Volume-Price Chart
Gilligan
visualization
techniques for stock market data.
I decided to try to come up with some new ways of representing "bars"
or interval data with more than just the Open, High, Low, Close, and
Volume.
I am wondering what Technical Analyst think about the approach.
http://home.att.net/~geoffrey.slinker/maverick/VolumeBars.html
Remember, I am a software engineer, not a technical analyst.
Since volume often precedes trend changes it is considered important
to see a break down of the volume on a price basis for the interval.
If you consider figure 5 of (
http://home.att.net/~geoffrey.slinker/maverick/VolumeBars.html )
please notice the first interval.
We can see that for the price range of the interval the volume of the
prices make a pattern that looks somewhat like a woman's figure.
Shoulders, waist, and hips (Somewhat) Most of the volume for this
interval was around the shoulders and hips.
Look at the next interval and the high has very little volume. The
pattern looks somewhat like a "spinning top" where it is narrow at the
top, wide in the middle and tapers down to the bottom. I propose that
this is a good indicator which shows the majority of the trades
happened near the low and not near the high.
Let's skip the third interval and look at the forth.
Notice that the majority of the price volume is in the middle. Just
from "eyeballing it" it looks like there were 11 distinct prices
during the interval. The majority of the shares sold in the middle
prices of the interval.
Continuing with figure 5 look at the last interval.
This pattern is has the majority of the price volume at the bottom.
Clearly prices around the low were the majority during this interval.
Regards,
Geoff Slinker
Blash
geoffrey...@gmail.com wrote on 5/31/07 5:29 PM:
DON'T give up your day job!!!
Gilligan
>
> DON'T give up your day job!!!
Not planning on it. So you don't think that the additional volume data
is useful?
Blash
>
>>
>> DON'T give up your day job!!!
>
> Not planning on it. So you don't think that the additional volume data
> is useful?
>
A lot smarter people with bigger computers have crunched larger amounts of
numbers for years and still can't come up with a way of reading the
future.....
Gilligan
> Gilligan at geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com wrote on 5/31/07 6:39 PM:
So you find volume information not useful? That is fine, but I suspect
other people do use volume information.
Did I claim that this chart predicts the future?
Do you always include personal attacks in your comments?
Regards,
Geoff
Blash
> On May 31, 5:21 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Gilligan at geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com wrote on 5/31/07 6:39 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> DON'T give up your day job!!!
>>
>>> Not planning on it. So you don't think that the additional volume data
>>> is useful?
>>
>> A lot smarter people with bigger computers have crunched larger amounts of
>> numbers for years and still can't come up with a way of reading the
>> future.....
>
> So you find volume information not useful? That is fine, but I suspect
> other people do use volume information.
Other people also use charts, ouija boards, chicken entrails, etc.
Because people use something does NOT mean that it works......
> Did I claim that this chart predicts the future?
People use all sorts of tools hoping that they will help predicting
stock prices(i.e. the future).......
> Do you always include personal attacks in your comments?
If you interpreted my reply as a personal attack, you might look up the
definition of "paranoia"......
> Regards,
> Geoff
>
Gilligan
> Gilligan wrote on 6/1/07 11:20 AM:
>
>
>
> > On May 31, 5:21 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Gilligan at geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com wrote on 5/31/07 6:39 PM:
>
> >>>> DON'T give up your day job!!!
>
> >>> Not planning on it. So you don't think that the additional volume data
> >>> is useful?
>
> >> A lot smarter people with bigger computers have crunched larger amounts of
> >> numbers for years and still can't come up with a way of reading the
> >> future.....
>
> > So you find volume information not useful? That is fine, but I suspect
> > other people do use volume information.
>
> Other people also use charts, ouija boards, chicken entrails, etc.
> Because people use something does NOT mean that it works......
You state the obvious very well.
Because people don't use something does NOT mean it DOESN'T work....
But that is not relevant to the original post. Your original response
of "don't quit your day job" was so terse I could not determine what
fault you had with the additional data. Now I understand you have
fault with technical analysis as a whole.
>
> > Did I claim that this chart predicts the future?
>
> People use all sorts of tools hoping that they will help predicting
> stock prices(i.e. the future).......
It is obvious that your reference to the future was referring to
future stock prices.
I will state the obvious now:
Volume of trading is of interest to many. If volume suddenly changes
it COULD indicate some news. This change in volume MIGHT cause one
interested to search the news to see if there has been an
announcement.
Volume at a specific price point during an interval may also be of
interest.
>
> > Do you always include personal attacks in your comments?
>
> If you interpreted my reply as a personal attack, you might look up the
> definition of "paranoia"......
So you are saying it was not a personal attack.
Maybe you should look up how to form sentences that are not personal.
You said:
A lot smarter people with bigger computers have crunched larger
amounts of
numbers for years and still can't come up with a way of reading the
future.....
smarter... Smarter than who? You did not say "A lot of smart
people...", you said "smarter"
bigger... Bigger than what? You did not say "with access to large
amount of computing power...", you said "bigger".
Many people have trouble with the English language.
Many people have an inferiority complex.
Many people have personalities that are abrasive.
Many people have few friends.
If you took any of the above independent statements as personal then
maybe you should look up the definition of "insecure".
Geoff
Blash
geoffrey...@gmail.com wrote on 6/1/07 2:46 PM:
> On Jun 1, 10:27 am, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Gilligan wrote on 6/1/07 11:20 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 31, 5:21 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Gilligan at geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com wrote on 5/31/07 6:39 PM:
>>
>>>>>> DON'T give up your day job!!!
>>
>>>>> Not planning on it. So you don't think that the additional volume data
>>>>> is useful?
>>
>>>> A lot smarter people with bigger computers have crunched larger amounts of
>>>> numbers for years and still can't come up with a way of reading the
>>>> future.....
>>
>>> So you find volume information not useful? That is fine, but I suspect
>>> other people do use volume information.
>>
>> Other people also use charts, ouija boards, chicken entrails, etc.
>> Because people use something does NOT mean that it works......
>
> You state the obvious very well.
>
> Because people don't use something does NOT mean it DOESN'T work....
>
> But that is not relevant to the original post. Your original response
> of "don't quit your day job" was so terse I could not determine what
> fault you had with the additional data. Now I understand you have
> fault with technical analysis as a whole.
>
I notice on Google that since you came up with this super-duper
stupendous idea a few years ago, nobody seems to give a damn.....
You just keep playing with it.....I'm sure it will make you wealthy....
"Some people take Usenet far too seriously. Anyone totally devoid of
functioning brain cells should avoid N/Gs altogether. Then they won't get
their delicate little feelings hurt."
Gilligan
> in article 1180723605.479425.21...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com, Gilligan at
> geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com wrote on 6/1/07 2:46 PM:
Even though I know better than to tease an idiot I just wonder how
many more times you will respond so that you can have the last word.
apparition
.
Correct. Volume is important. However, there are a number of
organisations dealing with volume analysis who are much further down
the track than you appear to be, where the behavioural aspects of
volume are considered more important than price. There are two
parallel time dimensions to volume, both happening simultaneously, in
respect of the same instrument. Market Depth, (DOM) (before) and Time
and Sales (course of sales) (after). You are dealing with only one.
Here are 5 service providers that I know of who deal with supply and
demand.
Market-Delta's Footprint system at www.market-delta.com
Nielsen-Indicator at http://nielsenindicator.com (stocks only)
Linnsoft's - Investor Raw Tick System at http://linnsoft.com
Geometrics Volforce analysis of buying and selling
http://www.marketgeometrics.com/autoforksrt2_videos.htm
The volforce analysis videos are about half-way down the page.
Measurement of supply and demand in electronic markets at
http://www.camron.com.au/supply.htm
Market Delta and Camron Systems integrate both dimensions.
.
arthur
why is it that the clueless always lose eventually?
Do yourself a flavor and read "The misbehavior of markets" probably in
your local library ... or should be.
On 31 May 2007 14:29:08 -0700, Gilligan <geoffrey...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gilligan
> On Jun 2, 6:28 am, Gilligan <geoffrey.slin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
> Correct. Volume is important. However, there are a number of
> organisations dealing with volume analysis who are much further down
> the track than you appear to be, where the behavioural aspects of
> volume are considered more important than price. There are two
> parallel time dimensions to volume, both happening simultaneously, in
> respect of the same instrument. Market Depth, (DOM) (before) and Time
> and Sales (course of sales) (after). You are dealing with only one.
>
> Here are 5 service providers that I know of who deal with supply and
> demand.
>
> Market-Delta's Footprint system atwww.market-delta.com
> Linnsoft's - Investor Raw Tick System athttp://linnsoft.com
> Geometrics Volforce analysis of buying and sellinghttp://www.marketgeometrics.com/autoforksrt2_videos.htm
> The volforce analysis videos are about half-way down the page.
>
> Market Delta and Camron Systems integrate both dimensions.
> .
Thank you for the information. Also, I appreciate a civil response
that contains substance.
Regards.
Geoff
Bill Reid
apparition <skywalker_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180748086.5...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...> Correct. Volume is important.
Oh, yes...so much so that the only data I actually "steal" is "non-public"
volume info for certain markets I won't name (and I probably shouldn't
have said anything about this at all, whoops)...
> However, there are a number of
> organisations dealing with volume analysis who are much further down
> the track than you appear to be, where the behavioural aspects of
> volume are considered more important than price.
I think the BEHAVIORAL (no "U" in USA) aspects have been
known for a long time, such as "the sleeping point" (or, per "Jack
Hershey, the "dry-up volume"), matching/crossing price/volume
"wedges"...and of course, all of these can be pretty well handled
by just having the standard volume bars at the bottom of a price
chart...
...but for me, I gave up on manual charting/TA years ago, what I
need raw volume data for is so I can compile my supply aggregate
histograms using "dollar volume" price intervals (price*volume@price),
lest I lose a whole layer of precision in calculating who's stuck and
who thinks they're "KING OF THE WORLD!!!" (a more accurate
and numerate form of "TA")...
> There are two
> parallel time dimensions to volume, both happening simultaneously, in
> respect of the same instrument. Market Depth, (DOM) (before) and Time
> and Sales (course of sales) (after). You are dealing with only one.
>
OK, you lost me here, except I can add that the supply aggregate
histograms I work with are also multi-dimensional (and ever-changing!)
due to time and the effect of the current aggregate on all previous
aggregates...we MIGHT be talking about roughly the same thing...
> Here are 5 service providers that I know of who deal with supply and
> demand.
>
> Market-Delta's Footprint system at www.market-delta.com
> Nielsen-Indicator at http://nielsenindicator.com (stocks only)
> Linnsoft's - Investor Raw Tick System at http://linnsoft.com
> Geometrics Volforce analysis of buying and selling
> http://www.marketgeometrics.com/autoforksrt2_videos.htm
> The volforce analysis videos are about half-way down the page.
> Measurement of supply and demand in electronic markets at
> http://www.camron.com.au/supply.htm
>
> Market Delta and Camron Systems integrate both dimensions.
>
Not really familiar with any of these guys since I built my own
proprietary system, but I do remember from a few years back an
analyst who focused on supply/demand aggregates and consistently
made scary-accurate market forecasts, which was just one reason
I believed I was on the right track...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 638
Blash
> I think the BEHAVIORAL (no "U" in USA) aspects have been
> known for a long time, such as "the sleeping point" (or, per "Jack
> Hershey, the "dry-up volume"), matching/crossing price/volume
> "wedges"...and of course, all of these can be pretty well handled
> by just having the standard volume bars at the bottom of a price
> chart...
>
> ...but for me, I gave up on manual charting/TA years ago, what I
>
> need raw volume data for is so I can compile my supply aggregate
> histograms using "dollar volume" price intervals (price*volume@price),
> lest I lose a whole layer of precision in calculating who's stuck and
> who thinks they're "KING OF THE WORLD!!!" (a more accurate
> and numerate form of "TA")...
Mutual Fund ABC decides to liquidate 1,000,000 sh. of XYZ for one of
many reasons NOT relating to the company(XYZ) itself.....new manager,
cash-strapped, re-weighting of portfolio, etc. Average daily volume of XYZ
is 100,000 sh.
Their broker finds a buyer, Mutual Fund DEF and crosses the block.....
How do these programs account for that volume spike??? Do they GUESS
that it means good news, do they GUESS that it means bad news.....what does
it tell them??? How does this aberration showing up in some program make
anyone money???
Bill Reid
Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:C2876058.6A21C%bla...@comcast.net...
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/2/07 5:29 PM:
>
> > I think the BEHAVIORAL (no "U" in USA) aspects have been
> > known for a long time, such as "the sleeping point" (or, per "Jack
> > Hershey, the "dry-up volume"), matching/crossing price/volume
> > "wedges"...and of course, all of these can be pretty well handled
> > by just having the standard volume bars at the bottom of a price
> > chart...
> >
> > ...but for me, I gave up on manual charting/TA years ago, what I
> >
> > need raw volume data for is so I can compile my supply aggregate
> > histograms using "dollar volume" price intervals (price*volume@price),
> > lest I lose a whole layer of precision in calculating who's stuck and
> > who thinks they're "KING OF THE WORLD!!!" (a more accurate
> > and numerate form of "TA")...
>
> Mutual Fund ABC decides to liquidate 1,000,000 sh. of XYZ for one of
> many reasons NOT relating to the company(XYZ) itself.....new manager,
> cash-strapped, re-weighting of portfolio, etc. Average daily volume of XYZ
> is 100,000 sh.
> Their broker finds a buyer, Mutual Fund DEF and crosses the block.....
And you forgot the part about the buyer just buying it "for the hell of
it" too...that's the great thing about the market, ALMOST everybody
can't keep even TWO things straight in their minds, right down to the
most fundamental truth: FOR EVERY SELLER THERE'S A BUYER,
AND VICE VERSA.
The funny thing is, the market consists of more than two things, less than
a jillion, but more than two, meaning that virtually all market participants
are perpetually "confuzzled"...
The even more funny thing is, you provide a list of possible conditions
that would cause this "unexpected" volume increase, but most of them
are measurable MACRO conditions that result in relatively "forecastable"
MACRO consequences, and which I've described several times right
here in this group...
> How do these programs account for that volume spike???
What programs? I told you above EXACTLY how I account for
it...please don't make me re-print what you can just read again...
> Do they GUESS
> that it means good news, do they GUESS that it means bad news.....what
does
> it tell them???
Who's "they"? Again, for me, it just means somebody now holds
1,000,000 shares at that price, for that moment at least...is that such
a complicated concept?
> How does this aberration showing up in some program make
> anyone money???
>
What do "aberrations" have to do with making money in the first
place? Or are "aberrations" the majority of trades that are made?
Are most stocks bought by throwing darts at a stock listing blindfolded,
then using a random number generator to select a "bid" price between
$0.0000001 and $1,000,000? (no cracks about it seeming that way
judging by the posts here...)
The stock had "average daily volume" of 100,000 shares, did that
(or DOES that) volume average come about by "sudden spikes" that
occur MOST OF THE TIME...no, wait, that can't be, because then
the average volume would be MUCH HIGHER...try again...OK, it
really IS an "aberration"! So (although I'm not saying I actually do
this for what I was talking about), did you manage to get through an
introductory college course in statistics, and how to handle "outliers"?
Do you even know what an "outlier" is? (Hint: it's a lot like an
"aberration",
and let's not even start talking about more sophisticated methods of
data "smoothing"...)
Of course, on a chart, the human eye just scans right past the "aberration",
and just sees the overall "pattern" (or in the case of all "aberrations", or
statistically great "variance", just a bunch of mush), no fancy college
edu-macation needed...
But for me, the so-called "aberration" actually DOES mean something
as I explained above, but it doesn't necessarily mean something good or
bad because there are always several other factors involved...ALWAYS.
You're on the right track, in the sense that it appears to be IMPOSSIBLE
to accurately PREDICT the market, but the completely wrong train if you
think that the problem arises from "random behavior"...the problem actually
arises from the chaotic interaction of a relatively small set of well-known
behaviors and money flow conditions...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 639
lubow
(H-L)/(contract volume) is a very reliable indicator for expected
volatility for the next day. Volatility is what a day trader needs to make
(or lose) money and volume is an important part of that. A market without
volatility is poison to a daytrader.
For any commodity if the trade facilitation index T for today is less than T
for yesterday, it's a good indicator that tomorrow will be more volatile
than today. The theory behind this indicator based on Jim Dalton's market
profile theory which was popular during the 1980s. Dalton claimed that if
there is no volatility, the market is not facilitating trade and hence,
cannot exist.
The indicator was not developed by Dalton (I found it in Technical Analysis
of Stocks and Commodities magazine) but it is a quick and dirty way of
quantifying the day's market profile using a simple calculation. In a way
it is equivalent to some of the stuff we should have learned in high school
physics. A market doing nothing for an extended period of time is
accumulating potential energy until the market breaks out (plus or minus)
explosively into kinetic energy.
This is also the basis of the isosceles triangle pattern, if you are into
technical analysis, predicting a short term move.
Now the disclaimer. I never used this for stock trading, either positional
trades or day trades, but I do have access to tick data and I will test out
some strategies.
--
Lubow
"Gilligan" <geoffrey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180646948....@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Lawyerkill
> How do these programs account for that volume spike???
Ahhh, if you want to account for volume spikes just ask Aero.
"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?" The Aero knows
Blash
> did you manage to get through an
> introductory college course in statistics, and how to handle "outliers"?
> Do you even know what an "outlier" is?
No I didn't and no, I sure don't.....but I did trade for a living for 31
years, most of the time butting heads with people who probably took that
course and many, many more on their path to garnering letters to put after
their name.....
I retired in '89 and most of them are still working.....one is now
managing 8 taxis for his mother-in-law, one is now selling insurance, one is
now is an unemployed programmer, etc...
Crunching numbers and trying to find some "Holy Grail" in obscure
numerical relationships will NEVER replace common sense and a market
feel(neither of which can be found on the curriculum of ANY school)!!!
lubow
profile for a stock for, say ten or twenty days. This is how a market
profile works:
102 A
AB
100 ABC
ABC
Price 98 AC
D
97
A, B, C represent the time periods traded. E.g.:
A = 0930-1000
B = 1000-1030
C = 1030-1100
In the example above, the price spiked in the 98-102 range, then settled
into the 101-99 range in the next half hour (10:00 to 10:30 represented by
"B"). After 11:00 AM we see the market drifting lower.
The result is *usually* a bell shaped curve for the day's trading. A
trending stock would show itself with a wider bell. A stock in congestion
would show itself with a narrower bell.
It would prove interesting, I think, to plot market profiles over a couple
of weeks and draw conclusions.
--
Lubow
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/2/07 7:41 PM:
>
> > did you manage to get through an
> > introductory college course in statistics, and how to handle "outliers"?
> > Do you even know what an "outlier" is?
>
> No I didn't and no, I sure don't.....but I did trade for a living for
31
> years,
That seems to be a typical autobiography here...like "Grumblin' Booby"
(but he also generously donated his time as a file clerk for decades to put
his MBA to perfect use), or the current whack-job de jour, "Lowbrow"...
Didn't know there were that many people on the "buy side" in the
"industry", but they all post here! Makes you wonder what happened
to the legions of salesmen we all KNOW are out there...
> most of the time butting heads with people who probably took that
> course and many, many more on their path to garnering letters to put after
> their name.....
"butting heads"? How did that happen? As a trader, I don't "butt
heads" with anybody...I just take their money anonymously and put
it in my account...
> I retired in '89 and most of them are still working.....one is now
> managing 8 taxis for his mother-in-law, one is now selling insurance, one
is
> now is an unemployed programmer, etc...
Yeah, again, I don't get this...I never actually meet the people who
so generously donate their money to me, except in the rare case that
I read a post here where somebody asserts they have a trading position
that is the other side of one of mine, or the even rarer case of somebody
I know personally in that coincidental situation (I'm excluding 401(k)
plan participants and the like since I am in that same boat, so that's a
wash)...
> Crunching numbers and trying to find some "Holy Grail" in obscure
> numerical relationships will NEVER replace common sense and a market
> feel(neither of which can be found on the curriculum of ANY school)!!!
>
And most importantly, of course, it's better to be lucky than good!
And we all know that common sense ain't so common, and is the first
casualty of trading "warfare"...and "market feel", well, you better believe
they don't teach "guessing" in school! (Although oddly I did take a
major university fully-accredited class that was little more than a course
on how to develop "ESP"...)
And that's why I luvs the market! Where else can you play a game
for money where MOST of the other players poke their eyes out so
they can't see, puncture their eardrums so they can't hear, cut their
tongues out so they can't taste, snort cabolic acid so they can't smell,
and burn off almost all of their skin except a tiny patch near one elbow,
which they use to "feel the market"...generally on the advice of all
those non-existant salesmen!
Thanks again kidz (of all ages)!!!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 640
Blash
The post might be a little clearer to you if you looked into the
workings of a "professional market-maker".....There is NO resemblance to
that and "Grumblin' Booby" who just plays with the portfolio he inherited
from his grand-father.....
A "professional market-maker" may put through 100s of trades a day,
which doesn't leave him much time to muse over standard deviation or
outliers......His ability to make money depends on "common sense" and
"market feel"......He may go from short to long the same security a dozen
times in the same day......
> Makes you wonder what happened to the legions of salesmen we all KNOW are out
> there...
They are NOT traders.....they are order-takers compensated solely by
commission(sorta like the Fuller brush man)....
A "professional market-maker" is compensated by his bottom line(how much
profit does he generate for the firm trading their proprietary
account).....If he doesn't make it consistently, he's out the door......
There's a BIG difference......
Bill Reid
lubow <lu...@lubow-industries.com> wrote in message
news:Xyn8i.1507$WE4.266@trndny01...
> In commodities trading, I discovered that the trade facilitation index T
=
> (H-L)/(contract volume) is a very reliable indicator for expected
> volatility for the next day.
Is this as reliable as your assertion that:
> If the Dow Industrial Average was down yesterday it will probably
> (about 55% certainty) be up today.
Which, of course, is totally false?
>
> For any commodity if the trade facilitation index T for today is less than
T
> for yesterday, it's a good indicator that tomorrow will be more volatile
> than today.
Seems to follow the same logic; you're a very uncomplicated fella...
> The theory behind this indicator based on Jim Dalton's market
> profile theory which was popular during the 1980s. Dalton claimed that if
> there is no volatility, the market is not facilitating trade and hence,
> cannot exist.
>
So that's where you got that sub-mongoloid doggerel...now I know
who to blame...
> The indicator was not developed by Dalton (I found it in Technical
Analysis
> of Stocks and Commodities magazine) but it is a quick and dirty way of
> quantifying the day's market profile using a simple calculation. In a way
> it is equivalent to some of the stuff we should have learned in high
school
> physics. A market doing nothing for an extended period of time is
> accumulating potential energy until the market breaks out (plus or minus)
> explosively into kinetic energy.
>
Should I even bother to re-print a "Jack Hershey" post here?
Nahhh, I'm running late...
> This is also the basis of the isosceles triangle pattern, if you are into
> technical analysis, predicting a short term move.
>
> Now the disclaimer. I never used this for stock trading, either
positional
> trades or day trades, but I do have access to tick data and I will test
out
> some strategies.
>
What do you need tick data for? Also you don't need "strategies",
all you need to is to run correlation tests to prove/disprove your initial
claim about declining daily volatility being followed by higher daily
volatility...by looking at those numbers we pretty much can figure out
whether any "strategy" can possibly be useful...
I'm not even sure that I should count this post in my post count,
since discussing math with "Lowbrow" is kind of like shouting into
a black hole...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 644
Bill Reid
> workings of a "professional market-maker".....
Ah, yes, I am familiar with them (or at least the concept)...so when
you say you "made a living trading", you were actually a "professional
market-maker"? Your posts might be a little clearer if you actually
said EXACTLY what you did in the first place...
> There is NO resemblance to
> that and "Grumblin' Booby" who just plays with the portfolio he inherited
> from his grand-father.....
That's true...how does it compare to say "John 'REALLY Tight Stops'
The Visitor" and the daytrading of HIS inheritance, or say "Lowbrow",
who was a "commodity trader for 20 years" (yelling himself hoarse on
the floor for $25,000/year?) and now "daytrades" his "pension plan"?
> A "professional market-maker" may put through 100s of trades a day,
> which doesn't leave him much time to muse over standard deviation or
> outliers......
Well, word has it that the "traders" on the CBOT very quickly
programmed their hand calculators with the Black-Scholes algorithm
soon after it became available...but maybe they're "different" too...
> His ability to make money depends on "common sense" and
> "market feel"......
And the ability to see everybody else's orders and scalp a little
off of every trade! YOU BASTARD!!!
> He may go from short to long the same security a dozen
> times in the same day......
In a manner of speaking...
> > Makes you wonder what happened to the legions of salesmen we all KNOW
are out
> > there...
> They are NOT traders.....they are order-takers compensated solely by
> commission(sorta like the Fuller brush man)....
They make a little money off of every trade they can get the suckers
to make...then the "professional market makers" take their cut...then if
there's anything left, they let the REAL traders (again read: "SUCKERZ!")
have it...
Here's my "obscure" method of analyzing the market: I use this fancy
mather-matikal technique called "addition" to sum up all the money that
the SUCKERZ! put into it, then use an even more complicated technique
called "subtraction" to remove the money that the "industry" (brokers,
"professional market makers", etc.) take as their "cut" or "vig", and
then I know how much the SUCKERZ! are gonna make...
My "common sense" IS my "market feel"...if you're making money as
a "professional market maker", then that money came from SOMEWHERE,
IT CAME OUT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S POCKET.
Now, the people who make this whole system work are the people
who constantly say "EVERYBODY makes money, BECAUSE OF
'GROWTH'...the ONLY way you can lose is to not play the game!
SO BUY NOW, SUCKERZ, OR GET LEFT BEHIND!!!"
Or, in other words, as I like to say, there is only the "sell-side",
ONLY the "sell-side", ONLY THE "SELL-SIDE"!!!
> A "professional market-maker" is compensated by his bottom line(how
much
> profit does he generate for the firm trading their proprietary
> account).....
Would it be a fair re-statement to say their job skill is to manage
"inventory" wisely?
> If he doesn't make it consistently, he's out the door......
> There's a BIG difference......
>
So, how does the "head butting" come into play? I mean, I think
I already know (cuz, you know, I'm NOT nor ever been a "professional"
trader, but I've had these things called "jobs", and I'm nothing if not
a "people person" who intimately understands the psychology of
the workplace), but I'd be interested to hear more...what exactly
happened? Some bastard propose to "automate" the job?
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 643
Blash
OK....I was a "professional market-maker".....
>> There is NO resemblance to
>> that and "Grumblin' Booby" who just plays with the portfolio he inherited
>> from his grand-father.....
>
> That's true...how does it compare to say "John 'REALLY Tight Stops'
> The Visitor" and the daytrading of HIS inheritance, or say "Lowbrow",
> who was a "commodity trader for 20 years" (yelling himself hoarse on
> the floor for $25,000/year?) and now "daytrades" his "pension plan"?
I'm not familiar enough with them to comment....
>> A "professional market-maker" may put through 100s of trades a day,
>> which doesn't leave him much time to muse over standard deviation or
>> outliers......
>
> Well, word has it that the "traders" on the CBOT very quickly
> programmed their hand calculators with the Black-Scholes algorithm
> soon after it became available...but maybe they're "different" too...
Well, your sorta close.....
1. You may be thinking of traders at the CBOE, not the CBOT....the
Black-Scholes algorithm had NO relevance to the products traded at the CBOT,
ONLY to options at the CBOE......They would use the calculators at the
opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless there
was a large move in the underlying.......
>> His ability to make money depends on "common sense" and
>> "market feel"......
>
> And the ability to see everybody else's orders and scalp a little
> off of every trade! YOU BASTARD!!!
You're not even close with that statement.....
A "professional market-maker" would sit at a phone to receive calls from
retail order desks who would ask "what's the market on ABCD.....the MM would
reply 27 1/8-3/8, not knowing what the caller wanted to do.....IF the MM had
the best price, the order desk would show his order and the MM replied right
away....."you bought it" or "you sold it".....It didn't leave him much time
to run calculations as the average phone call probably lasted less than 10
seconds...
>> He may go from short to long the same security a dozen
>> times in the same day......
>
> In a manner of speaking...
Literally......
>>> Makes you wonder what happened to the legions of salesmen we all KNOW
> are out
>>> there...
>
>> They are NOT traders.....they are order-takers compensated solely by
>> commission(sorta like the Fuller brush man)....
>
> They make a little money off of every trade they can get the suckers
> to make...then the "professional market makers" take their cut...then if
> there's anything left, they let the REAL traders (again read: "SUCKERZ!")
> have it...
You evidently have a lot of book-learning, but a decidedly biased lack
of knowledge as to the actual workings of at least that aspect of the
market......
> Here's my "obscure" method of analyzing the market: I use this fancy
> mather-matikal technique called "addition" to sum up all the money that
> the SUCKERZ! put into it, then use an even more complicated technique
> called "subtraction" to remove the money that the "industry" (brokers,
> "professional market makers", etc.) take as their "cut" or "vig", and
> then I know how much the SUCKERZ! are gonna make...
>
> My "common sense" IS my "market feel"...if you're making money as
> a "professional market maker", then that money came from SOMEWHERE,
> IT CAME OUT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S POCKET.
>
> Now, the people who make this whole system work are the people
> who constantly say "EVERYBODY makes money, BECAUSE OF
> 'GROWTH'...the ONLY way you can lose is to not play the game!
> SO BUY NOW, SUCKERZ, OR GET LEFT BEHIND!!!"
>
> Or, in other words, as I like to say, there is only the "sell-side",
> ONLY the "sell-side", ONLY THE "SELL-SIDE"!!!
>
>> A "professional market-maker" is compensated by his bottom line(how
> much
>> profit does he generate for the firm trading their proprietary
>> account).....
>
> Would it be a fair re-statement to say their job skill is to manage
> "inventory" wisely?
That's one of many aspects involved......
>> If he doesn't make it consistently, he's out the door......
>> There's a BIG difference......
>>
> So, how does the "head butting" come into play?
I may be only one of 15-20 MMs for a particular security.....why would
someone come to me for a fill???....because I had a rep of being honest....I
NEVER ran in front of an order, and would take larger bets than the average
trader......Reputation meant everything.....once a person was caught lying,
he could never get a job above file-clerk in the biz......
> I mean, I think
> I already know (cuz, you know, I'm NOT nor ever been a "professional"
> trader, but I've had these things called "jobs", and I'm nothing if not
> a "people person" who intimately understands the psychology of
> the workplace), but I'd be interested to hear more...
> what exactly happened? Some bastard propose to "automate" the job?
Trading was becoming automated and years-old relationships meant less
and less.....Time to retire......
Bill Reid
not surpisingly considering the constant appellation of "THIEVES!"
heaped upon "market makers" by several posters here...
> >> There is NO resemblance to
> >> that and "Grumblin' Booby" who just plays with the portfolio he
inherited
> >> from his grand-father.....
> >
Speaking of which...
> > That's true...how does it compare to say "John 'REALLY Tight Stops'
> > The Visitor" and the daytrading of HIS inheritance, or say "Lowbrow",
> > who was a "commodity trader for 20 years" (yelling himself hoarse on
> > the floor for $25,000/year?) and now "daytrades" his "pension plan"?
>
> I'm not familiar enough with them to comment....
>
I'm familiar enough to say it bears no little to no resemblance, though
a floor trader is getting a mote closer...
> >> A "professional market-maker" may put through 100s of trades a day,
> >> which doesn't leave him much time to muse over standard deviation or
> >> outliers......
> >
> > Well, word has it that the "traders" on the CBOT very quickly
> > programmed their hand calculators with the Black-Scholes algorithm
> > soon after it became available...but maybe they're "different" too...
>
> Well, your sorta close.....
> 1. You may be thinking of traders at the CBOE, not the CBOT....
> the
> Black-Scholes algorithm had NO relevance to the products traded at the
CBOT,
> ONLY to options at the CBOE......
DAMN!!!
Yes, the Chicago OPTIONS EXCHANGE, not BOARD OF TRADE!!!
I hate it when that happens...
> They would use the calculators at the
> opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless there
> was a large move in the underlying.......
>
In theory, this is misuse of the algorithm, since it REALLY is an
"egg-head" self-justifying closed form equation that is to be used
in imaginary continuous time to the 18 billionth decimal point to
actually have mathematical trading validity...
> >> His ability to make money depends on "common sense" and
> >> "market feel"......
> >
> > And the ability to see everybody else's orders and scalp a little
> > off of every trade! YOU BASTARD!!!
>
> You're not even close with that statement.....
OK, your parents were married and you still scalped teenths?
> A "professional market-maker" would sit at a phone
A what?
> to receive calls from
> retail order desks who would ask "what's the market on ABCD.....the MM
would
> reply 27 1/8-3/8,
A quarter spread? Sorry, I take back what I said about scalping
teenths...
> not knowing what the caller wanted to do.....IF the MM had
> the best price, the order desk would show his order and the MM replied
right
> away....."you bought it" or "you sold it".....
So a retail "market" order always would "pay" that spread? I ask
because I almost always use market orders during the trading day
on the fairly large liquid stocks I trade, and yet contrary to common
folklore I sometimes sell at not only the high price of the day, but
a price HIGHER than listed as the high price for the day...how
did that happen? (Although I think you already answered the
question in general.)
> It didn't leave him much time
> to run calculations as the average phone call probably lasted less than 10
> seconds...
>
Well, sure, I can appreciate that...I hope you can appreciate that to
the extent you want to call "market making" trading, there are other
types of trading not only possible, but typical...I mean, how many
mutual fund managers turn over their stocks hundreds of times a day?
And why don't they, anyway?
My stab at an answer to that question is: they actually have a
different goal, a different job, than a "market maker", in much
the same way that while ALL people make money for their employer
in the most general sense, they all do very different jobs in very
different ways for very good reasons...
And different types of traders at different TIMES certainly
operate differently...you are aware that the current mayor of
New York City made his fortune by making these specialized
terminals for bond traders, with built-in "analytics" available
at the press of a button in less than a second...
> >> He may go from short to long the same security a dozen
> >> times in the same day......
> >
> > In a manner of speaking...
> Literally......
>
Market makers can LITERALLY go "short" (BORROW stock to
make an immediate sale)? This IS news to me, I thought they just
bought and sold...who would they borrow it from?
> >>> Makes you wonder what happened to the legions of salesmen we all KNOW
> > are out
> >>> there...
> >
> >> They are NOT traders.....they are order-takers compensated solely
by
> >> commission(sorta like the Fuller brush man)....
> >
> > They make a little money off of every trade they can get the suckers
> > to make...then the "professional market makers" take their cut...then if
> > there's anything left, they let the REAL traders (again read:
"SUCKERZ!")
> > have it...
>
> You evidently have a lot of book-learning, but a decidedly biased lack
> of knowledge as to the actual workings of at least that aspect of the
> market......
>
Oh, I know some things, I know some things...and I try to focus on
what's important, which is why I ALWAYS counsel people here
NOT to worry about what the "market makers" are doing, EXCEPT...
> > Here's my "obscure" method of analyzing the market: I use this fancy
> > mather-matikal technique called "addition" to sum up all the money that
> > the SUCKERZ! put into it, then use an even more complicated technique
> > called "subtraction" to remove the money that the "industry" (brokers,
> > "professional market makers", etc.) take as their "cut" or "vig", and
> > then I know how much the SUCKERZ! are gonna make...
> >
And that's that. It's kind of like looking at the bottom line of a company,
it's irrelevant what the file clerks did or did not do...
> > My "common sense" IS my "market feel"...if you're making money as
> > a "professional market maker", then that money came from SOMEWHERE,
> > IT CAME OUT OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S POCKET.
> >
And since you've already averred that if you didn't make money,
you'd be fired, now we know that overall, all the money you made
as an employee was subtracted from the instantaneous possible
payout to the sellers from the buyers...
There is a little wrinkle in this for me, though...you didn't ALWAYS
make money, did you? I mean, what happened when the market
crashed in 1987? I still remember reading about all those poor broke
specialists at the NYSE then...so what did you do that day, and
in the days that followed? I bet it was anything but "routine"...
> >> A "professional market-maker" is compensated by his bottom line(how
> > much
> >> profit does he generate for the firm trading their proprietary
> >> account).....
> >
> > Would it be a fair re-statement to say their job skill is to manage
> > "inventory" wisely?
>
> That's one of many aspects involved......
>
Here's the thing...how often do stock market makers go to their boss
and say, "Hey boss, this stock market stuff is weak, I'm gonna start trading
hog bellies cuz that's where the REAL money is?" Would he (or she?)
get compensated for THAT brilliant suggestion in the box?
> >> If he doesn't make it consistently, he's out the door......
> >> There's a BIG difference......
> >>
> > So, how does the "head butting" come into play?
>
> I may be only one of 15-20 MMs for a particular security.....why would
> someone come to me for a fill???....because I had a rep of being
honest....I
> NEVER ran in front of an order, and would take larger bets than the
average
> trader......
Still not sure exactly with who, why, and how you were "butting
heads"...from your physical description of your job it doesn't sound
like you had enough time to go potty let alone "butt heads"...
> Reputation meant everything.....once a person was caught lying,
> he could never get a job above file-clerk in the biz......
>
In the specific "biz" of being a stock market maker, perhaps...I do tend
to believe that a few persons in the securities industries may have told a
few little white lies here and there and managed to continue to work...hell,
I know just from reading this group that you can be a constant admitted
pathological liar and work for decades as a "commodity trader" and
"analyst"...
> > I mean, I think
> > I already know (cuz, you know, I'm NOT nor ever been a "professional"
> > trader, but I've had these things called "jobs", and I'm nothing if not
> > a "people person" who intimately understands the psychology of
> > the workplace), but I'd be interested to hear more...
>
> > what exactly happened? Some bastard propose to "automate" the job?
>
> Trading was becoming automated and years-old relationships meant less
> and less.....Time to retire......
>
And there you have it...kind of like what happened to my dad...I
still remember "HE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE
BUSINESS, HE JUST KNOWS COMPUTERS!!!" around the
dinner table...
The really funny thing is, they guy he was complaining about
probably didn't even know that much about computers, either...but
that's all part of the fun of these things we call "jobs"!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 647
Blash
> There is a little wrinkle in this for me, though...you didn't ALWAYS
> make money, did you? I mean, what happened when the market
> crashed in 1987? I still remember reading about all those poor broke
> specialists at the NYSE then...so what did you do that day, and
> in the days that followed? I bet it was anything but "routine"...
At that time I had stopped trading NASDAQ and had moved on to another type
of security....The crash was on a Monday....I had spent the weekend on my
boat....woke up Monday morning, decided the weather was too nice to work,
went out with a neighbor, caught a couple Coho and had a great dinner
aboard....
I didn't put the TV on 'til 10PM so I hadn't heard about it....
FYI, the positions I had left on over the weekend were small but
profitable....
Blash
>>
> I don't remember anybody here copping to this before, perhaps
> not surpisingly considering the constant appellation of "THIEVES!"
> heaped upon "market makers" by several posters here...
Do you really think that they cause me to lose any sleep???
>> They would use the calculators at the
>> opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless there
>> was a large move in the underlying.......
>>
> In theory, this is misuse of the algorithm, since it REALLY is an
> "egg-head" self-justifying closed form equation that is to be used
> in imaginary continuous time to the 18 billionth decimal point to
> actually have mathematical trading validity...
....or, knowing that everyone else was using the same source and that gave
him a sense of market direction.....
> A quarter spread? Sorry, I take back what I said about scalping
> teenths...
Sometimes the spreads were a full point, sometimes pennies....it all
depended on order flow.....
> So a retail "market" order always would "pay" that spread? I ask
> because I almost always use market orders during the trading day
> on the fairly large liquid stocks I trade, and yet contrary to common
> folklore I sometimes sell at not only the high price of the day, but
> a price HIGHER than listed as the high price for the day...how
> did that happen? (Although I think you already answered the
> question in general.)
I have been referring to the market of 20 years ago.....Many things have
changed in that period, some haven't......
> Well, sure, I can appreciate that...I hope you can appreciate that to
> the extent you want to call "market making" trading, there are other
> types of trading not only possible, but typical...I mean, how many
> mutual fund managers turn over their stocks hundreds of times a day?
> And why don't they, anyway?
They generate lots of commissions......I'll leave the rest to your
imagination.....
> My stab at an answer to that question is: they actually have a
> different goal, a different job, than a "market maker", in much
> the same way that while ALL people make money for their employer
> in the most general sense, they all do very different jobs in very
> different ways for very good reasons...
>
> And different types of traders at different TIMES certainly
> operate differently...you are aware that the current mayor of
> New York City made his fortune by making these specialized
> terminals for bond traders, with built-in "analytics" available
> at the press of a button in less than a second...
> Market makers can LITERALLY go "short" (BORROW stock to
> make an immediate sale)? This IS news to me, I thought they just
> bought and sold...who would they borrow it from?
With sufficient order flow, a MM, a floor trader, or a specialist never
has to worry about short positions.....
> And since you've already averred that if you didn't make money,
> you'd be fired, now we know that overall, all the money you made
> as an employee was subtracted from the instantaneous possible
> payout to the sellers from the buyers...
You seem to think that someone providing a service should not be compensated
for providing a market place where all can meet and who smooths out wild
fluctuations putting his own capital at risk to fill orders when no public
orders are close to the market.....Contrary to public mis-conceptions, a
stock does not automatically have a sizeable public interest at every
penny-level around the last sale.....
> Here's the thing...how often do stock market makers go to their boss
> and say, "Hey boss, this stock market stuff is weak, I'm gonna start trading
> hog bellies cuz that's where the REAL money is?" Would he (or she?)
> get compensated for THAT brilliant suggestion in the box?
In a small firm, if the boss thinks money can be made, he'd probably say go
ahead....
In a large firm, a bellies trading dept. probably already exists and you
wouldn't be allowed to play in their ballpark.....
>> I may be only one of 15-20 MMs for a particular security.....why would
>> someone come to me for a fill???....because I had a rep of being
> honest....I
>> NEVER ran in front of an order, and would take larger bets than the
> average
>> trader......
>
> Still not sure exactly with who, why, and how you were "butting
> heads"...from your physical description of your job it doesn't sound
> like you had enough time to go potty let alone "butt heads"...
If there were 15-20 other market makers with names like Merrill, Salomon,
First Boston and there was me @ ABCD in Chicago, who would you call to
execute your order??
I spent many years overcoming that bias....
>> Reputation meant everything.....once a person was caught lying,
>> he could never get a job above file-clerk in the biz......
>>
There are some people who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended on
it......That's why they're forever destined to be perpetual failures....
Would you ever hire or want to work with someone having a rep like that???
DirtBag©
Good thread fellas.. Seems you two can actually use your intellect to be
substantively informative without being substantively obnoxious.. Bravo!
-DirtBagŠ <-- always willing to learn
Blash
> Good thread fellas.. Seems you two can actually use your intellect to be
> substantively informative without being substantively obnoxious.. Bravo!
You always try to talk to the level of the other person.....
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
>
> > There is a little wrinkle in this for me, though...you didn't ALWAYS
> > make money, did you? I mean, what happened when the market
> > crashed in 1987? I still remember reading about all those poor broke
> > specialists at the NYSE then...so what did you do that day, and
> > in the days that followed? I bet it was anything but "routine"...
>
> At that time I had stopped trading NASDAQ and had moved on to another type
> of security....
Damn! I was hoping for some response to "Lowbrow"'s accusation
that the NASDAQ market-makers turned tail and ran like little girls
in 1987...
> The crash was on a Monday....I had spent the weekend on my
> boat....woke up Monday morning, decided the weather was too nice to work,
> went out with a neighbor, caught a couple Coho and had a great dinner
> aboard....
Holy crap, you really were a "PROFESSIONAL"!!! You had friggin'
"doctor's hours" (or even better, almost like MY hours)...
> I didn't put the TV on 'til 10PM so I hadn't heard about it....
> FYI, the positions I had left on over the weekend were small but
> profitable....
>
Hmmmm...previous Friday had the largest point decline in the DJIA
in history...that sounds like as good a time as any to take up fishing for
a living...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 651
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
>
> >> OK....I was a "professional market-maker".....
> >>
> > I don't remember anybody here copping to this before, perhaps
> > not surpisingly considering the constant appellation of "THIEVES!"
> > heaped upon "market makers" by several posters here...
>
> Do you really think that they cause me to lose any sleep???
>
you consider the source, at least...
> >> They would use the calculators at the
> >> opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless
there
> >> was a large move in the underlying.......
> >>
> > In theory, this is misuse of the algorithm, since it REALLY is an
> > "egg-head" self-justifying closed form equation that is to be used
> > in imaginary continuous time to the 18 billionth decimal point to
> > actually have mathematical trading validity...
>
> ....or, knowing that everyone else was using the same source and that gave
> him a sense of market direction.....
>
Yeah, as an instantaneous "fair-pricing" model I use(d) it my own self
for options trading (as a SMALL part of my decision-making process),
and is a must-have for writing options, but it is NOT a PREDICTIVE
algorithm by its actual nature and design...
> > A quarter spread? Sorry, I take back what I said about scalping
> > teenths...
> Sometimes the spreads were a full point, sometimes pennies....it all
> depended on order flow.....
>
I heard there was a lot of profit pressure on market-makers and
specialists due to decimalization because the spreads tended to narrow
down from eights and teenths down to pennies...just a rumor (that
was printed in the "Wall Street Journal" and others)?
> > So a retail "market" order always would "pay" that spread? I ask
> > because I almost always use market orders during the trading day
> > on the fairly large liquid stocks I trade, and yet contrary to common
> > folklore I sometimes sell at not only the high price of the day, but
> > a price HIGHER than listed as the high price for the day...how
> > did that happen? (Although I think you already answered the
> > question in general.)
>
> I have been referring to the market of 20 years ago.....Many things have
> changed in that period, some haven't......
>
Actually, this has happened to me 15 years ago, last year (I think),
next week (possibly)...I'll just go ahead and continue to assume I know
specifically what happened...
> > Well, sure, I can appreciate that...I hope you can appreciate that to
> > the extent you want to call "market making" trading, there are other
> > types of trading not only possible, but typical...I mean, how many
> > mutual fund managers turn over their stocks hundreds of times a day?
> > And why don't they, anyway?
> They generate lots of commissions......I'll leave the rest to your
> imagination.....
>
I'd prefer hard cold facts, actually...I hate to make financial judgements
based on my rich fantasy life like so many other people. Are you saying
that mutual fund managers are actually day-trading their stocks "behind
the scenes"?
> > My stab at an answer to that question is: they actually have a
> > different goal, a different job, than a "market maker", in much
> > the same way that while ALL people make money for their employer
> > in the most general sense, they all do very different jobs in very
> > different ways for very good reasons...
> >
> > And different types of traders at different TIMES certainly
> > operate differently...you are aware that the current mayor of
> > New York City made his fortune by making these specialized
> > terminals for bond traders, with built-in "analytics" available
> > at the press of a button in less than a second...
>
> > Market makers can LITERALLY go "short" (BORROW stock to
> > make an immediate sale)? This IS news to me, I thought they just
> > bought and sold...who would they borrow it from?
>
> With sufficient order flow, a MM, a floor trader, or a specialist
never
> has to worry about short positions.....
>
Ah, yes, we peons do have to worry about "short positions", and we
are always puzzled by those little words on our agreements with our
"discount" brokers: "payment for order flow". Who's paying what to
whom for what purpose?
> > And since you've already averred that if you didn't make money,
> > you'd be fired, now we know that overall, all the money you made
> > as an employee was subtracted from the instantaneous possible
> > payout to the sellers from the buyers...
>
> You seem to think that someone providing a service should not be
compensated
Nope, never said that, in fact I believe just the opposite and have
said so many times. My only point is that I perform a very comprehensive
money aggregate flow analysis (using those things you and my Dad hate
called "computers"), and it would be ridiculous for me not to subtract
the money that went into YOUR fishing boat from my total profit
potential, even if I DON'T think you're a "crook"...this would be as
stupid as not thinking that there is no such thing as "mark-up" at the
friggin' grocery store on corn on the friggin' cob...
> for providing a market place where all can meet and who smooths out wild
> fluctuations putting his own capital at risk to fill orders when no public
> orders are close to the market.....
Sure, but let's not go overboard and start playing patriotic music here...
Look, I trust you not to put TOO much money in your pocket, if for
no other reason because we both know everybody would stop shopping
at your "store"...I've always said that I don't care who else is making
money, as long as I can make mine, but they way I make mine to to
know how much everybody else is making...
> Contrary to public mis-conceptions, a
> stock does not automatically have a sizeable public interest at every
> penny-level around the last sale.....
>
Yeah, they wait anxiously for it to drop two cents, then pounce...
> > Here's the thing...how often do stock market makers go to their boss
> > and say, "Hey boss, this stock market stuff is weak, I'm gonna start
trading
> > hog bellies cuz that's where the REAL money is?" Would he (or she?)
> > get compensated for THAT brilliant suggestion in the box?
>
> In a small firm, if the boss thinks money can be made, he'd probably say
go
> ahead....
> In a large firm, a bellies trading dept. probably already exists and you
> wouldn't be allowed to play in their ballpark.....
>
OK...key words "small firm" and "large firm"...somehow I'm still not
seeing guys switching not just instruments but entire markets on a "whim"...
>
> >> I may be only one of 15-20 MMs for a particular security.....why
would
> >> someone come to me for a fill???....because I had a rep of being
> > honest....I
> >> NEVER ran in front of an order, and would take larger bets than the
> > average
> >> trader......
> >
> > Still not sure exactly with who, why, and how you were "butting
> > heads"...from your physical description of your job it doesn't sound
> > like you had enough time to go potty let alone "butt heads"...
>
> If there were 15-20 other market makers with names like Merrill, Salomon,
> First Boston and there was me @ ABCD in Chicago, who would you call to
> execute your order??
> I spent many years overcoming that bias....
>
OK, you "butted heads" with competing market-makers...to me, this
sounds a tad more like "salesmanship" than "head butting" around the
office, which is the juicy dirt I thought you were talking about...
> >> Reputation meant everything.....once a person was caught lying,
> >> he could never get a job above file-clerk in the biz......
> >>
> There are some people who couldn't tell the truth if their lives depended
on
> it......That's why they're forever destined to be perpetual failures....
> Would you ever hire or want to work with someone having a rep like that???
>
Uh, ME personally HIRE them, no, but a LOT of people I've worked with
not only were pathological liars, but actually prided themselves on it,
almost
to the point of putting it on their resume (though they would use euphemisms
like "fancy footwork", "good customer-facing ability", and "team player",
etc.), and quite often it seems like a REWARDED job skill...
I mean, for cryin' out loud, one time when I was a college kid, I had
a two-week vacation from my part-time regular job, a friend had been
working as a car salesman, said he was making $thousands in commissions
a week, got me hired there for two weeks, as you might have surmised
THE WHOLE FRIGGIN' JOB WAS JUST LYING TO PEOPLE,
THAT'S WHAT THE 15 SECONDS OF "JOB TRAINING" THEY
PROVIDED TOLD YOU TO DO...
After that youthful experience, I've spent decades with "business leaders"
who would look at you like you were nuts if you dared suggest telling the
truth to "customers", either "internal" or "external", and possibly even
fire
you on the spot for even the suspiscion of a shred of actual integrity...
Maybe these "professional market-makers" really ARE the noblest,
most wonderful, honest friggin' Boy Scouts on the face of the friggin'
earth, and your wonderfully naive attitude is the result of being in that
environment of total moral purity for your entire adult life, but I hate
to burst your bubble...there are a LOT of BAD PEOPLE out there,
and they've never really worked a day in their life without lying and
cheating, and they do tend to recognize each other and "flock together",
cuz you know, there's THEM, and then there's THE SUCKERZ!,
and only SUCKERZ! tell the truth...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 652
Blash
>
> Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C28DAE21.6B0D6%bla...@comcast.net...
>> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
>>
>>> There is a little wrinkle in this for me, though...you didn't ALWAYS
>>> make money, did you? I mean, what happened when the market
>>> crashed in 1987? I still remember reading about all those poor broke
>>> specialists at the NYSE then...so what did you do that day, and
>>> in the days that followed? I bet it was anything but "routine"...
>>
>> At that time I had stopped trading NASDAQ and had moved on to another type
>> of security....
>
> Damn! I was hoping for some response to "Lowbrow"'s accusation
> that the NASDAQ market-makers turned tail and ran like little girls
> in 1987...
Many did.....it all depends on the firm you were with......
When Kennedy was shot we got the info 15 minutes BEFORE it hit the
news......Our senior partner said he didn't want to make money off
this....we could have shorted everything......He sent me to the back room to
throw the breaker that controlled our phone system.....
We didn't reset it until the next morning.......
>> The crash was on a Monday....I had spent the weekend on my
>> boat....woke up Monday morning, decided the weather was too nice to work,
>> went out with a neighbor, caught a couple Coho and had a great dinner
>> aboard....
>
> Holy crap, you really were a "PROFESSIONAL"!!! You had friggin'
> "doctor's hours" (or even better, almost like MY hours)...
In 31 years I only took 5 vacations of a week or more.....
Blash
>
> Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:C28DBE94.6B10D%bla...@comcast.net...
>> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
>>
>>>> OK....I was a "professional market-maker".....
>>>>
>>> I don't remember anybody here copping to this before, perhaps
>>> not surpisingly considering the constant appellation of "THIEVES!"
>>> heaped upon "market makers" by several posters here...
>>
>> Do you really think that they cause me to lose any sleep???
>>
> Well, you'd only be human if it hurt your feelings just a little bit...until
> you consider the source, at least...
That's the trick...... "consider the source".....
>>>> They would use the calculators at the
>>>> opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless
> there
>>>> was a large move in the underlying.......
>>>>
>>> In theory, this is misuse of the algorithm, since it REALLY is an
>>> "egg-head" self-justifying closed form equation that is to be used
>>> in imaginary continuous time to the 18 billionth decimal point to
>>> actually have mathematical trading validity...
>>
>> ....or, knowing that everyone else was using the same source and that gave
>> him a sense of market direction.....
>>
> Yeah, as an instantaneous "fair-pricing" model I use(d) it my own self
> for options trading (as a SMALL part of my decision-making process),
> and is a must-have for writing options, but it is NOT a PREDICTIVE
> algorithm by its actual nature and design...
It WAS predictive in the fact that you knew how certain independent
floor traders would react in a given situation.....You could make a very
good living with this knowledge....
>>> A quarter spread? Sorry, I take back what I said about scalping
>>> teenths...
>
>> Sometimes the spreads were a full point, sometimes pennies....it all
>> depended on order flow.....
>>
> I heard there was a lot of profit pressure on market-makers and
> specialists due to decimalization because the spreads tended to narrow
> down from eights and teenths down to pennies...just a rumor (that
> was printed in the "Wall Street Journal" and others)?
Everytime I read a post from someone whining about getting screwed for a
penny, I have to laugh thinking about the time I was trading and the
commissions were fixed.....
>>> So a retail "market" order always would "pay" that spread? I ask
>>> because I almost always use market orders during the trading day
>>> on the fairly large liquid stocks I trade, and yet contrary to common
>>> folklore I sometimes sell at not only the high price of the day, but
>>> a price HIGHER than listed as the high price for the day...how
>>> did that happen? (Although I think you already answered the
>>> question in general.)
REPEATING: >> I have been referring to the market of 20 years
ago.....Many things have changed in that period, some haven't......
> Actually, this has happened to me 15 years ago, last year (I think),
> next week (possibly)...I'll just go ahead and continue to assume I know
> specifically what happened...
>
>>> Well, sure, I can appreciate that...I hope you can appreciate that to
>>> the extent you want to call "market making" trading, there are other
>>> types of trading not only possible, but typical...I mean, how many
>>> mutual fund managers turn over their stocks hundreds of times a day?
>>> And why don't they, anyway?
>
>> They generate lots of commissions......I'll leave the rest to your
>> imagination.....
>>
> I'd prefer hard cold facts, actually...I hate to make financial judgements
> based on my rich fantasy life like so many other people. Are you saying
> that mutual fund managers are actually day-trading their stocks "behind
> the scenes"?
As I have NO evidence to back up my ideas and I don't subscribe to the
theory that "I read it on a web conspiracy site so it MUST be true", I'll
pass on that question.....All I will venture is that IF these things go on,
the percentage is infinitesimal and I would NEVER let this question be a
factor in an investment decision.....
>>> My stab at an answer to that question is: they actually have a
>>> different goal, a different job, than a "market maker", in much
>>> the same way that while ALL people make money for their employer
>>> in the most general sense, they all do very different jobs in very
>>> different ways for very good reasons...
>>>
>>> And different types of traders at different TIMES certainly
>>> operate differently...you are aware that the current mayor of
>>> New York City made his fortune by making these specialized
>>> terminals for bond traders, with built-in "analytics" available
>>> at the press of a button in less than a second...
>>
>>> Market makers can LITERALLY go "short" (BORROW stock to
>>> make an immediate sale)? This IS news to me, I thought they just
>>> bought and sold...who would they borrow it from?
>>
>> With sufficient order flow, a MM, a floor trader, or a specialist
> never
>> has to worry about short positions.....
>>
> Ah, yes, we peons do have to worry about "short positions", and we
> are always puzzled by those little words on our agreements with our
> "discount" brokers: "payment for order flow". Who's paying what to
> whom for what purpose?
A small broker(PETER PUTZ & CO.) finds out that it's more profitable to
pass his orders along to a large MM to execute.....
1. It's beneficial to the MM to see the orders first so they will pay a
nominal fee for this privilege....
2. PETER PUTZ & CO. doesn't have to go to the expense of setting up his
own dept. to do this.....
>>> And since you've already averred that if you didn't make money,
>>> you'd be fired, now we know that overall, all the money you made
>>> as an employee was subtracted from the instantaneous possible
>>> payout to the sellers from the buyers...
>>
>> You seem to think that someone providing a service should not be
> compensated
>
> Nope, never said that, in fact I believe just the opposite and have
> said so many times.
Many people here seem to think all brokerage services should be
free...they can't understand that the brokerage industry is NOT set up as
not-for-profit charity......
> My only point is that I perform a very comprehensive
> money aggregate flow analysis (using those things you and my Dad hate
> called "computers"), and it would be ridiculous for me not to subtract
> the money that went into YOUR fishing boat from my total profit
> potential, even if I DON'T think you're a "crook"...this would be as
> stupid as not thinking that there is no such thing as "mark-up" at the
> friggin' grocery store on corn on the friggin' cob...
>> for providing a market place where all can meet and who smooths out wild
>> fluctuations putting his own capital at risk to fill orders when no public
>> orders are close to the market.....
>
> Sure, but let's not go overboard and start playing patriotic music here...
>
> Look, I trust you not to put TOO much money in your pocket, if for
> no other reason because we both know everybody would stop shopping
> at your "store"...I've always said that I don't care who else is making
> money, as long as I can make mine, but they way I make mine to to
> know how much everybody else is making...
You want to buy 1,000 sh of a thinly traded stock.....your broker checks
the MMs and gets an inside market of 27-1/4.....your broker bids the 1/4 for
a 1,000 and the only legitimate retail order is to sell 85 sh. at 27
1/4.....If the MM has balls and wants to see additional order flow from your
broker he will fill it......There may not be another sell order around below
28....Would you rather get a fill of 100 @ 27 1/4 and 900 at 28, or would
you rather bitch that the broker got rich and covered his short at 27 1/8
the next day???
REPEATING: Reputation means everything!!! Early in my career I got a
call from a guy who wanted me to buy a company for him....We had a meeting
of minds and I asked him if he wanted a contract drawn up.....
He then said something that I never forgot ...."My handshake means more
than any contract you can draw up".....IT DID!! I've always aimed for having
that same rep since.....
That was a long time ago and his family is worth over $20B now.....
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/9/07 5:52 PM:
> > Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:C28DBE94.6B10D%bla...@comcast.net...
> >> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
> >>
> >>>> OK....I was a "professional market-maker".....
> >>>>
> >>> I don't remember anybody here copping to this before, perhaps
> >>> not surpisingly considering the constant appellation of "THIEVES!"
> >>> heaped upon "market makers" by several posters here...
> >>
> >>>> opening to get a level and usually never looked at them again unless
> > there
> >>>> was a large move in the underlying.......
> >>>>
> >>> In theory, this is misuse of the algorithm, since it REALLY is an
> >>> "egg-head" self-justifying closed form equation that is to be used
> >>> in imaginary continuous time to the 18 billionth decimal point to
> >>> actually have mathematical trading validity...
> >>
> >> ....or, knowing that everyone else was using the same source and that
gave
> >> him a sense of market direction.....
> >>
> > Yeah, as an instantaneous "fair-pricing" model I use(d) it my own self
> > for options trading (as a SMALL part of my decision-making process),
> > and is a must-have for writing options, but it is NOT a PREDICTIVE
> > algorithm by its actual nature and design...
> It WAS predictive in the fact that you knew how certain independent
> floor traders would react in a given situation.....You could make a very
> good living with this knowledge....
>
Well, there you go, you almost seem to understand the value of
being able to predict how people will react to certain situations, and
even allow that an obscure mathematical relationship could form the
basis of that prediction...this is what I like to call "life-long learning",
which is what I strive for...
> Everytime I read a post from someone whining about getting screwed for
a
> penny, I have to laugh thinking about the time I was trading and the
> commissions were fixed.....
>
For a real laugh, look at the retail Forex "market"...
> >>> Well, sure, I can appreciate that...I hope you can appreciate that to
> >>> the extent you want to call "market making" trading, there are other
> >>> types of trading not only possible, but typical...I mean, how many
> >>> mutual fund managers turn over their stocks hundreds of times a day?
> >>> And why don't they, anyway?
> >
> >> They generate lots of commissions......I'll leave the rest to your
> >> imagination.....
> >>
> > I'd prefer hard cold facts, actually...I hate to make financial
judgements
> > based on my rich fantasy life like so many other people. Are you saying
> > that mutual fund managers are actually day-trading their stocks "behind
> > the scenes"?
> As I have NO evidence to back up my ideas and I don't subscribe to the
> theory that "I read it on a web conspiracy site so it MUST be true", I'll
> pass on that question.....
As a fount of information, sometimes you dry up to a trickle...obviously,
huge mutual funds have a huge impact moving blocks of stock around, I
don't think I have to resort to too much imagination to come to that
conclusion...
> All I will venture is that IF these things go on,
> the percentage is infinitesimal and I would NEVER let this question be a
> factor in an investment decision.....
>
Again, you now allow that SIZE is important, which is the ONLY
reason I even responded to this thread in the first place...I count
everything
I can, but I must know the size to really know the impact...2+2 is VERY
different from 0.00000000002+0.00000000002, but MOST (or market
"analysts" don't bother to make the distinction! THAT'S WHY I
LUVS THE MARKET!!!
> >>
> >>> Market makers can LITERALLY go "short" (BORROW stock to
> >>> make an immediate sale)? This IS news to me, I thought they just
> >>> bought and sold...who would they borrow it from?
> >>
> >> With sufficient order flow, a MM, a floor trader, or a specialist
> > never
> >> has to worry about short positions.....
> >>
> > Ah, yes, we peons do have to worry about "short positions", and we
> > are always puzzled by those little words on our agreements with our
> > "discount" brokers: "payment for order flow". Who's paying what to
> > whom for what purpose?
> A small broker(PETER PUTZ & CO.) finds out that it's more profitable
to
> pass his orders along to a large MM to execute.....
> 1. It's beneficial to the MM to see the orders first so they will pay
a
> nominal fee for this privilege....
> 2. PETER PUTZ & CO. doesn't have to go to the expense of setting up
his
> own dept. to do this.....
Hmmmm, OK, I keep noting a theme that market-makers like to "see
orders first"...
> >>> And since you've already averred that if you didn't make money,
> >>> you'd be fired, now we know that overall, all the money you made
> >>> as an employee was subtracted from the instantaneous possible
> >>> payout to the sellers from the buyers...
> >>
> >> You seem to think that someone providing a service should not be
> > compensated
> >
> > Nope, never said that, in fact I believe just the opposite and have
> > said so many times.
> Many people here seem to think all brokerage services should be
> free...they can't understand that the brokerage industry is NOT set up as
> not-for-profit charity......
>
The most hilarious thing is that they think that casinos run games that
allow a "fair gamble", but that the casinos "cheat" to make their money!
THAT'S WHY I LUVS THE MARKET, THE SAME IDIOTS WHO
CAN'T COMPREHEND A SIMPLE THING LIKE WHY THEY
LOSE AT CRAPS USE THAT SAME KEEN INSIGHT INTO
PROBABILITY TO "PLAY" THE MARKET!!!
> > My only point is that I perform a very comprehensive
> > money aggregate flow analysis (using those things you and my Dad hate
> > called "computers"), and it would be ridiculous for me not to subtract
> > the money that went into YOUR fishing boat from my total profit
> > potential, even if I DON'T think you're a "crook"...
> >
> > Look, I trust you not to put TOO much money in your pocket, if for
> > no other reason because we both know everybody would stop shopping
> > at your "store"...I've always said that I don't care who else is making
> > money, as long as I can make mine, but they way I make mine to to
> > know how much everybody else is making...
>
> You want to buy 1,000 sh of a thinly traded stock.....your broker
checks
> the MMs and gets an inside market of 27-1/4.....your broker bids the 1/4
for
> a 1,000 and the only legitimate retail order is to sell 85 sh. at 27
> 1/4.....If the MM has balls and wants to see additional order flow from
your
> broker he will fill it......There may not be another sell order around
below
> 28....Would you rather get a fill of 100 @ 27 1/4 and 900 at 28, or would
> you rather bitch that the broker got rich and covered his short at 27 1/8
> the next day???
>
Well, neither, for so many reasons that I've repeatedly stated...I don't
buy "thinly-traded stocks", I only buy a tiny fraction of the average daily
volume at "market", I could give a crap less what the market makers
do or don't do with those big orders for thinly-traded stocks...EXCEPT,
if I truly knew what was happening at this level, I would now know that
the market maker is TEMPORARILY "stuck" about $700 (wow, talk
about "testicles", sounds like a typical poster here!), so now I have a
piece
of information that allows me to FORECAST his behavior (I also know
I couldn't care less, because it's so friggin' penny-ante)...
But at the level I MUST work at (can actually gather the required
information and it's actually worth my while to do so) I am looking for
a minimum of $millions, preferably $billions, and given some of the
craziness
we've seen in the last 15 years, $TRILLIONS of "stuck" money...and
I'm not greedy my own self, I only intend to take (CAN only take)
a miniscule fraction of that (but I don't kid myself that I'm doing anybody
a "favor" by "fading their action")...
And though it's clear from your mindset and life experiences you
can't possibly comprehend this (even though it is pretty simple really),
that's why I NEED volume information, SO I CAN "PREDICT" (actually
"FORECAST") WHAT OTHER MARKET PARTICIPANTS ARE
GOING TO DO "NEXT", AND JUST HOW MUCH OF "IT"
THEY'RE GONNA DO...
> >>
> > OK, you "butted heads" with competing market-makers...to me, this
> > sounds a tad more like "salesmanship" than "head butting" around the
> > office, which is the juicy dirt I thought you were talking about...
>
> REPEATING: Reputation means everything!!! Early in my career I got a
> call from a guy who wanted me to buy a company for him....We had a meeting
> of minds and I asked him if he wanted a contract drawn up.....
> He then said something that I never forgot ...."My handshake means
more
> than any contract you can draw up".....IT DID!! I've always aimed for
having
> that same rep since.....
> That was a long time ago and his family is worth over $20B now.....
>
Yeah, and Bill Gates could buy and sell them many times over, and
legend has it that he had no problem lying to IBM about his two-person
compiler "company" having a microcomputer OS for sale, and for some
real fun watch his videotaped testimony in the anti-trust trial he LOST...
All this stuff about "reputation" is starting to sound like what I call
"tough talk"...in any event, the bottom line for me is I NEVER listen
to what people say about themselves, but I WATCH WHAT THEY
DO VERY CAREFULLY...which, not coincidentally, is EXACTLY
how I "analyze" the "market", which is just a mass group of "tough
talkers" who quite often PREDICTABLY behave MUCH differently
than how they represent themselves (which is the ONLY value
of bothering to read a group like this, as confirmation that human
behavior NEVER changes)...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 653
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/9/07 5:52 PM:
> > Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:C28DAE21.6B0D6%bla...@comcast.net...
> >> Bill Reid wrote on 6/7/07 10:43 AM:
> >>
> >>> There is a little wrinkle in this for me, though...you didn't ALWAYS
> >>> make money, did you? I mean, what happened when the market
> >>> crashed in 1987? I still remember reading about all those poor broke
> >>> specialists at the NYSE then...so what did you do that day, and
> >>> in the days that followed? I bet it was anything but "routine"...
> >>
> >> At that time I had stopped trading NASDAQ and had moved on to another
type
> >> of security....
> >
> > Damn! I was hoping for some response to "Lowbrow"'s accusation
> > that the NASDAQ market-makers turned tail and ran like little girls
> > in 1987...
>
> Many did.....it all depends on the firm you were with......
Hmmmmm...I am officially "bemused"...however, again, I work
with AGGREGATES, so for me I'm not takin' names, just addin'
numbers...it seems that for a lot of people in the "industry", names
ARE important (such as "Lowbrow"'s completely false assertion
that the NYSE specialists didn't stop trading, even after they
bankrupted daddy's trust fund), but that's just a feature of those
things we call "jobs"...it's not "what you know", it's "who you
know", you know?
> When Kennedy was shot we got the info 15 minutes BEFORE it hit the
> news......
So what are you saying...you were the "grassy knoll" shooter?!??!!
> Our senior partner said he didn't want to make money off
> this....we could have shorted everything......He sent me to the back room
to
> throw the breaker that controlled our phone system.....
> We didn't reset it until the next morning.......
>
Ah, yes, the phones didn't work so good in 1987 either...no wonder
you're a "technophobe"!
> >> The crash was on a Monday....I had spent the weekend on my
> >> boat....woke up Monday morning, decided the weather was too nice to
work,
> >> went out with a neighbor, caught a couple Coho and had a great dinner
> >> aboard....
> >
> > Holy crap, you really were a "PROFESSIONAL"!!! You had friggin'
> > "doctor's hours" (or even better, almost like MY hours)...
>
> In 31 years I only took 5 vacations of a week or more.....
>
Well, at least you weren't "on-call" in 1987...
You know, every time somebody here posts a personal memory
of 1987 here it's a lot like that story...the whole market crash was
such a snooze they could barely stay awake, but still managed
to make money from it...but forgive me, I just keep remembering
this guy who was interviewed on TV right after "Black Monday",
and this is what he said, VERBATIM:
"Three months from now, you won't be able to find a single trader
on the street who will admit to losing any money yesterday...they will
all say they sold out the day before and bought during the crash and it
turned out to be one of the most profitable days of their lives."
Three months later, it turned out he was right, and forget about
twenty years later...just another data point that proves HUMAN
BEHAVIOR NEVER CHANGES AND IS PREDICTABLE
FOR BOTH FUN AND PROFIT!!!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 654
Blash
>
> Hmmmmm...I am officially "bemused"...however, again, I work
> with AGGREGATES, so for me I'm not takin' names, just addin'
> numbers...it seems that for a lot of people in the "industry", names
> ARE important (such as "Lowbrow"'s completely false assertion
> that the NYSE specialists didn't stop trading, even after they
> bankrupted daddy's trust fund), but that's just a feature of those
> things we call "jobs"...it's not "what you know", it's "who you
> know", you know?
Specialists work for firms and use that firms capital, not their
own.....independent floor brokers are different story.....
>> When Kennedy was shot we got the info 15 minutes BEFORE it hit the
>> news......
>
> So what are you saying...you were the "grassy knoll" shooter?!??!!
Someone in our office was talking to a person on the parade route at the
time.......
>> Our senior partner said he didn't want to make money off
>> this....we could have shorted everything......He sent me to the back room
> to
>> throw the breaker that controlled our phone system.....
>> We didn't reset it until the next morning.......
>>
> Ah, yes, the phones didn't work so good in 1987 either...no wonder
> you're a "technophobe"!
???
> You know, every time somebody here posts a personal memory
> of 1987 here it's a lot like that story...the whole market crash was
> such a snooze they could barely stay awake, but still managed
> to make money from it...but forgive me, I just keep remembering
> this guy who was interviewed on TV right after "Black Monday",
> and this is what he said, VERBATIM:
>
> "Three months from now, you won't be able to find a single trader
> on the street who will admit to losing any money yesterday...they will
> all say they sold out the day before and bought during the crash and it
> turned out to be one of the most profitable days of their lives."
>
> Three months later, it turned out he was right, and forget about
> twenty years later...just another data point that proves HUMAN
> BEHAVIOR NEVER CHANGES AND IS PREDICTABLE
> FOR BOTH FUN AND PROFIT!!!
I NEVER claimed that avoiding losses that day had anything to do with
skill, foresight or warning from a clever computer program on my part.....It
was no more than pure unadulterated LUCK!!!!
BrunoR
this thread? ;-)
You'll have either something to contribute about "Volume-Price Chart" or
email each
other. Is that fair? Don't expect a further response from me, because
I don't use
any "Volume-Price Charts."
Blash
> Don't expect a further response from me, because I don't use
> any "Volume-Price Charts."
Neither do I.....
I'm just answering legitimate questions....as an aside, who knows, maybe
someone can learn a bit from the thread.....
Besides, it's a pleasure to carry on a thread with someone who doesn't have
the overwhelming need to resort to......
Name-calling....
Wild guessing....
Childish threats....
Blaming everything on religion....
i.e. An adult conversation!!!
DirtBag©
happen to find the exchange interesting....
"BrunoR" <Bru...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:466d8625$0$8959$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote on 6/11/07 9:01 AM:
>
> > Hmmmmm...I am officially "bemused"...however, again, I work
> > with AGGREGATES, so for me I'm not takin' names, just addin'
> > numbers...it seems that for a lot of people in the "industry", names
> > ARE important (such as "Lowbrow"'s completely false assertion
> > that the NYSE specialists didn't stop trading, even after they
> > bankrupted daddy's trust fund), but that's just a feature of those
> > things we call "jobs"...it's not "what you know", it's "who you
> > know", you know?
> Specialists work for firms and use that firms capital, not their
> own.....independent floor brokers are different story.....
>
You can't be a "specialist" with your own money? Is there a
capitalization requirement or something (well, of course there
probably is, but is it possible for an individual to meet it, or are
there other requirements)?
In any event, it is well-known (by everybody but "Lowbrow") that
hundreds of stocks failed to open on the Tuesday after "Black Monday"
because the specialists cried "BROKE!", and they didn't start trading
again until the hastily-formed mysterious "Plunge Protection Team"
guaranteed the banks' loans to the specialists...
...and the rest is "aeronaut" history!
> >> When Kennedy was shot we got the info 15 minutes BEFORE it hit the
> >> news......
> >
> > So what are you saying...you were the "grassy knoll" shooter?!??!!
> Someone in our office was talking to a person on the parade route at
the
> time.......
>
The "umbrella man"? Now THAT'S inside information!
>
> > You know, every time somebody here posts a personal memory
> > of 1987 here it's a lot like that story...the whole market crash was
> > such a snooze they could barely stay awake, but still managed
> > to make money from it...but forgive me, I just keep remembering
> > this guy who was interviewed on TV right after "Black Monday",
> > and this is what he said, VERBATIM:
> >
> > "Three months from now, you won't be able to find a single trader
> > on the street who will admit to losing any money yesterday...they will
> > all say they sold out the day before and bought during the crash and it
> > turned out to be one of the most profitable days of their lives."
>
> I NEVER claimed that avoiding losses that day had anything to do with
> skill, foresight or warning from a clever computer program on my
part.....It
> was no more than pure unadulterated LUCK!!!!
>
And as I've already said, it's better to be lucky than good! And the
it must be the most gigantic pain in the ass to be really good but really
unlucky...
But I just try to "make my own luck"...EVENTUALLY you'll win
if you "play the odds", just not every roll of the dice...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 660
Bill Reid
> Look! You're both smart fellows, IMO. Will there ever be an end to
Uh, dude, I know things get turned around sometimes, but the
last time I checked the posts in this thread are actually what is
called "on-topic"...
I don't use "Volume-Price Charts" either, but I have in the past
(hell, I'll look at one now if you want, and make a "prediction"
based on that alone)...and those funny little "moving averages"
you like, well, in a sense, I use volume info to GREATLY improve
their "predictive" capability (and improve it even more by not
believing that a simple moving average itself has any great power
to "predict" the market).
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 661
Blash
> You can't be a "specialist" with your own money? Is there a
> capitalization requirement or something (well, of course there
> probably is, but is it possible for an individual to meet it, or are
> there other requirements)?
There are "Floor Traders" who play with their own money, but they do NOT
have the obligations of the specialists to maintain as best as possible a
"fair & orderly" market.
A "Floor Trader" can establish a position and then leave for the
day......
> In any event, it is well-known (by everybody but "Lowbrow") that
> hundreds of stocks failed to open on the Tuesday after "Black Monday"
> because the specialists cried "BROKE!", and they didn't start trading
> again until the hastily-formed mysterious "Plunge Protection Team"
> guaranteed the banks' loans to the specialists...
With the deluge of Sell orders and cancellation of Buy orders, they had
to find a price level where lower priced buy orders and the specialists'
capital would absorb all the sellers.....that takes time.....
BrunoR
Agree, agree, because much of it is just placebo to sooth the mind. ;-)
However, those darn Wednesdays, they do it again and again (but not
when expected!). This *phenomena* cannot be proven statistically!!
What's more on my mind these days is the following:
"If a person just wanted to trade DIA vs. DOG, or for that matter, QLD
vs. QID,
is there anyone on this board who has given this some thought -- and if
-- what
strategy would you use? Daily configurations, 60 min., 15 min., or what
have you?"
Don't think, though, this board is sophisticated enough to elicit
response to that
question. Also, I read more interesting blogs, rather than reading
every post on
M.I.S. However, reading Blash' and your posts it came across to me like
you were
trying to get under each other's skin. Some folks may find this
entertaining?!
Blash
> However, reading Blash' and your posts it came across to me like
> you were
> trying to get under each other's skin. Some folks may find this
> entertaining?!
?????........FYI, when I want to get under someones' skin, you'll know about
it!!!
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote:
> > BrunoR <Bru...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:466d8625$0$8959$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> >> Look! You're both smart fellows, IMO. Will there ever be an end to
> >> this thread? ;-)
> >> You'll have either something to contribute about "Volume-Price Chart"
or
> >> email each
> >> other. Is that fair? Don't expect a further response from me, because
> >> I don't use
> >> any "Volume-Price Charts."
> >
> > Uh, dude, I know things get turned around sometimes, but the
> > last time I checked the posts in this thread are actually what is
> > called "on-topic"...
> >
> > I don't use "Volume-Price Charts" either, but I have in the past
> > (hell, I'll look at one now if you want, and make a "prediction"
> > based on that alone)...and those funny little "moving averages"
> > you like, well, in a sense, I use volume info to GREATLY improve
> > their "predictive" capability (and improve it even more by not
> > believing that a simple moving average itself has any great power
> > to "predict" the market).
> >
If people actually knew and could accept the truth about the "game",
they'd still play it, but differently...
> However, those darn Wednesdays, they do it again and again (but not
> when expected!). This *phenomena* cannot be proven statistically!!
>
You're right, because I vaguely remember you making some assertion
that "the market always turns around on Wednesdays" or something like
that, and I sort of disproved it statistically/historically.
But there's always that disparity between what people believe (or want
to believe) and the true reality of a situation; I just go with reality,
you have your "freedom of choice"...
> What's more on my mind these days is the following:
>
> "If a person just wanted to trade DIA vs. DOG, or for that matter, QLD
> vs. QID,
> is there anyone on this board who has given this some thought -- and if
> -- what
> strategy would you use? Daily configurations, 60 min., 15 min., or what
> have you?"
>
Uh, isn't this a just a question about alternately going long and short
on the broad market averages? Am I missing some deeper meaning to the
question?
> Don't think, though, this board is sophisticated enough to elicit
> response to that
> question.
Well, "this board" has probably answered the general underlying question
multiple times, you just haven't bothered to comprehend the answer. For
example, "Don Tiberone" would stay in DIA until the "sentiment surveys"
become "bullish", then switch to DOG, right?
And this thread reveals my general underlying "strategy", which relies in
part on market participant "position" and money flow aggregates. I DON'T
use any simple single indicator/chart system, though I used to when I was
a LOT less "sophisticated".
Again, do you want me to "dumb myself down" and give you a $0.50
"price-volume chart" read on the DJIA or sumpin'? It'll be worth every
penny you won't have to pay for it!
> Also, I read more interesting blogs, rather than reading
> every post on
> M.I.S.
If somebody just provided some type of running commentary on the
markets and stocks here, would that be as good as a "blog"?
> However, reading Blash' and your posts it came across to me like
> you were
> trying to get under each other's skin. Some folks may find this
> entertaining?!
I love flame wars, they're one of my favorite things about Usenet.
I still have my favorite one saved, where two guys with PhDs in
comp.science.ai went at it hammer and tongs, proving as I've always
said, that while it is debatable whether computers can actually "think",
it is unlikely that people ever will...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 663
BrunoR
... somewhat like voting in an election? Either Democrat or Republican?
>> However, those darn Wednesdays, they do it again and again (but not
>> when expected!). This *phenomena* cannot be proven statistically!!
> You're right, because I vaguely remember you making some assertion
> that "the market always turns around on Wednesdays" or something like
> that, and I sort of disproved it statistically/historically.
No, I *never* asserted that--it was only an observation I made, going back
to a time when futures on onions and frozen turkeys were still traded; Valid
to this day trading other financial instruments. Also, I wouldn't say
always;
However, circumstances *always change*, and that is the reality.
> But there's always that disparity between what people believe (or want
> to believe) and the true reality of a situation; I just go with reality,
> you have your "freedom of choice"...
..going with reality is a good choice. However, this 'Wednesday phenomena'
that I had in mind is similar to the reality that certain numbers show
up more
frequently (on a roulette game) than others (similar as in a Lotto
game). You
may say that the roulette wheel maybe unbalanced. What explains Lotto? ;-)
(Statistically, "in the long run we're all dead", attributed to Lord
Keynes).
>> What's more on my mind these days is the following:
>> "If a person just wanted to trade DIA vs. DOG, or for that matter, QLD
>> vs. QID,
>> is there anyone on this board who has given this some thought -- and if
>> -- what
>> strategy would you use? Daily configurations, 60 min., 15 min., or what
>> have you?"
> Uh, isn't this a just a question about alternately going long and short
> on the broad market averages? Am I missing some deeper meaning to the
> question?
Indeed, so sorry that you've missed that *deeper meaning* to my question
>> Don't think, though, this board is sophisticated enough to elicit
>> response to that question.
> Well, "this board" has probably answered the general underlying question
> multiple times, you just haven't bothered to comprehend the answer. For
> example, "Don Tiberone" would stay in DIA until the "sentiment surveys"
> become "bullish", then switch to DOG, right?
Yes, I fathom that enormous strategy. It may fulfill Don's need. I wish him
well, but it is not what I would consider. (Surprised, you even bring
this up).
> And this thread reveals my general underlying "strategy", which relies in
> part on market participant "position" and money flow aggregates. I DON'T
> use any simple single indicator/chart system, though I used to when I was
> a LOT less "sophisticated".
Don't worry! Sophistication comes with maturity. ;-)
> Again, do you want me to "dumb myself down" and give you a $0.50
> "price-volume chart" read on the DJIA or sumpin'? It'll be worth every
> penny you won't have to pay for it!
Please don't try to "dumb yourself down" on my account. I get the picture!
>> Also, I read more interesting blogs, rather than reading
>> every post on M.I.S.
> If somebody just provided some type of running commentary on the
> markets and stocks here, would that be as good as a "blog"?
I wonder whether you truly know what you're talking about?! Anyone
not shirking effort can read blogs that could blow your mind. I noticed
over the years that you're just too busy dressing down others rather than
>> However, reading Blash' and your posts it came across to me like
>> you were
>> trying to get under each other's skin. Some folks may find this
>> entertaining?!
> I love flame wars, they're one of my favorite things about Usenet.
> I still have my favorite one saved, where two guys with PhDs in
> comp.science.ai went at it hammer and tongs, proving as I've always
> said, that while it is debatable whether computers can actually "think",
> it is unlikely that people ever will...
If you "think" that the first line in your last paragraph is commensurate
with your intellect, then, so it is ;-) ! A relaxing weekend to you all,
especially to our non-flaming participants.
Bill Reid
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: democracy just doesn't work."
-- Kent Brockman, "The Simpsons"
> >> However, those darn Wednesdays, they do it again and again (but not
> >> when expected!). This *phenomena* cannot be proven statistically!!
>
> > You're right, because I vaguely remember you making some assertion
> > that "the market always turns around on Wednesdays" or something like
> > that, and I sort of disproved it statistically/historically.
>
> No, I *never* asserted that--it was only an observation I made, going back
> to a time when futures on onions and frozen turkeys were still traded;
Valid
> to this day trading other financial instruments. Also, I wouldn't say
> always;
OK, let's say "more often than you would expect by 'chance'"...
> However, circumstances *always change*, and that is the reality.
>
Human nature doesn't appear to be changing very quickly, if at all.
MANY years ago I read the advice to read "Extraordinary Popular
Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds" to learn about how markets
work, and sure enough, the principles I learned from that book that
was written hundreds of years ago applied PERFECTLY to the
"dot-com" boom and bust.
YOU'VE GOT TO PLAY THE ACTUAL GAME YOU'RE IN
TO REALLY WIN BIG, NOT INDULGE IN FANTASIES LIKE
ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS.
> > But there's always that disparity between what people believe (or want
> > to believe) and the true reality of a situation; I just go with reality,
> > you have your "freedom of choice"...
>
> ..going with reality is a good choice. However, this 'Wednesday
phenomena'
> that I had in mind is similar to the reality that certain numbers show
> up more
> frequently (on a roulette game) than others (similar as in a Lotto
> game).
SAY WHAT?!?!?!!
What numbers show up more frequently?
> You
> may say that the roulette wheel maybe unbalanced.
Many people don't know this, but there are strategies for beating
almost every casino game (sort of). One strategy for beating roulette
involves "wheel clocking", which is looking for unbalanced wheels. You
don't have to look as long as you might think, because you should
only play REALLY unbalanced wheels, which statistically will
show up fairly quickly when you crunch the numbers.
Of course, "random chance" being what it is, occasionally you
will get an "outlier" that appears to be an unbalanced wheel, and
you're gonna find out the hard way the following truth: in a truly
"random" game, you will get amazing sequences of apparently
repeating numbers every once in a while. If you have seen (or
"THINK" you have seen) excessively repeating numbers, you
may have just witnessed "randomness" in all its frustrating glory...
> What explains Lotto? ;-)
Uh, dunno, what are the alleged repeating numbers, for which
lottery...you know there are pretty extensive (and quite useless!)
databases of previous lottery results available for idiots to peruse
on the 'net, similar to how the casino "thoughtfully" supply roulette
patrons with a score card to track the numbers as they show up...
> (Statistically, "in the long run we're all dead", attributed to Lord
> Keynes).
>
In the long run, the sun will not rise, but the current odds are pretty
much 100%...it's your choice whether to abandon your life tomorrow
morning because you're unsure about the continued existence of the
planet...
YOU'VE GOT TO LEARN TO PLAY THE TRUE ODDS, NOT
FOCUS ON THE OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION THAT PROVES
THE RULE...AND IF THE TRUE ODDS ARE "COIN TOSS"
ODDS, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME PLAYING THE GAME,
FIND SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE TO DO WITH YOUR
TIME.
> >> What's more on my mind these days is the following:
> >> "If a person just wanted to trade DIA vs. DOG, or for that matter, QLD
> >> vs. QID,
> >> is there anyone on this board who has given this some thought -- and if
> >> -- what
> >> strategy would you use? Daily configurations, 60 min., 15 min., or
what
> >> have you?"
>
> > Uh, isn't this a just a question about alternately going long and short
> > on the broad market averages? Am I missing some deeper meaning to the
> > question?
>
> Indeed, so sorry that you've missed that *deeper meaning* to my question
>
Can you explain what you're thinking of then? Arbitrage? What?
> >> Don't think, though, this board is sophisticated enough to elicit
> >> response to that question.
>
> > Well, "this board" has probably answered the general underlying question
> > multiple times, you just haven't bothered to comprehend the answer. For
> > example, "Don Tiberone" would stay in DIA until the "sentiment surveys"
> > become "bullish", then switch to DOG, right?
>
> Yes, I fathom that enormous strategy. It may fulfill Don's need. I wish
him
> well, but it is not what I would consider. (Surprised, you even bring
> this up).
>
So are you attacking the prognosticatory abilities of "Don Tiberone"?!!?!!
THE NERVE!!!!
> > And this thread reveals my general underlying "strategy", which relies
in
> > part on market participant "position" and money flow aggregates. I
DON'T
> > use any simple single indicator/chart system, though I used to when I
was
> > a LOT less "sophisticated".
>
> Don't worry! Sophistication comes with maturity. ;-)
>
In the long run of sophistication, we are all dead...just when you
FINALLY get the whole thing figured out, you drop dead of a heart
attack...
> > Again, do you want me to "dumb myself down" and give you a $0.50
> > "price-volume chart" read on the DJIA or sumpin'? It'll be worth every
> > penny you won't have to pay for it!
>
> Please don't try to "dumb yourself down" on my account. I get the
picture!
>
But I want to! Chart reading iz fun, and I haven't done it in ever so long!
I want to make some vague conditional "predictions" that still manage to
turn out horribly wrong a lot of the time, just like everybody else!
> >> Also, I read more interesting blogs, rather than reading
> >> every post on M.I.S.
>
> > If somebody just provided some type of running commentary on the
> > markets and stocks here, would that be as good as a "blog"?
>
> I wonder whether you truly know what you're talking about?!
Maybe not, but I know that with Google(TM) archives and all,
if somebody REALLY wanted to put themselves on the record,
they could just post their wisdom here, and save themselves a
dime or so on hosting fees...the fact that so many would-be Nostradami
choose to troll this group to try to get me to read their "blog" is
a little suspicious in the first place...why not just cut'n'paste all that
wunnerful content and save me the link-click? I mean, it's just
words one way or 'tother, right?
> Anyone
> not shirking effort can read blogs that could blow your mind.
I'm a little lazy when it comes to reading the millions of "Timmy's
Furst Web-Sight"s that are out there, I will admit...I actually DO
have better things to do with my time...
> I noticed
> over the years that you're just too busy dressing down others rather than
>
...reading "Timmy's Furst Web-Sight"? You bet! But there's
ALWAYS time for a little "dressing down" (and Jell-O(TM)!),
and I'm not sure you can do that with a blog...maybe I could
read a blog, and criticize it mercilessly here?
> >> However, reading Blash' and your posts it came across to me like
> >> you were
> >> trying to get under each other's skin. Some folks may find this
> >> entertaining?!
>
> > I love flame wars, they're one of my favorite things about Usenet.
> > I still have my favorite one saved, where two guys with PhDs in
> > comp.science.ai went at it hammer and tongs, proving as I've always
> > said, that while it is debatable whether computers can actually "think",
> > it is unlikely that people ever will...
>
> If you "think" that the first line in your last paragraph is commensurate
> with your intellect, then, so it is ;-) !
I'm a "people person", always have been, always will be! There's two
basic things you need to know to "beat" the market: how to add 2+2,
and knowing that most of the other people in the market CAN'T add 2+2,
and just trade like hysterical idiots!!! The second one requires constant
"confirmation" in the TRUE nature of "man"...
> A relaxing weekend to you all,
> especially to our non-flaming participants.
>
Name 17. Or even nine...and you can't count yourself, because
as I pointed out a LONG time ago, you're just a chronic complainer
no matter what people post; in fact, your very existence in this
thread is nothing more than just another one of your little baseless
complaints...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 666 (the mark of a politician)
Spydertrader
follow this group as closely as I once did), but what exactly about P-V
Charts presents such confusion it would require thousands of words to
discuss?
Perhaps, the confusion resides in my own mind, but what better way to
trade than by using Price and Volume as a guide. While some indicators
can provide useful information when used in the correct context, why not
focus on what makes the market move?
Then again, few people recognize the relationship between Price and
Volume as a powerful combination.
- Spydertrader
Bill Reid
Spydertrader <spyder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9950F148AB630sp...@216.196.97.142...
> I apologize for stepping into the thread so late into the game (I don't
> follow this group as closely as I once did),
Stop bragging about your intelligence...
> but what exactly about P-V
> Charts presents such confusion it would require thousands of words to
> discuss?
>
The usual. Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck...
> Perhaps, the confusion resides in my own mind, but what better way to
> trade than by using Price and Volume as a guide.
Inside information? Always was a big help to me...
> While some indicators
> can provide useful information when used in the correct context, why not
> focus on what makes the market move?
>
Exactly. THAT'S what I TRY to do. Over a decade ago, I realized
the simple obvious truth, that price and volume is NOT what makes the
"market move", it's WHERE the market moved IN THE PAST...and
so is only about HALF the story of where it's going in the FUTURE...
Of course, I'm just dumb, because EVERYBODY always knew
that...that's why chartists and TA people constantly make predictions
in the form of "if the market does this, then this will happen, if not,
then this will happen"...I so stupid, I actually want to get as close
as possible to predicting "THIS will happen!" without too much
equivocation...
> Then again, few people recognize the relationship between Price and
> Volume as a powerful combination.
>
Oh, a lot of people use price-volume patterns to trade, don't think
that you're a genius because you do that AND you don't bother to
read this group...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 669
Spydertrader
>> I apologize for stepping into the thread so late into the game (I
>> don't follow this group as closely as I once did).
> Oh, a lot of people use price-volume patterns to trade, don't think
> that you're a genius because you do that AND you don't bother to
> read this group...
Did the intentional misrepresentation of my comments work for you the
last time we had a discussion, or have you developed comprehension
issues over the last couple of years?
To respond back on topic ...
ESP, Insider Information, or 'support and resistance' lines (or zones)
do not represent the only way to profit. Nor does 'prediction' represent
the only paradigm by which one can view the market in an effort to make
a living. Price and Volume provide invaluable information with respect
to a determination of both pace and direction of Price movement. In
short, the market (ANY market) exists in one of two states -
continuation or change. Understanding which of the two modes exists in
the present (based on one's own trading time frame) provides everything
a trader needs to earn a living from the markets. As a result, Price and
Volume remain key components toward that end.
Blash
> Understanding which of the two modes exists in
> the present (based on one's own trading time frame) provides everything
> a trader needs to earn a living from the markets. As a result, Price and
> Volume remain key components toward that end.
DAMN!!!!......
Does that mean I have to give back the money I've made 'cause I never paid
ANY attention to that "system"???........
Spydertrader
No. It means you somehow you have the inability to distinguish between a
discussion pertaining to ONE method of extracting profits, and the
voices in your head which decided I posted "ONLY method" to make money
in the markets.
Blash
ALAS AND ALACK!!!
What a horrible mistake on my part.....for a moment, your dissertation
reminded me of a fresh MBA that I fired because he argued that the "ONLY"
way to make a buck was to use "systems".....
Bill Reid
Spydertrader <Spyder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99518F551B285sp...@216.196.97.142...
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> >> I apologize for stepping into the thread so late into the game (I
> >> don't follow this group as closely as I once did).
>
> > Oh, a lot of people use price-volume patterns to trade, don't think
> > that you're a genius because you do that AND you don't bother to
> > read this group...
>
> Did the intentional misrepresentation of my comments work for you the
> last time we had a discussion, or have you developed comprehension
> issues over the last couple of years?
>
younger (though strangely, I am 1,000,000,000% better at stuff
like remembering where I put my keys than I was at 20, and a lot
of other more intellectual tasks as well). I was just making a joke,
but now I will have to deduct the 50 extra IQ points I awarded
you for having the common sense not to read the group...
> To respond back on topic ...
>
Respond to what? My comments seem to have disappeared except
for the joke opening...
> ESP, Insider Information, or 'support and resistance' lines (or zones)
> do not represent the only way to profit.
Correct.
> Nor does 'prediction' represent
> the only paradigm by which one can view the market in an effort to make
> a living.
Well, no, not really...if you intend to "make a living" off the market,
you'd best get used to the idea that the guy listed on your 1040 only
gets paid to the extent that he can "predict" something about the
market...ALL market "investments" of ANY length or purpose
rely on some type of implicit or explicit "forecast" or "prediction"
of FUTURE market prices in order to make money.
The funny thing is, a large number of market participants actually
don't believe this, don't really think about it, don't WANT to think
about it...
> Price and Volume provide invaluable information with respect
> to a determination of both pace and direction of Price movement.
Yup. I mean, sort of...
> In
> short, the market (ANY market) exists in one of two states -
> continuation or change.
You mean PRICE "trend" and "reversal"?
> Understanding which of the two modes exists in
> the present (based on one's own trading time frame) provides everything
> a trader needs to earn a living from the markets.
Possibly. The funny thing is, ESP always seems to come into play,
at least a little bit, whenever I have pressed TA and chartists for
specifics.
I my own self personally ALWAYS use a little ESP to "grok" which
companies are likely to continue their rapid growth, a little "common
sense", perhaps, a smidge of my own "consumer desires"...
> As a result, Price and
> Volume remain key components toward that end.
Since price and volume are ALL you need, ESP plus price and
volume is even better...I hope we can cut the "price only" people
a little slack, and say that price is ALL you need to "make a
living" as well, but adding volume, like ESP, is even better...hell,
throw some "fundamentals" in there, even more better, sky's
the limit...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 670
Bill Reid
was using price-volume information properly, just that you COULD
make money that way...
And to be fair, let's review, who has REALLY made the didactic
statements in this thread:
Newsgroups: misc.invest.stocks
From: Blash <bla...@comcast.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007
Subject: Re: Volume-Price Chart
...
Crunching numbers and trying to find some "Holy Grail" in obscure
numerical relationships will NEVER replace common sense and a market
feel(neither of which can be found on the curriculum of ANY school)!!!
---end of archived excerpt
And there it is. It has the dreaded "N-word" in capital letters
no less ("NEVER"), which is the word we were all taught NEVER
to use (I do actually make an exception for time travel, but that's
about it).
Meanwhile, published reports say that up to 25% of the volume
on the NYSE is the result of automated trading programs (and this
has been true for decades, as one of the reasons for the severity of
the market crash in 1987 was that those programs began to fail
and were suspended, suddenly drying up liquidity), and I personally
worked with some of the largest trading entities in the world (actually,
THE largest) as they developed gigantic information systems for their
trading...
What we have here is the usual "fog of the market", because I
can't very well dispute somebody who trades using "ESP", and
NOBODY can proactively dispute the ability of trading programs
that they are not even aware of and/or haven't even been invented
yet...but strangely, the truth IS out there, you just have to cut
through the assertions and analyze the cold hard facts, and
that's EXACTLY what computers are GREAT at...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 671
OpEd
price/volume data so that I can make lots of money in the stock market?
Thanks in advance.
OpEd
Lawyerkill
(AB + Di/Dt) + (SDF*GFH/pi)
_________________________
Aero^1000*wind direction
Blash
(B)uy+(L)ow+(A)nd+(S)ell+(H)igh="lots of money in the stock market"
Spydertrader
> Respond to what? My comments seem to have disappeared except
> for the joke opening...
I attempted to respond back to the thread topic itself. Price and Volume
Charting, not to you personally. I apologize for the confusion.
> Well, no, not really...if you intend to "make a living" off the
> market, you'd best get used to the idea that the guy listed on your
> 1040 only gets paid to the extent that he can "predict" something
> about the market...ALL market "investments" of ANY length or purpose
> rely on some type of implicit or explicit "forecast" or "prediction"
> of FUTURE market prices in order to make money.
>
> The funny thing is, a large number of market participants actually
> don't believe this, don't really think about it, don't WANT to think
> about it...
I don't 'predict' the market any more than I 'predict' the sun rising
tomorrow morning - not because I haven't thought about it, not because I
haven't analyzed it, but because 'predicting' simply isn't required for
profit in ALL methods of trading. Perhaps, 'predicting' future outcome
remains a fundamental component of your own trading, but not all.
Clearly, 'predicting' future outcome can (and often does) generate
profits. However, 'predicting' (like Price and Volume) isn't the ONLY
way.
Just as the 'odds' of some cataclysmic event occurring overnight causing
the sun to fail to rise in the morning remain so remote, for the earth's
purposes (and life in general), that it doesn't enter into the equation,
so too, do situations exist in trading where the 'odds' of catastrophe
remain so infinitesimally remote, for the purposes of risk assessment,
they do not exist.
> You mean PRICE "trend" and "reversal"?
No. While Trend and Reversal appear to have similar definitions to
continuation and change, its an "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs
are poodles" sorta' deal. Retrace, also fits the definition of 'change'
(as well as many other examples), however, few would confuse the
differences between a retrace and a reversal. Yet, both fit under the
umbrella of 'change.'
> Possibly. The funny thing is, ESP always seems to come into play,
> at least a little bit, whenever I have pressed TA and chartists for
> specifics.
> I my own self personally ALWAYS use a little ESP to "grok" which
> companies are likely to continue their rapid growth, a little "common
> sense", perhaps, a smidge of my own "consumer desires"...
What you refer to as ESP, some might define as a "gauge of market
sentiment." Certainly, understanding sentiment provides a benefit.
However, one can obtain such information without resorting to 'insider
information.' A P-V Chart can provide the same information with respect
to the time frame desired.
> Since price and volume are ALL you need, ESP plus price and
> volume is even better...I hope we can cut the "price only" people
> a little slack, and say that price is ALL you need to "make a
> living" as well, but adding volume, like ESP, is even better...hell,
> throw some "fundamentals" in there, even more better, sky's
> the limit...
If one trades equities, I agree fundamentals should play a major role in
culling the thousands of publicly traded companies down to a reasonable
level. I may have posted my own criteria here before (and if I haven't,
then I surely linked to those criteria), but the combination of Price
and Volume works in any market, not just equities.
Any market, Any Time Frame (Provided sufficient liquidity exists).
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > market, you'd best get used to the idea that the guy listed on your
> > 1040 only gets paid to the extent that he can "predict" something
> > about the market...ALL market "investments" of ANY length or purpose
> > rely on some type of implicit or explicit "forecast" or "prediction"
> > of FUTURE market prices in order to make money.
> >
> > The funny thing is, a large number of market participants actually
> > don't believe this, don't really think about it, don't WANT to think
> > about it...
>
> I don't 'predict' the market any more than I 'predict' the sun rising
> tomorrow morning - not because I haven't thought about it, not because I
> haven't analyzed it, but because 'predicting' simply isn't required for
> profit in ALL methods of trading.
We are twisting semantics here, but twisted semantics always
reveal "mindset", and the "mindset" of the trader is very important
to me.
To me, "predicting" is a simple concept: you assert an event will
occur BEFORE it occurs. To you, "predicting" is something like
asserting an event will occur before it occurs, but being WRONG
about it (or MAYBE being wrong about it?).
So the the mindset of the "trader" sounds to me to be similar to the
mindset of the many "gamblers" I have known:
"Nobody nose 'nuttin 'bout 'nuttin, you cantz predictz the future,
but I nose wutz gonna happen, cuz it alwayz happenz! Itz so simple,
doan need no book-learnin', doan no why nobody else but me nose it!!!"
> Perhaps, 'predicting' future outcome
> remains a fundamental component of your own trading, but not all.
> Clearly, 'predicting' future outcome can (and often does) generate
> profits.
If I go long, I don't do it "predicting" that the price will go down, and
if it does, I ABSOLUTELY WILL LOSE MONEY, and vice versa.
Now THAT'S simple, and I'm always amazed when "traders" doan
nose it!!! That's why I HAVE to keep reading this group, just to
make sure they'll NEVER get it!!!
> However, 'predicting' (like Price and Volume) isn't the ONLY
> way.
>
> Just as the 'odds' of some cataclysmic event occurring overnight causing
> the sun to fail to rise in the morning remain so remote, for the earth's
> purposes (and life in general), that it doesn't enter into the equation,
> so too, do situations exist in trading where the 'odds' of catastrophe
> remain so infinitesimally remote, for the purposes of risk assessment,
> they do not exist.
>
Well, yeah, but so what? We've now eliminated stuff that DOESN'T
matter, now we're still left with the stuff that DOES matter...so we're
right
back where we started, aren't we? We gotta make a "prediction" of
some sort to make money in the market...
I actually KNOW what you're TRYING to say...I mean, what are the
odds of the market crashing over 20 percent in one day? But if you're
"trading" blissfully away, be you "market maker" or "computer program",
you are probably doing so based on a PREDICTION that the market
will NOT crash 20 percent that day, based on PREVIOUS HISTORY.
Most of the time, you'll be right. Every once in a while, like in 1987,
you'll be wrong. Will you still "make money"? Probably, overall, in
your lifetime...unless the market starts crashing 20% a day more than
you "predict", just like it "unpredictably" did in 1987...
And wouldn't you at least make MORE money if you could "predict"
WHEN the market WOULD crash 20% in a day? How about being
able to predict when the +-10% days are coming? 5%? 100%+
NASDAQ in 1999?
Would it surprise you to learn that the ability to make these
"predictions" is based partly on understanding your future behavior
as revealed by your inability as a "trader" to understand the true meaning
of the word "prediction"? Just because you don't know what you are
actually doing doesn't mean somebody else can't watch you (not you
personally, but the AGGREGATE of all the traders throughout
history) and "predict" what you will do next IF certain "unpredictable"
events happen...
> > You mean PRICE "trend" and "reversal"?
>
> No. While Trend and Reversal appear to have similar definitions to
> continuation and change, its an "All poodles are dogs, but not all dogs
> are poodles" sorta' deal. Retrace, also fits the definition of 'change'
> (as well as many other examples), however, few would confuse the
> differences between a retrace and a reversal. Yet, both fit under the
> umbrella of 'change.'
>
Well, at least we've got THOSE semantics cleared up...
> > Possibly. The funny thing is, ESP always seems to come into play,
> > at least a little bit, whenever I have pressed TA and chartists for
> > specifics.
> > I my own self personally ALWAYS use a little ESP to "grok" which
> > companies are likely to continue their rapid growth, a little "common
> > sense", perhaps, a smidge of my own "consumer desires"...
>
> What you refer to as ESP, some might define as a "gauge of market
> sentiment."
Yeah, I'm being purposefully "loose" with my semantics concerning
"ESP", just throwing in every thing that doesn't have a "hard value" that
can be "quantified". But a lot of economics and the markets IS based
on EXACTLY those "soft values", which is precisely why economists
KNOW they can't predict stuff like "Beanie Baby" sales...so if you've
got great "ESP", good for you! You don't need "luck" or "statistics"
or chartz or nuttin'!
> Certainly, understanding sentiment provides a benefit.
> However, one can obtain such information without resorting to 'insider
> information.' A P-V Chart can provide the same information with respect
> to the time frame desired.
>
Yup, it can tell you they sold a LOT of "Beanie Babies", and sure, there
might be some patterns that would show the trend to "Beanie Babies"
is weakening and maybe "Pet Rocks" are starting to ramp up...
>
> > Since price and volume are ALL you need, ESP plus price and
> > volume is even better...I hope we can cut the "price only" people
> > a little slack, and say that price is ALL you need to "make a
> > living" as well, but adding volume, like ESP, is even better...hell,
> > throw some "fundamentals" in there, even more better, sky's
> > the limit...
>
> If one trades equities, I agree fundamentals should play a major role in
> culling the thousands of publicly traded companies down to a reasonable
> level.
For me, "culling" introduces "errors" to your maximum possible gain
from "information", but if that's the best you can do, it's better than
nothing
(your exact "sort order" will always cause certain "blind spots" to form in
your stock/other trading instrument "picking").
> I may have posted my own criteria here before (and if I haven't,
> then I surely linked to those criteria), but the combination of Price
> and Volume works in any market, not just equities.
>
> Any market, Any Time Frame (Provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>
Do you know how well it "works"? Can you answer a question
about the methodology concretely?
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 672
Bill Reid
Lawyerkill <Lawye...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182032296.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You forgot to carry the 1...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 673
Spydertrader
No 'we' are not. This isn't a semantics debate, nor is it a refusal to
understand the role 'predicting' can play in trading. 'We' aren't
talking about 'once in a lifetime' events (as in 1987) which is why I
used the example of the sun NOT rising. You like the 'odds' of the sun
not coming up? Events which fall so far outside the realm of possibility
no longer effect the equation. Think, dominos set up in a long row. Push
the first one, and the last falls several moments later.
Now, we can go one of two ways here. You can make the determination that
I really have no clue about any of this, or you can choose to entertain
the possibility that things exist differently than your current
worldview. I neither profit from, nor experience a loss as a result, of
your decision, but I really have no interest in Door Number Three (where
you provide yet another example which proves YOU predict, but fails to
show I do). I understand your assertion, but it simply does not apply
here.
> For me, "culling" introduces "errors" to your maximum possible gain
> from "information", but if that's the best you can do, it's better
> than nothing
> (your exact "sort order" will always cause certain "blind spots" to
> form in your stock/other trading instrument "picking").
For me, 'culling' simply allows the cream to rise to the top. Start with
the entire USA (NASDAQ, AMEX and NYSE) and remove the crap from the
equation. Using parameters, which insure a 'High Quality' group of
companies to begin the evaluation process, makes my job a bit easier.
> Do you know how well it "works"? Can you answer a question
> about the methodology concretely?
I posted the entire methodology online 2 years ago - free of charge.
Quite a number of individuals have since followed the methods
experiencing results, which surpassed my own. IIRC, someone in this
group even created a statistical breakdown of each trade. Since then,
I've moved onto futures, but feel free to ask any question you like.
- Spydertrader
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > We are twisting semantics here,
>
> No 'we' are not. This isn't a semantics debate, nor is it a refusal to
> understand the role 'predicting' can play in trading. 'We' aren't
> talking about 'once in a lifetime' events (as in 1987) which is why I
> used the example of the sun NOT rising. You like the 'odds' of the sun
> not coming up?
I arrange my entire day around those odds! I just don't THINK
about it usually, I just DO it. But as a rational person, I know that
I've just been "programmed" by constantly-repeating events into
automotan-like behavior...
And that was my only point: the difference between just BEHAVING
"routinely" and actually understanding what you are doing...the difference
is NOT mere "semantics" to me when it comes to analyzing the market
most effectively.
If you can't grasp this concept, it doesn't really matter. But I think a
lot of people DO get the general idea...long-time readers of MIS have
noted the predictable rise in the number of purported "day-traders"
posting here during bull market periods, for example...
> Events which fall so far outside the realm of possibility
> no longer effect the equation. Think, dominos set up in a long row. Push
> the first one, and the last falls several moments later.
>
That's EXACTLY how I TRY to think about the market! Cause and
effect, supply and demand! I actually gather information about the "first
domino" to "predict" when the last one will fall, silly me!
And if for whatever reason I choose to behave like a dumb domino,
I remain vigilant as to the dominos I KNOW are falling before me, and
then TRY to get out of that silly chain before I myself fall.
> Now, we can go one of two ways here. You can make the determination that
> I really have no clue about any of this,
I never said that, just that you have certain "blind spots" about yourself
and the market that you choose to characterize as "once in a lifetime"
events. I actually agree with you that many of them are "outliers" that
may not greatly impact your lifetime results and shouldn't keep you from
playing YOUR game.
I just want to play MY game a little differently. I've noticed in my
own life that these "once in a lifetime" events have occurred not once
but several times, and I do believe they will happen again in my
lifetime, and I want to understand them and profit from them.
I distinguish myself from most all other market participants in that
I NEVER ignore relevant data while for virtually all others, discarding
data is considered to be a virtue ("fundamentals don't work, just look
at price data, that's ALL you need", "volume is useless, common
sense and market feel is all you need", etc.).
> or you can choose to entertain
> the possibility that things exist differently than your current
> worldview.
Unfortunately, it should be very clear that my point is that my
"worldview" is many orders of magnitude more inclusive than
yours. YOU exist, trade successfully, and currently thrive in
my "worldview". Since I presume that is all you wish to assert
about your "worldview", I have no reason to modify my
"worldview".
> I neither profit from, nor experience a loss as a result, of
> your decision,
That's correct, a most important point...however, I will repeat,
I monitor this group with the constant fear that people will someday
"smarten up", but am constantly relieved to note human behavior
seems to be immutable, if not actually mute...
> but I really have no interest in Door Number Three (where
> you provide yet another example which proves YOU predict, but fails to
> show I do). I understand your assertion, but it simply does not apply
> here.
>
OK, maybe to clear it all up, for you, "predicting" means that you have
to go through some CONSCIOUS process of logic to assert a future
event...or something like that, frankly, after a while, discussions like
this
just give me a headache...just fuggudaboutit, OK, you don't have to
"predict" to make money in the market, happy now?
> > For me, "culling" introduces "errors" to your maximum possible gain
> > from "information", but if that's the best you can do, it's better
> > than nothing
> > (your exact "sort order" will always cause certain "blind spots" to
> > form in your stock/other trading instrument "picking").
>
> For me, 'culling' simply allows the cream to rise to the top. Start with
> the entire USA (NASDAQ, AMEX and NYSE) and remove the crap from the
> equation.
Yes, as a first simple step towards better results, you want to "screen"
for certain parameters that have been shown to yield better results.
Over time, historically, stocks with certain parameters have done
somewhat better than the market as a whole, or at least stocks with
opposite parameters. By removing or only including certain stocks
with certain parameters, you should gain the extra few percentage
points over the long run compared to the average parameters in
a comparison index, such as the S&P 500.
> Using parameters, which insure a 'High Quality' group of
> companies to begin the evaluation process, makes my job a bit easier.
>
A screen can also ensure that you only select from a group of
stocks with the most beneficial characteristics for some type of
trading algorithm, which is what you are using it for (or SHOULD
be using it for).
Again, I inclusively accept this...the only thing is, I've also moved
BEYOND this, which doesn't mean that I've INVALIDATED it,
just IMPROVED upon it...
> > Do you know how well it "works"? Can you answer a question
> > about the methodology concretely?
>
> I posted the entire methodology online 2 years ago - free of charge.
So, I don't remember off-hand, is this the (misnamed!) "Jack Hershey
method"?
> Quite a number of individuals have since followed the methods
> experiencing results, which surpassed my own.
So, BETTER than 100% a year (but still down from the over 300%
a year promised by "Jack Hershey"), very impressive, I would think
everybody currently making less than that (which would be me, at least
on a very long-term projected US stock trading average) would
want to check that out...
> IIRC, someone in this
> group even created a statistical breakdown of each trade.
Uh, yeah, if I'm recalling correctly I may remember this...I also
remember that it involved intraday trading, something like you have
do something at 10am EST or some fixed time, which you personally
sometimes did as the result of "ESP"...
> Since then,
> I've moved onto futures, but feel free to ask any question you like.
>
Yeah, any concrete procedure for trading at daily intervals rather
than intraday? "Jack Hershey" always said this would cut your
profit down from 300% a year to 100% a year, could you make
over 30% a year with YOUR version of his system without having
to trade intraday? I'm sure that most of the time (when the broad
market averages return much less than 30%) people would be
quite happy to get those essentially "no-brainer" results from
an "automatic" system...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 674
Spydertrader
> So, I don't remember off-hand, is this the (misnamed!) "Jack Hershey
> method"?
LOL. Thanks for reminding me. Yes, I have yet to change the name to
'Spydertrader's Method'
> Yeah, any concrete procedure for trading at daily intervals rather
> than intraday?
Several ways exist for accomplishing this task.
1. A couple of guys down in Australia basically automated the entire
process (and even posted their code). They turn the 'system' on before
heading to sleep, and it runs on its own until they check it the next
day. I believe they used Amibroker for the platform.
2. Depending on one's broker, you can set a series of OCO type commands
the night before (or morning before heading to work) based on Price
reaching a certain level in the day. By calculating the Price Volatility
seen on certain volume levels, one can use OCO orders to enter the
stocks which meet the intraday criteria, while eliminating those that
fail to measure up from consideration. The downside to this solution
occurs when Price gaps over your limit order, you don't receive a fill.
3. Set a Buy Stop Limit (or sell stop limit for shorts) the night before
(or again, morning before heading to work) outside the standard 'noise'
often seen at the open.
The real breakthrough with understanding what Jack failed to easily
convey within these groups nearly a decade ago stems from the fact that
Jack (for whatever reason) wanted people to arrive at their own 'Aha!'
with respect to 'seeing' how the market works. Sentiment drives the
whole process. Call it supply / demand, support / resistance, or even
'ESP' if you like, but the market (any market) ALWAYS provides clues to
the change in sentiment. What is more, these clues exist on EVERY chart
- irrespective of trading vehicle. While we do not know how long the
change in sentiment plans to remain intact, we do not need to know in
advance. We only need to know how to 'see' the next change in sentiment
on the same fractal or time frame.
Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every time
frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > method"?
>
> 'Spydertrader's Method'
>
Reid Method" since I was using something very similar in 1986...
> > Yeah, any concrete procedure for trading at daily intervals rather
> > than intraday?
>
> Several ways exist for accomplishing this task.
>
> 1. A couple of guys down in Australia basically automated the entire
> process (and even posted their code). They turn the 'system' on before
> heading to sleep, and it runs on its own until they check it the next
> day. I believe they used Amibroker for the platform.
>
Yeah, I haven't got the "guts" (or other types of organs) to just
allow my computer to possibly trade away my life savings. I know
computers too well (primarily but not limited to my memory of my
many gigantic programming mistakes, some of which are the
dreaded 0.01% errors).
> 2. Depending on one's broker, you can set a series of OCO type commands
> the night before (or morning before heading to work) based on Price
> reaching a certain level in the day. By calculating the Price Volatility
> seen on certain volume levels, one can use OCO orders to enter the
> stocks which meet the intraday criteria, while eliminating those that
> fail to measure up from consideration. The downside to this solution
> occurs when Price gaps over your limit order, you don't receive a fill.
>
Hmmm, this sounds a little better for actual practice...of course, what
I was really fishing for was a strategy I could back-test on 100+ years
of daily OHLCV data...
> 3. Set a Buy Stop Limit (or sell stop limit for shorts) the night before
> (or again, morning before heading to work) outside the standard 'noise'
> often seen at the open.
>
Yes, in actual practice I used some similar tricks to trade options
during the day at specified times (like 10am EST, surprise!).
> The real breakthrough with understanding what Jack failed to easily
> convey within these groups nearly a decade ago stems from the fact that
> Jack (for whatever reason) wanted people to arrive at their own 'Aha!'
> with respect to 'seeing' how the market works.
I don't know about this...that was one slippery dude. He didn't just
prevaricate on his "strategy", he also pulled stunts like claim he wrote
something like 17 books, then when asked for the titles and ISBN
numbers he would berate people for focusing on trivialities like that
when they should be more interested in the book topics!
Every time you would ask him a direct question about a specific
aspect of the "strategy", he would go right back to repeating the crap
about "compound interest", so you could never even get to the FIRST
step, let alone the entire concrete algorithm of the "strategy". At
this time, I still have him listed as just another BSing freak of the
magnitude that only Usenet could allow to survive...
> Sentiment drives the
> whole process. Call it supply / demand, support / resistance, or even
> 'ESP' if you like, but the market (any market) ALWAYS provides clues to
> the change in sentiment.
I'd just call it support and resistance, thank you. Not very revolutionary,
I personally abandoned those specific simple techniques as too weak over
20 years ago, and people were using them to trade when "Jack" was
just a mere sprat of 60 back in the 1940s...
> What is more, these clues exist on EVERY chart
> - irrespective of trading vehicle. While we do not know how long the
> change in sentiment plans to remain intact, we do not need to know in
> advance. We only need to know how to 'see' the next change in sentiment
> on the same fractal or time frame.
>
Ah yes, time "fractals", "Jack" used to talk about those all the time.
And all I ever wanted to do is move to a "fractal" that allowed the use
of daily OHLCV data. If we are truly talking about "fractals", then
this shouldn't be be a problem, except we reduce the amount of
"compound interest" we can make. (Just as an aside, statistically
the market, ANY market, does not exhibit PERFECT "self-similarity"
at all time levels with respect to distribution of future results based
on previous results.) We can just go from a 7-10 day trading cycle
to around a 20-day (or more) cycle; problem is, those intraday
decision points in the shorter cycles tend to really make a BIG
difference, don't they?
> Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every time
> frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
Yes, though for me I abstract price and volume as "supply" (of
holders/sellers of stock), then look "upstream" for "demand" (people
with money who want to buy stock). The actual price that will be
set in the FUTURE will not depend just on the holding price of the
holders/sellers, but the relative ratio of the PREDICTED demand
to the previous dollar volume at the holding price.
All short-term "upsy-downsie" systems (which is how I generally
classify things like the "Jack Hershey Method") rely on what is known
to be more or less of a fiction: that the amount of money available
as "demand" for an instrument is fixed, and merely cycles back and
forth in a close-ended system between buyers and sellers. For
very short trading periods, this is generally truer with respect to
the presumed trading "spread" (or more rudely, "noise") than for
longer trading periods.
It is also important for the "strategy" to in some way take into
account "demand" changes in the "outer fractals" (longer time
periods) if the "strategy" is to out-perform the longer period
rate of change of the instrument. To some extent, this is where
volume can add real benefit, as the volume level may either
cycle or preclude a trade action in the previous, current, or
next trade fractal.
But still the best thing for the "upsie-downsie"
trader is to trade stocks that go nowhere but up and down
repeatedly to avoid the possible chagrin of "underperformance";
however, since the mentality of the "trader" is so similar to the
mentality of the "gambler", they may very well subscribe to the
gambler's motto:
"I did really well last time I went to Vegas: I broke even!"
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 675
Spydertrader
> Hmmm, this sounds a little better for actual practice...of course,
> what I was really fishing for was a strategy I could back-test on 100+
> years of daily OHLCV data...
Several individuals (including myself) posted backtested results of the
years. Most people prefer the forward tests as they usually produce
superior results to the backtesting.
> I don't know about this...that was one slippery dude. He didn't just
> prevaricate on his "strategy", he also pulled stunts like claim he
> wrote something like 17 books, then when asked for the titles and ISBN
> numbers he would berate people for focusing on trivialities like that
> when they should be more interested in the book topics!
Well, I dunno why people would harp on and on about needing information
when they could simply do a search for themselves and locate the exact
same information.
> Every time you would ask him a direct question about a specific
> aspect of the "strategy", he would go right back to repeating the crap
> about "compound interest", so you could never even get to the FIRST
> step, let alone the entire concrete algorithm of the "strategy". At
> this time, I still have him listed as just another BSing freak of the
> magnitude that only Usenet could allow to survive...
If one can wade through the crossfire and flame fests, Jack posted
pretty clear and concise instructions at the following URL:
I began with the above set of instructions and moved foreword from
there.
> I'd just call it support and resistance, thank you. Not very
> revolutionary, I personally abandoned those specific simple techniques
> as too weak over 20 years ago, and people were using them to trade
> when "Jack" was just a mere sprat of 60 back in the 1940s...
Call it 'Ham and Cheese on Rye' if doing so suits you, but if you
determined these changes 'too weak' to provide a benefit, then clearly,
you and I speak of two entirely different topics. Pick a chart (any
chart will do) and locate the point (in the past) where you feel
sentiment changed. Now, so I am perfectly clear, this point in time
where sentiment changed, so clear to you in hindsight, can be observed
in real time and acted upon in real time by anyone, anytime in any
market.
Understanding how the market works, and the clues given out by the
market (any market) when these changes take place is exactly what Jack
Hershey tried to convey. Unfortunately, Jack chose to convey his
information in a manner, which prevented most people from comprehending.
> Ah yes, time "fractals", "Jack" used to talk about those all the time.
> And all I ever wanted to do is move to a "fractal" that allowed the
> use of daily OHLCV data.
Jack often interchanges 'fractal' with 'time frame.' However, we have
another "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles" deal here as
well. Fractal could mean the same time frame (same chart) but different
trend within the overall trend. Some folks call them 'mini-trends.'
Again, the same process works intra-TREND, as works intra-BAR, as works
intra-DAY, as works DAILY, and on and on.
> If we are truly talking about "fractals",
> then this shouldn't be be a problem, except we reduce the amount of
> "compound interest" we can make. (Just as an aside, statistically
> the market, ANY market, does not exhibit PERFECT "self-similarity"
> at all time levels with respect to distribution of future results
> based on previous results.) We can just go from a 7-10 day trading
> cycle to around a 20-day (or more) cycle; problem is, those intraday
> decision points in the shorter cycles tend to really make a BIG
> difference, don't they?
The very same Price / Volume Relationship that works INTRA-Day also
works Day-to-Day, Month-to-Month, tic-to-tic, or whatever time frame you
desire (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>> Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every
>> time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>
> Yes, though for me I abstract price and volume as "supply" (of
> holders/sellers of stock), then look "upstream" for "demand" (people
> with money who want to buy stock). The actual price that will be
> set in the FUTURE will not depend just on the holding price of the
> holders/sellers, but the relative ratio of the PREDICTED demand
> to the previous dollar volume at the holding price.
Price moves because it can ONLY move in the direction indicated. Price
CANNOT move where Volume does not take it. Price does not move because
someone (or group of someone's) PREDICT it to move.
> All short-term "upsy-downsie" systems (which is how I generally
> classify things like the "Jack Hershey Method") rely on what is known
> to be more or less of a fiction: that the amount of money available
> as "demand" for an instrument is fixed, and merely cycles back and
> forth in a close-ended system between buyers and sellers. For
> very short trading periods, this is generally truer with respect to
> the presumed trading "spread" (or more rudely, "noise") than for
> longer trading periods.
The 'system' relies on Price and Volume, period, and not on whatever
else you want to believe. Why complicate things so?
> But still the best thing for the "upsie-downsie"
> trader is to trade stocks that go nowhere but up and down
Hence, by culling for certain parameters, one obtains a list of stocks
to monitor which do exactly as you describe - they MOVE, and they do
move by high percentages over a relatively short period of time.
With futures, one has less Homework to perform. No culling. No sorting.
No concerns about overnight holds. Applying the very same template used
to trade Equities Day to Day onto the S&P Futures Market shortens the
learning curve tremendously. One simply needs to operate on a much
faster time frame.
Seriously, I have nothing to sell here, and I personally wish you
tremendous success with whatever methods you use to extract profits from
the markets. However, when you have some free time, take a look at a
chart (any chart), and strip away everything but Price and Volume.
Spends some time, and see for yourself if the market doesn't speak loud
and clear. IF you don't see it at first, keep looking. It's there. It's
free, and once you DO see it, you'll be just as surprised as I was.
"Why the hell didn't I 'see' this sooner?"
- Spydertrader
- Spydertrader
Alan Bowler
>
> The usual. Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
> only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
> and you weren't, tough luck...
Not really. John Bogle has for years been telling people
how to make money in the market. (Diversify, buy, hold,
and pay as little in overhead as you can get away with.)
You don't make fantastic returns, but you can certainly
fund a comfortable retirement.
Bill Reid
Alan Bowler <atbo...@thinkage.ca> wrote in message
news:d1zdi.14044$13.1...@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Yeah, John Bogle is one of very few "good guys" in the
market, a no-BS guy who just wants to help people make
money. Guy's about 175 years old, with gnarled hands
like a cancerous ginseng root, but still sharp as a tack.
I've got some of my 401(k) money in his Vanguard funds.
Of course, his point has always been that you'll make
BETTER returns with "market diversified" broad portfolio
than with actively-managed mutual funds. Certainly there
is great historical evidence to this effect, but all the BS
artists in the market want you to let them trade away your
retirement money using their nonsensical "ESP"-based
stock-picking systems, with never a guarantee that
they can consistently beat the broad market averages...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 676
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > Hmmm, this sounds a little better for actual practice...of course,
> > what I was really fishing for was a strategy I could back-test on 100+
> > years of daily OHLCV data...
>
> Several individuals (including myself) posted backtested results of the
> years.
OH NO YOU DIN-DINT!!!
NOBODY has ever posted any back-tested trading strategy
results going back 100 years, unless of course it was me. YOU
specifically fought me tooth and nail to stop me from testing your
system, pre-emptively stating that it was IMPOSSIBLE to test it.
The ONLY thing YOU posted was your own personal trading
results over the period of about a year, none of which alleged
trades were actually posted here in "real time".
Now on the very off-chance I missed these alleged back-testing
results, please provide the Google(TM) Groups link, or just copy
and paste them right here:
> Most people prefer the forward tests as they usually produce
> superior results to the backtesting.
<resisting urge to burst out laughing>
OK, you're on a real roll with your trading, hate to mess that up
with any evidence that you can be on a roll for years and then have
it all turn around on you...
> > I don't know about this...that was one slippery dude. He didn't just
> > prevaricate on his "strategy", he also pulled stunts like claim he
> > wrote something like 17 books, then when asked for the titles and ISBN
> > numbers he would berate people for focusing on trivialities like that
> > when they should be more interested in the book topics!
>
> Well, I dunno why people would harp on and on about needing information
> when they could simply do a search for themselves and locate the exact
> same information.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/244rhs
>
I ain't looking at any links, and frankly, the point is not whether he
wrote a book or not, but that he was the consunmate asswipe senile
old troll. Nobody but an asswipe senile old troll would berate
somebody because they asked a simple and obvious question
in response to A TOPIC HE HIMSELF BROUGHT UP FOR
NO REASON instead of just supplying the simple answer.
THAT WAS HIS CONSTANT BEHAVIOR PATTERN
HERE. He barged in here claiming that he had a simple system
that he wanted to give everybody for free that would make
300% a year, then berated anybody who actually asked
him a question about it. HE WAS A JERK. IT WAS NOT
A MATTER OF POOR COMMUNICATION, HIS GOAL
WAS TO TRY TO GET ATTENTION BECAUSE HE
WAS A LONELY OLD MAN, AND HE WANTED TO
ACT "SUPERIOR" TO OTHER PEOPLE.
>
> If one can wade through the crossfire and flame fests,
Which he deliberately started...
> Jack posted
> pretty clear and concise instructions at the following URL:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/26bpoe
>
Not looking at your link. You, Jack, and many others need to
learn how to actually post stuff here that can be Googled(TM)
rather than re-directing everything to yet another web-site...
> I began with the above set of instructions and moved foreword from
> there.
>
Why not just use them EXACTLY since he claimed over a 300%
yearly return using them EXACTLY? (Hell, for futures, he claimed
3,000% a year!)
> > I'd just call it support and resistance, thank you. Not very
> > revolutionary, I personally abandoned those specific simple techniques
> > as too weak over 20 years ago, and people were using them to trade
> > when "Jack" was just a mere sprat of 60 back in the 1940s...
>
> Call it 'Ham and Cheese on Rye' if doing so suits you, but if you
> determined these changes 'too weak' to provide a benefit, then clearly,
> you and I speak of two entirely different topics.
OK, to clarify, I realized I could make MORE money doing something
else. I am always looking at any way to make the MOST amount of
money. Actually, in terms of the "benefit", I made about 150% a year
when I used MY version of the "Jack Hershey" system, then I realized
I was cutting my potential returns by at least HALF by doing too much
trading...
> Pick a chart (any
> chart will do) and locate the point (in the past) where you feel
> sentiment changed. Now, so I am perfectly clear, this point in time
> where sentiment changed, so clear to you in hindsight, can be observed
> in real time and acted upon in real time by anyone, anytime in any
> market.
>
You are not "perfectly clear", because you are using your own
"special language" that most people don't speak. I don't really
know what "sentiment" is, except I guess people got a little "sentimental"
about their dads yesterday. Do you mean some type of price "trend"?
> Understanding how the market works,
OK, let's stop for a second, and remember a simple fact: a "chart"
is NOT "how the market works". A "chart" is just a two-dimensional
view of the price (and possibly volume) action that happenend
previously in the market.
> and the clues given out by the
> market (any market) when these changes take place is exactly what Jack
> Hershey tried to convey. Unfortunately, Jack chose to convey his
> information in a manner, which prevented most people from comprehending.
>
By his own design.
> > Ah yes, time "fractals", "Jack" used to talk about those all the time.
> > And all I ever wanted to do is move to a "fractal" that allowed the
> > use of daily OHLCV data.
>
> Jack often interchanges 'fractal' with 'time frame.'
Any market time frame can be "fractal" in nature (I am well-versed in
"chaos theory" where the term "fractal" originated and is defined).
> However, we have
> another "All poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles" deal here as
> well. Fractal could mean the same time frame (same chart) but different
> trend within the overall trend. Some folks call them 'mini-trends.'
> Again, the same process works intra-TREND, as works intra-BAR, as works
> intra-DAY, as works DAILY, and on and on.
>
Then it IS "fractal" in nature (self-similar no matter what the size).
THE EXACT SAME ALGORITHM THAT DESCRIBES A
"FRACTAL" AT ONE SIZE DESCRIBES IT ANY SIZE.
>
> > If we are truly talking about "fractals",
> > then this shouldn't be be a problem, except we reduce the amount of
> > "compound interest" we can make. (Just as an aside, statistically
> > the market, ANY market, does not exhibit PERFECT "self-similarity"
> > at all time levels with respect to distribution of future results
> > based on previous results.) We can just go from a 7-10 day trading
> > cycle to around a 20-day (or more) cycle; problem is, those intraday
> > decision points in the shorter cycles tend to really make a BIG
> > difference, don't they?
>
> The very same Price / Volume Relationship that works INTRA-Day also
> works Day-to-Day, Month-to-Month, tic-to-tic, or whatever time frame you
> desire (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>
Yes, but "Jack Hershey" specifically stated that due to "compound
interest" you made more money the shorter the trading "fractal"...
> >> Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every
> >> time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>
OK, I've already accepted that, it is widely-accepted by many
people...just as with "Jack Hershey", at this point I have ask, "now
what?"
I mean, you can't be serious here...I've seen tens of thousands
of charts, the collective conscious of all market participants have
seen literally tens of BILLIONS of charts...at this point, it is in
no way clear EXACTLY what I or anybody else would do with
those charts, except say vaguely that "sometimes volume and
future prices seem to be related in some way sort of, maybe".
(I like the way "Jack Hershey" fluffed over this stuff even better,
saying crap like, "and now watch as the fractal opens up like
a flower"...so poetic...so beautiful...such CRAP!)
> >
> > Yes, though for me I abstract price and volume as "supply" (of
> > holders/sellers of stock), then look "upstream" for "demand" (people
> > with money who want to buy stock). The actual price that will be
> > set in the FUTURE will not depend just on the holding price of the
> > holders/sellers, but the relative ratio of the PREDICTED demand
> > to the previous dollar volume at the holding price.
>
> Price moves because it can ONLY move in the direction indicated.
What are you saying? You've got a "system" that gives you
100% sucessful trades?!??!!! Hell, I generally agree with the
theory that when volume "drys up", you're about to see a change
in trend, but even if you wait for "first rising volume" you're
not gonna win every single frickin' time...
> Price
> CANNOT move where Volume does not take it.
Well, somebody has to make a trade...
> Price does not move because
> someone (or group of someone's) PREDICT it to move.
>
Oh no, we're backing to being anal about the word "predict"...
OK, price moves up because buyers are willing to pay more than
previously, and vice versa, but in no way was any "predicting"
involved...at least as far as you're concerned...
> > All short-term "upsy-downsie" systems (which is how I generally
> > classify things like the "Jack Hershey Method") rely on what is known
> > to be more or less of a fiction: that the amount of money available
> > as "demand" for an instrument is fixed, and merely cycles back and
> > forth in a close-ended system between buyers and sellers. For
> > very short trading periods, this is generally truer with respect to
> > the presumed trading "spread" (or more rudely, "noise") than for
> > longer trading periods.
>
> The 'system' relies on Price and Volume, period, and not on whatever
> else you want to believe. Why complicate things so?
>
The "system" does not really know WHAT it relies on, in the same
way a "chart" is NOT "how the market works". YOU don't REALLY
know how the "market works", you only at best can say that in the past
you had some success using price-volume charts (and stochastics, right?)
using something you call the "Jack Hershey Method". YOU may
"rely" on the "system", but you DON'T know WHY or HOW
it works (and save your breath about "buyers and sellers in
agreement", leave that to "Jack Hershey").
> > But still the best thing for the "upsie-downsie"
> > trader is to trade stocks that go nowhere but up and down
>
> Hence, by culling for certain parameters, one obtains a list of stocks
> to monitor which do exactly as you describe - they MOVE, and they do
> move by high percentages over a relatively short period of time.
>
Exactly. I still remember after trying to get the so-called "Jack
Hershey Method" to work, he said, "well, did you screen for stocks
that cycled up and down more than 10% at least three times in
the last six months...that's the most important thing!"
Of course, he NEVER mentioned that "requirement" before, and
he himself didn't even use many of his so-called "requirements" in
his purported trading, so it was at that point that I resolved if I ever
saw the asswipe in person I would just shoot him and do the world
(and probably him) a favor...
> With futures, one has less Homework to perform. No culling. No sorting.
> No concerns about overnight holds. Applying the very same template used
> to trade Equities Day to Day onto the S&P Futures Market shortens the
> learning curve tremendously. One simply needs to operate on a much
> faster time frame.
>
But you still use the volume from the STOCK market, right? What
exactly IS the volume you use to trade the S&P futures?
> Seriously, I have nothing to sell here, and I personally wish you
> tremendous success with whatever methods you use to extract profits from
> the markets.
Same here.
> However, when you have some free time, take a look at a
> chart (any chart),
Oh, Lord, here we go again...can you possibly understand just
how insulting this is to somebody who has been trading for decades?
You honestly think I've never seen a chart?!??!
> and strip away everything but Price and Volume.
THAT'S WHAT A FRIGGIN' CHART IS IN THE FIRST
PLACE!!! (Except sometimes they do stick some other stuff
on it, I like to overlay stock price charts with a chart of the
company performance in my charting package, where there's
a big discrepancy, that's a possible trade, except I actually
just let my computer measure the discrepancy automatically
for thousands of stocks every night.)
> Spends some time, and see for yourself if the market doesn't speak loud
> and clear. IF you don't see it at first, keep looking. It's there.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I know I said I wasn't going to laugh, but this is REALLY too
much...
> It's
> free, and once you DO see it, you'll be just as surprised as I was.
>
> "Why the hell didn't I 'see' this sooner?"
I "saw" it over 20 years ago. Again...now what?
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 677
Spydertrader
> NOBODY has ever posted any back-tested trading strategy
> results going back 100 years, unless of course it was me.
I don't recall saying I had ONE HUNDRED YEARS test results. Did you see me
say I did? Kindly, link to the post.
> YOU specifically fought me tooth and nail to stop me from testing your
> system, pre-emptively stating that it was IMPOSSIBLE to test it.
Throughout history, what once appeared impossible later become possible
through advances in technology. Certainly you don't mean to suggest that
since Neanderthal man couldn't build a 747, Boeing can't either.
> The ONLY thing YOU posted was your own personal trading
> results over the period of about a year, none of which alleged
> trades were actually posted here in "real time".
When did USENET (and specifically THIS group) become the arbiter of all
things real? I don't recall seeing the proof of electricity existing nor
the white papers on Oxygen, but I'm guessing you can agree those two items
exist?
I posted the trades, not only in real time, but the NIGHT BEFORE.
Suggesting that somehow the location of these posts renders the results
invalid exemplifies your consistent use of flawed logic throughout your
tenure posting to this group.
> Now on the very off-chance I missed these alleged back-testing
> results, please provide the Google(TM) Groups link, or just copy
> and paste them right here:
There ya' go
> <resisting urge to burst out laughing>
>
> OK, you're on a real roll with your trading, hate to mess that up
> with any evidence that you can be on a roll for years and then have
> it all turn around on you...
Evidently, Reading Comprehension continues to provide you with daily
challenges. Again (for clarity), ACTAUL (live real time) results exceed the
tests.
>> http://tinyurl.com/244rhs
>>
> I ain't looking at any links, and frankly, the point is not whether he
> wrote a book or not,
Well, whether Jack wrote a book or not SEEMED to be your point when you
chose to use the word 'CLAIMED' when referencing his works. Now, rather
than admit you put your foot in your mouthy, you CLAIM to not care. How
nice it must be to ignore evidence, which invalidates your assertions.
<Snipped ad hominem attack comprised fully of complaints about Jack using
ad hominem attacks>
Ironic, ain't it?
>> Jack posted
>> Pretty clear and concise instructions at the following URL:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/26bpoe
>>
> Not looking at your link. You, Jack, and many others need to
> learn how to actually post stuff here that can be Googled(TM)
> rather than re-directing everything to yet another web-site...
Anyone can locate the information at the link provided above using Google.
Now, it isn't MY fault you either don't want to learn how or simply cannot
grasp the concept, but claiming someone cannot use Google to locate the
information provided somehow renders that information invalid or useless
remains laughable at best.
>
>> I began with the above set of instructions and moved foreword from
>> there.
>>
> Why not just use them EXACTLY since he claimed over a 300%
> yearly return using them EXACTLY? (Hell, for futures, he claimed
> 3,000% a year!)
Which system you want to discuss? Futures? Or Equities? Now, it really
makes no difference to me, but you really need to choose a topic and stick
to it. Claiming one assertion refers to another topic, when in reality it
does not makes you appear disingenuous at best, and a fabricator of facts
at worst.
> OK, to clarify, I realized I could make MORE money doing something
> else. I am always looking at any way to make the MOST amount of
> money. Actually, in terms of the "benefit", I made about 150% a year
> when I used MY version of the "Jack Hershey" system, then I realized
> I was cutting my potential returns by at least HALF by doing too much
> trading...
LOL. You make 300% a year, yet you JUST finished posting what can ONLY be
described as ridicule with respect to another person who made the same
claims. Do I have that right? You can do it, but nobody else can? Or is it
you CAN'T do it so nobody else can. You switch assertions so often, I have
found it difficult to keep track. So, one more time for clarity...
You return 300% a year while working full time? or you work full time but
do NOT have results which match 300% a year?
> You are not "perfectly clear", because you are using your own
> "special language" that most people don't speak. I don't really
> know what "sentiment" is, except I guess people got a little
> "sentimental" about their dads yesterday. Do you mean some type of
> price "trend"?
My own special language?
Investopedia seems to understand it.
Wikipedia seems to grasp the concept.
Google has 37,400,000 results for it.
But since YOU didn't comprehend, it MUST be my own special language.
Another classic example of your pretzel logic.
>
>> Understanding how the market works,
>
> OK, let's stop for a second, and remember a simple fact: a "chart"
> is NOT "how the market works". A "chart" is just a two-dimensional
> view of the price (and possibly volume) action that happenend
> previously in the market.
A chart provides, not only past Price action, but CURRENT Price action as
well. "How the market works" is displayed on EVERY chart, in EVERY market
on EVERY time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists). Right now,
somewhere in the world, someone trades and profits off these same
principles you feel do not exist. I find it interesting you'd rather debate
the existence of something rather than head off and find it for yourself.
Quite telling I believe.
>> and the clues given out by the
>> market (any market) when these changes take place is exactly what
>> Jack Hershey tried to convey. Unfortunately, Jack chose to convey his
>> information in a manner, which prevented most people from
>> comprehending.
>>
> By his own design.
Of course it was by his own design. I've said so many times.
> Then it IS "fractal" in nature (self-similar no matter what the size).
> THE EXACT SAME ALGORITHM THAT DESCRIBES A
> "FRACTAL" AT ONE SIZE DESCRIBES IT ANY SIZE.
Uhm, I've been saying so repeatedly. What I attempted to clarify was Jack's
use of fractal often meant 'time frame' instead of the usual definition of
fractal.
> Yes, but "Jack Hershey" specifically stated that due to "compound
> interest" you made more money the shorter the trading "fractal"...
Correct. Shorter hold times, and more trades > Longer hold times and fewer
trades when comparing profits. However, this does NOT necessarily mean one
has to leave the daily charts and move down to the tic charts. Once can
accomplish the same task. Again, we have a situation where YOU define
fractal one way (correctly), and IN THIS INSTANCE Jack meant another
definition. In other words, rather than holding each trade for eight days,
hold it four days (and make more trades) to make more money.
>> >> Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every
>> >> time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
>>
> OK, I've already accepted that, it is widely-accepted by many
> people...just as with "Jack Hershey", at this point I have ask, "now
> what?"
Which market? Equities or Futures? Which time frame? Daily (EOD) or Intra-
Day ( 5 min)?
> I mean, you can't be serious here...I've seen tens of thousands
> of charts, the collective conscious of all market participants have
> seen literally tens of BILLIONS of charts...at this point, it is in
> no way clear EXACTLY what I or anybody else would do with
> those charts, except say vaguely that "sometimes volume and
> future prices seem to be related in some way sort of, maybe".
> (I like the way "Jack Hershey" fluffed over this stuff even better,
> saying crap like, "and now watch as the fractal opens up like
> a flower"...so poetic...so beautiful...such CRAP!)
It isn't some time, it is ALL times. Any differences exist due to context
(e.g. market open vs. midday). These so called millions and billions of
chart views haven't resulted in nobody 'seeing' what is available (and
crystal clear). Many people the world over see it, trade it and profit from
it every day. No surprise to me that anytime someone has the temerity to
post on the subject, you strike out on a jihad. Noting such knee-jerk
behavior, I can't really understand why you haven't seen more conversation
on the subject.
> What are you saying? You've got a "system" that gives you
> 100% sucessful trades?!??!!! Hell, I generally agree with the
> theory that when volume "drys up", you're about to see a change
> in trend, but even if you wait for "first rising volume" you're
> not gonna win every single frickin' time...
Of course not, I make mistakes like everyone else. I believe I see one
thing, when a missed annotation or 'tunnel vision' causes me to dismiss
data central to the market pace and or direction. Such occasions usually
occur when I fail to focus on the task at hand - too interested in other
goings on rather than remaining focused on trading. Surely, all traders
have had similar experiences WITHOUT trading a specific system or
methodology. As a result, I make poor trades now and then. Nobody ever
claimed perfection with respect to execution. Sometimes the market simply
moves too fast for a human to react once providing a signal. Shit happens,
and we move onto the next trade.
However, the VAST majority of the time, the market provides its signal with
plenty of time to react.
>
>> Price
>> CANNOT move where Volume does not take it.
>
> Well, somebody has to make a trade...
Without VOLUME, you HAVE NO TRADES.
> Oh no, we're backing to being anal about the word "predict"...
> OK, price moves up because buyers are willing to pay more than
> previously, and vice versa, but in no way was any "predicting"
> involved...at least as far as you're concerned...
LOL. Still 'predicting' the sun will rise tomorrow? Let me know when you'd
like to short the sunrise.
> The "system" does not really know WHAT it relies on, in the same
> way a "chart" is NOT "how the market works". YOU don't REALLY
> know how the "market works", you only at best can say that in the past
> you had some success using price-volume charts (and stochastics,
> right?) using something you call the "Jack Hershey Method". YOU may
> "rely" on the "system", but you DON'T know WHY or HOW
> it works (and save your breath about "buyers and sellers in
> agreement", leave that to "Jack Hershey").
Price and Volume and ONLY Price and Volume. It's all you ever need. The
Stochastics Indicators (and MACD) on EOD Charts in Equities help the
beginning trader get 'eyes on a chart' and 'see' what price and Volume
tells them. Indicators lag, and while some Indicators may lag less or more
than others, they STILL lag. Price and Volume is real time. It's NOW.
I know exactly why the 'system' works. It works because it focuses on the
way ALL markets function on a fundamental level (provided sufficient
liquidity). Disagree all you like, but each chart (EVERY Chart) in EVERY
market on EVERY Time Frame) shows the exact same thing (provided our friend
liquidity exists).
> Exactly. I still remember after trying to get the so-called "Jack
> Hershey Method" to work, he said, "well, did you screen for stocks
> that cycled up and down more than 10% at least three times in
> the last six months...that's the most important thing!"
Equities which cycle a minimum of FIVE TIMES in six months over a period of
SIX to EIGHT Days for TWENTY Percent gains remain an important part of the
BEGINNER methods Jack describes. Such stocks are deemed to have 'rank.'
However, once learned one can (and should) apply the methods to ALL markets
or equities - irrespective of 'rank.'
Here's a current list of 'ranked' stocks for you ...
BTJ CECE CHDX CYNO DRYS FRG GMKT GROW GRRF IAAC IIG JADE JSDA LEND MEH MTOX
NCTY NGA OMTR PRXI ROCM SNCR SYNL SYX TRCR
>
> Of course, he NEVER mentioned that "requirement" before, and
> he himself didn't even use many of his so-called "requirements" in
> his purported trading, so it was at that point that I resolved if I
> ever saw the asswipe in person I would just shoot him and do the world
> (and probably him) a favor...
Of course he DID mention it, just not within the confines of USENET. Then
again, for those of us who believe in the existence of pertinent
information outside the world of misc.invest.stocks, such information isn't
difficult to locate.
> But you still use the volume from the STOCK market, right? What
> exactly IS the volume you use to trade the S&P futures?
I use the Volume of the ES07U (Current contract) for each 5 minute bar. I
also use a Pro-rated Volume for each 5 minute bar.
> Oh, Lord, here we go again...can you possibly understand just
> how insulting this is to somebody who has been trading for decades?
> You honestly think I've never seen a chart?!??!
You've continuously claimed that what I (and others) have described doesn't
exist. Obviously, you cannot see what many others CAN. Since you CLAIM to
have seen a chart before, yet CANNOT see what I have described, it makes
LOGICAL sense, that you have not viewed CORRECTLY that which to me remains
GLARINGLY obvious.
As a result, the logical conclusions are:
1. I am full of shit and have no clue.
2. YOU haven't looked correctly.
Whichever answer YOU feel most logically provides you clarity, works for me
as well.
> I "saw" it over 20 years ago. Again...now what?
Doubtful. Of course, it makes perfect sense that you'd KNOW about this 20
years ago, but cast it aside as somehow less profitable than your own
methods.
The system doesn't require high powered computer algorithms or even much of
an intellect in order to 'see' it work real time In fact, you could hand
draw your charts and bank similar results.
I simply cannot understand why you find this concept so complex.
OpEd
OpEd
Spydertrader
> Spydertrader, are you the "billiam" that posted here several years
> ago?
> OpEd
No. I believe I have only ever posted under my current username.
- Spydertrader
Bill Reid
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > results going back 100 years, unless of course it was me.
>
> say I did? Kindly, link to the post.
>
You have now surely entered the dreaded "troll" category...here
it is again, but with trolls, this becomes pointless:
Spydertrader <Spyder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9952D04695A21sp...@216.196.97.142...
> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>
> > Hmmm, this sounds a little better for actual practice...of course,
> > what I was really fishing for was a strategy I could back-test on 100+
> > years of daily OHLCV data...
>
> Several individuals (including myself) posted backtested results of the
> years.
---end of archived post excerpt
"results of the years" responding to "100+ years", see it? (Of
course you did, that's why you snipped it!)
> > YOU specifically fought me tooth and nail to stop me from testing your
> > system, pre-emptively stating that it was IMPOSSIBLE to test it.
>
> Throughout history, what once appeared impossible later become possible
> through advances in technology. Certainly you don't mean to suggest that
> since Neanderthal man couldn't build a 747, Boeing can't either.
>
Yup, a troll. YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID IT WAS
"IMPOSSIBLE", NOT ME!!!
> > The ONLY thing YOU posted was your own personal trading
> > results over the period of about a year, none of which alleged
> > trades were actually posted here in "real time".
>
> When did USENET (and specifically THIS group) become the arbiter of all
> things real? I don't recall seeing the proof of electricity existing nor
> the white papers on Oxygen, but I'm guessing you can agree those two items
> exist?
>
It's not, but up until this moment, I had no doubts that your
purported trade results were real...now, with your current extremely
dishonest behavior, I'm not so sure, and am not prepared to
accept further claims from you without verifiable proof...
> I posted the trades, not only in real time, but the NIGHT BEFORE.
> Suggesting that somehow the location of these posts renders the results
> invalid exemplifies your consistent use of flawed logic throughout your
> tenure posting to this group.
>
I didn't suggest they were invalid, but merely that the trades
WEREN'T posted here with a NNTP-assigned timestamp...and
furthermore, there is a problem with verifying the close of the trades
no matter how the open was posted (and even the trade open was
in the form of a "conditional", if this happens, if that happens, that
kind of stuff).
> > Now on the very off-chance I missed these alleged back-testing
> > results, please provide the Google(TM) Groups link, or just copy
> > and paste them right here:
>
> There ya' go
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36h8kk
Is this a Google Groups(TM) link? I generally only click on
large commercial web-site links...
> > <resisting urge to burst out laughing>
> >
> > OK, you're on a real roll with your trading, hate to mess that up
> > with any evidence that you can be on a roll for years and then have
> > it all turn around on you...
>
> Evidently, Reading Comprehension continues to provide you with daily
> challenges. Again (for clarity), ACTAUL (live real time) results exceed
the
> tests.
> >> http://tinyurl.com/244rhs
I fail to see how my reading comprehension is in question from what
I wrote, but your's is another question...
> > I ain't looking at any links, and frankly, the point is not whether he
> > wrote a book or not,
>
> Well, whether Jack wrote a book or not SEEMED to be your point when you
> chose to use the word 'CLAIMED' when referencing his works. Now, rather
> than admit you put your foot in your mouthy, you CLAIM to not care. How
> nice it must be to ignore evidence, which invalidates your assertions.
I still don't know if he ever wrote a book, because I don't click on
unknown links...and I still don't care about the books themselves, just
his assinine behavior. Read THAT until you comprehend it...
> <Snipped ad hominem attack comprised fully of complaints about Jack using
> ad hominem attacks>
>
> Ironic, ain't it?
What's ironic? That all trolls have the same MO? The snipping,
the subject changing, never answering a simple question with a simple
answer? That's not so much ironic as just plain frustrating, but
expected, since I don't expect anything else on Usenet...
> >> Jack posted
> >> Pretty clear and concise instructions at the following URL:
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/26bpoe
> >>
> > Not looking at your link. You, Jack, and many others need to
> > learn how to actually post stuff here that can be Googled(TM)
> > rather than re-directing everything to yet another web-site...
>
> Anyone can locate the information at the link provided above using Google.
> Now, it isn't MY fault you either don't want to learn how or simply cannot
> grasp the concept, but claiming someone cannot use Google to locate the
> information provided somehow renders that information invalid or useless
> remains laughable at best.
Apparently, I can't use Google(TM) to find where you posted 100+
years of testing results as you tried to make people believe you did...
> >> I began with the above set of instructions and moved foreword from
> >> there.
> >>
> > Why not just use them EXACTLY since he claimed over a 300%
> > yearly return using them EXACTLY? (Hell, for futures, he claimed
> > 3,000% a year!)
>
> Which system you want to discuss? Futures? Or Equities?
YOU SAID THEY'RE ALL THE SAME!!! YOU WERE
TRADING EQUITIES, AND SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU
DID NOT USE THE EXACT "INSTRUCTIONS" PROVIDED
BY "JACK HERSHEY". DOING SO APPARENTLY CUT
YOUR RETURNS BY 2/3 FROM HIS CLAIMS, SO WHY
DIDN'T YOU USE HIS INSTRUCTIONS??!!??!!
> Now, it really
> makes no difference to me, but you really need to choose a topic and stick
> to it. Claiming one assertion refers to another topic, when in reality it
> does not makes you appear disingenuous at best, and a fabricator of facts
> at worst.
Yeah, that's me, just fabricating stuff away here...I am deeply shamed...
> > OK, to clarify, I realized I could make MORE money doing something
> > else. I am always looking at any way to make the MOST amount of
> > money. Actually, in terms of the "benefit", I made about 150% a year
> > when I used MY version of the "Jack Hershey" system, then I realized
> > I was cutting my potential returns by at least HALF by doing too much
> > trading...
>
> LOL. You make 300% a year, yet you JUST finished posting what can ONLY be
> described as ridicule with respect to another person who made the same
> claims. Do I have that right?
Not quite, but the problem here is the typical initiating condition of
stupidity and poor reading comprehension that leads to all troll-like
behavior.
Note carefully I said I made 150% "WHEN" I was trading my
version of the "Jack Hershey System" (a price-volume reversal
system), and at that time realized I could have made 300% by
NOT using it. I was trading very strong stocks in the midst of
a giant bull market.
Now someday you might figure this out, but sometimes the
market and the stocks you pick are going up strongly, and other
times they aren't. Take all the time you need to "comprehend"
what I just wrote, and don't bother to back-talk me any more
until you "get it"...
> You can do it, but nobody else can?
Yeah, kinda like Jack! Once again, I know this is hard for you,
but try real hard to think about what I wrote, and for your own sake
you might actually think real hard about the market while you're at
it...
> Or is it
> you CAN'T do it so nobody else can.
Sure, remember what I said about the "usual" mentality of
brilliant purported traders like "Jack Hershey":
"Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck..."
> You switch assertions so often, I have
> found it difficult to keep track.
Try decaf. Or one of those ADD medications they give
kids, you know, like ritalin...
> So, one more time for clarity...
Oh no, here it comes, watch the spider catch the fly!
> You return 300% a year while working full time? or you work full time but
> do NOT have results which match 300% a year?
I never said I made 300% a year. SOME years I have made 300%
(and even more), SOME years I make nothing (and don't even trade the
market), SOME years I lose money. Working full time or not has little
to do with it, though I'm kinda convinced it's better NOT to be in a
position to "day trade"...
> > You are not "perfectly clear", because you are using your own
> > "special language" that most people don't speak. I don't really
> > know what "sentiment" is, except I guess people got a little
> > "sentimental" about their dads yesterday. Do you mean some type of
> > price "trend"?
>
> My own special language?
>
> Investopedia seems to understand it.
> Wikipedia seems to grasp the concept.
> Google has 37,400,000 results for it.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz (wake me up when
you grow up, short pants...)
> But since YOU didn't comprehend, it MUST be my own special language.
> Another classic example of your pretzel logic.
Most of the language used in market "analysis" is a steaming pile
of crap. That's not MY "special language", just simple logic. You
just proved it by not being able to answer a simple question, just
like your troll hero "Jack Hershey"...
> >> Understanding how the market works,
> >
> > OK, let's stop for a second, and remember a simple fact: a "chart"
> > is NOT "how the market works". A "chart" is just a two-dimensional
> > view of the price (and possibly volume) action that happenend
> > previously in the market.
>
> A chart provides, not only past Price action, but CURRENT Price action as
> well. "How the market works" is displayed on EVERY chart, in EVERY market
> on EVERY time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists). Right now,
> somewhere in the world, someone trades and profits off these same
> principles you feel do not exist.
I never said any particular "principles" don't exist, just that people
seem to find it a difficult if not impossible task to describe these vague
"principles" in concrete usable terms.
> I find it interesting you'd rather debate
> the existence of something rather than head off and find it for yourself.
You total jerk, I've constantly described my search for successful
market trading strategies.
> Quite telling I believe.
What an ass you are.
> >> and the clues given out by the
> >> market (any market) when these changes take place is exactly what
> >> Jack Hershey tried to convey. Unfortunately, Jack chose to convey his
> >> information in a manner, which prevented most people from
> >> comprehending.
> >>
> > By his own design.
>
> Of course it was by his own design. I've said so many times.
So he succeeded brilliantly in his goal to be a troll. Good for him.
> > Then it IS "fractal" in nature (self-similar no matter what the size).
> > THE EXACT SAME ALGORITHM THAT DESCRIBES A
> > "FRACTAL" AT ONE SIZE DESCRIBES IT ANY SIZE.
>
> Uhm, I've been saying so repeatedly. What I attempted to clarify was
Jack's
> use of fractal often meant 'time frame' instead of the usual definition of
> fractal.
>
> > Yes, but "Jack Hershey" specifically stated that due to "compound
> > interest" you made more money the shorter the trading "fractal"...
>
> Correct. Shorter hold times, and more trades > Longer hold times and fewer
> trades when comparing profits. However, this does NOT necessarily mean one
> has to leave the daily charts and move down to the tic charts. Once can
> accomplish the same task. Again, we have a situation where YOU define
> fractal one way (correctly), and IN THIS INSTANCE Jack meant another
> definition.
Hmmmm, that's the guy I want to write books for me, somebody who
uses words incorrectly...
I still look back in anger when "Jack Hershey" blew in here and
claimed he had a simple "equation" that could make you 300%+
a year, every year, for the rest of your life. I asked him, "Please
post the 'equation'", and he came back with the "calculator"
nonsense, you can't understand the "equation" unless you understand
"compound interest", and this went back and forth about 10 times.
I finally told him there was only ONE definition for the word
"equation" which is something in the form of "E=mc^2", with one
"expression" and another expression or "constant" on each side
of an "equals sign", and then he finally admitted it wasn't an
"equation" at all, but more of a "principle"...
With his command of the English language, logic, and math,
those must be some majorly effed-up books he did or did not
write...
> In other words, rather than holding each trade for eight days,
> hold it four days (and make more trades) to make more money.
There's a certain amount of truth to this...up to a point. There is
cruel mathematical truth to making money in the "real world" (as
opposed to a "calculator", like "Jack Hershey" always used as
an example) that a lot of people don't understand, sometimes to
the point of financial ruin (which is difficult to do by going long
in the stock market unless you're really stupid).
> >> >> Price and Volume provide these clues in every market and on every
> >> >> time frame (provided sufficient liquidity exists).
> >>
> > OK, I've already accepted that, it is widely-accepted by many
> > people...just as with "Jack Hershey", at this point I have ask, "now
> > what?"
>
> Which market? Equities or Futures? Which time frame? Daily (EOD) or Intra-
> Day ( 5 min)?
Oh crap, I've only said it like 8 bazillion times, what's one more:
US MAJOR INDEX EQUITIES USING NOTHING BUT
DAILY OHLCV DATA AND POSSIBLE SCREENS FOR
EARNINGS AND OTHER QUALITY FUNDAMENTALS.
> > I mean, you can't be serious here...I've seen tens of thousands
> > of charts, the collective conscious of all market participants have
> > seen literally tens of BILLIONS of charts...at this point, it is in
> > no way clear EXACTLY what I or anybody else would do with
> > those charts, except say vaguely that "sometimes volume and
> > future prices seem to be related in some way sort of, maybe".
> > (I like the way "Jack Hershey" fluffed over this stuff even better,
> > saying crap like, "and now watch as the fractal opens up like
> > a flower"...so poetic...so beautiful...such CRAP!)
>
> It isn't some time, it is ALL times. Any differences exist due to context
> (e.g. market open vs. midday). These so called millions and billions of
> chart views haven't resulted in nobody 'seeing' what is available (and
> crystal clear). Many people the world over see it, trade it and profit
from
> it every day. No surprise to me that anytime someone has the temerity to
> post on the subject, you strike out on a jihad. Noting such knee-jerk
> behavior, I can't really understand why you haven't seen more conversation
> on the subject.
To repeat again:
"Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck..."
> > What are you saying? You've got a "system" that gives you
> > 100% sucessful trades?!??!!! Hell, I generally agree with the
> > theory that when volume "drys up", you're about to see a change
> > in trend, but even if you wait for "first rising volume" you're
> > not gonna win every single frickin' time...
>
> Of course not, I make mistakes like everyone else.
"mistakes"? The question wasn't about "mistakes", it was about
the ability of ANY system to be 100% accurate in PREDICTING
the future. But I forgot, you don't PREDICT the future (but you
do apparently make "mistakes" whatever the hell you're doing).
> I believe I see one
> thing, when a missed annotation or 'tunnel vision' causes me to dismiss
> data central to the market pace and or direction.
So you DO use "ESP", right?
> Such occasions usually
> occur when I fail to focus on the task at hand - too interested in other
> goings on rather than remaining focused on trading.
Well, for any concrete procedure to accomplish a task, it is possible
to make a "mistake"...that's why I'm a big believer in programming the
procedure into a computer to automate it, or at the least writing it
down in a simple step-by-step fashion, then following the procedure
EXACTLY (in my professional life I'm really big on those types of
procedures where they are appropriate, because they reduce my
error rate to effectively 0).
> Surely, all traders
> have had similar experiences WITHOUT trading a specific system or
> methodology.
Yeah, everybody does stupid stuff from time to time. The problem
is, about half the time, it actually works out better than doing the "right"
thing!
> As a result, I make poor trades now and then. Nobody ever
> claimed perfection with respect to execution. Sometimes the market simply
> moves too fast for a human to react once providing a signal. Shit happens,
> and we move onto the next trade.
Still seems like you think the system gives you 100% profitable
trades, which means I'm starting to think you're off your rocker,
because 100% accuracy for any "system" applied to an apparent
"stochastic" process is considered a contradiction in terms in
statistics and game theory...
> However, the VAST majority of the time, the market provides its signal
with
> plenty of time to react.
I guess just using daily OHLCV data would give you plenty of time
to not make a "mistake"...hello 100% profitable trades, guaranteed...
> >> Price
> >> CANNOT move where Volume does not take it.
> >
> > Well, somebody has to make a trade...
>
> Without VOLUME, you HAVE NO TRADES.
Congratulations, you win the "well duh" prize for today!
> > Oh no, we're backing to being anal about the word "predict"...
> > OK, price moves up because buyers are willing to pay more than
> > previously, and vice versa, but in no way was any "predicting"
> > involved...at least as far as you're concerned...
>
> LOL. Still 'predicting' the sun will rise tomorrow? Let me know when you'd
> like to short the sunrise.
I'll rely on "inside information" when that time comes...
> > The "system" does not really know WHAT it relies on, in the same
> > way a "chart" is NOT "how the market works". YOU don't REALLY
> > know how the "market works", you only at best can say that in the past
> > you had some success using price-volume charts (and stochastics,
> > right?) using something you call the "Jack Hershey Method". YOU may
> > "rely" on the "system", but you DON'T know WHY or HOW
> > it works (and save your breath about "buyers and sellers in
> > agreement", leave that to "Jack Hershey").
>
> Price and Volume and ONLY Price and Volume. It's all you ever need. The
> Stochastics Indicators (and MACD) on EOD Charts in Equities help the
> beginning trader get 'eyes on a chart' and 'see' what price and Volume
> tells them. Indicators lag, and while some Indicators may lag less or more
> than others, they STILL lag. Price and Volume is real time. It's NOW.
I may have forgotten the "system" (easy to do since it is always
changing), but I thought "stochastics" crept in there somehow, but
OK, that's just for rookies, got it...
> I know exactly why the 'system' works. It works because it focuses on the
> way ALL markets function on a fundamental level (provided sufficient
> liquidity). Disagree all you like, but each chart (EVERY Chart) in EVERY
> market on EVERY Time Frame) shows the exact same thing (provided our
friend
> liquidity exists).
So why was it so important to screen for quality fundamentals?
I kinda get the screen for volatility, though the repeated volatility
pattern thing seems to violate your ALL CHARTS claim...
> > Exactly. I still remember after trying to get the so-called "Jack
> > Hershey Method" to work, he said, "well, did you screen for stocks
> > that cycled up and down more than 10% at least three times in
> > the last six months...that's the most important thing!"
>
> Equities which cycle a minimum of FIVE TIMES
Whatever...
> in six months over a period of
> SIX to EIGHT Days for TWENTY Percent gains remain an important part of the
> BEGINNER methods Jack describes.
"BEGINNER"? Now we have "BEGINNER" systems that "ANYBODY"
can see if they just "LOOK HARD ENOUGH"! <supressing BWHAHA>
> Such stocks are deemed to have 'rank.'
Something smells a little "rank", I agree...sorry, couldn't resist...
> However, once learned one can (and should) apply the methods to ALL
markets
> or equities - irrespective of 'rank.'
Weird, that's all I can say, just plain weird. As Spock would
say, "does not compute"...literally.
> Here's a current list of 'ranked' stocks for you ...
>
> BTJ CECE CHDX CYNO DRYS FRG GMKT GROW GRRF IAAC IIG JADE JSDA LEND MEH
MTOX
> NCTY NGA OMTR PRXI ROCM SNCR SYNL SYX TRCR
OH NO, I'M HAVING A "JACK HERSHEY" FLASHBACK
HERE, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE USED TO DO, SMEAR
OUT A LIST OF STOCKS WITH SOME KIND OF VAGUE
QUALITY BUT NO ACTUAL TRADE RECS!!!
> > Of course, he NEVER mentioned that "requirement" before, and
> > he himself didn't even use many of his so-called "requirements" in
> > his purported trading, so it was at that point that I resolved if I
> > ever saw the asswipe in person I would just shoot him and do the world
> > (and probably him) a favor...
>
> Of course he DID mention it, just not within the confines of USENET.
Then maybe he shouldn't have ever posted here at all. Make sense?
> Then
> again, for those of us who believe in the existence of pertinent
> information outside the world of misc.invest.stocks, such information
isn't
> difficult to locate.
It's always on a "blog" or sumpin', ain't it?
> > But you still use the volume from the STOCK market, right? What
> > exactly IS the volume you use to trade the S&P futures?
>
> I use the Volume of the ES07U (Current contract) for each 5 minute bar. I
> also use a Pro-rated Volume for each 5 minute bar.
OK, now THAT'S an actual answer to a simple question...see how
that works? (except I'm not quite sure what "pro-rated" volume is
right off the top of my head, maybe a futures thing I'm fuzzing on...)
> > Oh, Lord, here we go again...can you possibly understand just
> > how insulting this is to somebody who has been trading for decades?
> > You honestly think I've never seen a chart?!??!
>
> You've continuously claimed that what I (and others) have described
doesn't
> exist. Obviously, you cannot see what many others CAN.
"Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck..."
> Since you CLAIM to
> have seen a chart before, yet CANNOT see what I have described, it makes
> LOGICAL sense, that you have not viewed CORRECTLY that which to me remains
> GLARINGLY obvious.
"Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck..."
> As a result, the logical conclusions are:
>
> 1. I am full of shit and have no clue.
Don't be so hard on yourself, leave that to me!
> 2. YOU haven't looked correctly.
You forgot to add my novitiate name "Grasshopper"...
> Whichever answer YOU feel most logically provides you clarity, works for
me
> as well.
>
> > I "saw" it over 20 years ago. Again...now what?
>
> Doubtful. Of course, it makes perfect sense that you'd KNOW about this 20
> years ago, but cast it aside as somehow less profitable than your own
> methods.
Once again, you display a stunning lack of understanding of the
market...ANY market...but that's OK, because that just makes
you the "typical" participant I get to trade against!
> The system doesn't require high powered computer algorithms or even much
of
> an intellect in order to 'see' it work real time In fact, you could hand
> draw your charts and bank similar results.
Well, just what do you think I was doing 20+ years ago!?!
> I simply cannot understand why you find this concept so complex.
Again, you forgot "Grasshopper"...
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 682
Bill Reid
> OpEd wrote on 6/16/07 6:02 PM:
>
> > Can one of you guys please give me an algorithm (procedure) or formula
using
> > price/volume data so that I can make lots of money in the stock market?
> > Thanks in advance.
> >
You forgot that occasionally in the stock market, you want to
"SHABL"...
Of course, there is no "magic formula" save this:
"Nobody nose nuttin' 'bout nuttin' 'bout dat der market, the
only way to make money is to use ESP, which you have to be born with,
and you weren't, tough luck..."
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 683
Spydertrader
>> I don't recall saying I had ONE HUNDRED YEARS test results. Did you
>> see me say I did? Kindly, link to the post.
>>
> It was in the post you are responding to, you snipped it out!
> You have now surely entered the dreaded "troll" category...here
> it is again, but with trolls, this becomes pointless:
>
> Spydertrader <Spyder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9952D04695A21sp...@216.196.97.142...
>> Bill Reid wrote in misc.invest.stocks:
>>
>> > Hmmm, this sounds a little better for actual practice...of course,
>> > what I was really fishing for was a strategy I could back-test on
>> > 100+ years of daily OHLCV data...
>>
>> Several individuals (including myself) posted backtested results of
>> the years.
>
> ---end of archived post excerpt
>
> "results of the years" responding to "100+ years", see it? (Of
> course you did, that's why you snipped it!)
OMG. OF should have been OVER (as in Typo!) and NOT OF the ONE-HUNDRED
YEARS nor OVER the ONE HUNDRED YEARS, but as in "over the last several
years, people have posted back tested results spanning various time
frames." The very fact that your brain automatically decides 'TROLL'
rather than, any other possible explanation reveals an extensive amount
about your character.
But THANK-YOU for posting and CONFIRMING that I DID NOT post the words
100 years, one-hundred years or one hundred years. You decided (on your
own) to attach YOUR OWN meaning to a typo. Whether or not you accept the
explanation of the typo as valid remains immaterial. I did NOT say the
words you attributed to me. You proved it. Thanks again.
And for the record, people snip your posts, not to hide their own
errors, but to limit the amount of bullshit spewing into this group
directly resulting from your posts. You parse every word, phrase and
sentence in a failed attempt to discredit anyone who has the temerity to
post on a topic which you claim expertise.
Rather than post line by line to correct your pretzel logic, fallacious
arguments and run on obfuscation, I'll end my participation in the
discussion thusly:
The methods Jack posted here, the trades I posted for a year straight
(12 hours before market open), and the fundamental methodology discussed
throughout this thread continues to generate profits for a many traders
each day.
Even if you ignore everything Jack 'claimed' and invalidate ALL my
trades, you still have the pesky problem of the current crop of traders
who profit every day using the same system discussed here. (Yes, they
post their trades in advance as well) Now, don't take my word for it.
Trot on over to the web site (linked previously) and ask these folks
yourself.
Personally, I've grown tired of watching your alligator mouth write
checks your chipmunk ass can't cash. Watching a monkey throw shit around
his cage at the zoo can provide entertainment for a while, but for me
(and I don't doubt for many others as well) you simply don't provide
enough entertainment value anymore.
You've got the last word. Make it a good one.
ausound
$Sa4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
> YOU'VE GOT TO PLAY THE ACTUAL GAME YOU'RE IN
> TO REALLY WIN BIG, NOT INDULGE IN FANTASIES LIKE
> ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS.
A most profound statement
everyone should staple it to their foreheads
Bill Reid
>
> You've got the last word. Make it a good one.
SPNAKED!!!!!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 687
MIS trolls spanked count: 7.5 (being put in a troll's kill-file counts as
0.5)
carolyn
Blash
> spnaked...spell naked?
JEEZ......talk about a one-track mind..........
Bill Reid
news:469185CF...@dontspamonmeearthlink.net...
> Bill Reid wrote:
> > Spydertrader <Spyder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9957E77EC71F7sp...@216.196.97.142...
> >
> >>You've got the last word. Make it a good one.
> >
> > SPNAKED!!!!!
> spnaked...spell naked?
SHUT UP OR I'LL PLNOK YOU, LOOSER!!!
---
William Ernest Reid
Post count: 688
Smart-ass idiot plonk count: 0
Don S
> spnaked...spell naked?
>
Talk about leaving yourself open........... Are you going to sell
tickets?????????
carolyn
'naked'..........
-=DirtBag©
"carolyn" <momarc...@dontspamonmeearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:469199A8...@dontspamonmeearthlink.net...