Kiwi

Dan, Something I found that filled in a couple of MP gaps for me was this document from the site that is selling the product described. IMO the content, before the sales pitch, is quite useful . steidlmayer on cap flow.pdf

I wonder. You say exported. When you export data with Sierra Chart it exports it on a GMT timeframe. If by export you mean what I mean. If you export using the worksheets it is different. So you can get fairly confusing finger issues when you mix and match. If you're importing and exporting you need to read the help information very carefully and do a few experiments to make sure that what you think you are doing is giving you the outputs you need. If it isn't then change slightly.

Thats the point. It will not be a Sierra Chart issue. It will be either a data issue (most likely) or a user finger error. And you don't pay them enough to sort out your data vendor. You said Sierra Chart (no problem with ES here but I use interactive brokers) and ESMO contract. You can pretty much guarantee that whatever data you put into Sierra Chart will be faithfully recorded to file (using the specs you have selected) and faithfully put on screen. Actually pretty much is probably 99.9999% guarantee and I only leave 0.0001% hanging out in the breeze because maybe there was a situation I don't recall. If they can capture it then they don't stuff around with it. Which comes down to either a broker data issue or a broker/internet issue. The first is a lot more likely. So, start by talking to your data broker. If you want help here then you should post charts of "good" and "bad" explaining 1. where the data comes from and 2. what time zones are involved in your charts. Maybe someone will spot what is wrong with your data. Although you'd be better off posting them on the SC board and putting the data vendors names in your heading so that only those using that vendor need bother looking at your post. Then someone who's got the same vendor might be able to spot the error and point you in the correct direction.

And I repeat. PT Barnum was right. And, as I always recall when I finally withdraw from one of the "catch the sucker" threads and let it continue, people like Thalestrader, Brownsfan, and myself all profit from the suckers. So, why do we keep defending them ... why not just let evolution act? Enjoy

I find him almost completely offensive. He's an arrogant old sod although he sucks a few in along the way. So what if he's met Mr S. He then proceeded to insult him telling us how much better he was than S. And he kept coming back posting the same advertising pictures from his website. He's not sick of the bullshit ... he is the one promulgating it. Classic hershey style. And I guess there'll be another one pop up in 2011 of 2012 - PT Barnum was right then and they keep popping up whether they're in the good old US of A or Nigeria. Kind of fun to watch though when if don't care about the suckers. Like watching the pick pockets work the crowds in Venice. Locally, he truly seems to have sucked a few people into his particular grail sale. Enjoy

Good riddance. And we're relaxed about what we "lost."

Actually make that "flexible position size and better liquidity." If you look at IB with 1/2 point spreads on the majors during european (and I assume us) hours then the forex offering can be better on the usd pairs as well.

Actually. I'll add my vote to that. Randy. Go back to FF ... you have added nothing but irritation and noise. Go away.

Its very much end of day. But before you buy a book access the W material here. dbPhoenix posted a lot of material that may well be better than whats in the book and it is free.

Don't play with them Dinerotrader Get the book Stikky Stock Charts that Thales recommends. Read it carefully. The apply what it says and see if you can make it work. I highly recommend the book and guarantee you'll do better with trendlines after you read it. What is more, its cheap and a fun read. Stikky Stock Charts .

Find someone you know with a PO Box and get it delivered lowest cost mail to the box. I get mine sent to my PO Box in Australia and it takes 1 to 2 weeks.

Agreed mouse. The maths is simple If you get 2 trades per day And trade 250 days per year Thats 500 trades per year with the $100,000 account So if you risk 1% per trade and your return on risk is 25% (so thats a 1.25 expectancy or, every time you risk $1000 your average out come is a $250 win). If you don't compound (grow with accumulated income) then you would earn: 500*250 = $125,000 pa Risking 2% doubles that. How much you risk will depend on your win rate (and thus your probability of getting a large string of losers). For longer term traders I'd reckon a 45% win rate should risk about 2%; a 35% maybe 1.5% and an 66% win rate perhaps 3% to keep the same risk of ruin. But, for day traders the impact of shocks, errors or other acts of god and yourself is higher so I personally halve the risk figures (1% for a sub 50% strategy and 1.5% for a 66% plus strategy). Kelly's formula can be used to get an idea of the types of numbers - but be conservative because you can't trade if you run out of money.

FWIW I already do most of this (and more actually) with Sierra Chart as my interface to Interactive Brokers.

And to our perpetual surprise we agree despite locations and nationalities. As did Phineas T. Barnum.

Dugdug, I didn't and wouldn't advocate excessive risk for newbies who don't want to blow out quickly (on the other hand ...) My personal recommendation is that you change X based on both the expected return pattern of the trading system and also experience. So the typical recommendation for a long term trending system is <=2%. In which case a new player should start at 1% or less and work their way up to the full X based on success and the lack of unexpected surprises. Similarly though, given that a long term trending system has a win rate around 40% to 50%, if you had a win rate of 70% to 80% the probability of risk of ruin declines considerably. In this case the base X might be 3% rather than 2% (but again, adjusted for user and system newness). I may be overly cautious but when I start a new strategy I trade it light simply because I'm a newbie to the strategy. FWIW.

As Midknight said, this is really a function of how trendlines function. I don't agree that it makes them flakey - it illustrates one of the reasons that price often respects the zone around a tl, rather than the exact intersection. If you try to automatically change for time (by aggregating bars to create the higher timeframe connection when lengthening the timeframe) you need to consider how it will work in the shortening direction as well ... you may need to record the point of contact on short timeframes internally so that when someone lengthens and goes back it looks the same.

It is an attractive idea but consider the following: - the small under-capitalized trader is also most likely to trade poorly so increasing bet size reduces their time to learn before the next blow out - steenbarger, shull, etc etc all note at one point or another that we experience involuntary learning from our stressful experiences and the greater the stress the more impactful that learning on the amygdala (read emotionally linked memory and patterns and resulting bad habits). so take the small newbie trader and bet big relative to account size thus increasing their faulty learning experiences. On the other hand. It does make them more likely to be donors to those who ignored Ryan so ... evolution in action and thanks for the money.

Given your unwillingness to do the work sevensa you will always fall for the easy answer - even when it is wrong. You'd be better following my research suggestions. I don't expect you to do that - and I'm relaxed about it. Unlike the last poster I feel know pain in our disagreement. Think of trading as evolution in action and you'll know why.

1. Ryan's way is not best ... but see 2 for a hint on where to find long discussions of the reasons why. 2. There have been lots of discussions on boards devoted to system trading on this area in depth. Its years since I was involved in one but the original chuck lebeau board and curtis's board both had big discussions. The nett was that you risked a fixed percentage of equity (after costs) for best growth with the statistical distributions of wins and losses to be expected from trading the markets. Some liked the "risk a higher percentage of the markets money" styles but the statistical proofs all came back to risk x% of equity on each trade - the only variation being if you had 2 different trades with different distributions and in that case X changed. The strategy was best - but you need to determine x which is based on the win rate and the nature of the distribution (a higher win rate gives a lower probability of strings of losses all else about the distribution being equal). 3. No one will prove it to you unless you do a lot of work on the maths - and you'll have to find the old discussions and prove it for yourself.

This is one of those funny arguments. Both sides are right. But The problem with trading is that it isn't just one problem. And the ones that come from within after one has a working strategy are much harder to deal with than the one of finding a working strategy. So, yes, in theory risk 1% per day on one trade with an expectancy of 35% and you're on you just scale up ... so easy ... but so so hard.

Samsung have let themselves down with the sort of Chinglish problem I haven't seen for a few years now ... see the bottom pictures on the first link: "Aspect radio not controlled" Now does the radio come free with the screen? Funny though.

Here's the funny thing. You guys all love the dom. I turned the sodding thing off because of the deception in my markets. Now I trade with S&R, progressing boxes (read market profile; moving s&r zones, whatever) and fibs (not because they're fibs but to give a progressive read on how far retracements are likely to go. No dom. No bar by bar price action. No volume. Disappearing mas. Just big picture+retracement zones. Its the most relaxed I've been in the last 5 years. The great thing about trading is that there are so many ways to make or lose money ... and they're the same for both ... and who would have it any other way?

Complete and utter ********. Acceleration = (Velocityf - Velocityt) / Time No mass required. Force = mass * acceleration .... thanks to maxima ... I can see Daffyd getting that wrong too. More seriously, for the OP, the poster who sarcastically suggested that this is applying elementary school ideas to the market is somewhat correct. Most try an acceleration measure (second derivative of distance wrt time or price wrt time in this case) at some point and discard it. Extremes (absolute or relative) of velocity and position seem to be more effective in the end and good trading is rarely complicated.

Then you should do us a favour and go away if you were spamming us. The ideas you proposed seem very pedestrian and I suspect that all the pros will find them uninteresting.

And then off to your blog you go and post under "Thinking about Taking the Blog Down " "It really annoys me when you go out of your way to try and help other people, you're doing it for nothing and they just spit it back in your face." So you interested me enough to look at the blog and to read a few of your posts. And I came across: - a blog with sweet f a content, but a lot of ego - wonderful statements like "Without coming across like i'm putting myself on a pedestal, or knocking the fourm" and, just to fill in the complete picture: - Trading has cost me two relationships, with the third one currently going out the window. I don't regret anything, because i looked back on it all with glee, both the ups and downs - mainly because now - i'm a pretty awsome trader (without sounding like i'm blowing my own trumpet ) And I have the following (certainly unwelcome) advice for you: - You should close the blog down; you're just making yourself look like some sort of egotist and not providing value to anyone despite the trumpeting of your wish to do so. - When you start of with statement like "I'm not a racist but I want to say" then .. guess what .. do you get it? - You didn't lose 2 relationships going on 3 because of trading. If you have sufficient insight you'll realize that you lost them because of the issues raised in my first two points. And to think I came back from Easter intending to be nice to everyone and spread the joy of Chocolate. Ahhh ... well ... next post