zdo

The traps you’re discussing in the parts of your post I didn’t re-quote (yet) are describing when a ‘beginning’ trader (or a trader at the 1st cusp) attempts to substitute unholy grail searching for holy grail searching... A beginning trader who never does any grail searching misses crucial exposure to ‘self’ and critical periods of development... ... and ... re: “forever and forever” ??? ? You can choose to deal with your fisher king in an instant. If you don't commit, then... so... Dwell. The ‘myth’ is a futile 'recapture lost opportunities attempt'. The sickological dynamics are really about the whens of your own inner ‘fisher king’, not the puer's whats of the grail... Jump to markets - if you understand when something works, the what works are obvious... and re They didn’t match/align/adjust themselves to a method. Instead - Of the ‘10000’ methods jpenny mentioned, they found the method(s) that aligned with their true self... result is not a utopia... it’s a state that is dissonance free enough for you to actually be functionally ‘consistent’, to get at the ‘underlying structures’ , that gives you the freedom to leverage your imagination

sergso, "70-30, trade small and more frequently,... “ may be perfect advice for anyone trading the exact same system as you, on the same instruments, and with the same capitalization... etc “70-30” may be correct --- but only for you, your financial state, and your system. There is no way you or anyone else can pigeon hole everyone else into that ratio. The usefulness of that advice is not ubiquitous even to someone trading a single method on a single instrument with single contract size... And past a certain system specific threshold of capitalization, the practicality of such advice goes completely microscopic. Keep going ... and past a certain threshold in the diversity / complexity of one’s portfolio, regardless of the ‘analysis’ methods used, flipping this 'advice' to “30-70” will not be nearly enough to manage dynamic sizing and allocations... especially with leveraging or in opm cases...etc etc. ... and ... At this point I won’t even go into the variability in the depth / time / etc. of ‘analysis’ between traders - besides to say it’s another reason pushing out a generalization about the correct or dominant ratio of analsis and money manglement is pitiful. “trade small and more frequently” If limiting size and goosing frequency improved the performance of your trading that’s really great - but, come on man! - You can’t deal out advice like that as if it applies to all systems. It is a disservice to your peers ... at the very least a waste of their time. Traders need to trade as closely as possible the optimal size for their system(s). And a trader needs to trade at the exact frequency a system calls for without inserting trades (ie “more frequently”) or omitting trades (ie “I missed that trade” or “I didn’t take that trade”)... randomly / arbitrarily goosing or limiting frequency and / or size is just another loop ride on the loop around Looserville. “big bets will get you at the end”. You may be shooting for some brevity with this one... so I’ll almost give you a pass -. Almost  ... still , let’s look at a couple of the words you used and some possible ‘presuppositions’ Re: the word “bets” - at a some point in each type of betting game, the “window closes” and from that point forward the results to your equity are completely out of your hands. In the trading game up until the time your broker liquidates your position(s), the ‘window’ stays open...with trades you still have possibility to influence the results to your equity. And re: “big” The crucial variable here is not “big” or “small” (/ size). The crucial variable is positive expectancy. so more accurately - and hopefully just as succinctly If you have a positive expectation, the only thing that will get you is holding losses until they are “big” I can’t think of a field where ‘general guidelines’ are less applicable than in trading - yet the ‘voice of trading’ continues to deliver ‘truths’ that are actually only true in ~1% of instances ...by the tens of thousands....media, forums, books, articles, seminars, etc etc... sergso, almost all the good posters are gone now... it’s up to us average posters to do a better job...

Thank you for posting this code. I installed it immediately and am already using it to trade the indexes this morning. The code is very tight ... immaculate. I am nominating it for the Code Contribution of the Month. It is the best programming to hit the Traders Laboratory » Trading Resources » Coding Forum » Trading Indicators section of TradersLab in a long long time. How many trading platforms have you developed it for? Btw - You really shouldn’t be giving the programming code for this indicator away. You should get yourself an Golden C and sell it I can't thank you enough.

good start = ninjatrader

"If something is worth doing, it's worth doing badly." Leslie Buckland Most system developers first turn to ‘ volatility’ as primary driver of ‘condition specific’ sizing... and get stuck there... (btw, my advice = in sizing work, skip 'volatility’ completely ...you'll naturally be brought back to when and how to include it properly later ) ... and ... Most of these developers turning to volatility as primary driver of ‘condition specific’ sizing get sucked into using measures of range (ATR, etc.) as a measure of volatility. A better (however more complicated) measure utilizes studies of passage through price brackets/zones ... number brackets traversed, time duration in each, etc...and ... btw Most developers never realize the high reliability of cyclicity in properly measured ‘volatility’ A $million+ ©TA offers this: Improving Trading System Performance Using a Meta-Strategy A $billion+ CTA offers this: "I have a staff of PhD's researching volatility based position sizing. They haven't come up with anything." " You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find himself." Galileo

My ‘preference’ for silver is simple... based on a long term / generational ratio trade. For a long time it has been my opinion that silver does ok in authentic ‘deflation’ (not like the quasi deflation the world is experiencing in revenues, “commodities” etc etc now,). A recent article illustrates and details some aspects of this - Silver and Deflation | Kitco News ... Btw, by that accord, I may have finished exchanging physical gold for physical silver a bit early - but there were overriding practical reasons. ... and I’m talking in decades long perspectives ... been gradually working this exchange since 2005.. with more decades before it’s time to start exchanging physical silver for gold again. For spec trading (and sometimes much of my hedging in silver), I still prefer gold contracts over silver... liquidity, etc... ya'll have a great weekend...

The war on cash is real... and it is spreading... accelerating

"Your talents as a fed watcher are no longer needed... Sorry we’re going to have to let you go" Btw folks I also don’t think I will have to ‘be a long bear’ much longer in the stock indexes. I’m convinced most players will be able to continue to deny all the “the last time this happened’s” that are occurring right now. However, they will be able to respond to a ‘new’ / different narrative... when collapse becomes more economical than ‘promises of reform’ or 'solutions', etc etc...

What goes down must go up. Eventually. There now... Someone said it. Happy now?  HP Blavatsky

He’s not the only one... but now for the snippet of ‘social’ commentary One factor that needs to be mentioned re these properties... many of those “would never sell” properties are valuable not so much for their vein quality as they are valuable because the mines are located in areas where it is possible to operate using slave labor.

Where did it confuse you? I continue to actively (but not dynamically) and as nimbly as possible, hedge a long position in physical silver using both silver and gold futures contracts (and occasionally, when the cycles are right, etf’s) Still holding with the assertion I made in late Sept that for the next 4 ish months PM’s are a good vehicle for both longs and shorts - instead of favoring an exclusive long or short bias. Long term - still like the long silver ratio trade... but that is empty right now... resting orders above and below. As far as outright spec trading goes, I am currently much more active in the energy sector than I am PM’s... simply more attuned to it right now... and think it has slightly more % move potential than PM's during this time period... would like to see lower prices in both sectors... for building a scale trade in nrg's, for accumulation opportunities in PM's

Just how PM bearish can you be? COT’s are horrendously bearish. The same price pressure that has been applied via leveraged ‘paper’ PM’s for many years still continues - even when no one is yapping about it. The Chinese, etc have found that BTC is so much ‘easier’ than PM’s. If you account for price inflation (~11% since most recent PM peak), PM’s are already making “multiyear lows” ... And who on earth isn’t glad when PM’s ‘go down’ more? The bears are glad. The bulls are too. So... Just how PM bearish can you be? Well - You can’t really be PM bearish at all! ?? You can only be FIAT bullish. ... and you’ve been subliminally promised the USD will be the last to fail. Fail? What fail? Fail is when the veil comes off. Trust in the debt/currency charade is lost by a quorum. The fragility of fake stability finally plays out... The Fiat becomes truly worthless...again Some have difficulty accommodating this perspective, but PM’s already made their ‘move’. PM’s have ‘hyperinflated’ from ~32 USD per oz to over 1000 USD per oz ‘long ago’. The 'more to come' doesn't really matter... still With each passing day, it becomes less of a stretch to be a ‘permabull’... stretch out of the collective trance that keeps PM’s in terms of dollars... into a new trance where dollars are put in terms of PM’s

Reality check - With a ‘portfolio of systems’ etc past a certain (actually quite low) threshold of complexity, getting code to ‘see’ the market the way you want it to see the market and do what you want it to do is an extremely daunting task. Past that threshold of complexity, having someone else program the whole of such a project has little chance of working. It would be a daunting task to spec properly. Then, the odds of matching up with programmer(s) that you have a chance of properly communicating those specs to ( ie to reach ‘shared vision’ between trader and the programmer) is extremely low - even if the programmer has trading experience or even coding experience with trading systems. Most experienced trading system programmers out there already have their possible potential established... sadly, it is not uncommon for even the ‘good’ ones to hear what they want to hear and deliver code that’s not really what you asked for... If you go past that certain threshold of complexity, don’t be surprised one day to find yourself already ~ hundred k into something that might need to be fkn started all over. In this 'sample of one' example, at the portf level, I personally code all the proprietary system weighting and sizing algo's myself . At the individual systems level, I also code all the analysis’ and all the trade setup and trigger logic for all the systems myself. I farm out to professionals the intricacies of order execution and position ‘tracking’, etc. for my platform(s), connectivity monitoring, and issues with position accounting/management during reconnects... and a whole stack of little things one would never imagine would need to be dealt with, etc etc. The programmers I hire have no idea of the trading logic. They simply develop the ‘objects’ I ask for using really dumb prototypes and it’s my job to integrate their stuff into my project properly. and fwiw (...and bags, this is a pure projection on my part ... ) it is my feel that if you want to do contributions, you will get far more traction/effectiveness directly helping those in your own community - instead of donating to corrupt charities. The world needs your wisdom far more than it needs your money... hth ...wishing you all the best, zdo

Must be because all the permabull oil buyers switched over to Tesla Model S P85D’s They need to wear new silver hats. Spooky Action at a Distance India permits free energy technology despite threat from UK, US, Saudi Arabia |

:helloooo: ravidevt, Looks like you might have to write your own ShowMe version for Candlestick

adouble, If he is still alive, why don’t you ask him? Without more info, all we could do is guess. Re: “I remember him saying something about only being able to put up a maximum amount of $5k daily.” If he was trading futures, most likely this was the maximum amount he allowed himself to lose per day. (this is not as likely, but if he was trading options, this may have been the maximum premium he allowed himself to buy (or sell) per day.) Re: “The account was not available to felons.” No help. We’re all felons now. ... Actually that is / was a ‘requirement’ / chkbox for futures (and options) accounts. Re: “And, he would "get in" early in the morning when the market would open, do his thing and get out within minutes and he was done for the day. “ ... sounds like this was some years ago... pre ‘machine driven’ days... Basically, he scalped the open. In the first ~ 20 - 40 minutes - depending on the instrument - markets create an ‘opening range’ and most days they establish/ed this o range very quickly. This morning in indexes the o range was established in the first 6 min. after the open... Some people have a knack for it. For some that knack is cyclical. For weeks or months, they get attuned and can ‘channel’ what the opening and the following few minutes will do... then the ‘gift’ fades away...ie they accumulate stress past what they can easily recover from and lose their resilience... and most of the time when that happens they give up and fade away too... instead of periodically testing for their own cyclicity coming back around. With practice you can get better at it. There are 'technical' methods to catch these O breakouts / thrusts. (and there techs to catch the breakouts of the opening range after it has established...but that's a different topic...) Either way...You need + 60% hit rate minimum to make it work. You need to be brutally quick to accept being wrong / losses ... Re “Also made mention of being able to see everything live with everything updating every second.” He had a live feed or live charts. Duh Hth zdo PS I never read a post on brain fog that was clear.

off topic re 'report': Well - that “2” was fun... and right back where we started - as usual... back on topic... zupcon, make the “final PnL from the two populations” very “dissimilar” That is IT! Precisely. Long ago I was lucky enough to realize that I needed to take a bassakwards philosophy / approach and MarketType (tmz) the auction first prior to any “analysis” and use that framework as a basis to fluctuate relative weights for each system across a portfolio of 12 (most of them very simple) automated systems ... with the intent of sizing each trade to the ‘odds’ of the opportunity. Even if the exposure to many of the opportunities is relatively small, the ultimate functional purpose is to not miss ANY opportunities... which would be an operational impossibility for me to accomplish manually... Now turning to ‘risk’ (... and I’m assuming we’re focusing here on the ‘trade itself’ type of risk across a series of trades) re and zup, while I hear what you’re saying about the ‘limits’ of MM and I understand why you’re saying it, from my experience, I can categorically recommend traders not be discouraged by the realities of “inherant randomness”. Rather, they should meticulously find and tune a system's ranges of “ the optimum MM approach during period X [which] is going to differ from the optimum approach in period Y” (brackets mine) and stay within them... It would be better for a trader to even randomize his or her ‘MM’ decisions within those ranges than utilize vastly simplified ‘stay’ decisions or - worst - base them on ‘psychological ease’ kwikblurb1... Again... Base Sizing on opportunity ... algorithmically derive sizing from portfolio (of systems) level stats. Base ‘Stay’ (or not - in profit or in loss) on ‘risks’ ... algorithmically derive them from individual system probabilities. Kwikblurb2... re“inherant randomness” Fwiw, It is only randomlike - not really “randomness”. Big difference in the long run. Kwikblurb3... for sizing, Optimal f, etc is a starting point - nowhere near the finishing point blurb4 re “I'd also probably argie that the units used to derive any statistics are probably best based on some sort of market based values rather than points, or dollar amounts.” NONE of my systems have ever ‘optimized’ stays to dollar targets or to dollar stops. Almost all my systems ‘stay’ decisions are founded on ‘price action’ patterns... with some of them throwing in some ‘order flow’ stuff, some of them throwing in some ‘indicators’ work (WOT?!) (btw, nothing ‘off the shelf’ used... ), some of them throwing in some ‘scaling out’ work... etc etc. Kwikblurb5... The higher the hit rate for a system, the more closely ‘stays’ (ie stops and profit taking) must be finely calibrated. etc etc blurb6 (Very very Generally) --- Re the Drawdowns allowed issue. True trend systems can be allowed a 60% drawdown before shutdown. Quasi - trend following systems can be allowed ~ 40% drawdown before shutdown. Momentum/coattail systems (and the 'equally' successful strat of fading the system's signals :rofl:) can be allowed ~ 30% drawdown before shutdown. Regardless of ‘testing’ results, just about all other systems should never be allowed to run past 20% drawdown before shutdown ... :haha: considering most of them are losers to begin with etc... “And then the day came when the risk it took to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.” Anais Nin

Noobs, The status quo / the ‘voice of trading’ sugar coats it. They would have you apply very general rules to MM (see http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/money-management/19267-90-analysis-10-money-managment-2.html#post200085 for example)... and mix the "logic" of sizing and ‘stays’, etc etc. An alternative way to look at it is - ‘Stays’ (where to exit / “stop out” in adversity plus where to exit with profits) are best based on individual system stats. Sizing is best done with portfolio (of systems) level stats. Ie ‘stays’ levels are best derived from a different set of calculations from the calculations of optimal ‘sizing’ ------- and yes, that’s even if your portfolio of systems is only one system! ... and fwiw, imo your portfolio of systems should never be just one system

Propaganda… period Elite?s NWO Secretly Operates In The Open | Gold Eagle

Emily, Isn’t using position size to “control risk” in effect just a convoluted ‘dollar stop’ ? zero lag reply time zdo

jane, are you really tarzan? jane's English was perfect ... zdo ps don't contact the vendor

MM succinctly said what I was basically trying to say ... However, I will add to his “The above is just an example.” - That 1% rule is basically a lazy beginner trick... ie if you continue to use that 1% rule, you’re sizing and risk management will be about as effective MM as is simple moving average signaling effective 'analysis' in the long term...both is looser  ! ie You need to engineer and fine tune your risk and sizing methods to your individual system(s) ... just like fuel injection,etc. need to be engineered and fine tuned to the engine it’s on top of, etc... ... In my earlier post I encouraged Kid to explore what he meant by Money Management. Now it’s time to encourage an exploration of what he meant by Analysis. Typically Analysis is ‘entry’ dominant... yada yada the analysis born of the ‘voice of trading’ propaganda etc etc BUT The most important ‘analysis’ is the one that finds the system that best matches your true nature. If you are trading a system that is not a match with your true nature you are stressing your sympathetically aroused primal structures, mutating them to be LESS adaptive, resilient, ‘tough’ ...and your technique will inevitably gradually and suddenly erode. The below is just an example Someone manually trading a system that has some level of entry signal ‘ambivalence’ who is not suited to trading a system that has that level of entry signal ‘ambivalence’ will ultimately find a way to be a ‘dropout’ from the system. For an example from an otherwise perfectly fine method - most of the variable signal ambivalence in DBP’s SLTAMT is sourced in the individuals’ brains, not in the method itself. Some students will simply encounter less signal ambivalence than others. AND Some students will be able to handle more signal ambivalence than others Those who can’t handle a certain threshold of both will comprise a large percentage of the method’s ‘dropouts’ / failures This means not making the typical beginner mistake of exploring/flirting with analysis / systems in isolation. AND This doesn’t mean means exploring your self in isolation. It means exploring your self and systems in parallel... not easy...

Kid, Explore what you mean by "Money Management". One typically mistake is to subsume / conjoin 'risk management' and 'sizing' under MM and then try to use the very similar processing methods to ascertain both. It’s system dependent - but generally if you know how to size correctly and if you know how to manage risk correctly then you hardly need ‘analysis’ at all - especially not the common analysis styles promulgated by the ‘voice of trading’. That bold assertion is further strengthened by the reality that for most systems the actual price action following (and trade result of) a signal generated by a high quality 'analysis' may turn out just fine one time and completely different the next... ie for identical signals, the market will invariably give you radically different results. hth zdo

GOLD IS NOT MONEY Gold Is Not Money « TSI Blog Gold Is Not Money, Part 2 « TSI Blog GOLD IS MONEY https://monetary-metals.com/introduction-to-the-monetary-metals-supply-and-demand-report/ GOLD IS / IS NOT MONEY This is an oscillating polarity. Some hiss when I say a person can oscillate between the extremes in the ‘space’ of one morning - but I did it in the 80’s myself and from the insights gained through awareness of it I’ve been able to observe it occurring multiple times unconsciously in other traders while they were in trades. More typical is an oscillation that takes years to move from one pole to the other... “gradually then suddenly” (Hemingway) ... maybe leading the crowd by a little... maybe lagging the crowd by a little... but either way sticking pretty close to the ‘media's dominant’ crowd... and whether on fast cycling or slow cycling ocsillation, being (unconsciously) trapped in this polarity will inevitably cloud your 'analysis' capacity of PM's ... Gold is money -----------------------|--------------------------- Gold is not money See the pipe. That can be you. YOU can be the mediating pole btwn those two polarities. ie fck / get beyond all the collective memes about it. If gold is money to you, then gold IS money. If gold is not money to you, then gold IS NOT money. ... and btw - Yes! Gold can be money and not money (and beyond) to you without you needing to ‘fashion or follow a narrative’ if you ... Have a great weekend

re: "Why" in this weird global race to the bottom, their only perceived option may be 'helicopter money' my related question - Is the USD "falling" or just 'correcting' ?