The Markets, Trading & Charts Thread

[kevsta]

Yes, it is.

No, its not.

if we are talking about the way an aircraft works, is it essential I am a Top Gun Ace before I might know possibly anything about the aircraft?

that is apparently what you are arguing?

Finally, I really am making an effort to see your patterns as real entities - if they are they will be evidence of something.

Here's my problem:

Look at this chart:

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3693/9500646847_23c1cc548b.jpg[/qimg]

Why could not each of the blue arrows have been counted as an independent "push" upward?

Why could not the red arrow be counted as an independent "push" downward, and why is the "push" up right before it not identified with a blue line as a "push" upwards?

Why are the two downward "pushes" indicated by the yellow arrows not consolidated into one large downward push? If its the little "push" up in the middle that separates them, why is that not identified with a blue line as a "push" upward?

I am still taking the time to peruse this stuff because it would be interesting if there's a "there" there. But to this point, it all seems too subjective and arbitrary to have any real predictive value.

thank you, finally. as I've said before, I can go into any point at any market (thus far I ever tried and its a lot) and draw out not only the main pushes but at every timescale too, and clearly from the top and bottom pins of the bars, over a specific duration of time.

inside it is extremely detailed and very clear why http://clip2net.com/s/5yJI5r but as you bring it out to larger views the lines move.

do you want me to go all the way down to 1 min again? I already did it for the Nikkei

finally, if you dont like my lines, try trading or predicting anything based on yours. my way is the best, I promise

 

[ThunderChunky]

Things I Consider Proven With Zero Effective Argument from Anyone

1. There is an independent 3 push cycle in operation.

They way you draw your push lines is arbitrary. Someone could easily draw 4 every time you draw three and then claim it's a 4 push cycle.

 

[kevsta]

They way you draw your push lines is arbitrary. Someone could easily draw 4 every time you draw three and then claim it's a 4 push cycle.

could you refer to the previous answer and if not satisfied i'll go into as much precision depth as you'd like? very happy to have some actual subject comments

and also with regards 4 pushes, there is a situation where the 3rd just carries on going and is called an extended 3rd push, but if it retraces back into the L3 area and they almost always do (I've never seen one not) then it was just the 3rd push extension.

because price will never just keep running, even if it is ultimately going up it must retrace and hit the lows again beforehand.

otherwise everybody might all win their bets together, and markets dont work like that

 

[kevsta]

Yes, it is.
Here's my problem:

Look at this chart:

[qimg]http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3693/9500646847_23c1cc548b.jpg[/qimg]

Why could not each of the blue arrows have been counted as an independent "push" upward?

specifically, because it was in an L3 range just off the page bashing up and down on the top and bottom.

Why could not the red arrow be counted as an independent "push" downward, and why is the "push" up right before it not identified with a blue line as a "push" upwards?

a push is not considered a push if it subequently retraces to where it was, it only counts if it closes out trading at the new level, or with only a pullback, not a complete retrace.

you have to identify where the zone actually shifts and stays there.

Why are the two downward "pushes" indicated by the yellow arrows not consolidated into one large downward push? If its the little "push" up in the middle that separates them, why is that not identified with a blue line as a "push" upward?

you are correct, and chart line movement. can you see it on the bigger view now? we are interested in the move that crosses, or stopruns our lines. everything else, is indeed noise.

I am still taking the time to peruse this stuff because it would be interesting if there's a "there" there. But to this point, it all seems too subjective and arbitrary to have any real predictive value.

skill levels is all. do you know any pilots? I have one dumbfounded over this for the past 3 weeks, hes been a trader on and off all his life and I think he might just have had that penny drop moment I had last year.

 

[kevsta]

so whether I can hit every turn here perfectly is so not the issue.

but if you tell me it is theoretically impossible by any means, I just dont believe that.

the last line says "trade both sides until resolution" (1st push out) - looks like it's retracing back into the lower L3 zone again currently.

 

[kevsta]

Aussie interday pushes. clear as a bell, mate.

it really is so clever the way this works all the way down to 1min charts too.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

re: Apple

now the only question is retrace or higher, I just took another pop at a retrace...

How did the huge gains in Apple over the last two days (currently at $497.23) affect your predictions? How would your "pop at a retrace" have played out? And, though it is of little more than academic interest, would you have made any (pretend) money on the big move up?

Apparently the market thinks that Carl Icahn's interest in Apple makes it more valuable. At least that what the pundits are crediting yesterday's big move with.

 

[kevsta]

re: Apple

How did the huge gains in Apple over the last two days (currently at $497.23) affect your predictions? How would your "pop at a retrace" have played out? And, though it is of little more than academic interest, would you have made any (pretend) money on the big move up?

Apparently the market thinks that Carl Icahn's interest in Apple makes it more valuable. At least that what the pundits are crediting yesterday's big move with.

lulz. absolutely not, steamrollered with a surprise turn that's why its on demo and I don't like trading stocks. but this is traders pushing your stocks around, you understand that, don't you?

I might hang on to my theoretical million shares for a bit anyway, till the top of the "sell the news" arrives anyway - let ya know..

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

re: Apple



How did the huge gains in Apple over the last two days (currently at $497.23) affect your predictions? How would your "pop at a retrace" have played out? And, though it is of little more than academic interest, would you have made any (pretend) money on the big move up?

Apparently the market thinks that Carl Icahn's interest in Apple makes it more valuable. At least that what the pundits are crediting yesterday's big move with.

If he lost (pretend) money, I'm sure there's an explanation. It's NOT the system! Don't you even go there!

 

[kevsta]

If he lost (pretend) money, I'm sure there's an explanation. It's NOT the system! Don't you even go there!

maybe it is, I have no clue about stocks as I have consistently said, they trade in a very dubious fashion, IMO.

the system is Forex specific, GBPUSD & EURUSD and they advise you trade those only until competent. It was only my own work that has revealed that it can potentially work anywhere.

ironically, given the Wild West Saloon environment, in many ways Forex is much more predictable than stocks.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

maybe it is, I have no clue about stocks as I have consistently said, they trade in a very dubious fashion, IMO.

Prior to this, did you not say that you could find patterns in virtually any traded commodity? Was that not what brought Apple into the discussion in the first place?

 

[kevsta]

with regards your prediction of my potential future performance below

I think it only fair to give some indication of what I'm looking for as evidence, beyond a whole bunch of charts.

Maybe a future post from you like this...

"Guys...

I had some initial gains, reaching about $12,400 before some trades went bad and I watched the account dwindle down to $6,700 by the end of September.

on the "some trades went bad", can we talk basic math?

I am curious how you arrive at that kind of assumption. Because assuming that I stick to the 1% rule (and I have no problem with it and am usually trading below it anyway) you're basically saying I need to have (say approx) 50 losses in a row. (based on original stake, remember position size has to accordingly reduce to 0.9 contracts if the account gets down to 9k, to maintain the 1% rule)

do you think that is realistic given what I have shown you thus far in this thread? and if peppered through those 50 losses, were (50/3.4) wins (where 3.4 is the current overall risk reward) = 14 wins, I would still be at zero.

50 x 1% losses in a row is pretty unlikely now dude

because, the critical point here is exactly what I told you a post or two ago, the difference between a System Fail Trade and an Execution Fail Trade, is that a System Fail is a complete 1% loss, whereas multiple entries on just an Execution Fail Trade, (and all those pips in front of you) has a high probability of leaving one or more parts of the trade live, (and if one, its by far the biggest) and winning back your losses and a whole lot more.

do you have any idea how many retail traders out there would kill for my current levels of clarity on future movement? I would say, that you don't.

I will take execution trade fails all day long over one system fail, because execution can always be perfected, assuming you can keep facing the right way.

the only other way to take those kind of losses, is be robbed, (always possible unfortunately) or start over-leveraging and taking wild potshots?

I think I'm a bit past that now, and anyway, I have a special demo account where I play "Retail Trader" when Im really bored and just chase everything that moves with massively overleveraged gambles on direction. (not same markets I trade seriously) I use different more colorful charts trade in the 5min view using retail indicators (my old ones lol) and attempt to forget everything I know now, its like being at the fairground. Its most amusing, given that was basically how I used to trade in hindsight I still cant win like that though, funnily enough.

this is what I will drill the child protege on, to start. 1,2,3..

 

[kevsta]

Prior to this, did you not say that you could find patterns in virtually any traded commodity? Was that not what brought Apple into the discussion in the first place?

yes, I did, and you can. I stand by that. however I have also said that markets are very specific and I would not dream about trading one live (now) until I had watched it and tested on demo for some time.

On Forex the Average Daily range is usually uncannily accurate, and so I know exactly (within 10 pips or so) the size of the kinds if moves I am looking for.

When I first discussed Apple, I said that the Daily Range indicator is hopeless there, and pushes expand and contract out in range by +80% or so in the period of a month.

Merely seeing the mystical 3 push cycle that has fascinated observers since the dawn of markets, and mastering it well enough to trade profitably are 2 entirely different things

 

[kevsta]

So anyway as nobody seems to want to consider, or at least admit the fundamental market truth that my simple question asks, I'll have a pop at it myself and we can all pick apart my thoughts and logic.

Is it a coincidence that the price will always break previous highs, or lows, before the next major trend then starts in the opposite direction?
(this applies in every single timescale by the way.)

Answer: NO. It cannot be. It is a fundamental market truth, for whatever reasons that may be.

Whether it is just the legitimate interplay between buy and sell order flow at the limits of price travel, and spreads naturally fluctuate wildly at the turns, with extra emphasis on reducing a pip or two from the winners and gaining an extra pip from the losers is just a coincidence, who knows.

whether it is also a coincidence that the area of the turns (hit the stops) is also the same area that retail traders are milked for their money in every single timescale is debatable, maybe it really is just legitimate market movement, and I am the first person in history who has worked it out? and all those silly CTists thinking it's the Forex banks eh?

the problem I have is that the silly CTists have a very plausible explanation for the wild "reset" behavior seen in Level 3 (and absolutely everything, in fact, that coincides with my own observations) and the inevitable spike out of the range , usually right before the reversal.

they say that is the winners offloading their buys at as high as possible and selling into all the fresh buying (it's breaking out, BUY) until it then rolls over.

does anybody have other or better ideas about why we ALWAYS get this phenomena?

edit. from my POV it doesnt really matter, and it goes back as far as I have looked, so as its tradable, long may it last.

haha yes I forgot, I saw this he other day again and suddenly wondered if that was a cryptic message to me passed down through time, "for those that know" to chuckle at..

"I made my fortune by selling too early”

(Google it)

and please dont start any of your anti semitic nonsense again, I wish it wasn't him that said it, but by all accounts, it was. because Im pretty sure it wasn't a team of wholly Jewish computer programmers that built these marketmaking algorithms, and that is seriously as far as I want to look.

 

[kevsta]

re: Apple

How did the huge gains in Apple over the last two days (currently at $497.23) affect your predictions? How would your "pop at a retrace" have played out? And, though it is of little more than academic interest, would you have made any (pretend) money on the big move up?

Apparently the market thinks that Carl Icahn's interest in Apple makes it more valuable. At least that what the pundits are crediting yesterday's big move with.

ok, so can we note, this is not a system fail thus far, merely me pointing the wrong way. this is not at all uncommon at all, to start with.

you will note, the previous lows were broken, I am used to more agressive moves and have not seen this trickledown selling into the lows of the previous day followed by vicious gapping up at the next open, before.

so now if the system is not to fail, we expect to see price enter the standard sort of distribution pattern, then push a bit higher, (extended 3rd push) eventually followed by another break of the highs in some surprise Apple fashion and at least one push down.

If we get the first push, the probability is, that over time, there will be a second, which is why I did not cash out the +1.452million the pretend JREF trade got to.

this time, the first push failed (retrace) and it reversed. on the whole, I will always look for the second, because I have spent months and months counting and observing and know that more often than not, a second follows, certainly in most of the markets I trade anyway.

probability chaps, this whole system, is actually based on it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

ok, so can we note, this is not a system fail thus far, merely me pointing the wrong way. this is not at all uncommon at all, to start with.

[qimg]http://clip2net.com/clip/m0/1376502483-clip-23kb.png[/qimg]

you will note, the previous lows were broken, I am used to more agressive moves and have not seen this trickledown selling into the lows of the previous day followed by vicious gapping up at the next open, before.

so now if the system is not to fail, we expect to see price enter the standard sort of distribution pattern, then push a bit higher, (extended 3rd push) eventually followed by another break of the highs in some surprise Apple fashion and at least one push down.

If we get the first push, the probability is, that over time, there will be a second, which is why I did not cash out the +1.452million the pretend JREF trade got to.

this time, the first push failed (retrace) and it reversed. on the whole, I will always look for the second, because I have spent months and months counting and observing and know that more often than not, a second follows, certainly in most of the markets I trade anyway.

probability chaps, this whole system, is actually based on it.

Worth repeating....

A classic example of "Special Pleading".

When something goes your way, it's confirmation that the system works.

When it doesn't, there's always an excuse to explain it away.

Known logical and psychological errors in thinking.

Which I kinda presaged in my hypothetical "annual kevsta report".

 

[kevsta]

Worth repeating....

oh dear. you probably have to repeat things a lot for them to go in, though eh.

 

[kevsta]

Everybody chirp in please, special pleading or special needs?

I have been looking at Apple for nearly 2 weeks now in a theoretical trading sense.

I am certain my trollbot could study the rest of it's natural born computer cycles and never once catch a whole 3 pushes from top to bottom from now until the end of our galactic universe.

I have been watching AUSUSD only slightlly longer but Forex is Forex and so that's a lot more up my street than trading your dubious shares anyway

I drew some push lines in prior this time

In with 0.4 of a contract, I was waiting for another look lower for the last 0.6, however it never came, so its currently about +1.4% account win at the moment instead of 3%, but its not over yet, maybe by a long way.

as you can see, my life is hard. (lulz) (seem to be on you, I think mostly)

 

[Fast Eddie B]

with regards your prediction of my potential future performance below



on the "some trades went bad", can we talk basic math?

I am curious how you arrive at that kind of assumption.

It was a pure hypothetical.

I could have just as easily chosen any other conceivable scenario.

But are you saying that you honestly believe it is mathematically impossible for you to ever suffer a 40% decline in your trading account from its starting valuation? I can understand being optimistic, but legions of speculators before you with similar systems have, when playing with real money, lost that much and far, far more.

Do you have $10,000? If so, let's see what you can do with it. The rest is just talk.

 

[kevsta]

It was a pure hypothetical.

I could have just as easily chosen any other conceivable scenario.

But are you saying that you honestly believe it is mathematically impossible for you to ever suffer a 40% decline in your trading account from its starting valuation? I can understand being optimistic, but legions of speculators before you with similar systems have, when playing with real money, lost that much and far, far more.

yes, of course its mathematically and theoretically possible, but practically, if it does not continue going

+300 -20, -30, -50 +280 +120 - 40 -40 + 150, then I shall know something is up, and pause

in fact on the high leverage demo at 5% risk it is more scary, its more like

-500 -500 -500 - 500 + 2850, - 500 + 1200 - +1000 - 500 -500 + 1000

the drawdowns are brutal and scary but risk reward works just the same.

Do you have $10,000? If so, let's see what you can do with it. The rest is just talk.

yes it is, trading talk at that

afterthoughts. with regards how much people have lost, there is a very interesting study of trader statistics I posted, quoted and studied in some detail on page 1. so your sentence is in fact part of my reasoning and evidence of the whole schema.

what about the winning 10% eh though? zero sum game remember? how do they do that.. is the question