The Markets, Trading & Charts Thread

[kevsta]

I honestly do not see the patterns you do. I see lines and triangles that seem to be nudged into "best fits", but with many other interpretations and placements equally plausible.

It is either enhanced insight and perception on your part that I'm not privileged to, or your seeing stuff that ain't there.

so then the only "proof" as to substance is continuing profit or not then?

I'm still keeping an open mind.

and that was me until about May of this year when I finally started to really believe there is *something* to it, because of a steadily increasing account balance.

3 months later and I am much more certain.

 

[kevsta]

So at this point, can I ask that we discuss some theoretical mathematical possibilities with the assumption that this system could continue working? granted it might not, but some what ifs..?

what are my mathematical limits here? the whole system rotates around maintaining a minimum of 2:1 risk reward, so that I only ever need to perpetually win 33% of trades to not lose money.

however, there are various inputs that can dramatically alter the final figures, for the same set of trades. if I maintain a maximum of 1% per trade risk, (what I'm doing currently) and this roughly equates to +2% per week, then if I say trade at 2% risk, the same trade set will produce 4% per week?

and this is at 100x leverage on the account. what happens if I set it to 500x leverage?

theoretically the same trade set now multiplies the entire balance sheet by 5?

so, taken at 2% per trade risk, and 500x leverage my +12.25 becomes +122.5% ?

or what?

edit. in fact the main issues I can see are account drawdowns from losses when you are over-leveraged. the losses are large by comparison to the tiny amount of collateral in the account thereby reducing your ability to trade in the size you need to.

in the same way compounding profits mean you can use bigger position sizes, losses reduce the position you can trade if sticking to your risk:reward plan.

there are definitely limits, I need to know where they are

edit edit. Ok I know, how about if I open my own brand new $1m special JREF demo account at 500:1 leverage and bosh out a 100% profit in the next 3 months, would you believe me then? probably not still, eh?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

what are my mathematical limits here?
so, taken at 2% per trade risk, and 500x leverage my +12.25 becomes +122.5% ?

or what?

edit. in fact the main issues I can see are account drawdowns from losses when you are over-leveraged. the losses are large by comparison to the tiny amount of collateral in the account thereby reducing your ability to trade in the size you need to.

in the same way compounding profits mean you can use bigger position sizes, losses reduce the position you can trade if sticking to your risk:reward plan.

there are definitely limits, I need to know where they are

Broken record mode<on>

"Fooled By Randomness" by Taleb touches on this, I think.

You really should find the time to read it...

...with an open mind.

But carry on!

 

[kevsta]

Broken record mode<on>

"Fooled By Randomness" by Taleb touches on this, I think.

You really should find the time to read it...

...with an open mind.

But carry on!

ok, I really will, I promise, although as I said, I now believe it's basically an "excuses for failure" manual.

only time will tell.

ps and you really cant see this 1,2,3 ? really?

 

[kevsta]

and no comments on this? anybody? why do my cycles perpetually run, whatever the news is? sometimes it will settle into a larger L3 (accumulation) range and just bash up and down for a while, but when news is coming out, we are only ever looking for trades in line with cycle if visible, because that's the way it will go, whatever the data. usually often with a monster fakeout spike in the opposite direction first though.

So back to the subject matter if that's alright?

the commonly held belief is that markets are all seeing all knowing and random. and that they are random because news etc is unpredictable. However, as I have shown, this is partially true on an intraday basis, there are indeed wild swings, however, as this chart shows (and it really is everywhere) they either fit the whole months news to the cycle with much pre-planning required obviously, or should we assume that's realistically impossible?

[qimg]http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/1375375446-clip-30kb.png[/qimg]

because if we do, then we have a market cycle here that is independent of all the noise we hear and are told. and people think this "Forex" thing doesn't affect them?

yea, right, FX is in no way connected to anything (or everything) else, is it? you dont think this kind of correlation applies to all your investments, all the time?

[qimg]http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/1375291082-clip-50kb.png[/qimg]

 

[kevsta]

AAPL intraday cycles

although the cycles seem to run quite well, trading this is another thing entirely, unless you can just get lucky and take the big ones that then gap in your direction, because a $30 gap when you have a $5 stoploss is a 6% hit instead of 1%.

the range of the cycles expands and contracts very fast too, by comparison to Forex where Average Daily Range is quite precise usually.

definitely only swing trading material I think, maybe hit it every month or 2 with smaller positions and wider stops when a really promising looking one sets up.

like soon, for a short, by the looks of it. ok what about if I teach myself to trade AAPL and trade it exclusively on the $1m demo, and still pull it off?

edit. and if once again, all I have is people thinking those push lines look a bit arbitrary, theyre quite precise actually, they were done on a 1hr chart (below) but when I switch to 4hr view and blow the candles out bigger to see easily, they lose some of the precision, but here you go for reference

 

[kevsta]

Ok then. I think that's enough examples. this is the crux of this, I have something here that I think works. I cant do any more to convince you, nor am I going to try, I dont have time for Apple 100% in 3 months demos unless there is actually a $million prize on it.

If somebody wants to set that up with Randi I am more than up for it. Im entirely happy to say I'm psychic and will be looking at all my pretty lines n stuff and then using cosmic power to predict what's next if that's what everybody would rather hear.

because as nobody wants to even discuss the possibilities really, I can only put this down to one of 2 things.

1. Either, you think Im insane, delusional, goldbug, whatever..

2. Or, even vaguely admitting that there *could* be something to it means accepting the possibility of some dark nefarious goings on out of these black boxes which supply us our BID ASK Spreads markets.

Which of course is impossible, only a fool would believe such things, markets are all seeing all knowing, it is impossible to beat them etc etc, and would require some deep questions to be asked, by an honest-with-themselves person.

My evidence, thus far seems to point to option 2. it says that the current investigation into currency rigging by a few traders is most likely looking in the wrong place, as it's more systematic than that.

and none of you have any evidence or counter evidence of anything in the slightest, only what you've been told over the years, so please forgive my skepticism about your incorrect assumptions about markets fundamentals and news henceforth.

there are couple of market truisms that have always fascinated me:

The market will always catch the most people in the wrong direction at the worst time

why?

Everybody is always most bearish at the bottom

uh huh. well I think if I have not succeeded in demonstrating roughly how that works by now, I'm probably not going to.

edit. I just noticed the perfect example in the AAPL 4hr chart above. where the price closes right down on the lows of the day, ON my "High probability Manipulation Line" which had been there all the way through.

at that point we had seen 3 (albeit small) pushes downwards and so would only ever have been looking for longs from there, and not taken the trade until we see the stoprun and bid / ask manipulation anyway, but how many retail do you think rushed into shorts as it plummeted and closed at the lows of the day? I genuinely dread to think, with a $30 gap against them, that was brutal.

some of those guys have been riding it backwards all the way up and will be thinking about closing out about now, destroyed. when they finally do it will roll right back over and back down to their zero point if history is any guide. I have been there, I understand this quite well by now, if you hadnt yet noticed.

you have to marvel at the perfection of it though, dont you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I would play this game if people wanted to, but to perfectly honest, I'm really not bothered about convincing anybody who can't see anything here by now. it makes zero difference to me in any material way whether anybody believes me or not, it's between me and the market, the only "proof" is my results, everybody else's talk is cheap really, as with all due respect I would appear to understand a great deal more about this than most here, thus far anyway. I know plenty of traders who consider themselves skeptics, including me. where are all JREFs traders?

the "usual suspects" here can be as "skeptical" as they like, but if my account balance continues the steady 2% ish a week growth, then it's really argument over as far as I'm concerned.

It should also be noted that much can see seen when you are actually watching price action, that is never revealed in static charts afterwards. in particular close observation of the BID/ASK spread behaviour at or around likely turning points.

When I label those ovals "manipulation" and nobody challenges me on it, should I say I am ready for you, if you want to? because it might not be manipulation by intent, but it is certainly manipulation of the BID/ASK spread just prior to the "Shift Bar" and coincidentally just happens to be at the ultimate top reversal point where everybody gets caught wrongfooted, and half of them have doubled up their stake because they're getting confident now.

when I put an image up like this:

[qimg]http://fxpro.ctrader.com/images/screens/JSq5n.png[/qimg]

you have to be pretty confident to sit there watching them flicker the price towards your stoploss, spikey twitchy action designed to elicit powerful emotion in traders who have been watching it go down 3 days in a row now, threatening to break the floor once again at the very lows, it makes the herd want to short, right at the worst possible time they could.

do we think this is accidental? I don't. because I know where we are in the cycle, I know what I am looking for for a reversal, and I can actually see the manipulation of the BID/ASK spread live I am looking to take the exact opposite trade to the 90% losers at probably the exact same time.

this then faces me in the same direction as the winners (mostly) and sets up a straight bank transfer between their account and mine if Im right. if they open their stop and let it run into negative, that's a big mistake, account loss coming, as we've now got a whole 3 cycles backwards for them. lulz, I feel bad for them really, Ive been there in a small scale way.



I have thought a lot about this, (as you might imagine) but I don't think it would really be possible to simulate what I'm doing with a robot. maybe after 5 more years of doing it I would be able to define everything so tightly as to code it, but I doubt it.

because they aren't little technical tricks, and every single setup will be slightly different and subjective, if you aren't familiar with your position in cycle (and right) you can get chewed up trying to trade like this just like everybody else.

I really don't think you (or we the public) could code this, maybe the people who wrote the marketmaking software we have to trade with could though..

Long time forumites might remember a poster named "Icantakepicturesofdemons". He saw "the faces of the fallen" in the "patterns" he saw in television static. He was quite certain they were there, they were obvious, and he couldn't understand how others didn't see them.

Some might be trying to draw parallels between those threads and this one. That would be wrong. There is nothing whatsoever in common.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

1, I didnt say I wouldnt play it, I said I would. howver it would really prove nothing about what I'm talking about.

it has taken me ages to learn a few specific markets individual characteristics, volatility, and I would not dream of attempting to live trade a market (now lol) without thorough demo testing, establishing the optimum stop levels etc (you have to trade and get stopped out often enough at different stop levels to get the likely ranges etc) this is very, extremely specific, so random unidentified charts will mean what they always do, nothing.



once again, how about we set up the $million test, my criteria are that I can regularly pull a percentage out each week, over a period of time.

If i do, the million's mine? I'm up for that, bigtime. other wise this all sounds like a lot of work and hassle to convince non-understanders about irrelevant things to be honest. perhaps ou can undertstand, that if I am right here, I have way better things to be doing with my valuable time.



my guess is that on the terms of my proposal above, I would be a millionaire at the end of 8 or 12 weeks or whatever, funny thing, perspective, isnt it.



have you not been looking at the trade screens? I have been talking you through live trades for past few weeks, which have produced as of close all last night +12.25% in 5 weeks, having previously taken a demo account from $100k ($85 actually, it was down to, I got it back up to $100 before I started testing proper) to $190k in 3 months, again, documented all the way through, here.

seriously, what else is it I have to prove again?



haven't I by now? and I note everybody is all still avoiding the actual key topic here. how many times have I said



if we don't see it, you don't take the trade, whatever the level, whatever the cycle, whatever you "think", if you don't see the manipulation occur DO NOT TRADE.

but no, instead of asking about that, we are all obcessing over statistical irrelevances instead. I'd be interested to see how you set the parameters to test that. my thoughts would be:

I see it and take the trades. If I win more than I lose (51/49 technically would do, but I would be aiming at 60-70% at 2:1 risk reward) and If I pull off say an steady-ish average of 8-10% a month for 3 months I'm also presented with a $million from JREF as my new trading account?

sweet, count me in.

Long time forumites might also recall a former poster who's name escapes me. He bragged of his spectacular returns obtained over mere months. Turns out he was "investing" in a stock market simulator, and his "returns" were make believe.

Again, do not try to draw parallels to this thread. There are none.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Since you brought up Apple...

You know I still have a position in it. I have a friend who bought at roughly the same time as I did, and in a recent discussion he emailed me this screenshot of how his shares are doing:

He included AMZN, since some of his Apple gains were invested in that.

Those following Apple know that at 700 his gain was even more, but no one knows for certain where tops are except in hindsight, and a "450-bagger" is still nothing to sneeze at.

The D is just along for the ride, but shows that even "widow and orphan" utility stocks can do quite well over time, even while distributing nice dividends.

His Apple stock was bought more than a decade ago, as was mine. As such, there's very little of the "rush" that a day trader gets from "chasing pips". So long term investing like this, in spite of the benefits, is probably not for you.

But then again, all he had to do was maybe glance at his portfolio once in a while rather than put in long days hunched over a computer screen divining patterns. And pay a lower tax rate when he does realize gains.

There's something to be said for that!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Since you brought up Apple...

You know I still have a position in it. I have a friend who bought at roughly the same time as I did, and in a recent discussion he emailed me this screenshot of how his shares are doing:

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3683/9438630413_2677137bb4_n.jpg[/qimg]

He included AMZN, since some of his Apple gains were invested in that.

Those following Apple know that at 700 his gain was even more, but no one knows for certain where tops are except in hindsight, and a "450-bagger" is still nothing to sneeze at.

The D is just along for the ride, but shows that even "widow and orphan" utility stocks can do quite well over time, even while distributing nice dividends.

His Apple stock was bought more than a decade ago, as was mine. As such, there's very little of the "rush" that a day trader gets from "chasing pips". So long term investing like this, in spite of the benefits, is probably not for you.

But then again, all he had to do was maybe glance at his portfolio once in a while rather than put in long days hunched over a computer screen divining patterns. And pay a lower tax rate when he does realize gains.

There's something to be said for that!

And yet, people like him have been described as "rubes" in this very thread.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

And yet, people like him have been described as "rubes" in this very thread.

Only if they buy their shares from brokers!

 

[kevsta]

Since you brought up Apple...

You know I still have a position in it. I have a friend who bought at roughly the same time as I did, and in a recent discussion he emailed me this screenshot of how his shares are doing:

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3683/9438630413_2677137bb4_n.jpg[/qimg]

He included AMZN, since some of his Apple gains were invested in that.

Those following Apple know that at 700 his gain was even more, but no one knows for certain where tops are except in hindsight, and a "450-bagger" is still nothing to sneeze at.

The D is just along for the ride, but shows that even "widow and orphan" utility stocks can do quite well over time, even while distributing nice dividends.

His Apple stock was bought more than a decade ago, as was mine. As such, there's very little of the "rush" that a day trader gets from "chasing pips". So long term investing like this, in spite of the benefits, is probably not for you.

But then again, all he had to do was maybe glance at his portfolio once in a while rather than put in long days hunched over a computer screen divining patterns. And pay a lower tax rate when he does realize gains.

There's something to be said for that!

no arguments that you can get lucky gambling and waiting a decade too, but each to their own, eh?

 

[kevsta]

Long time forumites might remember a poster named "Icantakepicturesofdemons". He saw "the faces of the fallen" in the "patterns" he saw in television static. He was quite certain they were there, they were obvious, and he couldn't understand how others didn't see them.

had he then systematically proven what he could see for weeks and months on end by profiting from the market by it?

Some might be trying to draw parallels between those threads and this one. That would be wrong. There is nothing whatsoever in common.

thats interesting, for a change, you got something right.

 

[psionl0]

thats interesting, for a change, you got something right.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Scrut was being sarcastic. So that day still hasn't arrived.

 

[kevsta]

And yet, people like him have been described as "rubes" in this very thread.

one person in particular who may or not be like him was described that way.

apologies, I can see this hurt, by the way we are all still going on about it pages later, but see I thought it was ok, after seeing you use it here

and then seeing somebody else describe you that way and you not objecting?

you know, in the thread where I already won the debate that every other market is most likely manipulated and you all gave up trying to even argue because ongoing newsflow and evidence has and will likely continue to make you look silly trying to? that one?

People who scoff at the criminality of many players on Wall Street are no different than those who scoff at the idea psychics are bogus.

Rubes like yourself will retire with far less money than you would if the game were not crooked. Your idiot money managers think proximity to billions of dollars makes them intelligent, but they are being regularly fleeced, and you pay them fees for the privilege of truncating your future income.

You deserve to be lied to by the people stealing from you, just like the credulous clients of Sylvia Browne.

I no longer bother to try to teach the willfully ignorant. It's a waste of time.

this thread would appear to be on it's way to proving his last line, too.

Forex is different though, no manipulation there, definitely nothing I can consistently pull profits from or anything

 

[kevsta]

dammit Cable push 2 gone without me again. http://fxpro.ctrader.com/c/Qkq5n

do I need to remind you that I caught the absolute bottom on this on Friday and made money from it? (edit. in fact this is the live money trade below, the first screenshot is from a parallel testing account Im running at 200x leverage and 5% per trade, but taking the same (or as close as I can get to the live trades, but obviously focusing heavily on those first)

this is the actual live trade that will match the statement I sent a couple of you over the weekend http://fxpro.ctrader.com/c/5Hq5n +2.7%

I then also re-entered for another small long? (testing account only)

so who seriously thinks I didn't know Cable was a "long" today?

were it not for "gaps" I would have been more than happy to leave it on over the weekend too, and still be long now.

Alas, that is how the sheep get sheared, so we cant do that (unless it's already deep in profit and you can handle a 50pip gap). but just knowing what comes next is not enough, we need a safe entry and the statistically safest entry is right after manipulation is seen. because if they've already been down to get all those orders, they're not going to come all the way back for just mine (and a few of my mates)

but on Push 2 this happens a lot, no safe entry it just breaks out of the box and runs, it's called a "straightaway trade" and we posit that it is most likely to demoralize people caught in negative float from the last trap with another rapid move away from their zone.

once again, you have to remember, that negative float does not become a profit for the market maker until you cash out - if you just hold and wait until zero arrives again, they make nothing, they need to now scare you out, and another 2 cycles upwards should do it nicely

from our POV we have to just let it go, I absolutely knew Cable was going up today, but if I risk the straightaway entry even a tiny stoprun would get me, so we just have to let it go. (and do you think you have any idea how hard that is?) I watch this all day every day, this is how it goes, some we can get to, some we can't, but the cycles are blatantly obvious most of the time.

 

[kevsta]

So the facts as I see them are:

1. there is an observable phenomena here that myself and others can trade from.
2. whether what we postulate is correct or not is probably never going to be known.
3. luckily, that doesn't matter at all, because if you play the game that way, for whatever reasons, you can potentially win.
4. playing the game in any other way is a statistically proven loser

so if anybody else has any better theories than the story we have fitted to the events we can see, forsee and make money from, then I for one, am all ears.

I will add, that I'm not holding my breath while I wait.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

had he then systematically proven what he could see for weeks and months on end...

Yes. In his own mind, he had proven it.

...by profiting from the market by it?

I'm pretty sure there is no "market" for demons in TV static.

 

[kevsta]

Yes. In his own mind, he had proven it.

I'm pretty sure there is no "market" for demons in TV static.

you know what though, I always prefer my opposition to totally underestimate me, it comes as much more of a surprise when you pull the rug

anyway, unfortunately chaps we've come to that time (also cyclical) where I have to focus on real life again for a while, back to my other job where I have also profited handsomely for the last 7 years by correctly identifying observable closed-box algorithm behavior. the difference there is that Google don't want us playing at all, where as with the red and blue game not only do they want us playing, they need us for daily liquidity requirements and profits.

Should I expect to get back to lots of intelligent posts about the maybes and whys of the fully documented and completely independent market cycle?

why we always see Bid Ask Manipulation right after a stop run and before the "Shift bar" ?

these things happen, it's simply factual. whether you can trade it or not is an individual thing, and failure to trade this system successfully is no proof of anything anyway, because as I have said from the beginning, it's much more difficult than chance.

what about the theoretical mathematical limits of leverage / risk / position size inputs for a set percentage profit? how many system fail trades in a row would it take to irreparably destroy the account? "system fail" trades are very rare, correct application of system trade fails are much more common of course.

any evidence or original thoughts about anything related at all?

lets see. seeya'll in a bit, please dont go worrying about me like last time I wasn't around for a couple of weeks