zdo

:confused: ‘mathematically’, seems many 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 …

The mindset of being an automated systems developer is quite a bit different from the mindset of being a discretionary / rule based systems trader. The best system developers I know would consider manual trading to be a complete waste of time. They find a niche edge and become masters of testing and accurately reading performance reports and real time tweaking instead of masters live ‘screen time’ trading. After a while at it, I finally realized I had to spend months as one, then months as the other to get desired results – but maybe that’s just me. After almost 25 years of trading full time, I still look at some methods and fantasize about automating it but realize how extremely arduous it would actually be to even try – all the while without any guarantees of acceptable results. Been there done that – more than once. Also have been blessed to develop some automation that is still standing the test of tme... Also, finding a programmer to get into a shared vision with you / really understand what you are trying to accomplish, and make the wholehearted commitment required has odds about like playing the ‘big game’ lotteries. The huge majority of programmers, including most 'do it yourself'ers, can’t even begin to think and code into the uncertainty and fuzziness of varying multiple weights / influence of parameters that is required. It takes a great deal of work to fully automate most methods – largely because it’s very arduous to correctly program all the parameter fuzzinesses that individual's grayware handles quite a bit more routinely. Basically, the practiced eye can discern and unconsciously use information, but not be able to quantify it in code well enough where it works the same way automated as it does manually for close to the same percentage of signals. Generally most beginners find that code can generally handle setups ok, but anything but the simplest of context conditions can quickly become a very 'disencouraging' activity… In the ‘distribution’ of methods, the great middle of systems ie analysis methods most traders use are the ones most difficult to automate. Very generally speaking, the systems that can be ‘easy’ to automate are in the tails. Both are ‘simple’ types of systems. They are either in or near the lower win rate tail (think long term trend, etc.) or they are in or near the high win rate tail (think HFT, etc.). The real challenge programmatically for both of these types of ‘easy’ automation is proper risk management. Without automated sizing too, the whole development effort can be a waste, etc etc. … am not jaded and I still love automation. Just trying to be real here :missy: hth

re "why is he a fool.........? " While I do assert that he has a serious character disorder, I wasn't in any way insinuating that he's a fool. It started out titled the "Full Transcript of 7/25/11 Speech"... but by the time it was done it had become the "Fool Transcript of ... " The fools were people like me who listened to it ... and were fooled by it...

"But only if …. ???" was a serious, real question. I haven’t come up with a high quality answer yet. But a partial answer would have something to do with if they experience it as perfect, dependent origination. An answer from a more ‘western’ world view would go something like “...being clear that we must learn to view ourselves accurately, and yet without negative judgment before we become free to move ahead or make any self sustaining changes in our lives.” Kurt Wright.

Thank you all for the posts. I still don’t know. Here are some thoughts and more questions … Attitude as an anticipatory act to create state and orient way self is going to engage upcoming experience. Belief is what you do when you don’t know. If you know, belief is not needed. Could belief be a limited, specialized form of attitude? Seems belief can support attitudes, but can attitudes support beliefs? Can attitude condition how much conviction and attachment one has to belief(s)? Still don’t know the difference.

Fool Transcript of last nights speech: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt – a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans. For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, through compromises, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program, a seed crystal for my oboma care program, were simply added to our nation’s credit card. As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more – to spend ? on tax cuts for middle-class families; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off because a major portion of my support comes from government unions and workers . These emergency steps also added to the deficit – never let a crisis go to waste you know. Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on your loans. Your loans you never even asked for. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Did I just say that with a straight face? Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money – the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid. I don’t mean to scare you. Oh what the heck, I do want to scare you. The purpose of this whole speech is to scare you again and again. Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. Even though I should, I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out the waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare – and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their tax breaks and special deductions. This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. Fiat money and its inevitable inflation and the It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small business and middle-class families get back on their feet right now. Even though I’m doing all I can to cripple small businesses and innovative startups. This approach is also bipartisan. While many of the outright socialists in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough moderates in name only will be willing to accept them if the burden is 'fairly' shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many republicans in name only in the Senate who have said “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks. The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a cuts-only approach – an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. Never mind that they would pass it through anyway and wouldn’t really contribute any more than they are now. And because nothing, nothing nada, not a thing, is asked of those at the top of the income scales, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about – cuts that place a greater burden on working families. Cuts would not place a greater burden on working families. Working families pay their own way. So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for? Yes, it was ‘republicans’ that gave you those tax breaks you never asked for. Us good commies never ask for tax breaks. That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all, myself and my supporters exempted of course, want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country – things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. Never mind that I still have us mired in new wars all over the place we have no business in. Keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98% of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. I’ve used this lie successfully before so I’m going to keep repeating it. None. Let me repeat that lie one more time. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade – millionaires and billionaires – to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. They do not share enough. I must redistribute. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. Never mind many of them are getting second passports and moving funds out of here as silently and quickly as possible. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this: “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan, who also had the same bosses as I do. But today, many representatives in the House, elected by and representing people who have had enough of my bosses, refuse to consider this kind of ‘balanced’ approach – an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, President Clinton, myself, and many Socialist and Republicrats in the United States Senate. So we are left with a stalemate. Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling – a term that most of the stupid people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. Understand this lie – raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. Please understand this you stupid little americans. By borrowing more money we can pay our current bills. If our current bills are paid then we can buy more support by spending more of your money. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, the bosses have demanded it. Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it 7 times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. I don’t understand why it can’t continue to be routine when it serves my purposes. Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, certain House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach. They have this notion that we actually need to do something about this situation now instead of letting it get much worse. If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills – bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. Scared a bunch of you dumbasses with that lie, didn’t I? For the first, well not quite, but who’s really counting, time in history, our country’s Triple A credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Never mind that what we do isn’t really the determining factor in whether our rating is downgraded or not. Really it’s my bosses who decide that. Also, don’t bother to check how corrupted and totally innaccurate those ratings have become. If my bosses think it’s time, interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, and car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis, like we don’t already have one – one caused almost entirely by Washington. That would be a first. I hope I’ve scared you dummies into compromise. Defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We need a much steeper concentration of power up here people. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits, even though we have no intentions of doing it; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. Scared yet? I said putting the economy at risk! This kind of talk helps me and my media pass the blame when things do get worse and they will get worse. I promised delusional hope and change and I’m going to deliver – even if I have to crush the constitution and those who believe in it. But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach, and that could really mess up things in my upcoming re-election bid. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. I need to scare my dependent base a few more times this speech. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. Never mind the economy is already held captive. That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. Don’t tell anyone but the way we’ve been running it is even worse! It is a dangerous game we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Actually we’ve been slowly playing it for decades now, but we won’t go into that now, when we really need to. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. In other words, government really is the best source of jobs and livelihoods. Even though we been increasingly doing it for almost a hundred years now, we can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare. One of the most upfront guys I know Tim Geithner says Congress now has one week left to act and there are still paths forward. The Senate and only the Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment, funded out of your equity by the way, on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months. Course now if we actually cut spending by a whole bunch, we wouldn’t have to go through this again in six months either. Was I supposed to say that? I know that’s a much better path, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Fat chance of me really doing that… oops. Either way, I have told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise, that means do it my way, in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress – a compromise that a narcissist can sign. If I go directly against what the peaple of this nation who are actually paying the bills want and don’t sign something they really want, it won’t be my fault if. And I am confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republicrat leaders and I have found common ground before - because the Republicrats have the same bosses I do. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us become even more progressive. And more broke. I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and the stupid citizens who sent them there and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. Statism, individual freedoms, redistribution of wealth, and socialism to name a few. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Snick snick. I personally don’t, but yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. That line works every time. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all? They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a code word for keeping us in control. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see bought and paid for leaders (tongue is cheek) like me, who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They are offended by that. And they should be. The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. Well maybe they did. They elected us. But anyway, I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your Member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message. Never mind that it was ‘compromise’ that got us into this mess in the first place. America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy, yes that’s another code word for socialists, made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We have engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things…Without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.” Still, I seriously would like my way here, which is more control and a free ride through the election and don’t mind manipulating the hell out you dummies to get it. History is scattered with the stories of those like who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. Only at time like this would I ever remind you that we remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union. That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth – not just because we can still keep our word and meet your obligations by pay debts you the actual people would never had incurred, but because we can still come together as one nation. Normally I wouldn’t say this but I got to work the dumbies in this country tonight so Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America, with apologies to my muslim brethren and enlightened elitist atheist friends of course.

... taking it from the sublime to the ridiculous now... The market can not tell you if you are a nobody or now. Nobody is a nobody...

. … not saying to denounce these beliefs, but I am recommending you do some deep questioning of those 3 beliefs and how they fit into your own ‘knowing when to do what’ For example, I personally have worked with all three of these and I no longer ‘believe’ in support and resistance, (even though I incessantly use middle of past congestions as a lazy shortcut for determining order points for entries and exits in position trades.) I do ‘believe’ in many simultaneous, variable trends, but I do not ‘believe’ in Trend. This complicates the hell out of things.) I do believe that “each moment is unique” but I do not believe each moment should be treated as such. I 'believe' market moments do not repeat, but they do always rhyme and resonate with patterns past. (Are you accentuating that belief because of past results so you no longer trust your work with the ‘rhymings’?) More bs re this at http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/trading-psychology/10205-i-m-so-mutable-i-have.html all the best.

(wikipedia and pictionary definitions aside) For traders, what is the difference between attitude and belief? Thx.

That was a great post! ...right up to the part about "really a nobody." Tams, None of us are nobody's . Not a single one of us. Still, a great post... telling it like it is. You are pointing out the inevitable destruction waiting for a trader who is doubling down for psycho-neurological reasons instead of reasons related to actual market actions. Been there - done that :crap:. I think Patuca is talking about reasons related to actual market actions. From what I can tell skimming the posts, I have systems similar to Patuca's. Also very high hit but rates, but since mine are only applied under certain market conditions, they aren't a high percentage of the whole bottom line. They are at once extremely precise for some aspects and almost totally imprecise for other aspects - like where and when subsequent add ons will be. Anyways, in these systems I 'double down' all the time. Sometimes when price comes to a good buy or sell point, it will turn immediately. But other times so it will make more thrusts down or up. If the first thrust is a good quality signal, then subsequent thrusts are also good. Adding more and more is warranted (again, only in certain market conditions). I want to be in any which way the turn occurs, so I don't skip the first and wait for more better entry. I get in, willing to get in some more all the way down or up to a certain precise / stop point. ( ie I shouldn't be deprived if it takes certain 'crowds' a little longer to catch on ) A real time example from this morning is attached. It does not have any examples of thrusts that go way past the first entry point and still being good for piling on size - but those happen all the time too. In any case, I would add more if the signal is there - whether next entry price is better or worse than first entry price. In the first example on the attached, the price went further than the first short entry signal shown at far left arrow. Add more at 2nd red dn arrow. In the next example price went beyond first entry twice. Add more each signal, 2nd and 3rd green up arrows. In the next two, price did not go higher than first entry, Still add more at the 2nd red arrow in middle of illustration. In the final two, again price did not go beyond first entry. Still add more at the 2nd green arrow. The first signal of each of these trades qualifies the subsequent entries. If they are at even better prices - fine. If they are not at better prices - also fine. None showed on this example and I'm not taking time to go cherry pick one in history. but if they are at far better prices (as long as it doesn't go past stop loss point) - even better! Even if it looks like stupid doubling down !

Great OP re: Maybe Ego is fear. ie ego is created to cope with fear … Generated, developed, and sustained by 'judgment' patterns based in fear…

What a great week to be trading! Here's some almost off topic / not specific to the EUR but still part of the whole picture Michael Pento circa 2 yrs. ago today a blogger circa 7/15/2009One foot over the border etc The Greater Depression Is Upon Us | David Galland | Safehaven.com (no advert intended, yada yada)

Seriously, if your intention is to help yourself and others develop in trading then you are welcome. And it's great if you enjoy yourself and have a few laughs along the way. If your intention is escape, diversion, fun at others' expense then - You're welcome for that laugh, but now cease and desist in here. Go play in ET. I'm pretty sure all the admin and all but a few of the members herein would agree. Using a random and unrelated decision process can actually go a long way in reducing certain components of the totality of uncertainty... :confused: Two students show up at the same time at Ass Jack’s DamNearPerfect Trading School. One is Nervous Nelson. The other is Iron Will. When they finish, who does better? Neither!! What most likely will happen to Nervous Nel has been described above. Iron Will is able to generate state that allows him to minimize and ignore critical inner issues. In class Iron Will’s progress is such that ideal “transference” is assumed by students and teacher. But back home, past certain levels of intensity, vaguaries, speed, etc. the state doesn’t hold up – feelings, judging, and fear (what?!) break through. It takes six months, but he finally (and correctly btw) concludes that this method is not for him. He also concludes (and correctly btw) that ‘transference’ is impossible. Should either of them get a full refund? Hel no! Can both of them still turn it into money well spent? Hel yeh! But only if …. ???

Nothing taken personally. My post was actually to raise the awareness for everyone of that dual issue of needing to attend to both the situation and 'sensor' accuracy. I understand. 'Traditionally', TL has not been a place for that. Please desist. May I suggest ET or TTW... OK guys, want to stay securely ensconced right there in the middle of the herd – then do that. Here’s the challenge – learn to trade in ever increasing levels of uncertainty. Learn to embrace less and less confirming / corroborating evidence. Learn to use each uncertainty to tweak your risk... ultimately there is simply not enough time, etc. for an individual to wait for certainty.

Gosu, Student had nailed the setup, entry, etc in the big S&P. Position had moved into profits Teacher (me, circa 1993, but I remember parts of this like it was 15 minutes ago): something to the effect of “What are you thinking now?” or “What are you going to do now?” If I had been really good, I would have asked something to the effect of “What are your options now” Student: “I’m thinking of taking profits” Teacher (me): “What on this chart is showing you shouldn’t be/ stay long?! It’s given you some space now, did you consider moving your stop up past breakeven and see where it runs to?” Student: “I’m getting out” speed dials broker. He was ‘emotionally hijacked’ at “… market” Price dallied around a few minutes then took off… How to turn an eleven hundred dollar trade into a two hundred seventy five dollar trade… Now in this case the coach may have been, as you say, “clueless” – after all we are talking about zdo, yo even worse a young gun, long ago and far away zdo, … anyways in the case above I don’t think it was the quality of the teaching. Rather, I can almost categorically say it was the student’s ‘physiology’ gettin’ in the way of his larnin’. I also know because, to be honest, pre date and post date that ‘lesson’, that same basic dialogue was acted out more than once intra-self with an inner ‘teacher’ and an inner ‘student’. Rande’s ‘emotional’ reasons ring a dam sight more true than the above students not having been “shown what it's like to trade competently by an expert who is solely interested in successful transference…” The student was sharp, well read, and good with charts. In my own case, by that time, I had been trained by 5 or 6 well known (at the time) teachers, Hank Pruden (being the best, long term), Larry W., Larry P. etc… You said “For me, the problem is being clueless about how to go about learning to trade.” Not sure why are you’re arguing. ??? If a learner cannot get into state where he can learn, he’s for fkn sure to stay clueless about how to go about learning to trade – no matter how good the teaching context and content is. I was recently talking with a nuclear engineer and he described how with the vibration / turbulence sensors in a reactor they had to run algorithms measuring both the turbulence itself AND measures of whether the sensors were functioning correctly or not. We’re dealing with a similar situation here. We have the actual reality of the trade risks and we have the physiological processes / emotions that can be roughly seen as threat sensors. Rande is talking about the ‘algorithms’ measuring the accuracy of the sensors. You are talking about the ‘algorithms’ measuring the actual trade processes. Instead of yipping at his heels off topic, please open a different thread with contributions on “learning how to trade”, “training the mind” , staying “rational” etc. They are needed and would be appreciated. Be careful of falling into the 'if I don't experience it that way, it can't exist' trap... “… because fear is biological in its nature, it will have an individualized physical signature for each trader”. He is serving the portion of the population you would be sending home “Yes, with full refunds” - because their sensors are malfunctioning and giving maladaptive feedback… All the best, zdo

more "Bankrupt or not" charles hugh smith-Here's Why Small Business Isn't Hiring, Part II 7:14 PM and yes I am in here 'working late'. ... and loving it - Thank you EUR !!! Run baby run baby run. I may be here half the night!

Yes Greece is going to be OK now (snick snick) but Italy Is Too Big To Bail, Even For France And Germany - Agustino Fontevecchia - Moral Hazard - Forbes

Enough talking about it in talking head, media speak, and current economic paradigm terms! Bluntly now [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3L2AO09KmM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪'Obama defaulted on US Constitution'‬‏[/ame]

Bankrupt or not charles hugh smith-Here's Why Small Business Isn't Hiring, and Won't be Hiring

Using ‘Daily’ profit goals and risks is indicative of ‘trading syschology’ issues. The issue will likely be further compounded because those limits are usually significantly out of line with the way one’s particular system should be played. Per trade profit goals and risks are TOTALLY system dependent. It can’t be generalized. Some systems are best traded dynamically, “taking what the mkt gives you” as Tams says. Others have best results with targets. Know your system. Test and know your odds. You don’t have to play your odds with extreme accuracy, just keep it in bounds… just like every tennis winning shot doesn’t have to be exactly on the line… hth

ourfxdad All my flippant and lousy ‘commentary’ in this thread is centered around the corrupt money system, not the net worth of the various nation states. If resources and net worth is included as criteria then we’d have to look at who controls those assets… average joe ends up in about the same straits either way… This is not a prediction, just an assessment of probabilities – things will likely get tougher for the citizenry all over the world before it gets better whether the ‘nation’ is ‘bankrupt’ or not. The same basic opportunity has been in place for the USD for years and years now. A good cyclic USD rally would, in my mind, present the opportunity again - whether the ‘nation’ is ‘bankrupt’ or not Yep, we haven’t been very clear about timeframes. But mine are all snippet, button pushing posts, not in depth elucidations. The timeframe of the snide little OP is decades. The observation was that since it’s peak about this time of the year in 2008, ‘every’ time the EUR rallies is an opportunity to short that sht out of it and that approach would hold up on all but the shortest timeframes. 07/07/11 most recent tradable example. To be “responsible”, I should note that the efficacy of this approach could end any day… no one really knows and it wouldn’t end or continue because the ‘nations’ involved are ‘bankrupt’ or not

Washington's Blog (a lead up - if you're interested... Washington's Blog) ie the usd is not far behind...

I can't say categorically that "It's time well spent for serious traders". It wasn't for me when I watched it long ago. But re: “one need not be perfect (which the video makes perfectly clear) to be a success. You'll note several instances in which PTJ violates commonly held wisdom.” Excellent point! I was just skimming http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/trading/10279-number-one-trading-rule-you-live.html and have got to report, I routinely ‘break’ almost half those rules and still do just fine. ‘Revenge trading’ is another one of the rules I love to break – only I experience it and call it “playing from behind” and I consider being able to play well from behind as important in short time frame trading as in any other ‘professional’ performance game and (with certain systems/ edges and situations only!!!!!!) don’t hesitate to aggressively add more size, not to mention probably get more 'greedy' too – breaking three of those 'rules' at once! (Btw Many of those “number one trading rules” in that thread are actually extremely system specific, but are presented as if they apply to all types of systems.

oh what the heck... The Daily Bell - Where Will You Go When the Sovereign Debt Volcano Blows? :helloooo:

Strategic Thinking Behind Trading the Inevitability of the Inevitable Pan-European Bank Crisis | zero hedge vs Euro: Safer than the U.S. Dollar? | Axel Merk | Safehaven.com :missy: