ES Journal - 2014

[murica]

Short ES now to 1900, stop 1950. Stop doesn't matter. How much you risk beyond your last add at 1900, in total, (if and) when you take the loss, relative to your capital, is what matters.

This is the year that traders will reveal their true colors, whether right or wrong. The ultimate base goal is to survive -- both in the short term, and over a career. Beyond that, in the short term, is luck.

Thanks to all the short term traders who share their wisdom in making short term predictions, as well as sharing their reasoning for doing do. Volatility in 2014 will hopefully allow all to prosper, both bulls and bears.

Good trading to all.

-murica


[EDITED BY MAGNA — Here is a link to the previous journal:]

ES Journal Archive (2013)

 

[volente_00]

long from 25 avg posted in the bar thread real time

stop 22

objective 1832 and 1840

 

[ammo]

Quote from ammo:

short 37 25

22.25 bid for reduce

2014-01-02-tos_charts.png es.png

 

[ammo]

may be a trend day

 

[volente_00]

Quote from ammo:

may be a T day

 

[mastacoli71]

Will absolutely be an interesting year. Read somewhere that if mkt is down after first 5 trading days higher prob of a down year.

Quote from murica:

Short ES now to 1900, stop 1950. Stop doesn't matter. How much you risk beyond your last add at 1900, in total, (if and) when you take the loss, relative to your capital, is what matters.

This is the year that traders will reveal their true colors, whether right or wrong. The ultimate base goal is to survive -- both in the short term, and over a career. Beyond that, in the short term, is luck.

Thanks to all the short term traders who share their wisdom in making short term predictions, as well as sharing their reasoning for doing do. Volatility in 2014 will hopefully allow all to prosper, both bulls and bears.

Good trading to all.

-murica

 

[pfranz]

Quote from mastacoli71:
Read somewhere that if mkt is down after first 5 trading days higher prob of a down year.

This is a ridiculous "statistic" like "if January is down,whole year is probably down".

Supposing that the variable we are observing is completely random, it's obvious that if any initial period is down (up), the whole period has higher probabilities of being down (up).
This comes from the fact that the whole period will have the highest probabilities of being where it was after the initial period,which is given by definition.

It's more or less like saying that x = x + y - y.

 

[mastacoli71]

Quote from pfranz:

This is a ridiculous "statistic" like "if January is down,whole year is probably down".

Supposing that the variable we are observing is completely random, it's obvious that if any initial period is down (up), the whole period has higher probabilities of being down (up).
This comes from the fact that the whole period will have the highest probabilities of being where it was after the initial period,which is given by definition.

It's more or less like saying that x = x + y - y.

I've never looked at it so have no idea of validity.

 

[failed_trad3r]

Quote from pfranz:

This is a ridiculous "statistic" like "if January is down,whole year is probably down".

Supposing that the variable we are observing is completely random, it's obvious that if any initial period is down (up), the whole period has higher probabilities of being down (up).
This comes from the fact that the whole period will have the highest probabilities of being where it was after the initial period,which is given by definition.

It's more or less like saying that x = x + y - y.

yeah, they are using the wrong definition. its impossible to buy the market at jan 1 after jan 31. Better is to look at return going from jan 31 forward and compare to average S&P return after 31 jan.

 

[ammo]

fed and ecb's have no idea how will turn out,largest accts, follow the money