|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Nice post Neil you just did a good job of describing a discretionary trader
such as myself.
I think Martin is correct with this particular post as Demark does not
cater to the discretionary trader but rather has a scientific approach to
the market according to his ads. Being scientific it has to be be proven
statically to have validity. I believe it can only be presented with
constantly adding rules and ever changing expected percentile results from
each rule. You would need to do this to confiscate for the ever changing
volatility, momentum and liquidity of the market your trading. Unless the
rules could be programmed with different switches the complexity would not
be worth it. Markets like simplicity not complexity unless the computer
does make it simple for you then maybe after back testing those results.
Also time, the market that is traded and the risk reward would have a major
impact on the above results. I go through something like this in my mind
based on 20 years experience but I don't believe it can be programmed maybe
I'm wrong. People say it can be programmed if I can think it. Expressing it
has been very difficult for me and I think impossible. Because of this I
remain happy to be discretionary with decision making in the markets.
Anyways I use fundamentals to so that renders me no other choice. I have
benefited from plain TA though and its a valuable tool of trading for me as
well. But your point is shared by me there is no one way to trade only
thing that matters is the score card of money. My mentor never looked a
chart as far as I know just watched the tape and made millions and walked
away with the millions.
Robert
Neal Hughes wrote:
>At 09:43 PM 12/7/98 -0800, martin graffman wrote:
>>DeMark's observations are not valuable unless they can be
>>objectively analysed, and this will require that the "observations" must
>>be coded as an indicator that can be used as a system. The ability to
>>systematize and analyze is one of the great vitues of TS. We are wasting
>>too much time with personality bashing. Does the DeMark system have any
>>statistal validity or does it not? That is the question.
>> Furthermore, if the system utilizing DeMark's "observation"
>>(indicator) requires any discretionary intervention, then we cannot know
>>if the "obervation" has any validity. The discretionary intervention has
>>contaminated the analysis.
>> So, I throw the ball into Mr. DeMark's court. Can you prove that
>>the "observation" has statistical merit? If so, the we applaud your
>>efforts and we can discuss how we can use it. If not, then let's discuss
>>other potential aids to investing.
>> Marting
>>
>
>Hello Martin,
>
>Consider this: Anyone's observation **could** be valuable EVEN IF they cannot
>be objectively analyzed.
>
>My view differs from yours (drastically). There are many
>very successful discretionary traders. I am one, and I know many.
>I spoke to another one just a few days ago, a discretionary trader,
>he has more than 50 monitors in front of him, he "kills" the
>S&P market, has been doing so consistently for years.
>
>It is my observation (I may be wrong on this) that there are more
>successful discretionary traders than system traders. Even if this is
>not accurate, there are MANY successful discretionary traders.
>
>These traders would gladly learn about Tom DeMark's (or Tom, Dick, and
>Harry's)
>tools, and evaluate whether they apply to their own discretionary systems,
>without "objective evaluation".
>
>So I request that you consider other perspectives, and do not deprive
>discretionary traders of exposure to (potential) tools.
>
>Not everyone has your perspective, and other perspectives are as
>correct as yours. Even if yours might be more correct in your mind..
>
>That's just my opinion, I don't care if anyone agrees, but thought you
>could appreciate an opinion completely different to yours.
>
>The really difficult part is keeping an open mind. Discretionary traders
>struggle with this every day, we live in a grey world, not black-and-white,
>we have to try to observe what the market's next move is, without holding
>a firm opinion (blinkers not allowed). We have little faith in back-tests,
>we think we live in the real-world, which often deviates from back-tests.
>
>Regardless of what Mr X, Y or Z says, regardless of what indicator
>A, B or C says, regardless of what the backtested perfection of system
>P, Q, and R is, discretionary traders live on their wits, we respect price
>action despite our technical tools.. It's a thrill really (it would be a
>religion if it were connected to the afterlife!!)..
>
>But we use tools, we use indicators, and most importantly, we use our
>brains. Please do not stand between us and any (potential) tools,
>because just you are governed by "objective analysis".
>
>Please take this in a positive way, I understand your point of view,
>but I'm asking that you understand ours. Sorry if this email seems too
>one-sided, it is because I'm providing a counter-point-of-view
>(to what discretionary traders might incorrectly call "myths" and
>what system traders usually call "common knowledge" or "common sense").
>
>It's fun communicating with you, thanks for the opportunity! You're invited
>to walk all over my ideas when I post a narrow-minded discretionary
>perspective
>one day! Especially if my perspectives one day suppress the discussion of
some
>nifty systems-trading concepts..
>
>-Neal.
>
>
>-----------------
>Neal on the 'net.
>Trade well. Train hard.
>http://www.halcyon.com/neal/
>
>
>
|