zdo

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' ?

We now interrupt nothing with less nothing. The Decline and Fall of Silver Backwardation | Keith Weiner | Safehaven.com https://monetary-metals.com/introduction-to-the-monetary-metals-supply-and-demand-report/ We now return you to your regularly scheduled nothing

Preface: fyi - I'm not making a ‘price insensitive’ post here! It is deeply ‘price sensitive’. Smatty krapsuni quoting Matty Krupski at Inside Futures: Relevant trading-focused information authored by key players in the futures, options and forex industries TL members, Sunny acts as if a climate of “nonsense” is exposed by the mere fact sunny could even believe the alleged “nonsense” occurred. You deserve better treatment than just name calling and casting dispersions and never explaining his objections to my ‘price insensitive’ posts (and recently to even my ‘price sensitive’ posts). So, instead, I’ll show TL readers the respect of giving some insight into the presuppositions behind my calling ‘nonsense’ on this ‘voice of trading’ supply and demand bearbullcrap post. Note the point here is not to impugn Krupski’s actual trade recommendation - esp. if you trade spreads and want to back out of your (imo, better long term opportunity) long silver / short gold spread... or whatever... The point is to shine some light on the long running “supply and demand” psy-op / big lies proclaiming that ‘aggregate supply’ and ‘aggregate demand’ determines price. . Common Supply and demand paradigms are fabricated coordinates of financial reality born long ago. Using the ‘newest perceived change in supply and demand’ trick as a 'cause' prop is used in 80% of talking head analysis, in more than 80% of the daily financial media publications / articles, by our best online posters, and by god knows how many traders to make up grossly oversimplifified guesses to fabricate ‘rational’ explanations to trick themselves about their trade guesses. Where TL posters are concerned, DBP ‘supply and demand’ assertions might be a better place to start this - but he’s not sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong right now... and suuny is ... and we’re all talking PM’s ... And btw, Bobc intuitively nibbles at this collective error that depends on ‘aggregates’ instead of “schedules” when he mentioned “huge undeclared stockpiles. And those stockpiles have not disappeared.”... refreshing ... False realities bloom from the intentional planting of false seeds. Story by story, paradigm by paradigm, post by post, this ‘aggregate supply and demand’ reality/delusion spreads - until it is considered unimpeachable. This is how the game (that’s gaming you) works... But ‘informed’ analysts’ guesses at ‘aggregate’ supply (and / or ‘aggregate’ demand) as a factor in potential price change are actually a childish, stunted, and simplistic version of ”supply and demand” For more (- thankfully with a focus on gold -) see links below (fyi both links go to the same content... only difference is format / ease of reading... click in to both... then click out of the one that’s least readable to you... hth) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/01/robert-blumen/misunderstanding-gold-demand/ Misunderstanding Gold Demand | And ...If you don’t want to acknowledge the “nonsense” - then don’t click. Intended audience is VERY small... . ... btw, the article reveals paradoxes - that can only be resolved via a handle on ... ‘price insensitivity’ 

More sheer “nonsense”. Maybe someday suuny will realize that making ‘paper gold’ works both ways. Don’t you just love derivatives? Multiyear lows ie if prices are going to / have come that close they must take those “Multiyear lows” out... ? Your posts read more like a biased capt obvious praying it will go down more than they read like a legitimate technical assessment (or whatever type of anal isis you do) of gold. Your posts seem increasingly automated... we sincerely hope your situation is not even more painfully neurotic than it appears... Your job as a willing dupe is to silence any dissent or alternative views. DO NOT FAIL! The paradigms your posts support are the prevailing consensus paradigms. Your 5 buttons are so predictable ... one easy way to get you posting nasty labels is to even hint at ‘systemic risks’ ... You’ve asserted you’re not trying to protect anyone, so if we take you at your word, then you are only protecting yourself *... and so why would that hint be such a threat? “Twist not, that ye be not twisted...” sunny wanted to be called ‘real’ ... but Sunny is not bearish gold. He is bullish the dollar. Big difference... if you... Dare to look. * “You are always limited by exclusively self-oriented goals.” S. Sonnon

Thank you Krupski for this off topic supply and demand nonsense.

What isotope of gold do you ‘trade’? Au-195m 30.5 seconds Au-194 1.6 days Au-198 2.7 days Au-199 3.14 days Au-196 6.2 days Au-195 186.1 days Au-197 forever ... sort of

sunny “Twist not, that ye be not twisted.” Your use of the word “nonsense” tells us that my content challenges and elicits dissonance with your underlying presuppositions.... the qualities of your other posting tells us that you haven’t yet identified the underlying presuppositions sourcing this... Re: “Get it out of your system” at this point it more healthy to ‘get it into my system’. However, with all your reactive vitriol, mad homo numb attacks, toxic judging it might be best to consider taking your own advice and “Get it out of your own dam system” And re you ‘re “keeping it real”? The first word produced by the brains about something makes truly “Keeping it real” impossible. “Nothing is as it seems” Ilya Prigogine. more you ‘re “keeping it real”? For whom? All that posting for no one (except maybe yourself) ? All that posting “protecting” no one (except yourself) ? Maybe you are trying to hurt someone ? “Twist not, that ye be not twisted.” And Re: “I trade. You obviously don't.” "If it's obvious, it's obviously wrong." ~ Joe Granville I do trade. I also find time to make almost one post a day in here ( on average ) (btw... most people do not have a clue how expensive posting can be... ) “Twist not, that ye be not twisted.”

" ... Perhaps try the demo account for learning first..." Tradingtips_4 Guess what percentage of the ‘ industry to produce losing traders’ agrees with that. Guess what percentage of the ‘voice of trading’ aka sycophants for the ‘ industry to produce traders at the cusp of winning and losing’ agrees with that. Noobs - it’s best to start real... then when you really know what you need to work on set up deliberative practice on sim... Guess what percentage of noobs will listen and take that advice. "It's not whether you're right or wrong that's important, but how much money you make when you're right and how much you lose when you're wrong." ~ George Soros

sunny, It would be a disservice to all those traders and paradigms you have committed to protect to click the Ignore this user button bummer. I feel. your pain. If this was a planned narrative then you might be right about "1 post wasn't enough?"... but it's not a planned narrative... bummer. I feel. you're pain.

It is very “simple” to conflate ‘price insensitivity’ and ‘bullishness’ ‘bearish’ is a bias that the price will go down relative to ‘debt’. ‘bullish’ is a bias that the price will go up relative to ‘debt’. Both have the underlying assumption that price relative to ‘debt’ is important. In ‘price insensitivity’, price relative to debt is NOT important at all. TL members, you may not be ready to accommodate and add that perspective in to your life... maybe these posts will help prepare you for the shift when you need to make it. ... be advised though, at that point you will have to be willing and able to make a jump to a new internal construct, not fortify existing walls like our current ‘sunfoil’ is doing... These ‘price insensitive’ posts should not be construed as critical of the ‘price sensitive’ perspective. In contrast to sunny, I’m quite open to both. It also should not be assumed that this stream of ‘price insensitivity’ posts is emanating from my ‘narrative mind’. It ain’t. So far I’ve seen no contextual need to be formally explicit when a post is ‘price insensitive’ or not. But, if you need a key to i.d. them - My ‘price sensitive’ posts are in reply to others’ trading posts.(most recent example at http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/market-analysis/12054-gold-bullish-bearish-212.html#post199622 which is replying to http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/market-analysis/12054-gold-bullish-bearish-211.html#post199588 ) My ‘price insensitive’ posts are initiating... are not in reply to other posts. (they often have a “we interrupt this programing” ditty... or “we now return you to your regular programming...” or some other “off topic” type blurbs, etc.). If you are still conflating all of them, try some magnesium l-threonate or something...

Long answer - Folks, adding ‘price insensitivity’ to your world is not nec. easy... It may or may not take some persistent, introspective work. And please don’t think I am encouraging you to incorporate the ‘voice of trading’s’ concepts of ‘price insensitivity’. I’m encouraging you to create your own construct of the state... to find your own marginal preferences... suited to you and you alone. It’s pretty easy to stay in that bullbear ‘price sensitive’ world. Like you’re a dummy, you’ll be instructed precisely on what is to be ‘the’ obvious . You’re currently being told things are stable and the trend is in place and will remain in place until it eventually changes "as all markets do at some point" (whoa - still reeling from the sheer brilliant innovative genius of that insight?  think. ...could that be one of those ‘bulls who thinks he’s a bear’? ) Anyways, you’re being told to wait until after the trend has changed, to wait until bullish articles are being published before going to a long bias . It’s not mentioned that the majority will fail to react when order is reestablished in a sudden bullish or bearish impulsive move - but don’t worry ... you are safe and prepared because sunny will always be there for you and will protect you from anything outside the bullbear world... and if you need protection from me, turn to him... but just remember, he can’t protect you from your self...It’s up to you whether to read and reread and reread that post to plumb the depths for more of that wisdom... To me, this is how someone talks who is reactively conflating bullishness with price insensitivity. To me, this is a perfect example of the voice of trading and of how a ‘bull who think he’s a bear’ talks. Sunny is strenuously reacting to a projected / perceived, ie made up, case of bullishness. To keep it real - Let’s switch for a moment back into ‘price sensitive’ mode. As I have posted, at this time for any spec trading, I am near equally bearish PM’s as I am bullish. Several posters have correctly noted that gold is currently ‘chaoted’ , ‘plateaud’ (or whatever tech term you might want to use). In ‘congestion’ there really are few reasons to be biased toward bull or toward bear... With the appropriate techniques, buy and sell, sell and buy, and let the cycles (or much less optimally - the breakouts) tell when to release bias/size to either the bull or bear side... (And, fwiw, my longer time frame ’ price sensitive’ hedging is not exactly flaming bullish either - at this point, while the hedges are lifted, the sell stops are quite a ways below and are slowly being algorithmically incremented upwards ) My intended audience is very small. Maybe sunny can prevent any further inquiry in the tank. Hopefully... I shudder to think what might happen... if he fails... that he continues to confuse my posts with bullish and that he continues to get so wound up keeps alive some interesting questions about him. Is he unconsciously a ‘bull who thinks he’s a bear’? If he did ever realize the difference and stop conflating, would he really internally hold a personal ‘price insensitivity’ that each person creates for themselves as regressive and dependent (as in “wah” and “binkie”) instead of as a liberating developmental step ? ... and etc ?.. ) sunny has permission to keep conflating and posting off topic... but, again, sunny really needs to be in discussions with genuine ‘price sensitive’ bulls and bears instead of being intolerant of a ‘strawbull’ he made up... Sadly, he can’t find any real bulls to argue with... omg! Did they already make the jump? ;) Short answer: “Twist (words) not, that ye (words) be not twisted.” ript up bbl vrs ... Now back to “price insensitive” Notice: hypnotic price sensitivity to ‘debt’ is a way to succumb the collective. Do you know why I put the word ‘debt’ in single quotes?

Let’s let a simple yes or no suffice for you. So, just for you and you only sunny - here goes. No. For everyone else - please be advised I have also not posted a single bullish link either. There is a set of lenses sunny refuses to even look for, let alone look through... Also, note that he turned right around and said the ‘bull or bear discussion’ IS the distraction. Did he understand what he was saying? Did he really mean it?

Sunny, Check to make sure you’re not confusing ‘price insensitivity’ with ‘bullishness’... Weighty distinction! ... NOT a rhetorical distinction! You need to be in discussions with genuine bulls instead of being intolerant of a ‘strawbull’ made up. But - where are these bulls? Quite sincerely (and like I’ve said several times now) - I wish my initiating posts were ‘interrupting’ a lively discourse about gold... that they were just distractions to distract from THE distraction :rofl: All the best zdo

Rule trading is not system trading. Discretionary trading is not system trading.

o wth ... an addition :rofl: The Rutherford Institute :: The Crisis of the Now: Distracted and Diverted from the Ever-Encroaching Police State dear translucent, thank you. transparent is cleared. not transparent is traumatized... wish you were here, ( in a SILVER hat with us...) zdo

I wish this was ‘interrupting’ good posts - but it’s not... WHY ARE PREMIUMS FOR PHYSICAL SILVER 25% OVER SPOT? « The Burning Platform

" If all of traders follow the rules, will system stop draw down process when enough lost occurred at -1/3 position since eveyone are so smart?" eveyone here are not so smart enough to understand what you just said :?: applying pure honey technologies in sugar land yet? Generally - Rule trading is not system trading. True system trading and discretionary trading - mutually exclusive. Period. Ie if any discretion is applied, it’s no longer system trading Ie The only important value in system trading is to do everything you can to avoid missing signals... in good system trading you will still inevitably miss signals, but never because you 'decided' to... So to answer your question - yes, in system trading, I will “still follow the trading signal” even when it conflicts with my ‘values’ When the system is working for you is THE time when you for sure do not want to be missing signals... bcse for some systems - especially ‘truer’ trend systems - missing just one trade (that murphy happens to be an outlier) can ‘ruin’ a whole year of the system’s life. Been there, done that. It's not so stark for other types of systems, but missing signals / temporarily discretionarily turning it off still inevitably degrades the bottom line... Good system design does strictly control risk per trade. However drawdowns and risk per trade are ‘difernt parts of the aminal’. hope this clarifies. Have a good one

“if you a smarter trader, you can cut the lost at 1/3(-7%)” wmck6167 If you’re saying kill the system at 7%, I don’t agree necessarily, but I do understand... but if you’re saying temporarily turn it off at 7 % , that is system trading heresy. With system trading, missing ANY signals is big no no... Like -when would you start it back up? ie If you’re great or even just good enough at timing to know when to turn a system on and off, then you likely don’t need a system at all - unless you want automation. At the very least, that is the perfect way to get no where near the results testing revealed bcse you’re really no longer trading the same system... and usually 'skipping signals' is a ticket for much worse consequences... To illustrate in the extreme - if you turned the system off after every loss and turned it back after every what would have been a winning signal, you would be actually trading a whole different system from the original design... ie skipping any signal is changing to a different system on the fly... "Find a period of time that it didn't perform as tested. Then,..." MM OR (btw This is system dependent - ie it’s not optimal for all systems ... but,) For most systems you can find another system that is negatively correlated and size it up, relative to the main system, when/as main system goes into drawdown ... with correctly paired systems, this works in the long run whether the neg corr’d system is profitable on its own or not !!!

Em, You’ve provided tmi. NOT! What is the characteristic slope of the equity curve when system is not in drawdown? What is the system’s variability of returns? ... what’s its variability of risk per trade ? What percentage of the time is the system in drawdown? Is that 20% max drawdown on Total Equity Max Drawdown or Closed Equity Max Drawdown? Have you run optimal - f for this system (using > than max loss in the max loss parameter) ? ... and used that in running Holding Period Return ? btw the max drawdown factor (of live trades or of historical testing) for a system to this date is not very useful info bcse in the real world The next systemic drawdown is 100% + Or not.  Maybe.  This leveraging decision depends greatly on how much heat and drawdown you are willing to accept. ie How aggressive are you? Like Where on the [it’s ‘gunslinger’ money] <-> [it’s ‘I have commitments’ money] continuum are these funds? Etc ? etc. ? Hth