zdo

We now interrupt your technical programming... The dollar is now “strong” and PM’s are ‘weak’ . But are PM’s really ‘weak’ ? Will an oz of gold still purchase pretty much what it always did in goods and services? Over decades and decades , has it lost anywhere near the purchasing power the USD, etc. has lost? The dollar is now “strong” and gold is ‘weak’ - but only if you have a very short memory or limited knowledge and understanding. Have you held an oz of gold in your hands lately? It takes 1200 USD to buy that? I’m thinkin that one can buy 1200 USD with one little oz of the stuff says far, far more about the dollar (or whatever fiat/debt currency you’re ‘swapping’) than it does about gold. Like - instead of at 2000 decibels, now it only screams at 1200 decibels in the canary mine. But that is still screaming bloody (money) murder. Each of us is either pretending or not pretending that our (worthless) paper currencies have not lost any value since the exchange taxation / assassination / demonetization of PM’s. Each of us is either in denial or not in denial. Each of us is either herd supporting a lie, a fraudulent paper PM market, a ‘matrix’ of sorts - or NOT. Just saw where Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation says their guarantees of funds are uncertain / at risk / just may not be possible in over 50% of the un(der)funded pensions in the US. That, played on out, is how this fiat, keynesian rip-off , ultimately gets you - blatantly. If you are younger and paying/saving into this system, you are REALLY getting ripped off by unnoticable little bits and pieces every day. ...paraphrasing Francisco’s “money speech” in Atlas Shrugged - PM’s are an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Fiat paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not yet exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce said wealth into existence. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes marked: ‘Account overdrawn.’ Fwiw, for me re ” Gold Bullish or Bearish " I have been bearish gold for years now in terms of silver. Over the years I have swapped gold for silver and just recently ‘finished’ - now (except for a selection of gold coins I want to keep) I’m entirely out of physical gold, entirely into physical silver (which has its own set up practical hassles, btw) In terms of fiat, re ” Gold Bullish or Bearish" - I could not care less. We now return you to your regularly scheduled technical analysis...

It’s literally “...thoughts after skimming...” a current example of (state of the art) trading literature - period. It is ok to refer to voice of trading materials for examples and illustration. And ...It is even ok for the (now confirmed) voice of trading to try to silence non voice of trading talk... after all, dominant paradigms might be being challenged... anxiety that big trouble might ensue if more than a tiny few consider non consensus ways and perspectives. Take it however you take it. Call it whatever you call it. Feed in and keep the thread alive as long as you want... You are welcome to speak to your audience through this thread as much as you like or need... just remember though, my intended audience is very tiny... Wishing you all the best, zdo

FOR THE MANY: “It has been tried” If digital automation is not your thing then that should settle it for you. So - seriously and respectfully -When would now be a good time to click out of this thread and spend your precious, limited time studying, developing and practicing your own specialization in trading. FOR THE FEW: “It has been tried” The Sanskrit translation is “it can’t be done” reminds me of this cut and paste... He ‘really ought to have known better’. Who knows how many total, but in one thread alone Db has + 80 posts differentiating ‘Wyckoff’ from ‘VSA’ (and for some reason he even pitched in and helped differentiate VSA from “VSA-TG” in the process). Question this - If the “knockoffs that followed” Wyckoff are not authentic Wyckoff, then an attempt to automate VSA is not an attempt to automate Wyckoff. Which way is it going to be, db ? Duplicitous? Beyond the benefit of the obvious economies in a one line slur - he ‘really ought to have known better’... twice. Another not so minor distinction - for the few - until ‘It” (TradeGuider in this case) sends actual orders and manages actual positions, “It” has not been tried. ... He ‘really ought to have known better’.... thrice. In another post/thread, I may draw some parallels someday between what motivated Wyckoff and Williams to begin with... and what motivated them to produce ‘courses of study’(...btw it’s not pretty). But for now, let’s just focus down on TradeGuider a little bit... imo, sales success was more important to TradeGuider than product development and improvement. They were indifferent to sustained development - if they ever really cared at all - beyond getting some software out there to elicit seminar training session enrollments where the big bucks were. For the most part, they shipped the first efforts that compiled / didn’t crash and were done with it. Fifty percent hit rate was enough ... They claimed to apply Artificial Intelligence but that was just a rip-off promotional buzz phrase. In reality all they did was utilize marginal fuzzy logic for the price patterns. The volume patterns were strictly pre-programmed VSA ‘micro’ patterns. Folks - db’s pronouncement notwithstanding - and whether you’re talking “It” as automating Wyckoff or “It” as automating VSA doesn’t matter - TradeGuider does not even begin to qualify as a real , honest ‘try’ at “It” and He ‘really ought to have known better’.- four different ways now... And, like - does https://community.tradestation.com/Discussions/Topic.aspx?Topic_ID=88600 qualify as a “It has been tried” with SLA ??? Hell no!!! He ‘really ought to have known better’... times 5. FOR THE MANY: If you’re still reading, all I can say is you were notified. This thread is about ‘automation’ and is in the Beginners Forum section. ... if you’re not into that then again I would suggest you return to developing your own ‘wetgrey automation’ as soon as possible ... and may the wyckoff be with you

Chillax, db. Reverend Wyckoff is not under attack. The flock is not under attack. No one on the way to Wyckoff or the “knockoffs” is being waylaid. No one is stomping in your threads rudely attempting to guide ppl away from the method when they are there only to understand how to use the method. The pdf is not being reviewed. As explained above, the thread simply explores the weaknesses of settling on the 'voice of trading' definitions of the "purpose of characterization" and proposes alternate sequencing of curricula for developing traders - with a little extra consideration in terms of all types of ‘automation’ (including wetgreyware automation - acknowledged or denied)... it’s not anti-coadunation at all. And let’s leave the thread name the same. It is SO literal... thoughts after skimming... exactly what happened. .. When you posted you’ve added new material I didn’t initially go skim it and with each passing day likelihood decreased that I would ever go skim it... but then you come in here and promote it... now if I do go skim it, what do you think I will do if I have happen to have thoughts after skimming it ? If we’re going to get ridiculous - you could start a thread entitled “my thoughts after skimming your thoughts after skimming SLAMT” ?

 this thread is ultimately about automation - not Wyckoff, and not automation of Wyckoff. It was started in reaction to what I call MarketTyping being placed at the very end of SLAMT instead of central or at the beginning. it is a useless thread to the many... useful to a tiny few... Some discussion... To me “Automate. Wyckoff.” is not an oxymoron at all... Wyckoff is already automated... many times... it is automated by as many brains who are attempting to apply it. Each instance of such ‘automation’ will utilize and emphasize certain aspects and neglect or be blind to other parts of his work. Each instance of such ‘automation’ will have greyware that is more ‘trainable’ in some areas of ‘wycof’ than in others. Each instance of such ‘automation’ will have been exposed to different wetware programming along the way. As with any automation, the goal is to limit processing to the salient factors. Understandably, in each instantiation, those parts of the Wyckoff way that the greyware and wetware can’t establish ready flow in will be heavily discounted. Db’s posting across the years is an excellent case study of such refining of certain aspects and de-emphasis / relinquishment of other aspects of ‘Wyckoff’. His attempts to distill the essence of Wyckoff have not and should not go unnoticed - but nonetheless, his greyware and wetware will omit / de-emphasize parts of the way that would be useful, even essential, to Wyckoff ‘automation’ for some other greywares and wetwares... ... And regarding ‘real’ automation ... of the Wyckoff way. It is nowhere near the top of the list of methods in amenability to automate but, at the ‘macro’ levels of the way, it IS possible to codify Wyckoff’s ‘9’ buying and selling “tests”. Automation of Wyckoff tests would certainly not be my cup of tea... but I have looked at it enough to determine feasibility. It should be noted also that there are significant exceptions/ambiguities/complexities that would have to be handled in areas of re-accumulation and re-distribution... but all trading system coding requires exception, etc. coding regardless of method...* remember though, I’m not here to promulgate such - this thread is about automation in general, not automation of Wyckoff. Btw... only a few could actually stay true to the original ‘material’ / logic ... most architects, during design, would resort to techniques that would make “Wyckoff purists” shudder - even though they could still come up with the same ‘trees’ and trades as discretionary traders would...... *it should also be noted again that exceptions/ambiguities such as those mentioned above in the areas of re-accumulation and re-distribution are endemic to all ‘ways’, methods, and systems... and should be dealt with programmatically as best as possible... but to the extent they cannot be fully resolved , for the bottom line they can be addressed via proper sizing... ie beyond a certain point in any trader’s development (automated or discretionary), it becomes “fk trying to minimize risks further” and shifts to “emphasize optimal exposure”. MarketTyping first is the best way I’ve come across to address this... hence this thread about how I think most traders in the ‘voice of trading’s’ trance have it bassackwards Worth attempting for most traders? No. but Possible? Yes. Advisable for a few to attempt? Absolutely!.... ... Moving on to another example... basic SLA would be relatively easy to code and would perform as well as most discretionary beginners right out the box... -Generating and prioritizing the horizontal ‘lines’/’zones’ has been programmed for years. -On one of the important micro levels, a big meme in Wyckoff circles is “software won't work to identify buying pressure and selling pressure” That is a limiting belief. These days order and transaction flow analytics via code are generally superior to ‘continuous eyeballs analytics - especially if your code accommodates the reality that ‘volume’ / trade flow / etc patterns will mean one thing in one MarketType and another in a different MarketType, etc. HFT has introduced a sort of ‘toxicity-driven' volatility and the first impulse is to make bid and offer replenishment models, etc, etc even more central and complex, but actually it turns out HFT has inadvertently rolled over and gifted us with a very old and basic ‘tell’. -Generating/drawing’ angled ‘straight’ lines / trend lines and entry on crossover or on retrace after a crossover has also been programmed for years. How strict or loose the trading rules for the system are would be up to the ‘automation’ creator... same as with the ‘discretionary’ ‘wet’ ‘automation’ discussed at the top of the post... This is leading us back to ‘setups’ again...” Wyckoff. Setups. “ is also supposed to be a downright oxymoron. :rofl: More later ...maybe... Have a great weekend all zdo D.B. Vaello

More on “There are no "setups" in Wyckoff” p 45 SLAAMT Bless Wyckoff’s and DB’s heart, maybe they never imagined automated trading. If you automate, you will find it necessary to “have’ and ‘do’ setups (and triggers)... if you must you can make them fuzzy and call them “no(t) setups” if it helps keep your algos tuned to the auctions... but still - they are setups. If you don’t automate... if you must/if it helps, then you can deny setups by pure emphasis and focus on what happens after ‘setup’ has formed... or you can acknowledge that they are setups... in that a quorum of conditions have been met... and use them... It is not an accident that SLTAMT, etc. came into mind a little bit. The person I am mentoring right now is all up in Wycoff - and I have to struggle not to slap completely silly some of the dumbass Newtonian laws and logic he has picked up / created / associated with the constructs... This thread is still ultimately about automation...

Gamera ??? DBP ??? pg 41 SLAMT ???

quick little break time from the chart 'technicals' and crowd 'sentimentals'... It's advisable to crinkle your foil hat securely around your whole cranial region before reading... suspends the trance Then please be on the watch out for treacherous ideas within A Salvo in the Battle for the Gold Standard | Zero Hedge We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming

“…The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception… ” M. McLuhan http:/CNBC.com/desperate-charts-suggest-sub- $1000-Gold-is-likely/ Thank you CNBC, suntrust, and BobcTwns for the great and helpful explanations. You are the best lab partners EVER! Now we understand. It really is best to be one of the entranced apathetics who swallow anything. no promotions and links (we will monitor all threads) http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/search.php?searchid=982824

“…The serious artist is the only person able to encounter technology with impunity just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception… ” M. McLuhan

... primarily for the benefit of chart noobs ... Re: “Desperate are those searching for why when the chart tells why/when/how.” Charts are one possible way of representing bhvr of human ‘crowds’ ... and whether we like to acknowledge it or not, there is always a “why”. The bhvr of human ‘crowds’ is the central “why”. For the chart technician, it’s the only necessary “why”. ‘ Voice of trading’ chartist proponents as a rule unconsciously guide noobs into developing an illusion that there are no ‘whys’ to be aware of ...by sending the brains to focus on the chart instead of the human bhvrs that generate the basis for charts and other visual representations... Point is: that way is good only for a few - and not the many as some chartists would have us blve... ... Since no good explanation for the use of the term “desperate” seems to be forthcoming let me go a little further and partially explain why I questioned its use. ‘Technically’*, there is often not much fight in herded bulls after the near parabolic, narrative based run-up like in late Jan. Not much fight means they can’t generate very much to be “desperate” about. So, pricechartwise, those blue horizontal lines mark/provide no more possible ‘support’ than jet vapor trails in the sky would... etc. The strong handed bulls don’t even have to be ‘concerned’ until the 1160’s... Permabulls are in physicals and are hedging with papergold, etc. etc... ... in quick summary, very few bulls are “desperate” at this time - so the use of the term is questionable and could just be possible unnecessary spin** ...etc etc. * and by god I’m using that ‘Technically’ term loosely - since we’re making “desperation” and “disappointed’, ’concerned’ etc. into ‘technical’ / chart terms ... ** ...and yes, some things could be said about spinning this kind of ‘CNBCese speaky’ into our posts - but we certainly can’t single out just SunBurst on this because we’re all guilty of it at one time or another ...and via the ‘internet’ that would just be pickin a fight. The purpose is not to condemn “shorthand” either... look what damppenguin has to do to avoid it. See http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/wyckoff-forum/19107-trading-sla-amt-intraday-5.html#post196677 The purpose of my posts is to question questionable “shorthand”. So, for the benefit of the noobs, an explanation of “desperate” would still be appreciated

nhn. You are joking us, right? Many traders love trading to death and can’t make a go of it. In a tennis league I play in you can tell which guys love the game the most... but it does not make them the winners. A ‘love’ for trading is definitely a necessity for sticking in there through thick and thin... but everything will not fall in place just because one ‘loves’ it.

That's a good answer - to a different question. So "Desperately tried to hold support" becomes "Searching for why tried to hold support" ?? "More self evident desperation by bulls to hold 1203-1200 zone" becomes "More self evident searching for why by bulls to hold 1203-1200 zone" ?? Question remains - Where is the "desperate" on those charts? Would not have questioned the use of milder "technical" /"chart" terms to insert some extra "why" into the posts... like for example '(It) disappointedly tried... ' and '...self evident disappointment' ...

The papergold this thread is about is currently way hooked up with JPY... ie (for any ‘plain speak challenged’ readers) it’s “highly correlated” . So, what is “desperate market” about that? Or How many more “desperate players” ( weak hands, etc.) are "desperate" than usual ? ... and Who in their right mind wants it to stay so high anyways? ...real bulls want it lower. ... the lower the better... ... and for the real bears, Martin Armstrong is back (and what did not kill him made him stronger) so relicgold at $285 is inevitable ... ...So, Sun, I still think an explanation of the word “desperation” would be helpful. (Without explanation it might be taken a new technical term defined as support provided by horizontal trend lines that deliver the same quality of support as jet vapor trails to start with ...? etc ? etc.?) Thx ...and jmo BobC, papergold as a rule could not care less about who is “hoarding” gold. ... and more jmo, papergold doesn’t care quite enough even about who is lending or borrowing gold...

Traders need to make clear and functional demarcations for themselves on the difference btwn risk and exposure. And - yes it is sad that this event is the only way some get the opportunity to learn the difference between Risk and Exposure. Especially where ANY degree of leverage is involved, this is an important lesson to learn ... regardless of how you learn it... by painfully experiencing the difference real time or learning enough from studying and watching others and conceptualizing a functional lesson. Risk is the probability, the chance that an event or situation will transpire that would lead to a loss or an undesired outcome. Exposure is the extent to which the outcome at risk can have an effect. The ‘voice of trading’ is weak and virtually silent on Exposure. The typical first grader in ‘trading schrooall’ is served pabulum like “limit you risk by using stops” and “only risk 3% of your account in each position” and that’s about it. Most traders “meme - in” and functionally comingle risk and exposure inside their heads instead of working a VERY SHARP distinction btwn the two Most of the traders out there who are in this purgatory situation with their brokerages... and also most of the traders who are setting themselves up to be one of the next casualties of the currency wars are fully brainwashed keynesian cargo kids who have yet to even conceptualize even a wish for an alternative to the ‘archy’. And ...Ultimately it’s such BigPicture mistakes/delusions that lead to and sustain these SmallPicture ... likeThinking your stop delimits your exposure, etc... mistakes/delusions ... and end up “ not had a clear situation upon their trading account. most still stuck awaiting from their brokers decision, wether they will able to withdrawn their money or not. ” .. ie still blaming the market and / or the SNB and / or their broker ... instead of learning to work a VERY SHARP distinction btwn the two and being grateful for the lesson... ...and fwiw, PRAX, I do feel for you bro ...

ritika1124, Welcome aboard. I see you got your Golden C... what are you selling to your "Great to here friends"? I hope you have started off with a real account and not straight to a pretend one. Real account helps you learn a lot.

SunTrust, "Desperately" ? Please explain the "Desperately" part for us. Thx zdo

What's really sad is that TL members posted almost 1190 posts working on this topic and the whole time it could have been handled with just that one formula ... thx o3!

For those few ‘samples of one’ who might want to cut through the rampaging ‘voice of trading’ A trade is not an investment An investment is not a trade. Mark as trades the transactions for which you have no control over the outcomes besides your exit // beyond unwinding the position at a profit or loss Mark as investments the transactions you make which include the possibility to materially participate in creating the desired outcomes and those that you make a concomitant commitment to do just that. Make and crystalize that distinction for yourself. It helps.

Dear Mr Dove, I do not have the good sense to modulate my exposure to possible outliers. I also do not have the resolve needed to 'hedge' my own funds. Please do it for me because I believe you and your firm are among that tiniest minority of fund managers who can maintain near perfect hedges day in and day out year after year. Please find check enclosed. Also, please sign me up for your exciting upcoming pilot program that actually credits traders’ accounts a small amount each time they close a losing trade . Thank you. T.L. Investradconfuzd

dream on // good luck. ... will disappear quickly... only a tiny few largest accounts are protected ... and even they aren't really protected

Can you delegate a right that you don’t have? I celebrate that markets can be manipulated. And Traders who are not ready to accept this 'exchange' and 'broker' category of the risks involved in trading should simply find other avenues ... and certainly not opine about or beg for 'fairness' (warning ! Watch out - here comes a run of content that may not seem connected. It is!) If you think the NFA is going to protect you from crooked or mismanaged brokers think again! Can you delegate a right that you don’t have? ultimately any and all regulations serve the people they were originally intended to serve for only a brief time. Then, regulations adds to and compounds corruption rather than ameliorating it. (C’mon people ... the quickenings are coming... keep up ! ... make the leaps...) To trust people who are ultimately not trustworthy in agencies that, to put it mildly, serve purposes that they were not ‘chartered’ to serve is a mistake. Trust of state, in ANY of the ‘political’ forms it can take, is a mistake. Mass acceptance of state = Mass trust of state = a mistake ... flimsy “omg! otherwise chaos would erupt” arguments/fears notwithstanding. The mistake leads - quickly or slowly - to attempts at centralized management ... resulting in oppression, exploitation of the responsible, the productive, the ‘voters’ who accept state... fkn Greece is the distraction of the week ... see Does Anyone Remember 2007? The Global Debt Bubble In 3 Ominous Charts | Zero Hedge ‘they’ are now reaching peak ‘rob the unborn’/ steal from those that can’t ‘vote’ for ~ 25yrs into the future, etc. They must now come for current wealth - your pension, your property, your... - by bail-ins... then at the point of a gun... ... all kinds of dark sht happens and even things that are feared become blessings ... The Beauty of Deflation | ... Basically - Our markets are best left anarchic. Can you delegate a right that you don’t have? :missy:

Got a few more minutes for parallels The bold in that last sentence is to harken you all back to my encouragements across time in this ‘forum’ that traders who would really thrive need to start at restoring body flow - and not start or even include any fkn trading ‘psychology’ bs. Although only 1 in 1000 who read this will blve it - this "compares"! in trading ... Something as subtle as eye positioning affects a trade...hth the Parallel in that last paragraph = ‘voice of trading’... yada yada Ya’ll have fun Silicon Valley Has Lost Its Way. Can Skateboarding Legend Rodney Mullen Help It? | WIRED zdo

Our counterparts in rus, etc. are getting hosed in many ways these days in the curr wars... hey - what goes around, comes around ... Btw - For the idiots (in any ‘jurisdiction’) who find 1:50 ++ leverage is not 'enough' Let them eat UltraCoin :rofl: