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

    • Date: 8th April 2025.   Markets Rebound Cautiously as US-China Tariff Tensions Deepen     Global markets staged a tentative recovery on Tuesday following a wave of volatility sparked by escalating trade tensions between the United States and China. The Asia-Pacific region showed signs of stability after a chaotic start to the week—though some pockets remained under pressure. Taiwan’s Taiex dropped 4.4%, dragged lower by losses in tech heavyweight TSMC. The world’s largest chipmaker fell another 4% on Tuesday and has now slumped 13.5% since April 2, when US President Donald Trump first unveiled what he called ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.   However, broader sentiment across the region turned more positive, with several markets rebounding sharply after Monday’s dramatic sell-offs. Japan’s Nikkei 225 surged over 6% in early trading, rebounding from an 18-month low. South Korea’s Kospi rose marginally, and Australia’s ASX 200 gained 1.9%, driven by strength in mining stocks. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng rose 1.6%, though still far from recovering from Monday’s 13.2% crash—its worst day since the 1997 Asian financial crisis. China’s Shanghai Composite added 0.9%.   In Europe, DAX and FTSE 100 are up more than 1% in opening trade. EU Commission President von der Leyen repeated yesterday that the EU had offered reciprocal zero tariffs on manufactured goods previously and continues to stand by that offer. Others are also trying again to talk to Trump to get some sort of agreement that limits the impact.   Much of the rally appeared to be driven by dip-buying, as well as hopes that the intensifying trade war could still be defused through negotiations.   China Strikes Back: ‘We Will Fight to the End’   Tensions reached a boiling point after Trump threatened to impose an additional 50% tariff on all Chinese imports unless Beijing rolled back its retaliatory measures by April 8. ‘If China does not withdraw its 34% increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow... the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50%,’ Trump declared on social media.   If implemented, the new tariffs would bring total US duties on Chinese goods to a staggering 124%, factoring in the existing 20%, the 34% recently announced, and the proposed 50%.   In response, China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a stern warning, stating: ‘The US threat to escalate tariffs is a mistake on top of a mistake... If the US insists on its own way, China will fight to the end.’ The ministry also called for equal and respectful dialogue, though signs of compromise on either side remain scarce.   Beijing acted quickly to contain a market fallout. State funds intervened to support equities, and the People’s Bank of China set the yuan fixing at its weakest level since September 2023 to boost export competitiveness. Additionally, five-year interest rate swaps in China fell to their lowest levels since 2020, indicating potential for further monetary easing.   Trump Talks Tough on EU Too   Trump’s hardline approach extended beyond China. Speaking at a press conference, he rejected the European Union’s offer to eliminate tariffs on cars and industrial goods, accusing the bloc of ‘being very bad to us.’ He insisted that Europe would need to source its energy from the US, claiming the US could ‘knock off $350 billion in one week.’   The EU, meanwhile, backed away from a proposed 50% retaliatory tariff on American whiskey, opting instead for 25% duties on selected US goods in response to Trump’s steel and aluminium tariffs.     Volatile Wall Street Adds to the Drama   Wall Street experienced wild swings on Monday as investors processed the rapidly evolving trade conflict. The S&P 500 briefly fell 4.7% before rebounding 3.4%, nearly erasing its losses in what could have been its biggest one-day jump in years—if it had held. The Dow Jones Industrial Average sank by as much as 1,700 points early in the day but later climbed nearly 900 points before closing 349 points lower, down 0.9%. The Nasdaq ended up 0.1%.   The brief rally was fueled by a false rumour that Trump was considering a 90-day pause on tariffs—rumours that the White House quickly labelled ‘fake news.’ The market's sharp reaction underscored how desperate investors are for any sign that tensions might ease.   Oil Markets in Focus: Goldman Sachs Revises Forecasts   Crude prices also reflected the uncertainty, with US crude briefly dipping below $60 per barrel for the first time since 2021. As of early Tuesday, Brent crude was trading at $64.72, while WTI hovered around $61.26.   Goldman Sachs, in a note dated April 7, lowered its average price forecasts for Brent and WTI through 2025 and 2026, citing mounting recession risks and the potential for higher-than-expected supply from OPEC+.       Under a base-case scenario where the US avoids a recession and tariffs are reduced significantly before the April 9 implementation date, Goldman sees Brent at $62 per barrel and WTI at $58 by December 2025. These figures fall further to $55 and $51, respectively, by the end of 2026. This outlook also assumes moderate output increases from eight OPEC+ countries, with incremental boosts of 130,000–140,000 barrels per day in June and July.   However, should the US slip into a typical recession and OPEC production aligns with the bank’s baseline assumptions, Brent could retreat to $58 by the end of this year and to $50 by December 2026.   In a more bearish scenario involving a global GDP slowdown and no change to OPEC+ output levels, Brent prices might fall to $54 by year-end and $45 by late 2026. The most extreme projection—based on a simultaneous economic downturn and a full reversal of OPEC+ production cuts—would see Brent plunge to below $40 per barrel by the end of 2026.   Goldman noted that oil prices could outperform forecasts significantly if there was a dramatic shift in tariff policy and a surprise in global demand recovery.   Cautious Optimism, But Warnings Persist   With both Washington and Beijing showing no signs of backing down, markets are likely to remain volatile in the days ahead. Investors now turn their attention to upcoming trade meetings and policy decisions, hoping for clarity in what has become one of the most unpredictable trading environments in recent years.   Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.   Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report. Click HERE to access the full HFM Economic calendar.   Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding of how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!   Click HERE to READ more Market news.   Andria Pichidi HFMarkets   Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in Leveraged Products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
    • CVNA Carvana stock watch, rebound to 166.56 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?CVNA
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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