Real or fake?

nononsense · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from Thunderdog:

That's all well and good. However, I take comfort in my skepticism and I think I will remain there.

P.S. The Tiger Woods analogy is not a very good one. You should know that. The markets have a much more random element than golf. To allegedly trade almost flawlessly for a sustained period in such an environment is suspect to anyone who is willing to use a modicum of critical judgment. Therefore, I will stand by my 3 proffered scenarios. I'm sorry, Mr. Spike, I'm not buying.

There we go again: "randomness" that deadbeaten TA horse. You could equally well apply randomness to golf. It would make as little or as much sense.

The truth is that becoming a golf virtuoso or becoming a market virtuoso requires an unbelievable degree of skill. It can only be acquired and honed by an extraordinary amount of work, much more than what run of the mill loafers can bring up.

PitchBlack · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from Walther:

After reading this, I am sure that majority of those posted trades were fake, after the fact picked trades .

Watch what i just posted about my ACTUAL trade.

But if you think they are fake, no problem, everybody is free to think what he wants. I see your remark rather as a compliment because it proves that, if it is real, it's remarkable.

Thunderdog · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from spike500:

Itâs not the number of variables that has any importance regarding randomness. Itâs about the UNKNOWN variables...

There is some truth in what you say, but I don't completely agree. Hypothetically (although not realistically), let us say that you know all of the variables that can potentially affect the market. The problem still remains that you may not anticipate the direction of those variables or, equally important, the variable weightings that the collective market will assign to each of those variables on this particular occasion. That is what makes fundamental analysis so unwieldy. Therefore, lesser mortals such as myself resort to simple approximations such as TA (for lack of a better term), seeking to gauge market behavior via price, volume and the like, as a proxy. It can be quite effective, but it is admittedly fairly crude given the relatively few variables that are considered in assessing trade direction in something so dynamic as the market. Therefore, it is anything but flawless. However, your chosen trade examples are nearly flawless.

I will leave it at that. Thank you, and good luck.

PitchBlack · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from kubilai:

Hey spike,

Why don't you start a real-time trade journal here? Obviously the skeptics will remain skeptics (you can never convince them), but at least some of us can ride your coat tails, eh?

I don't want to, you already gave the answer why:the skeptics will remain skeptics (you can never convince them)

In fact the main reason i started this tread was to tell that there are things possible that go beyond what is possible according to some people. So study and try to find the Holy Grail, don't listen to those who always say that this or that is impossible.

Thunderdog · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from nononsense:

There we go again: "randomness" that deadbeaten TA horse. You could equally well apply randomness to golf. It would make as little or as much sense.

The truth is that becoming a golf virtuoso or becoming a market virtuoso requires an unbelievable degree of skill. It can only be acquired and honed by an extraordinary amount of work, much more than what run of the mill loafers can bring up.

Why are you purposely being a turkey? I am not suggesting that good trading cannot overcome the element of randomness and produce profits. I am saying that the element of randomness will always keep trading from being flawless. Mr. Spike's examples are nearly flawless.

Have a nice day.

PitchBlack · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from Thunderdog:

There is some truth in what you say, but I don't completely agree. Hypothetically (although not realistically), let us say that you know all of the variables that can potentially affect the market. The problem still remains that you may not anticipate the direction of those variables or, equally important, the variable weightings that the collective market will assign to each of those variables on this particular occasion. That is what makes fundamental analysis so unwieldy. Therefore, lesser mortals such as myself resort to simple approximations such as TA (for lack of a better term), seeking to gauge market behavior via price, volume and the like, as a proxy. It can be quite effective, but it is admittedly fairly crude given the relatively few variables that are considered in assessing trade direction in something so dynamic as the market. Therefore, it is anything but flawless. However, your chosen trade examples are nearly flawless.

I will leave it at that. Thank you, and good luck.

I respect your point of view. But i cannot give up mine. That's why there are always buyers and sellers, winners and losers.

Good luck

Walther · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from spike500:

Watch what i just posted about my ACTUAL trade.

But if you think they are fake, no problem, everybody is free to think what he wants. I see your remark rather as a compliment because it proves that, if it is real, it's remarkable.

Fake means not generated by your posted so called system . I know very well that there are accurate forecasting and reversal methods able to generate those signals but you never posted any one of those . So that is where fake comes from.

nononsense · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from Walther:

Fake means not generated by your posted so called system . I know very well that there are accurate forecasting and reversal methods able to generate those signals but you never posted any one of those . So that is where fake comes from.

Walther, why don't you post some of your own. We could then believe you when you say that you indeed "know very well" about such things.

Spike would be crazy to tell us anymore about his.

PitchBlack · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from nononsense:

Walther, why don't you post some of your own. We could then believe you when you say that you indeed "know very well" about such things.

Spike would be crazy to tell us anymore about his.

This is not the first time that people try to provoke me in the hope that i would explain more "secrets". But i don't care what they say or think. I already past a long time ago the period where someone tries to get confirmation from others for it's own imagebuilding.
I just trade and sometimes share a part of my years of experience with others.
And i do it for free. If i share it's because i want to share, not because i want money or anything else.

Walther · Jun 14, 2005

Quote from nononsense:

Walther, why don't you post some of your own. We could then believe you when you say that you indeed "know very well" about such things.

Spike would be crazy to tell us anymore about his.

I have posted plenty in my old journals. Those old post brought me recognition by most prestigious members of ET and collaboration with brightest researchers so you might have an idea how little I care if you or others believe me or not . I have proven my expertize on much higher levels .
I was just letting Spike know that I know how he generates his signals and that I know that these posted signals were not generated by system he posted on ET. He is not crazy and neither am I .