jonbig04

haha you should have just said that instead of asking the rhetorical question about trading apps for a mac. Anyway, I don't know if windows runs any better on my mac or on the various PC's that I've had. It seems the same to me. To prove your point you would not only have to prove definitively that windows runs better on a PC than a mac, but in such a way to actually make trading somehow easier, or better, or whatever you chose to define one computer as "better" for trading than the other. If I had to guess I would say that the difference is negligible if any. That being said even if you did find a real, noticeable, effective difference...still that is only if you have a computer dedicated for trading ONLY. If you start talking about surfing the net, downloading and actually putting some real time on this computer that is not spent in a trading app, you would have to weigh the differences that come with doing those things on a mac versus pc.

Trading apps? I don't know of any that run on a mac. Wish I did.

having been through ridiculous amounts of computers I can honestly say that Apples are superior....by far. It's not even close. If you don't think they are worth the premium, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. I'm no computer geek, but I don't really need to be either. Perhaps you can build a computer with windows that is great and blah blah, but when it comes to walking into a store and buying a computer retail, Apples are better than anything I have tried. Actually, take away all the speed and reliability issues from PC's and still, OSX is far better than Windows. If you think otherwise, well, you're smoking crack. If you don't believe me, run them side by side like I do every single day...the differences are pretty obvious then. You couldn't pay me to sit through the annoying, cumbersome chore that is using windows when other options are available.

Windows sucks balls. I would pay dearly for an OSX compatible version of ninja.

Funny, I just mentioned in another thread, I run a mac pro with dual monitors. windows on one screen (for ninja) and osx on the other, works great.

Really? I like the "target filled" moment, only because i know no matter how far I'm up, that thing can come right back and stop me out.

I love the iphone as well. Often I take trades around 10am that I hold until the end of the day, so it's nice to be able to walk my dog, shop, eat lunch etc while still monitoring the trade. I usually do it with the bloomberg app because it's simpler. I just take noe of where I entered (my stops are always the same) and I can watch it throughout the day, even though its delayed a little bit, that doesn't really matter if you're only checking it every hour or so. I've also done it with logmein and other apps, but since I look at multiple charts when placing a trade it would be too difficult to actually trade from the iphone, though you certainly could. It is kind of fun being able to watch the chart in your pocket wherever you go. iphone FTW!

Mac pro, not macbook.

FWIW, I use a mac pro with dual monitors, one for parallels with windows and ninja, one with OSX for everything else. I hate windows, but at least I can be on OSX and use it only for ninja.

cool, thanks. I would expect to take more than that, simply because the last 2 hours were left out (2-4) and I don't trade lunch (12-2). Off the top of my head I would guess that adds 2-5 to the weekly trade total. But I get the general idea, i like the numbers and now I know what to expect a little more.

Err just realized that I messed something up, I counted 8 ES stops that weren't supposed to be taken. That would add 15 or so points so the total, but I don't really feel like going back and doing the exact calculation again. I think the main idea is the point, but yes the numbers would be slightly higher.

That was one of the most tedious and difficult tasks of my trading. To review, what I was doing was attempting to transfer my opening rules (9:45AM-11:15AM) for NQ to ES as well, to see if I got more signals, more trades, and more profit in the same amount of time than trading NQ alone. The first thing I had to do was transfer the ruleset over to ES. This was more difficult than I thought, but I managed to do it. I backtested every morning from 10/15/08 until now to revise the rules (about 40 trades). Once I did that I had to manually determine the results which is a pain in he ass (scroll through charts line by line), record them and the time the trade occurred and ended. For NQ, I already had the rules of course, but I realized the rules have morphed a bit so I had to backtest those exact rules for the same time period (about 60 trades) and record the time info as well. The results for this phase were normal (keep in mind this is from 9:45 to 10:15EST only). I converted all the ES points to NQ points. NQ: 154 net points (11.5 per week), 21% accuracy. ES: 95 net points (7.25 per week), 20% accuracy. I was happy then that I seemed to be able to transfer the rules over, although they aren't as effective on ES, it's close enough for now. Obviously, I can't just add them together, because I can't physically take 2 trades at the same time (if they both give me entrance signals) and I can't be in more than 1 trade at the same time. This is pretty much the crux of the test. Will ES only give signals when NQ does? Is there any difference at all? Can the 2 instruments be traded with the same rule set at the same time, or do they track too closely? I was pretty skeptical going in and during the data gathering, but the short answer is, yes. You see, my rules are so specific, that 1 little thing can be different (and it often is between the 2) and the trade can be a go or no go. So what I had to do was create a timeline day for day with the exact time the trades took place. So yes, when I was in 2 trades at once, I erased the trade that took place the latest as, in real life, I wouldn't be in that trade. Also, if 2 trades took place at the same time, NQ takes automatic priority. Often I would be in a trade on NQ that was to be stopped, when I could have been in a profitable trade on ES, but since NQ came first in time, NQ was the trade that counted. More often, I would be in a profitable trade on one, so I avoided the stops on the other. This is what made a real difference. Only one or 2 profitable trades happened at or near the same time (canceling one). Anyways, the results: +207.5 net points for the 13 week period or +/-15 points per week, 21% accuracy (70 trades) As you can see, it actually worked. This is simply because the two contracts (ES, NQ) trade differently enough for me to get more of essentially the same signals, same stops, and same targets. Just as if I could trade NQ's open 2 times (well not quite because the edge isn't as great on ES). The accuracy is the same (abysmal lol) and everything else is the same, but taking more trades of the same setup yields more points in less time. It's that simple. Oh, this is hot off of the spreadsheet. I am going to recheck my math, don't kill me if I screwed something up here.

Good points. Thanks for bringing that up. I may have changed my rules into oblivion if you had not lol. I don't thinkI have yet though, looks like (thanks to you) I caught it in time. It's stupid to change everything after just one losing week. My first down week, I employed a new reversal system, so I didnt really change anything, but added. The next week was negative as well, I did make changes that week, the main one being no lunch trades. That was an easy one bc it turns out I have never taken a profitable lunch trade...ever lol. Then there was the further POI rule, which I stand by, in my other journal someone mentioned that I should have known that already lol. The changes I made that week wouldn't have made it a great week. It would have been still negative, or slightly positive. There was one other rule though, that now that you mention it, may have been too hasty. I will reevaluate it tonight to make sure. however what I am doing now, is not changing anything...just adding more trading time so that I can get more signals. I believe i am getting less and less because of lower volatility (except for today haha), but if I'm wrong, no matter. I am basing that off of the last month, I only got 2 signals this week, 4 or so last week...when I used to be getting 10 or so. The rule changes are responsible for a very few of those. like I said if it tests out, it can only help not hurt. I will post my results when I reevaluate that other rule too.

Oops forgot to address that, yea thats true, but I'm basing this off of trades per week, and how I seem to be taking less and less. I think im up net 20NQ or so this month? It's pretty crappy. It's true that If i WAITED for say, 25 more trades the edge would be the same, but its the amount of time that it takes. I'm making less points, in less time...ehh if that makes sense lol. Either way, if I'm wrong, what I'm doing now (providing it tests out) can only do good, not harm.

That's true, I should have saidthat I know there is no way that I will be able to trade large size with the same effectiveness as SIM unless I have strict rules.

Good point. A few things to say. First is that, sometimes, for me, it's tough to know mentally whether I was making excuses for a trading plan that was not as effective as I wanted it to be, or if it really was just a run of bad luck. It's both. You see, my trading plan is ultraspecific. I know I know, they all are supposed to be, but from the plans I've seen, most aren't as specific as mine-and its tough to do when you aren't using indicators at all. I am looking for very specific things on 3 different charts, and the stars have to align for me to make a trade. That is NOT because I want high accuracy, I don't have it and don't want it. This is simply because in my opinion, the key to success isn't making a million points a week (my goal is 15-25nq) it's to increase size. From what I gather, most people can't. I know this from watching, talking etc. If you think about it, if you trade profitably, there is no reason why you shouldn't be on you way to making ridiculous amounts of money. Of course, you don't jump right into trading 1000 cars, but even if you're only averaging 5 points a week and you start with 1 car, it really doesn't take all THAT long to get into trading some decent size (think 5NQ with 20 contracts per week) without over leveraging. From there, sticking to a strict progress rule (based on your account value and max risk per trade) it simply doesn't take a lifetime to start really raking it. Yet it seems, even with traders who have been profitable for years, few really do this. To me that it's simply a mental block. Most traders can't trade size. I think this is because the rules aren't specific enough. I could teach my girlfriend to trade my rules, step by step. I am committed to not having that problem. When I am live, it will be no different. When I'm trading 1 car or 50, it won't be different (except for scaling out points if i'm a wuss and don't hold the whole thing) I won't have a cash demon, and my progress in cash may be slow or fast, can't be sure, but it will be linear and predictable. Anyways I said all that to say that having such a specific system means less signals per week. I am not revamping my trading. I'm not increasing my advantage either. I'm simply trying to maximize my signals per week without revamping. Since 90% of the time I'm sitting around waiting for price, I could spend that time checking for the SAME signals, on other instruments if mine, for whatever reason, happen not to give me that very specific signal. This way I get more signals per week/day/month. If you have 25% accuracy and are operating on a minimum reward of 9x risk, that's great, but if you only get 4 signals per month you make less profit per month than if you could somehow increase your signals without changing your plan. Same thing with me. Is this idea feasible? Will ES, ym, etc give me different signals? I will let you know probably tonight when I am done testing for ES.

Thanks for the feedback, I will hold off until I am done testing and will post my results. I've been at it for 2 days now and I'm almost done...it's long, boring work. Anyways-funny story. I've been all upset lately bc last weeks was negative etc. I figured it was just short term variance, but honestly it was starting to get to me. Was my trading plan wrong? Was I just getting luck and now have to revamp everything? In testing I was scrolling back through days of data, and I noticed a nice trade...a very obvious and easy trade for my setup that would have netted exactly 21 points (tragte based on my previous R line). Then I looked at the date and realized that was last Friday, wtf!? How did I not net those 23 points? I looked over the trade and everything was picture perfect, it doesn't get any better. Then I realized, I was working with Amp and ninja that day because I couldn't connect to zenfire. I got it sorted out in a few hours, but it was lunch by and I just traded the afternoon..I missed the morning and THAT trade because of that lol. Short term variance indeed.

That's exactly what I mean. For example, lets say you noticed that your double top and double bottom trades worked very well, but they just didn't happen very often because you had strict rules to define the DT/DB formation. So you would translate your rules to other instruments and look for dt's/db's there as well, because you knew the more dt/db trades you took, the more profitable you would be. My looking at other instruments you would be taking more of those same trades per week. That kind of thing.

no trading today (Fed) I had an idea I wanted to throw out there. I've noticed that a larger majority of my 20+ point trades take place around 10est. I have a set of rules and its pretty much the same trade every time. A lot of the time though, that trade doesn't come and I either get stopped on some afternoon trades, or hit an after noon trade, but nothing with the repeating success of the 10am trade. So with that in mind, I wonder if it would be a good idea to (of course I'm looking into this now), try to find that same trade on ES, and YM etc during the AM? Of course I would have to translate my rules over, but to start with I would just calculate the equivalent amount of NQ points and plug them into my existing rules. Sounds crude, but just to start to see if this idea has holds any water I think it will do. It's strange, because the 10am trade has astounding accuracy, i mean looking over my charts it really is bewildering. It just doesn't come along inline with my rules as often as I would like it to, sometimes it's just chance whether it meets my reqs or not (when it misses by ticks etc). So why not check out other mini's? I would like to know you thoughts on this.

-2.5 yay for the losing streak! haha shorted 1996.5 at 15:00 est. No need to panic yet, even though Im on a nice losing streak, I fixed my problems for last week. I'm happy with this weeks trading so far. Just sucks that the trades didn't work. gahh!

Dynamic stops, providing they are carefully placed, would be better. I personally loathe trailing stops, and even moving the stop up to break even after X amount of profit has been made. Of all the 20+ pointers that I hit, I don't think any of the would have been possible with a close trailing stop, and quite a few of them wouldn't have worked if i had moved my stop to break even. But really, the reason I have large targets is to keep my r/r in check. Large profits means I can have many small losses and don't have to worry about my accuracy at all. I limit my losses to 2.5, but my gains i let run. Sometimes its agonizing, you want to cut the profit short very badly, but I find that in this market 20-30 points is very doable, if you have the guts to hold it. This is my attempt at letting my winners run.

Exactly, this way if I get stopped, ideally its only if trend changes and my stop is protected from chop...thats what I TRY to do anyways haha. But yea, it was a heavy pullback, too much for the uptrend to take so your analysis was spot on. In trading, I find that there are multiple right answers to questions.

good question. Like all T/A, trend is somewhat ambiguous..it depends on time frames, etc etc. The way I personally define trend has nothing to to with HHs or HLs. I choose to measure trend by how price is reacting to (if any) significant s/r levels of the past and present. As I saw it (barring lunchtime chop) if trend resumed the pullback was going to end there. I knew of course that my odds were 50/50 (much less with lunch around the corner). So yes, I saw the LH's, but to me the pull back was to be expected. If trend continued than I would likely net 20 or so points. If not, I would lose 2.5 and hopefully catch the short. That's the idea anyways.

-2.5 Long before lunch...too close, but my rules allow it. I new holding through lunch would suck. +8 to +1 to +8 to +1 and so on for a few hours. I got a great entry I thought (1186 at 11:50EST) , and if the uptrend did resume, I would likely be protected from the lunchtime chop. Of course the trend didn't resume. I'm starting to feel like if I hadn't entered...well you know. A little discouraged, but will trade the week out before I make any major adjustments of the rules...just feel like I can't do anything right.

I actually end up netting quite a bit more historically like this, it just takes cohones.