An experienced background is always useful in these forums.Thirteen said:i have traded for 28 yrs since 17, so i do know something.
Thirteen said:so please skimbleshanks - are u still using your wave theory? why did u use your wave theory in the 1st place? is it because YOU BELIEVED IT TO HAVE A STATISTICAL EDGE MAYBE? yet stats r rubbish u now say! how now?
Thirteen said:u mention it take u 11 years to develop your mental approach (much admiration 4 that from me), yet skimbleshanks has done it in a couple of weeks!
SOCRATES said:what we are dealing with is not a precise science. In fact it is more of an art form if you like, since a Science is said to contain a certain number of fixed variants whereasan Art contains many more. I watched the Standard and Poors for three years without blinking before I understood it. you tell ne who among you has got the patience,the fortitude, the self control for starters to do just that. I bet you there isn't anybody.
Trader333 said:culion,
Your posts remind me of how I used to be at a time when I didnt have any understanding of what is involved in trading by price and volume only. At one point in my past trading career I also believed that any trading approcach should be able to be modelled and therefore backtested and I was wrong.
Trading by price and volume, as mentioned earlier, is not something that can be taught in the same way as using trading indicators. It is something that tends to dawn on you over time as you get more realisations from studying it. Some people will never be able to learn how to do this, some people will be better than others at assimilating this approach more quickly and some will take years to get there. I am not sure quite where I am in all of this but I am consistently able to make 1% on my account each trading day at which point I stop for the day. I am also able to do this with a very low account exposure level and risk often only at 0.2 of 1% of my account.
Your quote:
This is simply untrue and further shows a lack of understanding of the subject area. I know because the footprint for stock trading (which is my favoured trading instrument), is not the same as it is for futures which I have also traded.
I am not saying any of this to have a go at you because I was also in the same position at one time but I have always had an open mind to trading and new learning possibilities.
Paul
You missed my earlier post asking you to provide us with your argumaent in support of a previous statement you made. If you're unable to do so then you're not in too good a position in attrempting to develop lines elsewhere.culion said:Now you are starting to provide some statistics on this method.
culion said:Sorry, but that is what it takes to produce a convincing argument. Absent that we are just dealing with an unproven hypothesis.
[...]
abnormal or trending volume can normally be interpreted and is useful as "background" information
Thirteen said:no i dont go in2 detail about my methods.
can u define yr edge then please?
Skimbleshanks said:Equity curves and statistics are what those with a specific mindset love to see, and find comforting - because it is a result of backtesting. And backtesting is for mechanical systems. Pure price and volume is not in that category.
Socrates uses only price and volume to trade. I use only price and volume to trade. We have both told you the same thing - yet you continue to disbelieve us.
Why do you believe that we need to produce a convincing argument for you? I notice you are from the academia world so you want an argument backed up by facts - we are not from academia, we are traders. I've never known one single decent price and volume trader state any statistics - because our minds just don't 'work' that way. You see, we have nothing to prove to anyone.
Statistics are produced by those with egos and emotions who need to continually prove their system to themselves - or to sell / market their system to others. No price and volume trader ever 'sells' a system - because there is no 'system' to sell - it's all in the mind.
TheBramble said:You missed my earlier post asking you to provide us with your argumaent in support of a previous statement you made. If you're unable to do so then you're not in too good a position in attrempting to develop lines elsewhere.
culion said:Not surprisingly, you jump to conclusions without any facts which is consistent with your intuitive trading style. To set the record straight, I am not an academic, although I have sum skool’in, and have been trading for a long time.
For one who engages in a discussion regarding statistics, your ignorance of the subject is overwhelming. You and Socrates talk the talk but do not walk the walk. As I said several times, let’s forget about backtesting because it gives you heartburn and one does not need to backtest in order to generate statistics, just keep a record of what happens and/or what has happened. Why do you have a problem understanding this? Presumably you actually do this. Or do you trade on the basis of a gut feeling that what you are doing is OK and better than other approaches, which is the conclusion one reaches when reading your posts? To claim that "Statistics are produced by those with egos and emotions who need to prove their system to themselves" is one the stupidest comments that I have seen on the subject.
I do not question your veracity with respect to using a non-quantifiable, intuitive methodology, but this in no way excludes documenting the method’s track record in a variety of ways. Without demonstration of the success of this approach you and Socrates should not be surprised that many view you as afloat in a sea of psychobabble.
It is amusing to note that you do not feel the need to produce a convincing argument but on the other hand spend much of your life on these boards defending your “non-definable” approach. Since your approach cannot be defined for us little folk with “low levels of intelligence,” to quote Socrates (LOL), based on this thread and others, discussions about trading with you guys is obviously not worthwhile.
Good trading to you.
culion said:Not surprisingly, you jump to conclusions without any facts which is consistent with your intuitive trading style. To set the record straight, I am not an academic, although I have sum skool’in, and have been trading for a long time.
That's right. Your style was a little too fuzzy for me to pick up precisely what is was you were trying to say. That's probably my fault so don't go beating yourself up over it.culion said:I did not miss it but thought you should be able to glean enough from the prior discussion. Guess not.
Where?culion said:As noted before,
So you're not really providing any new input to this thread then.culion said:I use volume as discussed in numerous TA texts
Skimbleshanks said:You are wrong - I didn't jump to conclusions. Before I made the statement "I notice you are from the academia world", I checked, and you signed onto this website using an email from Columbia University, New York.
Your posts seem a tad rude to me - are you sure you've not mistaken T2W for Elite Trader?
TheBramble said:...but Neil, bearing in mind this thread is "The Importance of Volume" within the "Technical Analysis" forum, I don't necessarily think everyone will (to borrow from your acoustic drift) be aware that there is a hymn-sheet, let alone be singing from it.
Only comapred to some....neil said:See....unlike your tagline...you do have brains![]()
culion said:I use volume as discussed in numerous TA texts
Thirteen said:yes volume is important, but not as reliable as some think. little is. thats markets.