in any market, David has proved that he can follow his trading systems and still get the ball in the "Hole".
I personaly am not that evolved yet and prefer to trade heavily (long) in the Bull markets and invest into real-estate durring the Bear markets. As long as we all find our own little niche' and can stay in the green then their aint nothin wrong with that....
You can't even begin to suggest that the odss of making money in a bear market are greater by going long than by going short. If you do, I like you to show us all.
Not just at an intraday level, BUT take count of how many stocks declined in lets say the last few months, and how many went up.
I never say that you cannot make money in a bear market by going long, BUT that you are greatly reducing your odds at doing just so.
That is regardless of wether you have found a "niche" or not.
Odds are odds, and this is a game of odds.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
BB, I have always found your arguments to be a little to black and white for my taste. Thus all our fighting. I am only stating my opinions going forward; if you wish to impugn them then I say the burden is on you. I have nothing to prove.
RC, Your quote of Bigblocks statistics and suggesting the truth of it all just goes against what (IMO) Diceman is trying to say that if you go long in all markets then you will do better in the end. (Diceman if I am miss-representing what you say then I am sorry). I have already stated that I do not participate fully in down markets and rely more on real-estate. I say if you are a Bear at heart and only trade short in the bull markets and that is where your fortunes are made then god bless you, you have a game plan that works, just as David has stated that as long as the ball goes in the hole then you are moving on up.
BigBlock just so you know our game of fighting has been played. It is time to let it go, you do not have to convince everyone that you are god’s gift to trading, we already know. We also know that you are here to save all the new traders from miss- information. Just take my word for it; they do not need your help. We all started out as newbie’s on these forums and then made up our own minds on what is good for us or not. What have you accomplished in the last couple of years other than getting yourself banned and creating a I hate Bigblock fan club on other forums. If these were your goals then you have succeeded my friend. Just do what everyone else does when they reach the self deluded messiah stage and write a book.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
BB, I have always found your arguments to be a little to black and white for my taste. Thus all our fighting. I am only stating my opinions going forward; if you wish to impugn them then I say the burden is on you. I have nothing to prove.
RC, Your quote of Bigblocks statistics and suggesting the truth of it all just goes against what (IMO) Diceman is trying to say that if you go long in all markets then you will do better in the end. (Diceman if I am miss-representing what you say then I am sorry). I have already stated that I do not participate fully in down markets and rely more on real-estate. I say if you are a Bear at heart and only trade short in the bull markets and that is where your fortunes are made then god bless you, you have a game plan that works, just as David has stated that as long as the ball goes in the hole then you are moving on up.
BigBlock just so you know our game of fighting has been played. It is time to let it go, you do not have to convince everyone that you are god’s gift to trading, we already know. We also know that you are here to save all the new traders from miss- information. Just take my word for it; they do not need your help. We all started out as newbie’s on these forums and then made up our own minds on what is good for us or not. What have you accomplished in the last couple of years other than getting yourself banned and creating a I hate Bigblock fan club on other forums. If these were your goals then you have succeeded my friend. Just do what everyone else does when they reach the self deluded messiah stage and write a book.
Hey why don't you use a smaller font - you will be helping the forum by doing so.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Deflection has always been your best weapon BigBlock. When is your next Vacation. Do not forget to program your computor to log you on and off the forum. You know how much you would be missed around here...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 9/25/2007
Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
RC, Your quote of Bigblocks statistics and suggesting the truth of it all just goes against what (IMO) Diceman is trying to say that if you go long in all markets then you will do better in the end. (Diceman if I am miss-representing what you say then I am sorry). I have already stated that I do not participate fully in down markets and rely more on real-estate. I say if you are a Bear at heart and only trade short in the bull markets and that is where your fortunes are made then god bless you, you have a game plan that works, just as David has stated that as long as the ball goes in the hole then you are moving on up.
I can really see no way that my quoting of statistics has any bearing whatsoever on any post or opinion that diceman may have made or possess ...
Statistics are simply a representation of fact ...
In this case ... that the overall market was weaker than what was reflected in the major market averages ...
I"m not a "bear at heart" ... quite the contrary ... as anyone who looks at a chart of the markets over the last century or so ... should be able to easily ascertain that the long term trend is up ...
However ... I do not delude myself into thinking that it will always go up ... or that there will not be sustained periods of decline ...
I caught a lot of crap here in September of 2007 ... because I shared BB's opinion that the market was cooked ... and moving off the edge of a cliff ...
And because I shared that opinion ... I was branded his minion ...
Post after post decrying my opinion were made ... indicating that we were only seeing a small correction ... and that there was no reason to believe that it was anything more ...
OK ... everybody is entitled to their own opinion ...
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
QUOTE (realitycheck)
I can really see no way that my quoting of statistics has any bearing whatsoever on any post or opinion that diceman may have made or possess ...
Statistics are simply a representation of fact ...
OK ... everybody is entitled to their own opinion ...
You are correct RC, everyone has a right to their own opinions. It is mine opinion that statistics are meaningless because they reflect the end results of past actions. There is going to be a higher number in column A than in column B. but in my "opinion" and I think what Diceman is saying is that we are not at the mercy of statistics and are free to find success doing what we know best in all market conditions.
We all saw the slide in the Markets coming when Bigblock was chanting. There were folks before him on the forum that were forcasting doom. Like Diceman says eventually they will be right.
I am not attacking you RC, I just have a different opinion. I should have made myself more clear. I did not mean to offend.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
BB, I have always found your arguments to be a little to black and white for my taste. Thus all our fighting. I am only stating my opinions going forward; if you wish to impugn them then I say the burden is on you. I have nothing to prove.
RC, Your quote of Bigblocks statistics and suggesting the truth of it all just goes against what (IMO) Diceman is trying to say that if you go long in all markets then you will do better in the end. (Diceman if I am miss-representing what you say then I am sorry). I have already stated that I do not participate fully in down markets and rely more on real-estate. I say if you are a Bear at heart and only trade short in the bull markets and that is where your fortunes are made then god bless you, you have a game plan that works, just as David has stated that as long as the ball goes in the hole then you are moving on up.
BigBlock just so you know our game of fighting has been played. It is time to let it go, you do not have to convince everyone that you are god’s gift to trading, we already know. We also know that you are here to save all the new traders from miss- information. Just take my word for it; they do not need your help. We all started out as newbie’s on these forums and then made up our own minds on what is good for us or not. What have you accomplished in the last couple of years other than getting yourself banned and creating a I hate Bigblock fan club on other forums. If these were your goals then you have succeeded my friend. Just do what everyone else does when they reach the self deluded messiah stage and write a book.
Black and white are the colors you seek to see. I see a rainbow.
Please stop talking for others BB, RC, Diceman, David ... and so on. You are in no position to represent anyone's ideas. Represent yours if there is any.
By the way, why don't you explain what you mean by relying on real estate through bear markets. I really hope you are not relying on the real estate market because the real state market is not doing any better than the equity markets.
And please, pleassseee, stop attacking the author of any post.
It is NOT about the author. It is about the issue(s) that is brought for debate.
I thought we were over this by now - obviously NOT. You are back at zero, and I am way past that.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 3/21/2006
Posts: 4,308
|
Bigblock I am speaking for myself. I myself agree with what Diceman and David are talking about and I am saying so. I myself do not agree with you. These statments do not mean that I am speaking for anyone. As far as my real-estate investments I am not interested in your un-educated opinion.
And still you deflect.
|
|
Registered User
Joined: 10/7/2004
Posts: 2,126
|
QUOTE (Apsll)
Bigblock I am speaking for myself. I myself agree with what Diceman and David are talking about and I am saying so. I myself do not agree with you. These statments do not mean that I am speaking for anyone. As far as my real-estate investments I am not interested in your un-educated opinion.
And still you deflect.
QUOTE (Apsll) Deflection has always been your best weapon BigBlock. When is your next Vacation. Do not forget to program your computor to log you on and off the forum. You know how much you would be missed around here...
I will ask my "computor" if it is deflecting me in any ways I don't know about it so my "best weapon" is up to date.
I must agree that I try to deflect your noise at any price, BUT not the issue.
|
|
|
Guest-1 |