zdo

$0.59 "The only thing we can really be sure of is that the government will use each new crisis to justify further extensions of its power." Mises

What happens if you click Ignore this user on yourself ? Word cloudlet “…threats to consciousness…” hm… [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Peu7eeGtmQ4&feature=player_embedded]‪Simon Lewis: Don't take consciousness for granted‬‏ - YouTube[/ame] little wtf of a cloud mind location ANANDA'S SEARCH FOR THE MIND IN SEVEN LOCATIONS1

op, Have you heard the old expression “fool me once,… fool me twice,…” ? Well, the option writer’s goal is to fool you twice. After banging my head at this same idea (and also playing as a premium seller) many years ago, I would consider anything you find in distributions of premium OR greeks across the array of strikes to be happenstance at best… no reliable quality edge. jmho

Your understanding that the ‘means’ (whether they be moving averages, stairsteps, or whatever.) move with ( and lag ) the trend is generally accepted across the board and is not ill concieved. The notion of 'value area' moving in discrete quanta is probably more useful than the concept of a 'mean' moving continuously and more smoothly. I would suggest you look a little deeper into your preconceptions about “market consensus of the "mean"” though… “Mean reversion” has been thoroughly treated in the trading literature. “Mean excursion”, too, although not explicitly in those terms as much. But, besides MA crossover crap and content about retracement to 'mean' , specifics of methods, techniques, etc. ie basically taking trades at one’s ‘mean’ hasn’t garnered much discussion. That is what this thread is about. Folks, should we infer from the lack of exposition elsewhere and dearth of comment on methods in this thread that traders are making most entries before or after price has contacted ‘mean’, but few are making trades at their ‘mean’? Boys if that's the case...

The question is the answer… Generally (and somewhat in terms of trends), I am repeatedly assessing the probabilities of whether the current move back to my ‘mean’ is a correction and the mean ‘value’ will hold and the current trend resume or price will cross mean and a new ‘trend’ form with my ‘mean’ / ‘value’ now moving in the other direction from the direction it was moving at the most recent extreme before the reversion. One of my almost daily practices is to ask myself “what can I do tomorrow to make myself an even better trader?” and/or “what can I do today to trade even better?” In that spirit, this question unfolded about certain systems as it occurred to me that in the evolution of my skills and platform representations, I’ve become more ‘unconsciously competent’ and precise at assessing, measuring, and trading ‘reversion to’ than I have at ‘excursion from’ ‘means’. Proficiency with the ‘excursion from’ ‘mean’ trading is less elegant and results are also less consistent– intermittently / sometimes almost automatic, other times out of phase… in certain systems. …will try to refine the question. To start, we can remove the “distinctive” part from the question… was trying to avoid a rehash of methods “everybody” already knows about… and the question is still not about valuation or quantifying a valuation or where or how to place a ‘mean’. Thanks all. The question is the answer…

nonvrbl comunikshn see attached Trying to keep up, Tams … Does these pictures have anything to do with the OP question? Thanks.

calsprdr, just messin' with you... My illustration was a question to see if I had the right idea of what TradeWinds was saying. I could care less about how that particular situation works out. Seriously, re how long it spent there, etc. was part of my question about the whole concept to him..

TradeWinds, After your general idea, I wasn't expecting such a detailed answer . Anyways - thank you very much TradeWinds

maybe this one is just another (generic trade) release The Excavator: Whether It Is The Terror Crisis Or The Debt Crisis, The Solution Is Always A Super Dictatorship

JEHs why don't you just go ahead and tell it like it is instead of beating around the busch There are many, many ways traders combine to get to these percentages. However in my experience a major chunk of the losers get there with two decisions/actions Decision #1 starting undercapitalized (as others have noted) / overleveraged (same diff) Decision #2 choosing to hold on to one particular position for it to 'come back' instead of taking (stop) loss

Tams, If you have time, could you please define / amplify how you are using the terms "slow fractal mean" and "fast fractal market" ?? Thanks

Tradewinds, Real time example to see if I get what you're saying - the EJ has quickly returned to a cluster of 'means' (see rectangle of attached 180 minute EURJPY) Are you saying you'd play it to go back to 114 ? Thanks zdo

ahimsa That term will not be found much in mainstream media. SuperCongress is a term coined by the fringe media who are (justifiably) a little apprehensive about its implications. Slippery slope – starts as a ‘commision’ to pre-reconcile “cuts” and dealing with the debt… then gets used for something else… in a few years… What kind of supercongress is happening in Italy?

Is the debt ceiling deal supposed to be some sort of a cruel joke? Is this what the American people have been waiting months and months for? The "debt ceiling deal from hell" is a complete and total fraud. Barack Obama will not need to worry about the debt ceiling again until after the 2012 election, and no "real" spending cuts will happen until after the 2012 election. The way the political game in Washington D.C. is played today, if you don't get something right now, you probably will never end up getting it. The Republicans have traded a massive debt ceiling increase right now for the possibility of very skimpy budget cuts in the future. Meanwhile, this deal establishes a new "Super Congress" that threatens to fundamentally alter our political system (and not in a good way). The funny thing is that everyone is running around proclaiming that the Tea Party won this battle. That is a complete and total lie. So what about the $917 billion in "immediate" spending cuts that the Republicans are getting as part of this deal? Well, they aren't really spending cuts at all. Rather, they are spending caps. Basically what is happening is that future spending increases are being cancelled and our politicians are selling that to us as "spending cuts". What is even sadder is that the $917 billion is spread over ten years and the vast majority of the "cuts" are in the latter years. For example, even if you consider these to be "spending cuts" (which they are not), the deal calls for only about $25 billion in "cuts" in 2012 and only about $47 billion in "cuts" in 2013. 25 billion dollars is far less than one percent of the federal budget, so needless to say these "cuts" are not very impressive at all. Okay, so how about the second stage of the deal which will produce "spending cuts" of between 1.2 and 1.5 trillion dollars? Well, yes, these would actually be spending cuts and they would be spread over 10 years. Near the end of the year, the new "Super Congress" (more on that in a minute) will submit a proposal to Congress which could cut spending over the next 10 years by a total of up to 1.5 trillion dollars. If the recommendations of the "Super Congress" are not implemented, than "automatic" spending cuts of $1.2 trillion will go into effect over the next 10 years. However, there are some very important things to remember about these "spending cuts". First of all, none of these "automatic" spending cuts would even go into effect until 2013. The face of American politics will be dramatically different by then, and there is absolutely nothing that makes these cuts binding on Congress. As Gregg Easterbrook recently noted, Congress can cancel spending cuts at any time and for any reason.... By projecting the only tangible savings — which aren’t even specified, but are merely caps — into the future, the plan allows Congress to cancel them. In 2012 or any future year, Congress will say, “We can’t have caps this year because of the [iNSERT ANY WORD CHOSEN AT RANDOM] crisis. We are postponing action till next year.” Rinse and repeat. As I have written about so many times before, the U.S. national debt is completely and totally out of control. This was supposed to be the moment when at least some members of Congress were finally going to get serious about our exploding debt. Unfortunately, our politicians have sold us down the river once again. Even if the best case scenario happens (which it never does) and Congress sticks to this deal for the full ten years (which is about as likely as hell freezing over), the "savings" that this deal would produce are quite pathetic as Peter Schiff recently explained.... The Congressional Budget Office currently projects that $9.5 trillion in new debt will have to be issued over the next 10 years. Even if all of the reductions proposed in the deal were to come to pass, which is highly unlikely, that would still leave $7.1 trillion in new debt accumulation by 2021. Our problems have not been solved by a long shot. Keep in mind that Congress can change this deal whenever it wants. So nobody should get excited about these "spending cuts". After all, when was the last time that "future spending cuts" actually materialized in Washington? The reality is that neither political party seems to want to do much to cut government spending. So the band will play on and the can will get kicked even farther down the road. When Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Today, it is $14,342,358,440,969.10. But what this "debt ceiling deal" will do is it will give the congressional leadership of both parties much more power. The new "Super Congress" that this deal establishes will be granted "extraordinary new powers" that regular members of Congress do not possess. For example, The Huffington Post says that any new legislation produced by the "Super Congress" will not be able to be filibustered or amended.... Under the reported framework, legislation the new congressional committee writes would be fast-tracked through Congress and could not be filibustered or amended. So who will be a part of the "Super Congress"? The members will be chosen by the leadership of both parties. So anyone that is not part of the "establishment" is not likely to be included. The following is what U.S. Representative Ron Paul had to say about this new "Super Congress".... "Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership." It is this new "Super Congress" that will decide what will be in the package of "spending cuts" that will be voted on by the end of the year. Regular members of Congress will be frozen out of the process. On December 23rd, Congress will be required to vote up or down on the spending cuts proposed by the "Super Congress". Regular members of Congress will not be allowed to amend the legislation in any way, and no filibusters will be permitted. Does that sound very "American" to you? The more that one examines this "debt ceiling deal", the worse it looks. Meanwhile, many Democrats are running around and acting as if their lunch money was just stolen. For example, the following is what Politico is reporting that U.S. Representative Mike Doyle said about this deal.... “We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Democratic congressman Emanuel Cleaver was even more dramatic when he proclaimed that this deal "looks like a Satan sandwich". Well, this deal is a total nightmare, but not for the reasons that Cleaver is suggesting. This deal opens the door for more rampant deficit spending, and nearly all of the "spending cuts" are put off until after the 2012 election. Basically, the Republicans got taken out behind the woodshed and beaten to a pulp on this one. Any Republican that is trying to proclaim that the debt ceiling deal is a "great victory" is a complete moron. But in the end, it really does not matter which political party gets a "victory" out of all this. What matters is that our federal government is still steamrolling toward a date with financial oblivion. If this is the best that our politicians can come up with, we are absolutely doomed. Michael Snyder

Thanks ... surprised you forgot to mention the golden mean... Also, some might argue with you that the best qualified mean is the opening price ... instead of the closing price... anyways re the "many interpretaions" and One more time - just for you Tams :haha: "For commonality, “the mean” in the question below is your own ‘mean’ – a place where price has ‘reverted back to’. That means it’s not specifically or necessarily a central tendency (like an average) or a measure of valuation (like a value area) or whatever … it’s simply whatever your ‘mean’ is." Thanks for any help with the question you got for us.

Question setup: For commonality, “the mean” in the question below is your own ‘mean’ – a place where price has ‘reverted back to’. That means it’s not specifically or necessarily a central tendency (like an average) or a measure of valuation (like a value area) or whatever … it’s simply whatever your ‘mean’ is. There are piles and piles of threads in trading forums on reversion to the mean methods, techniques, strategies, and tactics. Even though traders don’t typically use the term, there are also piles and piles of threads on ‘excursion from the mean’ methods, techniques, strategies, and tactics. For the most part these are described as new trend if price has just properly crossed through your ‘mean’ or resumption of trend after correction if the ‘mean’ held, etc. etc. but in essence they are about excursion from 'mean’ It may literally fall into the stupid question bin and if you don’t use a ‘mean’ or make trading decisions or executions at your ‘mean’ as described above, then please ignore question. And thanks... Now finally the question - Do you have something that is distinct / atypical that you do when price comes back to your mean?

Have you witnessed or concieved all the different ways to 'fail' or are you just going off what your own experiences? Having been in the retail and discount brokerage business for a while (in almost a different lifetime now), I can tell you those stats are more accurate than not. I personally think it’s somewhere just under 80% overall - but the ‘reasons’ for the high rate of failure are many and the timelines for all the failure are also widely varied – so it could be 90% +. You are incomparable… and be careful how you take that Be advised that with this thread you also just added to your overall risk of joining that %

Click here for details http://disquietreservations.blogspot.com/2011/08/debt-crisis-is-trojan-horse-to-cause.html

Wasn't really talking about the issue of "quantifying" / coding with the use of the word "mathematically" I brought this up because in my experience a large percentage of ‘normals’ reading about and looking for ‘divergences’ literally see price as strong and the indicator as weaker… when actually it was price action (of closes in rsi, macd, etc) in the interim btwn the price peaks that created the ‘inferior’ indicator reading. 'Mathematically', the interim action could have produced an equivalent, non diverging, extreme in the indicator and the trading signal still be valid. ie In the debate about the value or efficacy of ‘divergence’ , absolute indicator readings are just as valuable as divergence readings…context… It's not as 'mathematically' correct and it looks like he's backing use of indicators out of the mix altogether , but choicecap1 was getting at the same concept early in the thread with "Divergence is nothing more that price rejection faster at certain level,so if you can identify other indications of where to expect price to have this type of action(sop/resist) then you dont even need the indicator to find it." Do or Die, I don’t think we’re really arguing here. For example you said, “In fact, Relative Strength in context of RSI means simply the measure where a stock is trading in reference to its past range.” which to me is ~= to “‘mathematically’, … divergences are, in large part, created / made possible by the form, extent and duration of the most recent correction before the current thrust which is exhibiting indicator divergence …” “form, extent and duration” would also establish limits on movement away from moving average that create MACD divergences, etc etc.

:rofl:

Do or Die, Why RSI length of 10? Thanks.

PIMCO | Investment Outlook - Kings of the Wild Frontier

Just in case you got scared / 'concerned' by the administration's "distrastrous consequences" theme of late and the incessant reinforcement by the mainstream media or Just in case you been drinking up the media message and / or you just want to blame Bush (and all that goes along with that)... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/bush-vs-obama-facts-and-observations ... if Bush was a traitor (and he was), then what does that make Obama? :helloooo: Lies to everyone and broken promises (mostly to his dupes), etc, etc. = ...more credibility 'gap' ? http://www.cnbc.com/id/43943482

Taking the diff’s btwn manual and automated several layers further - In much manual trading, even cognitive ‘work’ with “all the parameter fuzzinesses that our grayware handles…” isn’t logical. ‘Worse’ yet for attempts at coding, beyond that we also have the issue of subjective probability accessed not from the cognitive but from adaptive utilization of the ‘soft’ data of emotions. You can actually train yourself to consciously benefit from awareness of common cause and special cause and ambiguity aversion,etc. Knightian uncertainty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia etc etc Let’s see you code that sht, bit! :rofl: ( …jerk gotta scoot so finished this up tersely instead of nicely )

Tams is absolutely correct about “if … logic in plain English, then…” – Theoretically. But practically ?? A quick, incomplete example - It is ‘logical’ for 1) a certain condition to fall within a certain range to be ‘true’, 2) for that ‘trueness’ range to vary in size and location (still under logical but suddenly overly complicated conditions) … practically, the 'coding' practicality falls off rapidly and precipitously...