Search results

Paul Rotter says he uses CCI. Whether he actually DOES or not is another question.

My TWS receives no quotes, although a bulletin states that the "problem with US indices have been solved", suggesting that IB's grasp on the rudiments of English grammar is as haphazard as its understanding of the brokerage business.

actually, i finished you off a couple of posts ago, but i guess you're too much of wanker to notice. g'day, mate...:p :p :p

so i ib is, by your own admission, for wankers...sierra charts is, by my observation, for wankers... and we know that kiwi -- as with any furry fruit -- is wanky as hell. hmmm....

Perhaps. I am not, however, among them.

Good point about the API. That's starting to change, though, For example, Multicharts will, in fact, run off TransAct data.

I find this fascinating -- the passion, the invective. And over a broker. For heaven's sake, I've received hate PMs on this subject. I mean, people, what is the deal here? Clearly, a nerve has been struck. But why? Those who are truly comfortable with their choices have no need to -- or...

I think this thread, and others circulating around ET offer numerous examples. And I'm not won over by the snarky tone of IB reps here on ET (including the individual who contributed to this thread). The crazy, buggy TWS, too, is hardly a selling point, as well as the all-too-frequent data...

Having recently left IB for another broker, I'm at a loss to explain what took me so long to make the move, and why so many subject themselves to the arrogance and curious ineptitude of that place.

for fun i checked it out...there's nothing overtly bogus about it, imho, so long as you use proper money management. but it's no magic ticket, either. fact is, you can create your own "trendcatch" with the usual stuff from the TA toolbox without too much trouble, and save yourself whatever it...

interesting. hmm....

your take on chicago is reductivist bullshit, but i like the rest of your answer. i doubt rosy2 will be able to follow it, though.

i hold an undergraduate degree in applied mathematics from the university of chicago. apparently, one requires more than a background in programming and basic math to know what is possible.

I just saw this. Here's the disconnect: Define "consistent." Returning to my workplace analogy...my sense of when to break the "rule" and joke up the boss may seem to be entirely random, inconsistent in terms of mood "quanta," time of day, seasonality, earnings cycle, number of employees...

I think this is key: There are no shortcuts. Those who are willing to put in the time/effort/toil to obtain mastery AND have the gift for this sort of thing will outdistance any A.I. configuration out there at the present time and, very likely, for the forseeable future. Everyone else is...

I have a plan. I doubt it can be automated, although I'd love to be proven wrong. Permit me to explain the reason for my skepticism by way of an analogy. Let's say I have a plan for getting ahead at the office. A key component of this plan involves discerning the moods of my boss...

If markets are hard-wired to confound the majority and the majority become algorithmic traders, does this imply that the markets will become hard-wired to confound algorithmic traders? Could we be on the cusp of a golden age for discretionary methologies?

some coil...lol...

might we be coiling for the beige book?

whatever happened to gap fills anyway?