|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Art is personal imaginairy
expressions created from and by human creativeness.
Not necessarely a commercial involvement is
required.
It can be expressed in several ways, incl. creating websites,
spreading myths and starting hoaxes.
Can be envoked by anyone: students,
professionals, talking heads or by the jack avarages.
Results are: that one can make it
into a different personal life-style if someone is willing to
pay
<FONT
size=2> for
it and that it is adding to cultural heritage.
Science is professional level
research.
Commercial involvement, direct or indirect is
required.
Aimed into finding the utmost evidential+explainatory
reasoning in (current + in future
still to be
discovered technical) facts that make up, explain and are
held in succesfully <FONT
size=2>prooven-to-work
methodologies and technologies. And
basicaly in and for any subject.
Needs professional leveled skills to help unfold these
reasonings.
Results are: that it can lead into finding more stronger
evidential explainations, other discoveries
<FONT
size=2>
and/or in solutions that can then be used in
practise.
Risk of Welfare is the most sufficiant market
tool.
a) Generating enough or better, more Ca$h from
scientificaly leveled TA approaches that are held and
found in systems,
systematics, tactics +
methods.
b) Risk of ruin is not a relevant issue, since
that scientific-technicaly a) should be the single
outcome
for result.
----------------------------------------------
Goes far beyond 8th grades and Ph does
help.
Ph is not required........................simply
stating scientific facts is sufficient.
Regards,Ton Maas<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDismiss the
".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.Homepage <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">Van:
<A title=giancarlogaydou@xxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:giancarlogaydou@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>Giancarlo Gaydou
Aan: <A title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Verzonden: vrijdag 20 oktober 2000
15:51
Onderwerp: RE: Advanced Get versus
MetaStock
Michael,
how can you be so sure to be absolutely free from yourself (psyche & body
influence each other), I would say that I'm alwaysworking to better tune
this independence, and I'm learning to "find" the right tools to reach the
goal, right for me perhaps not for another.But I repeat Money + Risk /
Management are the best tools I've found up-today.Art is a synonym of
superior skill - or better: the superior ability that is attained by
study and practice and observation (Webster),but if you like I'll call it
just skill.ggAt 08:24 AM 20/10/2000 -0400, you wrote:<FONT
face=arial color=#0000ff size=2>
I agree that TA is not an art. Art
suggest conveying feelings and emotions. Many of us know that if you
have either of these things in your trading, you will make irrational
decisions. TA is a skill. You must learn how to read the numbers
and determine sentiement from them. <FONT face=arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Michael<FONT face=tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----From:
owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [<A
href="mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn";
eudora="autourl">mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<A
href="mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx%5DOn"; eudora="autourl">On
Behalf Of Giancarlo GaydouSent: Friday, October 20, 2000 5:55
AMTo: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: Advanced Get
versus MetaStockAt 02:32 AM 20/10/2000 +0100, you
wrote:
A childs dream is easely full filled.
gg> at last!! we know the reason of your
satisfaction about your trading methods, even if from the Ph of your
mails nobody would
tell.
It's the hard-core TA that
we're after, not softies stuff.gg> sounds like
the epic side of TA.
TA is NOT an art !!!!. If
your aim is also to get right to the scientifical (and therefore
evidential) bottom of it.gg> if you bother
yourself to read my mail there was something about 8th grade math, 8th
grade math doesn't mean the math for 13
years old school boys, ask around and you'll have a long way to go in front
of you, long enough to forget the "Fibonacci
/ Bartjens / Gann / Elliott" stuff. If you
don't get there TA it is an ART because in TA there is nothing
scientifically sound or proved, you play
with probabilities, the only edge that you have is:
Q - how many times in the past there was
a scenario like this one ? A - 20 times in
10 years of data. Q - what was the
behavior of price the following day (W/M/Y)
? A - 13 times went up and 7 times went
down. Decision: since the probabilities
are on the up side (and my assessment of the scenario with the help of what
ever oscillators / indicators / levels /
cycles / moon / sun it's positive) I'll go
long. Can't see anything difficult
there, what is really difficult it's to apply stop loss and risk / money
management in a MATHEMATICALLY sound way
so to end up making money, but the scientifically sound is the risk/money
management not TA, and the decision to go
long/short it is SUBJECTIVE, so it has only to do with your sensibility in
assessing that 13 Vs. 7 today is a good
edge. Some
readings: Pole, West, and Harrison
(1994), Applied Bayesian Forecasting and Time Series Analysis.
(Chapman & Hall), Harvey (1989),
Forecasting, Structural Time Series and the Kalman Filter. (Cambridge
University Press) Box and Jenkins (1976),
Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control. (Holden-Day)
The first is on Bayesian DLM models,
second is on structural models, and third on classical ARIMA approach. For a
recent survey of stationary econometric
models you could check Clements and Hendry (1998), Forecasting Economic
Time Series. (Cambridge University
Press).
The Bartjens mails+links
that have been posted:"Subject:
Bartjens
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:47:04""Subject: Re:
Bartjens
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:16:11""Subject: Re:
Bartjens
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:52:56""Subject: Re: What options to
sell? Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000
01:02:17" Must have been posted in one of that
long lasting phases, periods of months in a row, when the List is
moreof an old ladies Chat box instead then that it is used as
what it was set out to be: a MSK or TA discussioning List.(reason you
probably missed the posts !!!).gg> certainly your posts
on the subject didn't stir lots of enthusiastic replays, why not try posting
some recipes of Dutch's baked goods
or knitworks.Have a nice timegg
Regards,Ton Maas<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxDismiss
the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.Homepage <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Giancarlo
Gaydou
Aan: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Verzonden: donderdag 19 oktober 2000 12:16
Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock
Poor Mr. Fibonacci, (that's the right spelling)
he's certainly turning around in his grave, let him RIP.
He didn't know that his theory one day was to be used in TA by
traders, neither he knew that close enough won't be just good
enough.
I guess that if you would spend a little more time to explain the
theory of Mr. Bartjens, maybe only mailing the links were some
documentation could be found, we all may become Mr. Bartjens'
fans.
For the little that I've learned the boys that crunch 8th grade
math do have a fair edge on markets, but from what they say they are
happy
to be "close enough".
FWIW, in this list many good traders have already explained
that:
"No indicator, no oscillator, no FIB's, or what else, works unless
you develop the right feeling about it, but once you have the
feeling anything works"
and to me that mean: Holy Grails & Hens of the Golden Eggs, if
they exists, are well secured in armoured safes, not sold in the shops
for little or big monies.
Beside the above another good remark was mailed here:
"TA it's an ART not an exact science"
and to me that mean: Everybody can buy a fiddle "but" (VB BUT)
only "few" (VB FEW) will be able to master it, a pennywhistle
may
be too much for many.
I'm not so fond of the Fibonacci's theory but some times have
found it "just good enough" because it was "close enough" even closer
than other tools, but always "after" because I don't have
particular feelings about it.
gg
At 02:26 AM 19/10/2000 +0100, you wrote:
Thanks for your contribution. It will be most helpfull to the
many.
There are many ways that can lead one to the room of
glory.
Even the monkeys are capable to make money throwing darts. No
big deal in that !!!.
The incorrect Fibionancy-myth of "figures being relational
to one another" has indeed here on
the List been unraffled before, including that of the further
man-made-ajointed myth of
"mother nature wonders", that either would be caused by it or
that would be related to the myth.
The Mr. W. Bartjens Law shows a straight out correct relation
between the standard figures-set
that was first introduced in the 10 Century, a set that today is
still in use, and the Cyfferringe
(that is the Law) also shows WHY the figures are TRUELY related.
The modern day Decimal** system, that is directly based on the
standard figures-set, provides
-along with its Fractals- the natural relation and rythem
between figures.
Apart from the Decimal system being the natural related figures,
it also has a -now TRUE fair
dinkom evidentual- influencial effect on humans on this
globe that are all using it. Easely the
humans then refer to "halves", "thirds", "quarters" and "tenths"
of something :
-"Oh it only costs halve the original price"
-"Profits have rissen one thirds compared to
last year"
-"The quarterly figures are............"
-"It's only roughly been a ten percent
increase{rise}".
Check the levels derived from splitting "a whole" 100 into the
Decimalic Fractals and then compare to
and find that the from the Fibionancy-myth calculated ones then
"only come close to".
That explains too why one can make money from the Natural Human
support and resistances found
at the above mentioned Fractal levels.
That the Fibionancy-myth calculations then only can come close
to is perhaps benificial to you, but
they are not ever based on the mentioned "natural, relational,
logical, scientifical or on any other fact"
that the myth also tries out everyone to believe.
Check out the previous sent Bartjens mail(s) <FONT
size=2>to find the 1st Group and mail showing why they are
related.
Check the previous sent Fractals Retracements mail(s) to find
the Natural Human support + resistance
levels equivelant for the financial markets.
Then compare results to the Fibionancy-myth and the myth
is straight out unraffled.
Now place the Fractal Retracements on your Charts and see why
they work, and why the Fibionancies
can only come close to, eg naturaly, since that they are not
"natural, relational, logical, scientifical or
on any other fact"-based or related.
I will let you have the NEXT month to work this all out and
expect you to report back to the List with
example Charts holding the BASED ON FACTS Natural Human support
& resistance levels.
Then if you like, you may still post comparisson results of your
beloved Fibionancy vs the above.
Doubt that anyone is interested in them after seeing both
versions, eg after they have seen
"the Humans have prooven their point" Fractal retracements.
Oh, I forgot, seeing your mail's reference to you trading
Fibionancy as your major trading tool making
50 or 100 trades/month (that would be only 900 (75*12)
trades/yearly !!!!!!!!!) now let me refer to some
of my previously sent stunning trade example mails.
I only trade 50 or 100 trades/year (!!!!!) , most of the time
less, to achieve my bâ ¬loved goal$, and do
so trading REAL TA-tools.
** Decimal system:
-------------------------
Group 1 are the figures 1 up to 9 and where the 0 is niks, nada.
Group 2 are the follow up to 9 figures 10 to 19
Group 3 are the follow up to 10 figures 20 to 29
etcetera etcetera.
Regards,
Ton Maas
<A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage <A
href="http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas";>http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: Joe
Duffy
Aan: <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Verzonden: woensdag 18 oktober 2000 13:40
Onderwerp: Re: Advanced Get versus MetaStock<FONT
face=arial>
A.J. Maas wrote;
now based on the Fibionancy-myth, a myth that here
on the List also has been unraffled before.
=================================
I guess I have read the above from you once to often, so I
will comment. You may not be able to make money using Fibonacci.
That has no relation to its use in trading.
I use Fibonacci as my major trading tool. I make 50 to 100
trades per month. I am willing to post a monthly statement, from
NEXT month if you like. If my Fibonacci based trades make money,
you can submit a $1K check to my favorite charity. If they don't,
I will submit one to yours.
|