|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I can't but agree as well. As a lurker for many years, and essentially a buyer
and holder, who still fears trading, I find personal attacks tasteless and
reveal a lack of maturity. I am sorry this email does not enhance the trading
community's knowledge of TA, systems, cash management etc, but I managed to
overcome, for better or worse, my lurking tendencies.
Lloyd Nicholas
Lyle Cox wrote:
> I agree with you 100%. I am basically a lurker. I am here to learn. I can
> not learn anything from the personal attacks that show up here.
> If someone has a different slant on some TA then they should just simply
> post their method and let the members of the list experiment and find out
> what works best for them.
>
> Lyle Cox
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A.J. Maas <anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Metastock-List <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2000 8:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
>
> Since these personal attacks continue, I see no further reason to continue
> in assisting anyone using the MSK or other programs related or to continue
> discussing any technical topics here. There are limits, and they have
> already
> been reached last Sept00. The past Oct00 month shoiwed only a slight
> improvement, but to minimal to be taken serious. Ce la vie!!!!{that's life}.
>
> Blind bats and old ladies have become List-members nowadays. Also
> the quality level of the mails sent and the included fantasies for contents
> lead
> me to assess that since earlier this year we're basicaly drifting towards a
> Walt
> Disney's equivelant "enjoy + entertainment"-List. {read: a common chat box}.
>
> One that also stands 180 degrees linea recta opposite from a well gaining
> $+€'s Equis's "MSK + Technical Analysis"-List, eg the one that I joined
> several years ago.
>
> And unfortunately, since there are so many other chat boxes and tea rooms
> that they can join, therefore cannot understand why they have had to pick
> the
> MSK List to waiste anyones valuable time{read: making $+€'s from time
> consuming TA + research}.
>
> This has also been spelled out very often on the List, either in general or
> to them
> personaly.
>
> Thus from now on only the facts will be posted by me without the usual
> further
> comments, explanations and other information that they were accompanied by.
> Interpretation then of these facts and the finding (out) then of these facts
> in mails
> or attachments is then left up to ones selve to find (out) or to not find
> (out).
>
> Until they have left this then is in order.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
>
> Also after 3.5 years of being on this List can also note that a desperate
> modification
> of this List is urgently required. A List split up in a Level I and a Level
> II should
> therefore be considdered by Equis.
>
> -Level I can then be used by the chatters and other rifraf of which we've
> seen
> too many useless, insulting and irrelevant mailings this year, last few
> months
> and again also now the very recent last few weeks + again this weekend.
>
> -Level II can then be used by the well meaning serious advancees and also by
> the
> many lurkers that aren't ready to post yet, or don't want to post or only
> want to gain or
> by members that truely want to discuss + gain from experience made in
> making
> money in the markets + tactics used + TA used and other true TA or MSK
> subjects
> explained, eg thus the higher leveled discussioning, instead of seeing
> these
> endless + useless debating about nothing, that are also often accompanied
> by
> personal level insulting mails and that in the end eventualy still lead to
> nowhere/nothing.
> And of which then these are basicaly downright List discraces, for the poor
> TA
> knowledge level and for the personal attacks, eg like the example mail
> below.
> But for that matter, many other examples can be easely coufed up!!!. Level
> II should
> also ONLY be made available to REGISTERED MSK PROGRAM USERS !!!!!
> This to exclude the rifraf from entering and also to maintain a certain
> minimal program
> knowledge and TA knowledge level.
>
> Have therefore also cc-ed this mail to the List-owner.
>
> In the mean time from a new-to-be-lurker, it is Aurivoir
> !!!!{goodbye}................
>
> cc - owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for consideration of the above List
> Level split.
>
> Regards,
> Ton Maas
> ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
>
> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Verzonden: zondag 29 oktober 2000 6:43
> Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
>
> > Lionel,
> >
> > The type of distribution shape ain't the reason why Maas laws are
> completely
> > flawed. He's assuming first +/- 2 std is catching 100 % of the data, ie a
> > first rule which is just plain wrong (and should enlighten this list once
> > more Mr Maas is just a pretentious ignorant, kind of Staline science).
> He's
> > then assuming that since +/- 2 std is catching 100 %, then +/- 1.8 std is
> > catching 90 %, ie a second rule which is again junk science. Not bad for a
> > guy pretending TA is a science and not an art.
> >
> > Now about TA.
> >
> > That the prices are not exactly normally distributed is a fact all TA
> > authors know since decades. John Bollinger also knew when he did introduce
> > his bands... but, the normal hypothesis is shared by the vast majority of
> TA
> > litterature (books, web sites, software docs) when population statistics
> > (percentage of price data within bands) are being associated with count of
> > standard deviations (std).
> > So, there are no many ways to answer the question of %-age vs std count
> for
> > Bollinger bands. Either you stick to the "convention" and 90 % of the data
> > is +/- 1.645 std, the same +/- 2 std is 95 % of the data. Or you begin
> > discussing again the real price distribution shape, and have to propose
> that
> > there ain't in fact any agreed single law to deduce %-age from std count
> (or
> > reversely). I took the option of providing a simple answer, based on a
> > generally agreed and tacite hypothesis in the TA language.
> >
> > Another realty is John Bollinger's bands are volatility bands, and his
> > entry/exit rules are in the same way based on volatility. What he says is
> > that he found out standard deviation is the most suitable volatility
> > measure. He could have used another one... and we would not speak today
> > about %-ages figures he never (NEVER) considered himself [a fortiori use].
> > The only he says about std count is it should adjusted based on the number
> > of periods considered in the Bollinger bands (+/- 1.5 if 10, +/- 2 id 20,
> > +/- 2.5 if 50 -- exact numbers to be confirmed).
> >
> > As it happens so often, one person introduced a concept... and the
> universe
> > added different interpretations and/or uses. Some people are always
> looking
> > for improvements... other just want to have something different to say.
> >
> > Greetings. Alain.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lionel Issen" <lissen@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 4:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> >
> >
> > > Maas:
> > > Since the distribution of stock prices is log-normal, your entire
> > discussion
> > > of standard deviations is flawed. Refer to Peter's book "Chaos and Order
> > in
> > > the Financial Markets..." for documentation of this.
> > > Lionel Issen
> > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> > > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 9:58 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > >
> > >
> > > > Are we here discussing the Kaufman's definition for his method in
> > > calculating
> > > > an everyday very common Standard Deviation value?
> > > > Or anyone else's sd-calc methods?
> > > > ----------------------------------
> > > > Nope.
> > > > We are discussing here the use of the Bollinger Bands (which bands
> > already
> > > > include the MSK Standard Deviation function in their formulas), that
> > will
> > > have
> > > > to catch 90% of the Price, eg A.Torchio's original question:
> > > > "Could anyone tell me the number of standard deviations
> > allowing
> > > to
> > > > contain within the bands 90% of price data?"
> > > >
> > > > Find the answer using MSK and Bartjens:
> > > >
> > > > In MSK click "Help"|"Index"|"Bollinger bands:sample custom indicator:"
> > > > for the bands-formula that catches 100% of the Price.
> > > > Like said, the BBands already include StDev, thus no need to add more
> or
> > > > alter its function. What needs adjusting -lowering- is the times that
> > the
> > > function
> > > > needs to be multiplied to have the bands come down to catch 90%
> instead
> > > > of the 100% it does at the moment. So, yet again unraffled:
> > > >
> > > > The CF Bollinger Bands
> > > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Upper band
> > > > -uses 2 times the StDev function for Lower band
> > > > ------------
> > > > -totals 4 times the StDev function
> > > > (for the bandwidth "to contain 100% of price data")
> > > >
> > > > Then in a CF to catch 90% of the Price is using this as follows:
> > > >
> > > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Upper band
> > > > -uses 1.8 times the StDev function for Lower band
> > > > ------------
> > > > -totals 3.6 times the StDev function
> > > > (for the bandwidth now "to contain 90% of price data")
> > > >
> > > > and where the "3.6" then also equals to 90% of the original "4 devs"
> > > ((4/100)*90).
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Whatever Kaufman then wants to use in and for his method {haven't
> > checked
> > > it}
> > > > is -like your silly+stupid remarks- unimportant and irrelevant here.
> > > >
> > > > You can however check Kaufmans calculations by using Bartjens, but
> note
> > > that
> > > > on the contrairy, Bartjens doesn't need a Kaufman to be right or to be
> > > spot on, eg
> > > > Batjens Law is always right.
> > > >
> > > > Like said, it's that is simple, but can be oh so difficult to
> understand
> > > for 8th grades
> > > > or a belg.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ton Maas
> > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > > Van: "Jossart Alain"
> > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Verzonden: zaterdag 28 oktober 2000 8:57
> > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > " Trading Systems and Methods " - P. Kaufman, iow the reference in
> TA
> > > and
> > > > > trading systems
> > > > >
> > > > > I provided the answer to a question you have not even understood
> yet.
> > Is
> > > > > Bartjens free gift too ? [Kaufman ain't]
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> > > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 5:38 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously has to be a belg............Bartjens goes beyond 8th
> > grades.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The formulas delivered in below mail ARE FOR USE IN METASTOCK !!
> > > > > > Not in a chatbox.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They are available to you, if you also do have a copy of
> MetaStocK,
> > > > > > which I strongly doubt you have.
> > > > > > =============
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For other List members that are -now- truely concerned :
> > > > > > They make use of the program's StDev(DataArray,Periods) function,
> > that
> > > > > > you can find in the MSK7x-manual p.264.
> > > > > > See my other mail send tonight for more detailed info.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And for the Jossarts, Jagows, Stevensons, Manascos and other here
> > not
> > > > > named
> > > > > > brown marks among us, think twice before writing + posting
> > > > > crap..................go by
> > > > > > the facts, else you just don't stand the chance!!!
> > > > > > Quality and prime trading + money earning stuff is what we're
> after
> > > here.
> > > > > Offensive,
> > > > > > even disgrading words, cannot and will not effect me, since you'll
> > get
> > > > > easy tackled
> > > > > > on your silly writings and sending in your own nonsense.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Ton Maas
> > > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > > > > Van: "Jossart Alain" <Alain.Jossart@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Verzonden: vrijdag 27 oktober 2000 13:50
> > > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probability distribution tables :
> > > > > > > - +/- 1 std = .3413 x 2 = .6826 = 68.3 %
> > > > > > > - +/- 1.8 std = .4641 x 2 = .9282 = 92.3 %
> > > > > > > - +/- 2 std = .4772 x 2 = .9544 = 95.4 %
> > > > > > > - +/- 3 std = .4987 x 2 = .9974 = 99.7 %
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - 1.64 std = .4495 x 2 = .8990 = 89.9 % of the data
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > - 1.65 std = .4505 x 2 = .9010 = 90.1 % of the data
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So the answer to Alberto Torchio's question is : Bollinger (95%)
> > is
> > > +/-
> > > > > 2
> > > > > > > std, while 90 % is +/- 1.64... std
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What did you say ? en dus en dan, aah ja, zeker en vast...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "A.J. Maas"
> > > > > > > To: "Metastock-List" <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 4:11 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The mean=middle=0
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > 100%=da width difference between "+1 stdev"{+100%} and "-1
> > > > > stdev"{-100%}
> > > > > > > > thus
> > > > > > > > 100%{2*1}=2*stdev(da,pds) {width is then mean + 1*stdev up
> > > +1*stdev
> > > > > > > down}
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > 50%{2*0.5}=1*stdev(da,pds)
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > 90%{2*0.9}=1.8*stdev(da,pds)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Ton Maas
> > > > > > > > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > > > > > > > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
> > > > > > > > Van: "Lionel Issen"
> > > > > > > > Aan: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > Verzonden: dinsdag 24 oktober 2000 4:23
> > > > > > > > Onderwerp: Re: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I cant find my statistics book, but I think its close to 2
> std
> > > dev.
> > > > > > > > > Lionel Issen
> > > > > > > > > lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: "Alberto Torchio" <atorchio@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > To: "Realtraders" <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 2:27 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Simple question on Bollinger Bands
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dear Listmembers,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have been asked a simple question on Bollinger Bands and
> > was
> > > > > unable
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > answer...
> > > > > > > > > > Could anyone tell me the number of standard deviations
> > > allowing to
> > > > > > > contain
> > > > > > > > > > within the bands 90% of price data?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Alberto Torchio
> > > > > > > > > > Torino, Italy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
|