Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

evroom1

Trading Without a Chart

Recommended Posts

Thousands of trades. No wait. Hundreds of thousands of trades.You should really get your facts straight before you begin to condemn someone. Isn't that what you profess? She did in fact have losing trades. Sorry, I don't get my information from a saloon.

 

It is always fun to provide a know it all some facts.

 

Since I don't know her personally, I can only rely on getting my "facts" from reputable sources. Go to any of them, they're all the same. Here's the story from Wikipedia:

 

"In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery,[1] allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing."

 

"Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later."

 

Whether she ever lost on any of those trades is irrelevant. Taking a $1000 account to $100,000 in 10 months smacks of insider trading. I have no proof but I do have an opinion and I think statistics, logic, common sense and experience would support my view...and the view of many other trading professionals.

 

Am I a "know it all" simply because I'm skeptical...or because I'm not a Socialist Democrat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since I don't know her personally, I can only rely on getting my "facts" from reputable sources. Go to any of them, they're all the same. Here's the story from Wikipedia:

 

"In 1978 and 1979, lawyer and First Lady of Arkansas Hillary Rodham engaged in a series of trades of cattle futures contracts. Her initial $1,000 investment had generated nearly $100,000 when she stopped trading after ten months. In 1994, after Hillary Rodham Clinton had become First Lady of the United States, the trading became the subject of considerable controversy regarding the likelihood of such a spectacular rate of return, possible conflict of interest, and allegations of disguised bribery,[1] allegations that Clinton strongly denied. There were no official investigations of the trading and Clinton was never charged with any wrongdoing."

 

"Various publications sought to analyze the likelihood of Rodham's successful results. The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later."

 

Whether she ever lost on any of those trades is irrelevant. Taking a $1000 account to $100,000 in 10 months smacks of insider trading. I have no proof but I do have an opinion and I think statistics, logic, common sense and experience would support my view...and the view of many other trading professionals.

 

Am I a "know it all" simply because I'm skeptical...or because I'm not a Socialist Democrat?

 

Insider trading in the cattle and hog market? That is awesome!

 

I think the only place where your statistics, logic and common sense will make any sense is in a saloon because in a saloon you can insider trade in the cattle or hog market. Wikipedia is the lazy man's version of research. it is probably more appropriately called packaging or marketing of information. Research is slightly different from copying and pasting a few lines from Wikipedia. It might do you some good to research a topic before you profess to know the truth from experience, logic and common sense.

 

It appears that her account may have been used as a vessel to funnel money to the Clintons. Why? I have no idea. She was allowed to break margin rules. Exactly why? I have no idea. I can speculate why, but I won't.

 

But it remains that there were losses to her account and not hundreds of winning trades without a losing trade as you posted earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Insider trading in the cattle and hog market? That is awesome!

 

I think the only place where your statistics, logic and common sense will make any sense is in a saloon because in a saloon you can insider trade in the cattle or hog market. Wikipedia is the lazy man's version of research. it is probably more appropriately called packaging or marketing of information. Research is slightly different from copying and pasting a few lines from Wikipedia. It might do you some good to research a topic before you profess to know the truth from experience, logic and common sense.

 

It appears that her account may have been used as a vessel to funnel money to the Clintons. Why? I have no idea. She was allowed to break margin rules. Exactly why? I have no idea. I can speculate why, but I won't.

 

But it remains that there were losses to her account and not hundreds of winning trades without a losing trade as you posted earlier.

 

Shoot the messenger if you wish but the point of the conversation was the probability of illegal trading activity on her part. I thought skepticism was allowed here at TL without fear of "know-it-all" name calling. I stand corrected. Perhaps she was smarter than I give her credit for...one of the quickest ways to start an investigation is to never lose. She did lose some trades and I stand corrected, again.

 

Don't like Wikipedia? In a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them:

 

"These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day."

 

I remain highly skeptical and I'm not alone by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shoot the messenger if you wish but the point of the conversation was the probability of illegal trading activity on her part. I thought skepticism was allowed here at TL without fear of "know-it-all" name calling. I stand corrected. Perhaps she was smarter than I give her credit for...one of the quickest ways to start an investigation is to never lose. She did lose some trades and I stand corrected, again.

 

Don't like Wikipedia? In a 1998 article, Marshall Magazine, a publication of the Marshall School of Business, sought to frame the trading, the nature of the results, and possible explanations for them:

 

"These results are quite remarkable. Two-thirds of her trades showed a profit by the end of the day she made them and 80 percent were ultimately profitable. Many of her trades took place at or near the best prices of the day."

 

I remain highly skeptical and I'm not alone by a long shot.

 

Well, for someone who is skeptical you sure do jump to conclusions quickly and post fall statements. It might be that your dislike of Hillary Clinton leads you to believe even the most far fetched ideas, but I really have no idea why you choose to believe the falsehoods that you believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, for someone who is skeptical you sure do jump to conclusions quickly and post fall statements. It might be that your dislike of Hillary Clinton leads you to believe even the most far fetched ideas, but I really have no idea why you choose to believe the falsehoods that you believe.

 

If we agree that she did lose some trades, that was a statistical error, not a falsehood. This was many years ago. So, what are the other falsehoods? Everything else I've stated has come from multiple sources. If your sources state the complete opposite...that she was a market wiz, that she started with $100,000 and ended with $1,000, That there was zero chance that anything illegal was done, then what makes you so sure that your sources are correct?

 

How can I dislike her? I don't even know her. Her socialist politics does not preclude her from earning a living...as long as it's legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we agree that she did lose some trades, that was a statistical error, not a falsehood. This was many years ago. So, what are the other falsehoods? Everything else I've stated has come from multiple sources. If your sources state the complete opposite...that she was a market wiz, that she started with $100,000 and ended with $1,000, That there was zero chance that anything illegal was done, then what makes you so sure that your sources are correct?

 

How can I dislike her? I don't even know her. Her socialist politics does not preclude her from earning a living...as long as it's legal.

 

Her account was used as a vessel to get the clintons money. Very large trades were placed in her account on her behalf. She had no idea how to trade and it was never implied that she did know how to trade. It was a win win situation for the clintons until the target sum was hit. If losses did occur, she did not have to put up the lost amount. Others put it up or the loss was swept away into an error account. So, 100k was received by the clintons and it was made to look like it was earned in a trading account.

 

Bill was governor then and likely someone needed to get him money without making it look like an outright bribe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, I use them to make my chart. The question was basically, do I trade the Renko market....answer: No, I trade the Renko chart.

 

Roger, you sorta missed the point.

 

You brought in the whole 'flight instrument' analogy & hence the comments on Renko being an instrument.

 

Geddit????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roger, you sorta missed the point.

 

You brought in the whole 'flight instrument' analogy & hence the comments on Renko being an instrument.

 

Geddit????

 

I get it...just slow. I've had several pilots agree that there is a similarity between insturments and indicators. One you trust your money to and the other you trust your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all this pilot stuff makes me laugh....

 

My 10 year old thinks it's a breeze....

 

BenTen.jpg

 

Is that him? What a great pic.

 

A pilot let me raise the landing gear once. Then I learned I was supposed to wait for the plane to take off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was younger, a stewardess let me raise her flaps.

 

Probably not something we should go into....

 

That's ridiculous! Flaps don't belong in the tail section. I hope you remembered to put on a rudder....

Edited by Roger Felton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's so hard about trading without a chart? Charts only tell you what a particular market did in hindsight. They're just another indicator. Who needs 'em.

 

When I fly I never use instruments. Pilots should already know if they are airborne or still on the runway. Who needs a compass when you have the sun? Maps and GPS are for sissies. If you don't know where the heck you are, what business do you have trying to go anywhere?

 

Traders always get bogged down with useless stuff like charts and other such nonsense. Hillary Clinton never looked a chart and she never lost a trade in cattle futures. You can't be a pansy all your life. Toss those charts and trade macho. A blindfold would be a nice touch, too.

 

I know somebody who uses automated strategy and no chart at all. The person who I know, uses Excel that tells him when to enter and exit.

 

Charts are just visual representations of historical and incoming price feed.....number series of data. So all of those neat price patterns can be calculated in excel with the right amount of programming knowledge. A chart is a much faster reference, where you could "see" a high or low from a particular day much quicker than you could on a bland spreadsheet. You can have functions flag certain conditions (like highest high/low for a day) in a spreadsheet also.

Technically any platform that could be populated with a large volume of individual number series (such as a spreadsheet, database, XML, HTML5, etc, etc) could be used to facilitate trading. Of course it needs some level of programming ability to automate the processing of the ticks, place orders, etc.

 

But it is good to have a platform that is dedicated to the task with ready-made drawing tools, robust programming language and support from other traders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evroom, you can trade just using a market depth or Dom trader by using the volume at each price as support or resistance. It's a bit tricky at first but with a few screen hours you'll start to see it. That would be guess as to what that guy does. Thoughts or revelations?

 

Sorry I have not got a posting message for months. I was sort of hoping this thread would go dead, as it has attracted a lot of crazy people with axes to grind. The dud guy being one.

 

Thank you for your volume at price method. I tried that and it left as much margin of error as any other method.

The guy that i had spoken of no longer claims to use just a dom. He till does the same thing every day in a free room. I have been banned from this room as I accussed him of not really trading.

 

Revelations: volume is not a consideration when trading without a chart or with a chart for that matter.

It may be that one can trade just from a DOM but it is so much easier and faster to have a chart assist you. Trading from just a DOM is not the holy grail

Time is not as important as we are lead to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it the accuracy of the method (% wins) that is impressive, or is it just that he is making more money than average? I ask because there are other ways to boost return other than winning more trades.

 

For him it was both. He had switched to trend trading larger lots before I was booted. However he till calls the "DOM" type trades on a one lot which he claims 1m on the CL in a year. For a time while I was there his win rate was better than 90%.

 

I totally agree with you there are other ways to boost returns. Increasing lot size for one.

 

But the average rookie trader is destroyed by losses even if they win 60% of the time. They want 100% wins. So they seek whoever promises this stuff.

The guy that orginally claimed he was just trading from a DOM demos for free in a free room

I would post it but the the dud guy would be all over me for trying to sell something.

Next I have been following this guy for 2+ years now. For most people he would be a waste of time. As he does not teach, explain anything, and if he thinks you are catching on he boots you. As he did to me.

 

Good luck, the best traders develop their own indepentant systems. Following someone will always be a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trading with out a chart is possible if you have alerts service on your mobile. If you have alerts service then you can trade any time, any where with out chart. Because in this service you get alerts on every moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.