Looking for Real Trading Method

Again...

And really, dude....

I ain't trying to be a dick here.

Tuck away these thoughts into a tinfoil hat...bury them deep in your back yard...

And trade what the charts say.

I think we both know that is where you are better off...I believe that when you are trading without the conspiracy theories, you are more effective...

amiright?

This article complete nonsense - nothing more than financial entertainment.

Edward Thorp ran a hedge fund for 19 years - annualised return of 19% p/a. 227 winning months, 3 losing months (drawdowns less than 1%).

If you had a 50/50 chance of winning or losing a trade and assuming average wins and losses were equal (which is a deliberate understatement, as in practice - the average wins were much larger than average losses) - the probability of achieving this track record on a 50/50 coin toss for each trade is 1:10^63.

To put this in to context - you are a trillion times more likely to be able to pick out a single atom in the earth than achieve this on a 50/50 probability win ratio.

So you can choose to believe one of the following conclusions:

1 - Damn, this guy is very lucky
2 - Trading results are down to more than luck

He did this mostly by using arbitrage and relative value trading options.

Source: Hedge Fund Market Wizards - J. Schwager

When we do something well,but adhere to do something better we continue to follow every eventually.

regards

thank you,

yes it does

Magix,

not related to forex directly,unless u become significant,and have a influence .

this is off topic ,but every single cent is known that passes through your very palm.

it does not and will not effect us ,but on occasion its recalibrated when it falls out of sync.

I subscribe to this very same notion as applied to the Forex Markets...Calibration.

I refer to it as balancing the books and believe this happens because of the independent sessions and the 24 hour trading clock.

This might be my little tin foil hatted idea...but it seems to play well in my favor.

I studied Matka or Sataa in great detail only to find out that no matter how you play it, odds are always in favor of the bookmakers. Then I studied Roulette, Lottos, Wheel of Fortune (Phuntri), Dart, Horse Racing, Sports Betting, various card games (especially Black Jack and Flash or Teen Pati), etc. Noted that one can group these gambles into two distinct categories. 1) The ones that offer fixed risk and reward (I call them Fixed Rate Gambles), and 2) The ones in which rewards keeps on varying till the end (I call them Variable Rate Gambles).

Applied several techniques, mostly Martingale approaches, testing all these gambles. Concluded that there is nothing for a punter in fixed rate gambles because odds are always in favor of bookmakers. The next step was to find a design flaw in any of these gambles. Tried to find any imbalance in roulette and other recognized gambles, then moved to street gambles realizing if there is a design flaw it could only be in any of the street gambles and not the recognized ones because these have been designed and tested by professionals. Found a design flaw in one of the street gambles and benefited from it. Not too much but a decent no risk profit. This design flaw was found in street gambles on National Prize Bond numbers a very common gamble in Karachi. In fact, I acted as an insurer to the bookmakers who needed to offset their risk from unsold tickets and were willing to share some of their profits with a person who buys these unsold tickets. If they do not sell all the numbers there revenue sometimes was less than payout. It is like one privately sells lotto numbers. If total number of tickets sold is not enough to cover the payout of prizes, the seller is bound to lose. I used to buy these unsold numbers on a discount. I bought a portion of the numbers (complete serieses) from several bookmakers in such a way that I bought all possible combinations ........... at a discount. Now no matter what numbers are winners, my collection was always more than cost I used to pay in buying all these combinations.The benefit for bookmakers was they were able to cede their risk. However, after I bagged some money three or four times, bookmakers found out what I was doing and they reduced the discount to a level where it was not possible for me to make money.

.......... to be continued .............

Hi Chicky,
good to see your net is working, don't be absent for too long. Hanging out for the instalment
cheers
hannele

That makes perfect sense to me .

As for calibration ,im presently trying to recalibrate my mind having woke up with a awful hangover ! so much for friends visiting.

regards

Forget about trading. Make a film or a documentary at least

True, very true. In the end its all about taking money from peoples mistakes and being able to actually 'see' who and how they are pulling the strings. Money is made by people making mistakes (even algorithms are built by people...so...they can also be 'fooled'...although were talking micro seconds blablabla).

Having said that (all else to one side) if you where to 'rate' %-wise, how much emphasis do you give to the ticker vs. depth? If you dont mind me asking.


Price is the sum of all intentions. If you have a math problem needing resolved, common sense dictates you cannot use variable X to determine/predict/understand variable x...you need more for this. You need one (or several) constants to predict/understand an 'unknown' variable.
Yet people constantly use this backwards thinking (not insulting anybody here).

Sometimes we are 'unconsciously' so obsessed, tunnel-visioned and closed minded to take a step back and truly think about what trading is really all about. Many a time asking the right questions gives us unexpected answers.

I remember hearing a story of a fella that lived in a large building on the 9th floor (or thereabouts)...
On his way home, he arrived at reception to get in the elevator. A HUGE cue was forming in front of him, people waiting in order, all staring at the little digits for the lift to arrive. "f€ck this...i aint waiting all day" he murmured. So what did he do different to the rest of people?

He could of stayed and waited in the cue like everyone else was doing, politely and respectfully waiting for his turn. Nope.

He walked up the stairs to the first floor, and pressed the elevator button. As the lift was coming down from higher up, it stoped and he got in.
Then of course, the elevator arrives at the reception level. To peoples surprise seeing HIM (of all people! you know, the one at the very END of the cue! disgust!). However, nobody said anything, they simply got in and he got to the 9th floor.

Sometimes thinking different or LOOKING in a different direction can show us many more possibilites, some better, some worse.

ok, how do you compare between fx market and stock market about this (orders) point of views?
is there any daily/weekly orders in the euro/chf, gbp/chf and euro/gbp fx market?how do orders theory explain why there is different pips range movement since 2014 on the 3 pairs ?

for forex scientist:
what is the correlation analysis and correlation formula for each 3 pairs?

This is a good post.....orders by the market movers move the market and bias is only a personal way to define our losses....

In my trading I use TA and PA to determine when and in what direction the orders are injected by the market movers, ithey helps me to read the market with the relevant leads and hunting, usually market movers have to move the price by 20 pips, often by only 10. The ability of the technician or individual traders is based on the fact how well he/she read the market and act on it, which is not easy but can be mastered with experience and passion....Sometime I make 40-60pips risking 10, but I consider them lucky days, risking 7-10 for 10-14 is still a great day done with consistency.

My 2 lire.

Very interesting, since you are on his ignore, much like a tree in a forest, does it make a sound? Turns out it does not, until he responds.

Without a measuring device to record it, there is a sense in which the recognizable properties of quantum particles such as electrons do not exist, just as the falling tree makes no sound at all.

‘Reality is merely an illusion,’ Einstein once admitted, ‘albeit a very persistent one.’

http://blog.oup.com/2011/02/quantum/

By Jim Baggott

If a tree falls in the forest, and there’s nobody around to hear, does it make a sound?

For centuries philosophers have been teasing our intellects with such questions. Of course, the answer depends on how we choose to interpret the use of the word ‘sound’. If by sound we mean compressions and rarefactions in the air which result from the physical disturbances caused by the falling tree and which propagate through the air with audio frequencies, then we might not hesitate to answer in the affirmative.

Here the word ‘sound’ is used to describe a physical phenomenon – the wave disturbance. But sound is also a human experience, the result of physical signals delivered by human sense organs which are synthesized in the mind as a form of perception.

Now, to a large extent, we can interpret the actions of human sense organs in much the same way we interpret mechanical measuring devices. The human auditory apparatus simply translates one set of physical phenomena into another, leading eventually to stimulation of those parts of the brain cortex responsible for the perception of sound. It is here that the distinction comes. Everything to this point is explicable in terms of physics and chemistry, but the process by which we turn electrical signals in the brain into human perception and experience in the mind remains, at present, unfathomable.

Philosophers have long argued that sound, colour, taste, smell and touch are all secondary qualities which exist only in our minds. We have no basis for our common-sense assumption that these secondary qualities reflect or represent reality as it really is. So, if we interpret the word ‘sound’ to mean a human experience rather than a physical phenomenon, then when there is nobody around there is a sense in which the falling tree makes no sound at all.
This business about the distinction between ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘things-as-they-appear’ has troubled philosophers for as long as the subject has existed, but what does it have to do with modern physics, specifically the story of quantum theory? In fact, such questions have dogged the theory almost from the moment of its inception in the 1920s. Ever since it was discovered that atomic and sub-atomic particles exhibit both localised, particle-like properties and delocalised, wave-like properties physicists have become ravelled in a debate about what we can and can’t know about the ‘true’ nature of physical reality.
Albert Einstein once famously declared that God does not play dice. In essence, a quantum particle such as an electron may be described in terms of a delocalized ‘wavefunction’, with probabilities for appearing ‘here’ or ‘there’. When we look to see where the electron actually is, the wavefunction is said to ‘collapse’ instantaneously, and appears ‘here’ with a frequency consistent with the probability predicted by quantum theory. But there is no predicting precisely where an individual electron will be found. Chance is inherent in the collapse of the wavefunction, and it was this feature of quantum theory that got Einstein so upset. To make matters worse, if the collapse is instantaneous then this implies what Einstein called a ‘spooky action-at-a-distance’ which, he argued, appeared to violate a key postulate of his own special theory of relativity.

So what evidence do we have for this mysterious collapse of the wavefunction? Well, none actually. We postulate the collapse in an attempt to explain how a quantum system with many different possible outcomes before measurement transforms into a system with one and only one result after measurement. To Irish physicist John Bell this seemed to be at best a confidence-trick, at worst a fraud. ‘A theory founded in this way on arguments of manifestly approximate character,’ he wrote some years later, ‘however good the approximation, is surely of provisional nature.’

When Bell devised his famous inequality in 1964 these questions returned with a vengeance. Bell sought a way to discriminate between conventional quantum theory and a whole class of alternative, so-called local hidden variable theories which do not need to assume a collapse of the wavefunction. He deduced a mathematical relationship in which local hidden variable theories predict results that are manifestly contradicted by the predictions of conventional quantum theory, providing a direct laboratory test. Some exquisite experiments performed subsequently proved beyond any doubt that quantum theory, with all its apparent ‘spookiness’, is correct.

In 2003, English physicist Tony Leggett took the debate to another level. Local hidden variable theories are characterized by a couple of key assumptions. In one of these, it is assumed that the outcome of a measurement on a quantum particle can in no way be affected by the setting of the device used to make measurements on a second particle with which it is ‘entangled’ (in other words, both particles are described by a single wavefunction). Leggett chose to drop this assumption to see what would happen.

He went on to deduce a further inequality. For a specific combination of measurement settings, quantum theory predicts results which violate this inequality, implying that the outcomes of measurements on distant particles can be affected by some unspecified non-local influence of the device settings. The result we get depends on how we set up another device, even though this may be halfway across the universe. Spooky, indeed.

The results of experiments to test Leggett’s inequality were reported in 2007. Once again, quantum theory was proved to be correct. This kind of result cannot be reconciled with any theory which ascribes fixed properties to the particles prior to measurement. This means that we can no longer assume that the properties we measure necessarily reflect or represent the properties of the particles as they really are. These properties are like secondary qualities – they exist only in relation to our measuring devices. This does not mean that quantum particles are not real. What it does mean is that we can ascribe to them only an empirical reality, a reality that depends on our method of questioning.

Without a measuring device to record it, there is a sense in which the recognisable properties of quantum particles such as electrons do not exist, just as the falling tree makes no sound at all.
‘Reality is merely an illusion,’ Einstein once admitted, ‘albeit a very persistent one.’

Magix, you are being baited, don't get thrown in the clink.

well i would have respected him if he shows me a $50 dollar account.. guess im the loser with a real account...

better than a loser with a loud mouth but no money..

sadly..all the trash talk.. sums up to a fail demo trader or one that made dollars...

Hi Mr Scott,

I only wish I had the brain capacity to really understand quantum theory to the extent that I could contemplate its possibilities . I got as far as understanding the two split experiment and the experiment there after in which they determined the outcome from its path,any ways interesting topic.

Yes my friend, very interesting and I thought somehow relevant to the topic and of course, trading.

But it looks like a whole forest fell.

John Bollinger says, that when deviation is 2.6, then 98% of the time price stays inside the channel.

If so, is it info with value? Yes it is. lol

So, now when price closes outside of the channel, you just have to figure out, is it possible entry, exit or continuation.
After that you can use other tools to take a trade.
Hope that helps.