zdo

gekko78, I mentioned poker in quite a different way than you mentioned poker ... anyways ... ... glad to hear you've got it together... please just ignore my posts ... consider that this 'repeated' quote is directed at one of the 'peers' I mentioned earlier "But let’s just ignore all that and look at it in the initial way one more time. What if your size running one (or two ) NQ is to the right of your optimal – s(ize)? Worse, what if it is to the right of your optimal – f ?" ... hope I haven't messed up your thread. All the best, zdo

"A few weeks ago, author and Manhattan-based lawyer Brett Joshpe penned a pro-gun-control piece whose thrust was that conservatives need to be sensible with respect to firearms legislation. It's not sensible, said he, to oppose any and all further restrictions on Second Amendment rights. Well, let's discuss what's "sensible." For much of the US' history, we had virtually no gun-control laws (for white people). But then came Prohibition, gangsters, and Tommy guns, and people wanted to be sensible. So we ended up with the 1934 National Firearms Act, which restricted ownership of fully automatic weapons. Al Capone was unimpressed. But there still was crime, and we had to be sensible. Thus were spawned 5,000 gun-control laws. Man's nature, though, is a mighty intractable thing. Crime still existed - and so did calls to be sensible. The result was 10,000 gun-control laws. Then the strangest thing happened. There still was crime. People still demanded, "Be sensible!" And then there were 15,000.... But there was still...well, now we have more than 22,000 guns laws. And guess what. That's right. Again there are those asking us to be "sensible." Now, one might question the sense of these sensible people. Are they so ignorant of history that they're damned to repeat it inexorably? As to this, you might, Mr. Joshpe, remember those math problems in school in which you had to finish a progression. Well, finish the one I outlined above. Let's say the left (and you) gets exactly what they claim to want right now. Will we: A. Have no more crime. B. Still have crime. After tackling that, proceed to question two: how will the left (and maybe you?) respond? A. They will say we already have sensible gun-control laws and seek solutions elsewhere. B. They will again ask us to be "sensible." Mr. Joshpe, I don't call your prescribed capitulation "sensible," but something else. Insanity - which, as that apocryphal saying tells us, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." What result, Mr. Joshpe, do you hope to achieve with your shape-shifting gun-control proposals? As to this, you peppered your American Thinker article with references to the need to restrict "automatic" weapons, clearly indicating that you'd fallen victim to what gun-grabbing propagandist Josh Sugarman called the public's highly exploitable "confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons," the former of which have been largely unavailable to the citizenry for almost 80 years. You now seem to know better and thus have switched gears, pushing what you call an "assault weapons" ban. This is very fashionable, of course, but what do you hope to achieve with it? Since it's "sensible" to be informed, please consider certain facts before answering. First, firearms such as the AR-15 (and I'm bored to tears of having to point this out) are not "assault weapons"; that is simply an emotionally charged term left-wing activists and the media have applied to demonize them. An assault weapon would have a "selective fire" feature, allowing it to be operated semi-automatic, fully automatic, in three-shot bursts, or in two of those three modes. In contrast, the weapons unfairly targeted here are merely semi-automatic rifles, meaning, they release one bullet with every trigger pull - like most guns owned in America. In addition, AR-15-class weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes, and legally owned ones in approximately zero percent of all gun crimes. Moreover: • They aren't large-caliber weapons. They're small - the same as a .22 Marlin target rifle. • While their .223 ammunition (the gun's default caliber) is nothing to sneeze at, it's not even close to being the highest powered. The .30-06, .416 Remington Magnum, .308 Winchester - and many, many other rifle calibers - are more powerful. Note that, as this video explains and illustrates, while AR-15-class weapons are made to wound a 170-pound man, the aforementioned hunting rifles are designed to kill a 300 to 1000-pound deer or moose. • In fact, .223 chambered AR-15s are so relatively ineffective that certain states and countries actually prohibit their use for deer hunting. • Thus, it isn't surprising that they aren't close to the most devastating firearms available. For example, as even The New York Times pointed out, shotguns are more effective in close-quarters attacks against soft targets (as in a massacre). Note here that most of the wounds in the Aurora, Colorado rampage were inflicted with a shotgun. • Any firearm with a magazine port can be fitted with a high-capacity magazine. Fifty-round magazines are readily available, for instance, for the Ruger 10/22. So now let's place Mr. Joshpe's sensible policy initiative in perspective. He doesn't propose outlawing the largest caliber weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the highest powered weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the most devastating weapons. He doesn't propose outlawing the weapons most often used in crimes. Instead? He insists we outlaw or restrict a class of small-caliber, lower-powered, less-effective rifles that have the same rate of fire as the more effective ones all so that we can, supposedly, eliminate weapons used in a staggering zero percent of all crimes. (The ones used in two percent of crimes are already illegal.) Is this sensible? Or insane? Of course, even targeting the other kinds of aforementioned weapons would only remove them from law-abiding hands, so that wouldn't be sensible, either. But my point is that there is a particularly severe disconnect between policy and reality here. I'm going to explain why it exists. Mr. Joshpe has scoffed at gun advocates' slippery slope warning. And in a sense he is right. His proposal is not a slide down a slippery slope. Rather, he's suggesting that we take a huge leap of blind faith, land in the middle of the slope, and then hope we stop. That is to say, if it makes sense to outlaw firearms used in less than two percent of gun crimes, why not handguns, which are used in 86 percent of gun crimes? Why not more devastating shotguns, which are used in 7.5 percent of gun crimes? Why not rifles in general, which are used in 8.8 percent of them? Why the focus on the one (plus) percent? Is this Occupy the Second Amendment? Answer: the left focuses on zero-percent guns (the legal ones) because they can. You see, there's a lot of prejudice right now against the "scary black gun," and, as scary black-heart Rahm the Assault Mayor has said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." But if you accept the supposition that outlawing guns stops outlaws from using guns and that a certain point on that slippery slope is the right level of legislation, it logically follows that everything above it in the hierarchy of "dangerousness" should be outlawed, too. Is this what you propose, Mr. Joshpe? If not, why pick on the AR-15? What sense, other than nonsense, does that make? And on a related note, Mr. Joshpe, you advocate the reinstitution of the Bill Clinton disgorged zero-percent weapons ban. Can you explain what this would accomplish? Another proposal Mr. Joshpe fancies sensible is something that became reality in New York just last week: a prohibition against high-capacity magazines. But NY state senator and former NYPD captain Eric Adams explained, quite inadvertently, at least part of the reason why it isn't sensible at all. While addressing the law's failure to grant police officers an exemption from the ban, he said, "You can't give more ammo to the criminals." But, wait, isn't the ban supposed to keep these magazines out of criminals' hands? And if it's wrong to thus handicap the cops, Mr. Joshpe, how is it sensible to give the criminals more ammo than good citizens have? That said, I'm not at all opposed to being sensible; I just define it a bit differently than does Mr. Joshpe. Conservatives have a history of playing defense - and compromising their way to culture-war defeat and tyranny. Liberals will come to the bargaining table demanding some change and conservatives, being reasonable, will give the liberals a percentage of what they want. The problem? The liberals will come back again and again, demanding more and more, and the conservatives will continually yield more ground. And, ultimately, after enough time, the whole loaf will have been relinquished. So here's my proposal: I want the total number of gun laws reduced from 22,000 to 5,000 (it's a good start, anyway). If the opposition finds this unpalatable, however, I'm willing to be sensible and reasonable and accept a reduction to 10,000. Don't ever say I'm not amenable to compromise. While I have far more ammunition in my magical mystery magazine, word control dictates that I hold further fire (for now) and cede the floor to Mr. Joshpe. Suffice it to say, though, that his proposals are of the left and should be left behind. They reflect large-caliber misunderstandings fed with high-capacity emotionalism which cycle out fully automatic knee-jerk reactions." Articles: The Great Gun Debate: Selwyn Duke vs. Brett Joshpe

feedback: I wouldn't rule out share, but as 4EverMaAT so succinctly put it … of course the large majority of Golden C’s among us would say if it has / requires a unique point of view it’s obviously dysfunctional and won’t stand the test of time … most of them don’t realize they actually implement from a unique point of view while thinking they don’t ! They still believe they can transmit implicit…

OK! Let's heavily short the indexes into COB tonight and shucks into the opening manana too. .but "under 20" ? ... what about "you must be prepared for a bearish environment at least until this indicator falls under 55" or... ???

Mitsubishi, you are (beyond) a spammer - plain and simple

Do you realize how many of your peers are running that same ‘I try to stay in an underdog mindset and capitalization to keep me from fkn up’ script? … and how few of them see any underlying issues and dynamics with such a tactic either? … that across time it is certainly no way to consistently bring forth your ideal performance self on a day to day basis... … that no consistent winners across all the performance games ( in poker, pro sports, trading, etc.) turn to it to keep them in a “preservation of capital mode”... But let’s just ignore all that and look at it in the initial way one more time. What if your size running one (or two ) NQ is to the right of your optimal – s(ize)? Worse, what if it is to the right of your optimal – f ?

"fractions of a contract" = OandA (not affiliated,etc. have no finacial interest, yada yada.... I don't even have much money with them these days.... just plugging OA bcse they offer infinite sizing)

More "Sizing" thoughts …Just a couple sizing ‘what if’s? What if the optimum sizing ratio for your trades =~ ‘target’ portion : (to your) ‘runner’ portion = 12:7 ? So, instead of sticking with mini sizing of two 10000’s, might you not be better off with ‘target’ sizing of 12000 and ‘runner’ sizing of 7000 ? next … but what if, through interpolative processing, the optimal – f estimates of your ‘target’ portion averages ~8000? You’re currently running at 10000 sizing - which is significantly to the right of your optimal – f. Ideally you are looking to run near a sweet spot to the left of your estimates of optimal –f… So instead of 12000 for ‘target’ and 7000 for ‘runner’ sizing, might you not be better off (across the long term) to currently start near a ~ 7000 ‘target’ size and a ~4080 ‘runner’ size? …with infinitely variable fx sizing as acct net asset increases ( to 7050:4010….then …. 12000:6996 …. ... ) couldn’t you can stay very close to your sweet spot size instead of continuously operating mis/over sized and ‘suffering’ between and during the quantum sizing jumps that ‘contract sizes’ impose on you ?… ... and how far from your sweet spot would one (or two) size in YM take you ? … just a couple off topic, (really ?) made up sizing ‘what if’s? hth

exactly! ...what would have been wrong with 'stopping out' and getting back in later - instead of leveraging stolen money? ...yet instead of locked up he's being called over to eur as a consultant... ...and Predictor, what was the point of your OP?

Blindness to sociopaths is the blindness of the (‘extremist’ and ‘measured’) gun grabbers in our midst. …it is doubtful that their conditioned minds are capable of grasping the meaning of "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis Comedian Bill Burr On Obama, Guns And The NDAA - Home - The Daily Bail

SIUYA, wtf is the new normal crisis? pls pick it up at http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/general-discussion/15420-new-normal-crisis.html#post172072 thanks

http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/general-discussion/9767-fiat-money-4.html#post171982 wtf is the “new normal”?

the gun grabbers will understandably question the source …but nonetheless… » Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will ?Fire On US Citizens? Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! About Us | Pink Pagoda Girls - Saving Baby Girls in China

The gods may be with you, but the odds are not. If you are not capitalized well enough to be ‘significantly underleveraged’ at two cars YM, then seriously consider staying with mini fx’s until such time as you are more than adequately capitalized. In your fx trading, even consider dropping below mini fx sizing until … - seriously. For one, if your system works best with / requires a ‘target’ contract and a ‘runner’ contract and you suddenly eliminate the’ runner’ component you have in essence not just tweaked your system – you have started using a discretely, wholly new (unproven) system. ... and, btw, single lot index trading is a tough game to play / win... More generally, the challenges of trading are many, disparate, and are not subjectively very predictable. Our capacity to respond to these multi-faceted challenges is also a LOT more variable than most would ever imagine / predict about themselves. Even the exceptionally ‘Steady Eddie’s are subject to sudden and inexplicable acct killing fkups. One of the best gifts you can give yourself in such an arena is staying power. Truly sufficient capitalization is a key component of real staying power.

more random thoughts... The Russell 3000 is really the most representative index. The Dow has very ‘fishy weighting’. At first glance, the SP 500 logically ‘looks’ more comprehensive, but is as ‘narrow’ as the Dow really … you can mirror it very closely with an 'index' of `17 of its stocks, etc. … Also, it doesn’t get much attn. but denominating indexes in plain old nominal USD introduces some truly amazing misrepresentations in charts in longer term timeframes. … peeps' eyes get a strange glaze over when I say things like In the indexes, below a certain slope of ‘up’, ‘up’ is really ‘down’

? no shtf - diamonds during shtf - silver post shtf - gold ?

:haha: An Elliottician asks another Elliottician "Is using Wolfe Waves heretical?"

Gekko, It ultimately boils down to refining small differences in your personal resonances between various index instruments. I personally still get my best results using YM and cash Dow charts for analysis, signals, triggers, etc ( … shorter time frame charts look n feel more ‘charty’ / less ‘blocky’ than ES to me, etc. and the tick by tick directional correlation with ES is virtually perfect) …but I actually do trades with it less and less intraday… even though fills haven't seemed to suffer that much, volume has just gotten too low for me… etc.

paraphrasing Faber To Shiller: ?You Keep Your U.S. Dollars And I?ll Keep My Gold? | Zero Hedge In response to a question from Yale University’s Robert Shiller querying the recommendation to hold gold, Marc Faber said: “I’m prepared to make a bet, you keep your U.S. dollars and I’ll keep my gold, we’ll see which one goes to [worthless] first.” Shiller, who is the co-creator of the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values, responded "I'm inclined to think gold prices after this crisis might return to a lower level" ... I'm confused after what crisis ???

An Elliotician asks another Elliotician "Is an Ending Diagonal completed?"

"plenty ways" ? ... such as ???

‘Back in 1774’ those chumps were working on a concept called Natural Law … with MM and Tams leading the way, we’re way beyond that ignorance now. ‘Back in 1874’, well intentioned, hypocritical old ladies (… they were hypocritical because they didn’t really care at all about the colored drunks dying - just their young ‘lads and ladies’ who were being morally sullied and made promiscuous by booz. – no modern day parallels here) . It took them decades, but their dreams came true… they got the ‘bad objects’ made illegal. Now, with MM and TheDude applying the same fervor in leading the way, we have an equally effective campaign of ‘prohibition as prevention’ under way with weapons.

Ok I will accept your replies as confirmation that the apparent hypocrisy is not based in racism – at least not the conscious, truly vicious kind. I never really suspected it deeply anyway… but we can’t be afraid to question. I was not using ‘racism’ to try to win the argument. (Ironic, but once ‘race’ was brought up all the other points in the post were ignored… so, apparently, that subject is not as inert as we would like to think…anyways) I was, and still am, questioning what lies behind your crowdlike emotional passion for To Disarm... it got 'buried, but also in that post were some ‘metro’ comments … another ‘answer’ to my questions may be something as ‘simple’ as the old rural vs urban orientation. Why collectivism is doomed and the next great crisis will massively shift America toward conservatism Donella Meadows

Against whom? No one was attacking you. … especially until you started interjecting yourself into the ‘conversation’ with 'possible interpretation' posts for questions to OP, or my 'messin with' TheDude.... plus you weren't coming down on either side. Why the hell are you defending yourself ? "...Paranoia strikes deep. Into your heart it will creep ..." It’s 1774. You live in Boston. SIUYA, would you be a rebel or a tory? Here’s some 'excess know how' reading for you. Amazon.com: Resistance to Tyranny: A Primer (9781450574280): Joseph P. Martino: Books

If we tell a lie (or in this case, use a statistic to argue causation) often enough, it will become a ‘truth’ ... and then we infer to those with "selective amnesia" that guns ‘off the streets’ as THE reason for NYc’s suddenly civility? … just as likely are that the crime organizations are more ‘mature’ in NYc than they are in ChiTown… … in any event, other “violence” aspects of culture not sufficiently factored in these 'statistical' comparisons.. plus … ignore stats on much more dramatic drops than in CHiTown or in NYC in cities where concealed carry laws where streamlined (Richmond, VA, etc.) … in any case, guns in or out of the hands of regular citizens certainly doesn’t have as strong case as a major ‘causation’ factor as the one the To Disarmr's are wishing to build… lies, dam lies, and statistics A while back in this thread, major arguments were based on US Aussie comparisons. whoops! Australians Own More Guns Since Strict Gun Control Laws Were Enacted ..and No, I don’t care about or trust these 'stats' either. I’m just using them to show that all the ‘causation’ arguments based on stats are shaky at best. ie I don’t ‘trust’ any of the stats used in this thread to build a case – pro or con Arm. ... ie I don’t trust when posters turn to stats in this argument.