Question for you, who is sane?

[qdz]

Trend Fader,

I am sorry if I started a thread and make you feel that way. While I offer you my understanding and apology, I ask for your understanding and forgiveness. After all this is a psychology related thread. Any comment is highly appreciated.

Thanks.

Quote from Trend Fader:

THis thread is a classic example why this website is starting to become really bad.

The guy asks a question.. and he

 

[Trend Fader]

I just thought the guy wants to know why the CEO's changed guidance.. not about the psychological aspect of whats sane and not sane.. lol.... whatever...


--MIKE

 

[Rigel]

Quote from Trend Fader:

I just thought the guy wants to know why the CEO's changed guidance..


--MIKE

1. They were mistaken.
2. You misunderstood the guidance.

 

[WDGann]

Quote from Trend Fader:

I just thought the guy wants to know why the CEO's changed guidance.. not about the psychological aspect of whats sane and not sane.. lol.... whatever...


--MIKE

LOL... Trend Fader... you are funny man...

All this time with everyone talking about psychology (philosophy)... you're talking about something else... LOL

 

[vladiator]

Quote from wally_:



I don't think it's contradictory. I am being contrarian by not using stochastics when I know it has a good chance to fail. You may not consider that being 100% contrarian, but I don't care, because who says that being 100% contrarian works better? Nothing works 100% of the time, so you being contrarian against 'the stochastics crowd' can also be wrong. My point is this: I use subtler methods and basically you may be right that they do not qualify as pure contrarian methods because I do not assume that stochastics methods are wrong 100% of the time. They are not.

In other words, I try to be flexible and use the best methods for given circumstances. We both can have some edge here, except that mine can be even greater if I can avoid 'the stochastics crowd' mistakes (that's your only edge) and yet benefit from the stochastics methods where I have the best chance to do so (and here you will fail because you assume it will not work).

To me the key word is flexibility. If something does not work, I avoid it, when someting does work, even if it's as rare as 61.8 % FR within the first 30 min bar, I will use it. One of the main reasons, so many fail is that they keep on using the same stuff no matter what circumstances and refuse to try other things. So they are the herd, they do not discriminate.

You didn't get my point at all. I DON'T use any stochastics bs etc. What I do use I came up with on my own, it's a mixture of TA, fundamental analysis and some neat stuff on the information flow, you won't find it in any TA book.
What I WAS saying was that even if some technique is total nonsense and doesn't work, as long as you know that enough people use it, you might as well look at it too, just so you know what their likely herding moves will be.
This has NOTHING to do with my edge.

 

[ThatManFromTx]

If the world is crazy and you are not...does that make you insane since you vary from the norm? If insane people think you are "normal"... does that mean you are insane?