zdo

Yet...if we could pull off a realistic survey of the ~77000 members of even this supposedly 'independently minded' group of traders on TL, what percentage would check the poll answer that the Republican is a separate party instead of a wing of the party? ... or even the percentage from an accurate survey of the core 2000 members? ... and then generalize that to the not so 'independently minded' rest of the population...

Maybe this is “a good read” BUT I must note Anyone of us for whom G. Soros has any credibility needs ( if it is mentally possible ) to check to see if s/he is deluded, hypnotized, and entrained to a corrupt underlying belief system and feeding the structure that is continually rebuilt around those ‘beliefs’ ... Who would be best served by forming European Fiscal Authority (EFA) ? ... never let a crisis go unexploited...

Predictor, re: "...I am hoping for some pretty dramatic results.." What results are you looking for? zdo

Who is “We” ? Speaking for myself, I have barely a clue about the fundamentals. My insights, regardless of whether they are wrong or right, are into tptb’s ‘perception management' efforts. … and for now those attempts appear to still be working… as again “good is great, worse is greater” The only fundamental I can comment on is that I would not be trading a DM this way… but, starting with the very next player in that cozy little list making the EUR, France, and going on ‘down’ it is a fkn collectivist fundmntl mess… EUR prices are doing exactly what I want them to do in the schema of this thread – they’re cycling up into low risk, high probability sell points… renewed USD destruction notwithstanding.. and inscrutable JPY issues…both of which are sufficiently on topic but are better kept out of these EuroTrash blurbs... Have a great weekend all

... go little euro go... run up all the way through Sept ... Oct ... so I can... ... and while you're at it, take your derivatives (the stock indexes ) up with you

I used that KISS ‘word’ over in the ‘non optimization myth’ thread earlier today and it got me thinking… Then, noticing the 'mass hypnotism' in two thread titles (not the content in the threads, btw) http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/trading-markets/14132-kiss.html and http://www.traderslaboratory.com/forums/tech-analysis/14111-bringing-common-sense-trading-3.html fed the fire. …since I don’t have serious arguments with the real topic or the content of the OP or other posts in “Common Sense...” article; and since my intentions are to elicit diametrical departure from discussing the degrees of KISS in that thread … I’ll just start a separate thread instead of going over and trashing theirs … and if anyone needs they can feel free to come trash this one avoid “common” in trading In the common sense thread , the OP seems to have largely thrown in the ole ‘truism’ just to add credibility and that’s accepted by most. But the use of the phrase in ‘selling’ the article is, imo, a disservice to developing traders. In the title, he paired "common sense" as an aid when those SR's do 'work', but what should "common sense" say when those SR's (or whatever) don't work? When was the last time you saw "common sense" call a mea culpa on itself ?? Quickly get away from ‘common’ or ‘sense’.. Common trading sense / Common sense trading will put you right smack dab in the middle of the pack! Run, noob, run! Again, I appreciated the content of the opening post, and even ‘second the motion’ of the DBPh’s sentiments in post #22 ... but The trigger was the ‘simplifying’, via truisms, in the titling.. the delusion of the kiss As in quality physical training, consistently successful trading must progress from the simple to compound to complex. Again, rephrased slightly - as with most all self directed performance work/play/behavior/w.e. where there is ANY level of pace at all, (trading included) even raw beginners must immediately leave ‘simple’ and include ‘compound’ and ‘complex’ and start moving all three towards unconscious competence. Right out the gate, in the ‘playing’ or ‘practicing’ or even ‘learning’ the movement towards the complex must begin and continue on incessantly - even though components and steps in the chain of a performance can be broken out and temporarily isolated and seemingly ( but not really! ) made simple. But - To keep it simple is stupid. Attempting to ‘keep’ it simple will take all but a few out of the game! * One more time! Even for beginners, to simply build on Keep it simple IS stupid…. we were created / have evolved for increasing complexity… the humanness of markets is far from simple… no matter how much we may wish it were so or even act as if it is, staying ‘simple’ will NOT work… …However, steady development is not the norm and should not be expected. Rather we must build in regressions. When we can’t sustain the complex, we need to (hopefully consciously) regress to the compound and when we can’t sustain the compound, then we need to regress to the simple. But, unless you are one of the tiny minority that can actually tolerate the truly simple systems *, then to even want to keep it simple is a futile, illusionary, waste of your energy. the illusion of the simple Any of us in performance work can produce an illusion of simplicity. Occasionally, we can and do make it look ‘simple’. We can even ultimately experience all three of the levels mentioned above as ‘simple’. Both looking it and (episodically) experiencing it as ‘simple’ is epitomized by the likes of LangLang, Michanangelo, Montana, Rice, Jordan, Federer, Tiger, etc etc. Those examples, and all the rest of us, though are actually always continuously pushing deeper into complexity and difficulty… moving the intersection of eustress further and further over towards complexity/ mastery Bottom line: Beware - if you just KISS, you won’t get very far in this game. you will feed instead of being fed, etc etc. For yourself - If you meet the truism on the road, see it for what it really is ! … and now the leap… (alternatives) instead of ‘common sense’ and ‘kiss’ > Know what you want! Utilize honesty. It's liberating ... and, btw, that also means … consider what you want independently of any consideration of process! ...and ... … separate what you want from any questions of possibility! > Then choose if you fully accept the unknown, but certainly high, levels of complexity and discomfort that are coming if you persist in creating what you want in trading… * A few really really simple methods to trade successfully exist. By far the best example is pure (read that real) trend trading… but unless you are born to it being compatible with your true nature you will just not be able to sustain trading it exclusively

go up and up and up and up, you little currency without a country... go on up so I can... Desperate Maladies Require Desperate Measures | ZeroHedge

For my own 'optimizationing' of the types of systems being discussed in this thread , I would amend "As a conclusion we can state that the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will fail in the future due to its nature." to "As a conclusion ...the issue is not whether a system is optimized, because all systems are in one way or another, but to what degree optimization impacts the probability that the system will degrade in the future due to its nature." ie...to "failure" is too kiss... if the parameters are optimizable for a system, get busy on them to the left or the right as soon as it degrades

Buy stocks for $4 Get a $100 bonus 2012 Obama vs Romney: the illusion of choice | CrisisHQ.com Oops...sorry to disturb you... didn't think you were sleeping...

Whether moving stop to BE works or not is highly system specific. If it matters to you, search it. Across the years I’ve posted more detailed rants about the sheer uselessness of yammering about stop placement in the absence of context. Ie Moving stops to BE works – for a very few systems and then only in certain contexts within those systems. If you go back through the posts in this thread you will find that only one person even vaguely mentioned the underlying system behind where moving stop to BE would work … virtually all the other posts surmise that since it works for one of their systems the info is ubiquitous for all systems (with one poster finding it didn’t work for his approach, so he posted that it wouldn’t work for any systems ever – same diff … incomplete msgs) ... a telling sign of a combination of attempting to apply system(s) not in alignment with your true nature and(/or) pre-existing hindbrain and limbic brain patterns that you brought to the game... usually it's both and will require some serious work in both... else you are at risk of developing chronic 'minimization of conflict' patterns - which will lead to a sad end of your trading activiites... This is also highly system specific. In the real world I think you will find that this type of “hedging” in lieu of normal stops typically 1) puts you in the rt position of having to manage two positions instead of one. and 2) increases your costs and 3) commits capital that could (most of the time) be much better used elsewhere… ie it doesn’t work out practically any way like it was initially ‘imagined’. Often these techniques are better utilized as a way to lock in outlier profits than as a way to "lock in a loss" :helloooo: hth

Just a couple of questions and comments about recent posts …and not disagreeing at all… these posts seem to be coming from knowledge, experience, and good (common) sense… Does it really matter that much if the distribution is normal or not? Isn’t the real issue that it is ‘distributed’ at all? ie Never use the local maxima. Move settings off it to the left or the right…and keep moving! Work on 'typical', conventional system design that uses specific and variable parameters has ‘smooth(er)’ Equity Curve as a main requirement… so if ‘typical’ is the operative term for you, first rule would be to stop using a system if the EC is too ‘jagged and ragged’. Regarding the direction of EC, one way to handle it is to predetermine a reasonable, (and slightly generous) X number of ‘reporting periods’ for the system the EC will be allowed to go downward before stopping the system (and also to predetermine a number X + i of ‘reporting periods’ the curve will be allowed to go flat before stopping). This way is more general and has wider applicability than does using generalized % drawdown, etc criteria – ie any % drawdown criteria used should be VERY system specific christronic if I could make a suggestion, you might serve your own purposes best by going back and reforming, restructuring, redefining etc you’re whole concept of money managementThe MM process must be clearly demarcated and always after completion of any ‘expectation’ and ‘optimization’ work on a system and then it can be narrowed down to one thing – Position sizing! Every system with a 'positive expectation' has a sweet spot to the left of optimum-f (using stop size, not worst loss, in calcs btw). A good seed starting place for ‘typcial’ systems is around 20% left of Opt-f peak…. then dynamically tweak indiv. system from there This whole ‘systems optimization’ business is an art really… with many books and articles (and sites and posts) explaining how it’s pure science of course :rofl: … reminds me of what SUIYA was saying above… concurring - In my reality, I go through phases where I run and look at a many bunches of stats … and about 1 in 1000 reveal something surprising / differentiating / useful… Fwiw, and hopefully on topic, I would never run just one of these 'optimizable' ( :haha: like there are types that aren't 'optimizable') types of systems… always a ‘portvoleo’ of at least four systems of varying complexity (see Momentum Chaser’s post # 19 above)…and with one of them ‘completely’ negatively correlated... just saying... experience from days of fund management / smooth, correctly sloping EQ's ... This was a great week to be trading! Have a great weekend all.

chf link European Bank Run Watch: Swiss Edition | ZeroHedge

madcap, curious ( but, unfortunately, not very agile) links Guest Post: In Defense Of Liberty Extremism | ZeroHedge The World Complex: The True American Show How they brainwash you in a psych ward

:completely off topic rant: TL, are you interested in what isn't going to work with me? What isn't going to work is me searching / googling a product yesterday then having an ad for it show up at the bottom of the page and now beside this post # 1 in TL this morning. you all have blown it... now, if google, the promotors of the product, or TL think I am going to buy that product ever - or even click through - you are all blowing smoke up each other's unowot... and no, i'm not going to change .... settings

Got a multi - chuckle off that one MM... you're killing it :rofl:

Beware associating“perfection” drives with greatness. For one, the ‘greats’ are MUCH MUCH better at shaking off, even ignoring mistakes, losses, and imperfections than are the ‘goods’ … ...and also, even if one ‘settles’ for being ‘good’, there’s no guarantee he will be a ‘good’ … so re in my view, better to just go ahead and set sights on ‘great’… it is “realistic” to think about greatness if you can truly assess and accept where you are now and tolerate the elevated tensions generated by the larger discrepancies created… ...also, in my experience, those who ‘settle’ in this business tend to gradually devolve themselves out of the game… …back to the article ...then the article didn’t really quite fish that out far enough. Predictor, (and et al.) could you please expand and amplify on that some more for us? Thanks.

Well put! I’ve been hitting at this here and there lately – in my experience, far more traction is available in understanding market order flow than is available in understanding (appearing and disappearing) stacks of standing orders ie and roughly market order flows help me to work price movement other types of / limit order flows help me to work price stability

"rather loose" works 'more loose' doesn't

maybe off topic I can never tell anymore Have you talked to your house about how quickly they can and will transition from EUR to GEM (DMark), etc etc...??? Are you prepared to have any positions that have EUR in them liquidated immediately by the house? ... and if and when the above happens, how will CHF react / come unpegged ??? What else might happen? Two day to two week spike in JPY (junk) ?? etc... ??? ...and why is JPY so 'valuable' anyways? I keep astn that and none of the 'reasonable' answers I get really fit ...or even ring true ...:helloooo:

Predictor, enjoyed reading your article and posts in this thread…thanks. I sincerely hope all our content herein helps move you and others to greatness. Some thoughts about your list 1. They recognize when they are wrong. 2. They incorporate new information into their existing plans. 3. They execute at a high level. They perform. 4. They recognize when they are right, and they push their winners. 3. They execute at a high level. They perform.\ This is really the only one that genuinely belongs on the list! All the other list items are superfluous – traits shared with good traders, etc… ie greatness in any performance work is determined by how one handles the BIG important moments, points, games, playoffs, whatever. … example - in tennis you can win significantly fewer points than your opponent but still win the match by winning the important points. The “greats” in all performance work finely balance their foci at these moments and push themselves (and not their risk btw … ‘taking more risk’ has been discussed (but not including in the list ? ) but the ‘risk’ profiles between the “great” and “good” really do not differ much ie am not really in agreement with the assumptions you're making in post 7... however your points throughout that great traders are in deeper and wider awareness that they are really gaming than are good traders is well taken). Behind almost all the stories of great traders it is a set of outsized wins or runs that made them – what’s not channeled in the stories adequately is the preparation and tactical readiness they had developed to “push” themselves at the right market moments … so thoughts re the other list items 1. They recognize when they are wrong. sb 1 They accept being wrong good traders (and even not so good traders) recognize when they are wrong, but in the internal 'battle of the biases', pre-existing reactive - responsive tendencies, etc - too often go into a hopeful denial of the error state of a trade that isn’t working…so the acts required to ‘correct’ it aren’t taken… 2. They incorporate new information into their existing plans. sb 2. They incorporate new opportunities into their existing plans (or something like that) incorporating new broadcasted, willy nilly, information is common to both goods and greats 4. They recognize when they are right, and they push their winners. This list item is actually too system dependent. I understand what you’re getting at but, if anything, the greats are good - ie only just a little bit better than the goods - at getting out at just the right times... Unless one is a TRUE trend follower, you don't push push push winners. etc etc ..were that every TL post was about greatness... high level performance... Thanks and all the best, zdo “Never base your life decisions on advice from someone who doesn’t have to deal with the results” sounds like Tams ?? :rofl:

No lag time response... whew - almost missed this question forever...answer won't be of much help either Generally, backtesting was done on various bhvrs of the cells coming into price pivots. It got very number crunchy... in the ES well over 2000 stack instances had to be included coming into a pivot... later tweaked around with some GA and a few other things ... but generally... with the raw numbers - Nothing reliable was found Around this whole topic ... using the book is a skill that can be developed. Much like tape reading though it takes a certain type of mental aptitude (ie savant like strangeness ) to be able to scan it day in and day out and know when to act, etc...

Briefly - Across time, the best times to re-optimize a system is at first degradation of performance. Across time, the best optimizations are settings off those indicated by the re-optimization tests… mostly because the re-optimize is also now dated… how much off the optimization and which way to move the settings becomes a “projective art” btw re: “I feel that knowing how to push winning trades is probably the best way to enhance a system” Predictor you’re fixin’ to get one of my broken record lectures that’s usually reserved for beginners about discussing ‘best’ exit methods in the absence of identifying system type. If you are not system specific about your entries, don’t try to say what kind of stay is best… In many systems, “push[ing] winning trades” is the ticket to suboptimal returns. etc etc…

I guess that's my cue ... like the crazies didn't already start coming out :razzzz: I wouldn't necessarily go so biblical, but Vaughn's post above is the essence of how I would reply to Predictor's thinking too. At this point, more of the "problem solving" smarts Predictor is pushing for would only be fodder for the evil 'intentions' that rule the day...

Seen this ole ditty?

maybe :oftopic: https://community.tradestation.com/Discussions/Topic.aspx?Topic_ID=122157