Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.
Seeker
-
Content Count
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Seeker
-
DBPhoenix, I've been trying for a while now to draw Demand and Supply Lines similar to how you have drawn them in various 1-min chart examples on the NASDAQ, but I have two problems that perhaps you can enlighten me a little bit. The first is that I seem caught between two places. On the one hand, I can draw the line very tight to price, but then I would exit early, which is good to prevent losers but also means I miss a large part of the good moves, whereas if I draw the lines a little more 'loosely' I can stay in the good moves but then of course I stay in too long on the losers. I suspect there is no real answer to this, and just experience and picking one camp over the other, but I thought I'd ask anyway. The second issue is that I'm wondering how the SL and DLs fit together over differing time frames. For example the Daily may be indicating an upward trend, and the hourly is indicating that it is breaking out og that daily Demand line, and 1 min is indicating up. Would you say it is best to consider demand and supply lines on only one time frame? Or should I always be trading in the direction of the daily for example, and using lower timeframe to help me pick entry points?
-
Price Action Patterns Do Not Mean the Market Isn't Random
Seeker replied to 1a2b3cppp's topic in Technical Analysis
Are you aware, that if something is a complete random walk, i.e. equally likely to go up 1 as go down 1, at all times, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to ever make money out of that in the long run? It's not about strategy in that case, my statement applies for all strategies. It simply cannot be done. Therefore, to make the statement that it is random, in the sense above, is to say that nobody can ever make money in the long run at trading, and nobody ever has, except as a statistical outlier. If you believe money can be made, or you can make it yourself, then implicitly you are saying there are times at which one thing is more likely than another and it can be recognised. That's not the same as predicting with certainty. -
It's not known what characteristic enabled people to determine which was real and which was random - just that they could. It was a test only to see if humans could detect the difference. I think you can still see what the test was like here: ARORA Random is a tricky word. Anything you do or write is somewhat random to ME. It's not random to you, because you choose it, but it is to everyone else. I say somewhat because you are still using words and sentences, there is still structure and I am familiar with it, so it's not entirely random. So when you're asking if things are random in the market, the question is 'to whom'? And how random? The markets are random to all participants, but they are not entirely random. At least that is how I see it.
-
This seems to be a debate on a few threads here. The number of people in a queue at a shop is random. It goes up, it goes down, it doesn't go below zero, I can't say with certainty what this number will be in 5 minutes or indeed any future time, so in that sense it has randomness. So someone just observing the queue will see random numbers changing with very little pattern. If that's what we look for, that's what we find. But how many people's actions are actually random in that queue? Having the appearance of being like a random walk, does not make it a random walk. If we paid attention, couldn't we see when people are more likely or less likely to join the queue? We obtain very little from assuming it's all random, but we might gain something by thinking that it's not, and that each of these people has some intent, so that for example, we may conclude that as closing time approaches, the number of people in the shop will quite likely quickly move to the queue. Experiments have been done on whether humans can tell random data from real financial data, and it was demonstrated that humans could. I quote from a recent paper which researched this: "We find overwhelming statistical evidence (p-values no greater than 0.5%) that subjects can consistently distinguish between the two types of time series, thereby refuting the widespread belief that financial markets “look random”." And these were not necessarily traders taking this test.
-
Thanks, I actually was asking about the previous day tupapa asked you about. For number 3, he asked why no short, and you said congestion. It doesn't look like congestion until after the red circle he has drawn where the entry would be.
-
Sorry, FTB stands for? (it's not in the Glossary)
-
From when is the congestion visible?
-
I probably haven't seen all the charts, and occasionally an exit is not clear, but ball park 80%+
-
Please define what you mean by 'noise', and then please do back it up as you said you would.
-
Do you get the correct data if you look at a 1440 minute chart?
-
So the answer is that: ...... The eldest brother gives brothers 3 and 5, the minimum possible, i.e. if the minimum unit is 1 dollar, he gives them 1 dollar each (if minimum is one cent, he gives them one cent each) and keeps the rest for himself. The reason is: Following from traderunner's thought, you work backwards. If there are two brothers, the elder of the two keeps all the money, because he will get 50% of the vote, and so he walks away with all the money. Extending this to 3 brothers, the youngest of all knows that if he votes against the eldest brothers plan, and the eldest brother loses, then he will walk away with nothing. So he'll accept anything greater than 0 (1 cent, one dollar for example). Brother 3 knows this, so he can offer the one cent to that brother and nothing to the brother in between. This logic works back all the way to the first of 5 brothers.
-
Thankyou DB and Gringo.
-
I don't understand. What exactly is the correct entry and correct stop? Yes I've read that the correct entry should move into profit immediately or almost immediately. But I don't understand how you can say the stop is never hit. Wouldn't you have to have a specifically defined stop and entry to make that claim? I also looked at some of your posts regarding correct entries (you posted a chart with dots for entry and stop on NQ etc on a 1 minute chart). But in these the stop is sometimes hit. I am happy to read in the original course if you can help direct me to a specific area. Thanks.
-
Yes! And follow that thought through...
-
Yes, of course, assuming 50% prob male to female births, it's slightly more likely to be the smaller sample size. Let me know if you want the answer to the 5 brother problem.
-
Again, good ideas. Not the right answer though. But on the right track
-
No it's hard to achieve full stop. Hard to achieve on a $1000 account. Very hard. We're talking every day aren't we, not just one day. Increasing the account size only makes a hard task even harder. Again, who do you know that can achieve this, day after day after day for years?
-
Good thinking, but not correct. They are all self-serving, and want to maximise the amount they get.
-
Well it's not easy to get 1% a day. That's the problem. It is a seemingly simple goal on a given day, but extended over time, it's incredibly difficult. This is a 1300% return. How many of the greatest traders have ever got such a return in ANY year, never mind multiple years? So contrary to what you say, that 1% per day is easier than most people think...no it's harder than most people think. Much harder.
-
Obviously there is a lot of semantics going on. Technical analysis is the analysis of the technicals. What are the technicals? They seem to be price, volume etc. Taken as that, chart analysis is TA, so too ismarket profile. Generally those who want to divide and exclude certain parts, say market profile, are doing so to further their own agenda, to make themselves stand out. For example, if Steidlmayer wants to promote his method, he may wish to state that his method is different from all other methods, or most common methods, i.e. TA. Is it a form of analysis on the technicals? It is to me. If the technicals involve price, then how could one argue it's not. But it's not worth getting upset about just because you take the word to mean something. There's a good reason why Steidlmayer would want to say it's not TA, the Dude. Simply believing him without understanding his motive doesn't make for a good argument. I'd also disagree with DBPhoenix about the word random. In some sense isn't almost everything deterministic? The coin toss for example is deterministic, it depends on laws and forces. However, we model it as random because we cannot know pecisely enough the information that we would need to know to decide the outcome with certainty. Therefore this applies to trading too. It's irrelevant whether there are causes, of course there are. But scientifically, mathematically it is random still because you cannot with certainty tell me exactly what will happen. Therefore DBPhoenix, although I agree with you on TA, I'd have to say that you're wrong on the statement "The outcome of any given trade is unknowable. That doesn't make it random. " It exactly DOES make it random.
-
Other possible answers to pattuca's riddle (and yes it should have been capitalised, otherwise it's just poorly phrased): Answer: He didn't (seems valid enough to me) Another answer: frist he crossed the bridge one way, then he turned and went over it again, and on the second trip he was technically both crossing and going around the bridge. There is often more than one valid answer. It may not be the answer the riddler had in mind, but it can still be 'correct'. Here's a maths puzzle. 5 brothers have inheirted 100 million dollars to split up amongst themselves. The brothers are ranked eldest to youngest and it is always the eldest brother who decides how to divide up the inheritance. However, the brothers are democratic: if the oldest brother does not get at least 50% of the vote (including himself), then he is killed and the process repeats itself with the next oldest brother. The brothers are all completely rational (logical) and know that their brothers are too. How does the oldest brother divide up the inheritance to maximise the amount he keeps for himself, i.e. what does he offer to the other brothers?
-
The conclusion that it is the small hospital is incorrect. We simply don't know. The argument that it is determined by the sample size, doesn't hold weight, since we don't know what the sample size is for either. One hospital is larger, but that doesn't mean its maternity ward is larger. It also doesn't mean it had a larger sample of births on that day. That's a false assumption. Also there seems to be a hidden assumption that births are equally likely to be boys as girls. This too is not correct, but is at least closer to the truth than the sample size point. So given the information stated, they are equally likely.
-
Is Ben Bernanke an Idiot, Dumb, & Ignorant?
Seeker replied to MadMarketScientist's topic in Market News & Analysis
This policy of debt and printing is good or bad depending on your time horizon. If you only have 10 years to live, then you'd want the government to continue borrowing and mismanaging taxes so that you can continue to have a nice life. If you're two years old, this mismanagement might be a bit more concerning. But that's why 2 year old don't get to vote People like to criticise how the Fed, Bank of England, Governments etc run up these massive debts and print money. But a lot of these people are deep down pleased that their life isn't changing that much, because they don't want change, and want it to be someone else's problem. In short is Bernanke an idiot? No, he's highly educated. Is he/was he doing the wrong thing? Long term, definitely. Short term probably not. -
What about that age old saying: When you're ready the teacher will come. I'm not sure how one goes about choosing a mentor. I'd think that this mentor needs to be successful at what they are mentoring. Very few traders will ever show you that they are successful, or how successful they are. Less than 1% are long term successful. And of that 1%, an even smaller % of that is highly successful (little drawdown etc), and a tiny fraction would be willing to show you their results and just how successful they are. So good luck with that! I don't agree with the comments that a mentor can't be helpful. Yes we all have to put in the hard work, and without that, there's little chance of success, and yes in some sense a lot of the information is out there on the internet or whatever. But isn't a mentor's job to filter out the chaff for you, and to respond to individual problems you are having in understanding. People that are highly successful in trading are already rare enough. How many do you think there are on this forum in total? People that are highly successful AND willing to give up large amounts of their time to mentor you through all of this...well you'll be lucky if you ever find one. I have never been that lucky, although some good traders have thrown me a bone over the years which has helped, and I'm grateful for that.
-
I think it's the nature that almost all things are as bubbles, then they burst then they decline, then they start up again. Everything must change. If everything changes and you add in human emotions and desires, then you end up with a bubble. Doesn't help me know when it is going to burst unfortunately.