- Status
temptrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 393
- Likes
- 55
Dear Splitlink,
Please yourself.
That's what I wanted to hear, especially the reference to TA and how it's not shown as it should be in the books. Also my Bulkowski book is also given to the local library. I was going through a lot of Skimbleshank's posts and in one of them she got a lot of grief from somebody over her claims on being able to be consistently profitable everyday (either that or know when to not to trade that day). Her replies were very curteous, his was far from it.
At first I started mechanically and when something failed I regarded it as a "pattern failure". It was only seeing the markets for a some time that it occurred to me that it was my reading of it that was at fault.
I find indicators and moving averages etc, rather odd now. It's as if they are forcing some kind of will into the way you look at the market and not letting her tell you what she needs to say . .
Splitlink said:
Please yourself.
mr.marcus said:
That's what I wanted to hear, especially the reference to TA and how it's not shown as it should be in the books. Also my Bulkowski book is also given to the local library. I was going through a lot of Skimbleshank's posts and in one of them she got a lot of grief from somebody over her claims on being able to be consistently profitable everyday (either that or know when to not to trade that day). Her replies were very curteous, his was far from it.
At first I started mechanically and when something failed I regarded it as a "pattern failure". It was only seeing the markets for a some time that it occurred to me that it was my reading of it that was at fault.
I find indicators and moving averages etc, rather odd now. It's as if they are forcing some kind of will into the way you look at the market and not letting her tell you what she needs to say . .
GreenWelly
Newbie
- Messages
- 6
- Likes
- 11
i dont really know what more splitlink could ask for?
mrmarcus is the only guy on this webby to put his money where his mouth is and put his word on the line.. and every time he has he has been correct in his analysis..
i cant actually recall anyone else in these threads who has put their word on the line and got it right...
what happened to dangerfield tellin us how it was a shakeout of the longs? hes no where to be seen.. scuttled off with his tail between his legs..
what more does anyone want?
i dont understand why splitlink will listen to the guff of prolific posters who have shown no substance to match their posts but will quickly dismiss mrmarcus even when he shows hard facts and evidence to backup his very detailed explanations...
ultimately we shouldnt really give a toss whether splitlink believes it or not.. as most of us can see that patently there is a lot of worth in the posts of mrmarcus... we might aswell just have a bloody good laugh at his expense for denying what is reality.. i know i am
cheers and best wishes
mrmarcus is the only guy on this webby to put his money where his mouth is and put his word on the line.. and every time he has he has been correct in his analysis..
i cant actually recall anyone else in these threads who has put their word on the line and got it right...
what happened to dangerfield tellin us how it was a shakeout of the longs? hes no where to be seen.. scuttled off with his tail between his legs..
what more does anyone want?
i dont understand why splitlink will listen to the guff of prolific posters who have shown no substance to match their posts but will quickly dismiss mrmarcus even when he shows hard facts and evidence to backup his very detailed explanations...
ultimately we shouldnt really give a toss whether splitlink believes it or not.. as most of us can see that patently there is a lot of worth in the posts of mrmarcus... we might aswell just have a bloody good laugh at his expense for denying what is reality.. i know i am
cheers and best wishes
frugi
1
- Messages
- 1,843
- Likes
- 133
To return to a more germane track (no not one by Kraftwerk) I have been asked to provide a "most pertinent definition" of a weak hand and I think this is a jolly good question given the frequent references to them and their strong counterpart
I hope Mark may be willing to do us the honour of expanding (or indeed condensing given my irksome verbosity) on this topic later, but I thought I'd offer my unqualified 20 Korean won first (though I realise that I owe several elements of the below to Mark anyway).
Trading is a battle between strong and weak hands, or predators and prey. The weak tend to have poor risk management, be reactive, impulsive, impatient, inexperienced, unprofessional, eager to chase the market, comfortable with the illusion of safety in a crowd, employ sloppy entries and loose stops and the like. They are apt to be shaken out of postions that would ultimately be the correct ones while entering into positions that look enticing but turn out to be the wrong ones. They are the gamblers and the crowd, the fodder for the strong hands. Their actions make the job of the strong hands easier as they tend to be predictable and easily manipulated. They tend to have less capital, shaky discipline and a limited understanding of market dynamics. They are often serial hunters of the Grail and dishonest with themselves. They are fuel suppliers.
The strong are pretty much the opposite. Predators with deep pockets, eternal patience, professional conduct, very tight risk control, very high self-awareness, enter only when they perceive conditions offer an excellent opportunity, independent, logical thinkers. They understand the harsh realities of the market, empathise with the prey and capitalise as a result. They drink the fuel.
But this is perhaps to merely describe some of the many hackneyed differences between successful and unsuccessful traders. What we need is a concise definition of these groups of participants and I have failed to provide one. Anyone?
I'd also love to know the etymology and history of these terms. Who first said "I'm a strong hand and I'm a-gonna shake out this tiresome weak hand?" as he helped carve out a hammer with a judiciously dropped and lower-recovered 400 lot. They sound so apt. The strong versus the weak, while "hands" is presumably a metaphor for the holding of postions. A pro is a strong hand because he knows what he is doing and does it right consistently. He is also, in some respect perhaps, "in charge" of some elements of market dynamics? Have cash,.will herd, fish and test when it's cheap. A weak hand with 5k simply can't do this ... but can he be a minor strong hand by copying a big one?
Is it possible to be a weak hand on Monday and a strong hand on Tuesday depending on one's trades or is this a definition that cuts deeper than one's perception of today's market conditions? If the former, is it fair to generalise with these terms at all? *disappears down pointless semantic cul-de-sac*.
I hope Mark may be willing to do us the honour of expanding (or indeed condensing given my irksome verbosity) on this topic later, but I thought I'd offer my unqualified 20 Korean won first (though I realise that I owe several elements of the below to Mark anyway).Trading is a battle between strong and weak hands, or predators and prey. The weak tend to have poor risk management, be reactive, impulsive, impatient, inexperienced, unprofessional, eager to chase the market, comfortable with the illusion of safety in a crowd, employ sloppy entries and loose stops and the like. They are apt to be shaken out of postions that would ultimately be the correct ones while entering into positions that look enticing but turn out to be the wrong ones. They are the gamblers and the crowd, the fodder for the strong hands. Their actions make the job of the strong hands easier as they tend to be predictable and easily manipulated. They tend to have less capital, shaky discipline and a limited understanding of market dynamics. They are often serial hunters of the Grail and dishonest with themselves. They are fuel suppliers.
The strong are pretty much the opposite. Predators with deep pockets, eternal patience, professional conduct, very tight risk control, very high self-awareness, enter only when they perceive conditions offer an excellent opportunity, independent, logical thinkers. They understand the harsh realities of the market, empathise with the prey and capitalise as a result. They drink the fuel.
But this is perhaps to merely describe some of the many hackneyed differences between successful and unsuccessful traders. What we need is a concise definition of these groups of participants and I have failed to provide one. Anyone?
I'd also love to know the etymology and history of these terms. Who first said "I'm a strong hand and I'm a-gonna shake out this tiresome weak hand?" as he helped carve out a hammer with a judiciously dropped and lower-recovered 400 lot. They sound so apt. The strong versus the weak, while "hands" is presumably a metaphor for the holding of postions. A pro is a strong hand because he knows what he is doing and does it right consistently. He is also, in some respect perhaps, "in charge" of some elements of market dynamics? Have cash,.will herd, fish and test when it's cheap. A weak hand with 5k simply can't do this ... but can he be a minor strong hand by copying a big one?
Is it possible to be a weak hand on Monday and a strong hand on Tuesday depending on one's trades or is this a definition that cuts deeper than one's perception of today's market conditions? If the former, is it fair to generalise with these terms at all? *disappears down pointless semantic cul-de-sac*.
Last edited:
The differentiating factor between strong hands & weak hands is the difference in methodology;
Technical analysis & the like, driven to action by short-term price volatility represent the weak hands.
Methodologies that are unconcerned with short-term volatility, represent the strong hands.
jog on
d998
Technical analysis & the like, driven to action by short-term price volatility represent the weak hands.
Methodologies that are unconcerned with short-term volatility, represent the strong hands.
jog on
d998
frugi
1
- Messages
- 1,843
- Likes
- 133
Ducati,
Strong hands may well hold through gyrations that would cause a weak hand to exit because the strong know that their position is not endangered by a certain temporary adverse move. But I disagree that there are no strong hands trading short term volatility as it is the lifeblood of many. They may of course regularly adapt their time horizon but you'll certainly find them scalping a minor fractal if conditions suit as well as holding for longer.
Differences will certainly be found in quality of methodology too, but not necessarily in the basic type of such. e.g the ones you mention hint at a TA/FA distinction which is not necessarily present.
Welcome back, by the way.
Strong hands may well hold through gyrations that would cause a weak hand to exit because the strong know that their position is not endangered by a certain temporary adverse move. But I disagree that there are no strong hands trading short term volatility as it is the lifeblood of many. They may of course regularly adapt their time horizon but you'll certainly find them scalping a minor fractal if conditions suit as well as holding for longer.
Differences will certainly be found in quality of methodology too, but not necessarily in the basic type of such. e.g the ones you mention hint at a TA/FA distinction which is not necessarily present.
Welcome back, by the way.
Last edited:
timsk
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,729
- Likes
- 3,425
Frugi my main man,frugi said:
I hope you're correct in your assessment, as this is my understanding precisely. If you've got it all wrong, you can take some small comfort from the knowledge that I'll be going down with you! There is one small thing I would question - and that's your use of the word 'logical'. Conventional TA is, for the most part, logical. Mark has emphasised that his approach to getting inside the head of the market doesn't utilise TA so much as PA - psychological analysis. I can't claim to know much about that, but my guess is that logic - or logical thinking - doesn't feature very highly.
Tim.
for me there is no such thing as predator or prey.....i operate the trading platform as system dictates....... ego is an enemy to most..............there is no such thing as bar noise........truth is knowing how to extract points based on what the very high probability edge right now moment looks like ........my battle is with me and chart in front of me realtime .........long or short term......all of each bar is price......not noise..............anyone who disparages mr. m is simply missing the boat........he is not looking for gain, only to help others........
TheBramble
Legendary member
- Messages
- 8,394
- Likes
- 1,170
These WHN threads have quite unexpectedly generated seriously laughable quantities of 'wide angle' responses. I'm quite sure this side effect wasn't intended or expected by the originator, who has a heart of gold, but nonetheless, they have have occurred all the same.frugi said:
But this final para of one of Frugi's posts is a corker. In this lays the entirety. I attempted to respond to this issue on one of SuperFly's threads and gave up. Deleted the post. But this cracks it entirely.
Timeframe is the basis for establishing whether you're a weak or astrong hand. To the extent you are able to determine the position in the cycle for your given trading timeframe, determines the extent to which you are either a weak hand or a strong hand.
You can absolutely be a strong hand on the Monday and a weak hand on the Tuesday - if you don't get it right.
It has NOTHING to do with how much capital you have or your immunity from greed and fear.
hth
barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
barjon said:...........................................I'm not seeking a totally sanitized thread. I just know from past experience.... that the moment posts start criticising the messenger rather than the message things get de-railed very quickly. So I meant "knocking copy" in the sense of knocking the messenger, not that people shouldn't feel able to challenge the message (politely of course
jon
Well having asked with a pretty please to avoid "knocking copy" and explained what I meant (above) and said why (the emboldened bit) my fears have come to pass. I'm extremely tempted to delete most of the last 50 posts since I wrote that, but I suppose I'd then stand accused of brushing it all under the carpet.
mr.marcus
I suppose it might be worth recording that I have never regarded splitlink's latest post as an apology to you. All I said to you was that at least he had the grace to apologise for causing the storm. You have chosen to interpret the other things he said as a further direct attack on you, others see it as a dig at someone else (not that that's acceptable either). Some charitable readers may even conclude that since he talks of those "without having real knowledge" he could not have been talking about you at all, although read in the context of what has gone before that is perhaps unlikely.
splitlink
Although you have apologised for expressing your thoughts and disrupting the thread - and thank you for that - you have stressed that you do not apologise for having those thoughts. That's ok - you're entitled to hold whatever thoughts you like. What you are not entitled to do is to express opinions about a member that are defamatory and/or insulting or which can be reasonably interpreted as such. You will see from the reactions that your comments have been regarded as of that nature.
There have been well over 5000 views to this thread and it's maybe worth reflecting that yours has been the only sour note.
Anyway, the end result is, of course, a ruined thread and I suppose it's no surprise that wot:6 is inactive. Pity - it was enjoyable while it lasted.
jon
Barjon,
Yes, it was a good thread and I ballsed it up by saying what I did. I admit that that was the case. I should have kept my mouth shut and gone off, keeping my opinions to myself, that's what most people do and I should have known enough to do the same.
The best of luck to you all.
Splitlink
Yes, it was a good thread and I ballsed it up by saying what I did. I admit that that was the case. I should have kept my mouth shut and gone off, keeping my opinions to myself, that's what most people do and I should have known enough to do the same.
The best of luck to you all.
Splitlink
Maybe its just me, but I couldn't give two hoots about what people think on here about either my trading or my knowledge. I think this silly rating system is partially to blame. It really does send out all the wrong signals. Especially with this new wave of post deletion occurring, as it does nothing but screw the whole thing up.
Surely the answer is to just not get involved. If they cannot do that then that is a basic failing in themselves. Maybe there is such a high level of social ineptness about them that they need to have all the trumpet blowing on here to feel good about themselves. Either way I have never seen so much bickering and mud slinging as this board seems to enjoy. I know by posting this I may be just as guilty but if this is how you some people react to a few words on an anonymous board I would hate to see the way they deal with a protracted period of losses.
Now all of you take aim with your pies and give it too me :cheesy:
Surely the answer is to just not get involved. If they cannot do that then that is a basic failing in themselves. Maybe there is such a high level of social ineptness about them that they need to have all the trumpet blowing on here to feel good about themselves. Either way I have never seen so much bickering and mud slinging as this board seems to enjoy. I know by posting this I may be just as guilty but if this is how you some people react to a few words on an anonymous board I would hate to see the way they deal with a protracted period of losses.
Now all of you take aim with your pies and give it too me :cheesy:
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
