Have you used dbphoenix's teachings to become a successful trader?

I'm not trying to be pedantic, just to maintain ties to reality. I don't see what rape has to do with any of this. As for defending AMT, I do so because it's being attacked here. Why I'm not entirely sure.

But AMT does explain every movement of price if the price represents an agreement between a buyer and a seller. If you disagree, then we'll just have to disagree.
 
Rape is undeniably an interaction between two people. It can't be described as willing.

A stop run is an interaction between buyers and sellers. Unless you know people who are delighted when their stops are taken out, it too can't be described as willing. You strike me as intelligent so I have to think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Don't let Surf get you doing things you don't need to or shouldn't. He can't trade and refuses to accept that others can. I've debated this with him since I joined. Everything you refute with evidence he says is an exception. He provides entertainment here, nothing more.
 
I have only skimmed through it, but since I accept the logic of AMT, I doubt a more detailed study would change my view.

What I do not accept is that AMT explains every movement of price, in the context of seeking equilibrium between buyers and sellers. Some movements involve one or more willing parties, and many unwilling ones.

Just for one moment consider Soros destroying the effort of the Bank of England to defend the ERM. Supposedly Citibank was involved, I don't know, but the only willing parties were those intent on screwing the BOE. The BOE and everyone else on the wrong side of that trade can hardly be described as willing.

Please do not be so mired in your beliefs that you cannot accept that there can be exceptions.
 
justrading said:
Jeez DB, let's not get pedantic here. I thought my rape analogy addressed your point. A run on stops hardly reflects willing buyer willing seller. Some do say that rape happens because women invite it, I don't accept that. You don't need to feel any obligation to defend AMT, it is perfectly logical. It just does not explain every movement of price in the market in the context of seeking a generally accepted value. Some price movements have nothing to do with finding accepted value. Perhaps you don't see that in NQ, but I track instruments in FX, futures and stocks and I see that all the time.
More...

Placing a stop at certain location does imply that trader valued that stop higher than the alternative. Where the price goes after the stop is hit is all that happens after the fact. The placer of stop isn't aware whether it's the stop being picked or something substantial at that moment. Only the future brings the meaning whether it was a positive event or a negative event.

Rape analogy is faulty and based on misconception of property rights. Rape is a violation of property rights. A person owns oneself, hence, someone else physically taking possession of that person without permission is violation of the person's right of self ownership.

The stop on the other hand is deliberately placed by the trader. In the case of the trader the point is determined as per the wishes and with permission of the trader. Whether it turns out to be a a positive event or a negative event is again something that's determined only in hindsight.

Gringo
 
Last edited:
Gringo said:
Placing a stop at certain location does imply that trader valued that stop higher than the alternative. Where the price goes after the stop is hit is all that happens after the fact. The placer of stop isn't aware whether it's the stop being picked or something substantial at that moment. Only the future brings the meaning whether it was a positive event or a negative event.

Rape analogy is faulty and based on misconception of property rights. Rape is a violation of property rights. A person owns oneself, hence, someone else physically taking possession of that person without permission is violation of the person's right of self ownership.

The stop on the other hand is deliberately placed by the trader. In the case of the trader the point is determined as per the wishes of the trader. Whether it turns out to be a a positive event or a negative event is again something that's determined only in hindsight.

Gringo[/q
More...

I'm having a reasoned discussion with your guru, you do not need to inflict your stupidity on us. I buy fire insurance on my house, that does not mean I'm willing to see it burnt down.
 
justrading said:
I have only skimmed through it, but since I accept the logic of AMT, I doubt a more detailed study would change my view.

What I do not accept is that AMT explains every movement of price, in the context of seeking equilibrium between buyers and sellers. Some movements involve one or more willing parties, and many unwilling ones.

Just for one moment consider Soros destroying the effort of the Bank of England to defend the ERM. Supposedly Citibank was involved, I don't know, but the only willing parties were those intent on screwing the BOE. The BOE and everyone else on the wrong side of that trade can hardly be described as willing.

Please do not be so mired in your beliefs that you cannot accept that there can be exceptions.
More...

If you want to address AMT as discussed in the pdf, I'll be happy to do so as that is the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss the theory and application of AMT in general elsewhere, that is another matter.

As to your rape analogy, it has nothing to do with AMT. Prostitution, yes. Rape, no.

As to traders getting fucked by the market, any and all market participants are willing participants. No one is forced at gunpoint to trade.
 
justrading said:
I'm having a reasoned discussion with your guru, you do not need to inflict your stupidity on us. I buy fire insurance on my house, that does not mean I'm willing to see it burnt down.
More...

No, but you're betting that it will. Otherwise the money is wasted.

As to Gringo being stupid, no. Sorry. You'll have to pick on somebody else for that.
 
dbphoenix said:
If you want to address AMT as discussed in the pdf, I'll be happy to do so as that is the subject of this thread. If you want to discuss the theory and application of AMT in general elsewhere, that is another matter.

As to your rape analogy, it has nothing to do with AMT. Prostitution, yes. Rape, no.

As to traders getting fucked by the market, any and all market participants are willing participants. No one is forced at gunpoint to trade.
More...
Stop wriggling, you demean yourself.

The subject of this thread is contained in the title. Just because you distorted it to be something else doesn't change it. I really do not want to discuss something I accept. My single point is that AMT does not explain every movement of price in the market.

As an example of your feeble attempt at distortion, you argue that all market participants are willing. Exactly where does AMT state that market interactions are governed by the fact that all participants are willing? Can't you comprehend that a willing participant may be unwilling to accept a price level? Are you changing AMT?

You were recently presented with a chart and I think 3 specific questions of why what you preach was not applicable in that context. Everything very specific. Your response was if you had done the work, you would know the answer. Really? What is so difficult about answering specific questions about what you write of every day, and have done for years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top