The Surf Report
- Thread starter marketsurfer
- Start date
- Status
you are being silly, bobby. no need to defend myself, but i will take pity on you, since you are new, and explain step by step----
the channel system has been documented on this journal since 2002. entry is made when the channel is broken in the direction of the break--- i can't hold your hand on every trade--13103 was the upper channel figure, entry was made automatically when 13103 is broken by the system parameters as it has been since 1999, and documented here since 2002--- why would this time be any different??
surf
Quote from Lamont_C:
Hey, maybe he'll make up at least partially for all his losses on shorts.
LC
hopefully.
surf
Quote from Spooz Top:
funny how someone can find something posted by someone else....then rename it & call it their own....
Oh, you idiot, that is the same thing I just didn't punctuate it correctly. Got it?
Now for the record for those who can't follow Surf's entries although at this time they were rather straigthforward, he lost 130 pts on the first entry and currently is up 200 pts from 13100. That is 70 pts gain, nothing to write home about....
Smurf got stopped out with a bad loss. Then posted a level he thought might be good to buy. Then after it blows through the level by 100 points he claims he got long. Way after the fact. Any real trader can see right through his bs. It must be easy to trade in surf's fantasyland where you can say you are in a position after it has moved in your favor. This thread really is a joke as he lies consistently. The fact is he is a bad trader with no money management. Anyone who believes this latest trade (love the edit on his post where he adds in the next day that it is a full position) is beyond gullible. He has zero credibility and has to use aliases as cheerleaders. Magna should really get rid of this thread.
No surfer, the system has nothing to do with it. The specific question is why wait until the next morning (and after the futures show a much higher opening) to announce your re-entry?? Why not post it anytime on 9/10, when you had 8 hours after the market closed to disclose that you had actually re-entered.
Quote from Wayne Gibbous:
Just ran into some older posts...
Pabst: "I heard that Niederhoffer's Matador fund is having trouble and he's closing it."
Marketsurfer: "This is a complete lie and fabrication. Nothing is wrong with VN or Matador."
Marketsurfer: "Okay. I'll break the news. Some large investors pulled out and VN is closing Matador."
Baron: "I talked to Vic and he is not closing Matador. No investors pulled out. Everything is a lie."
Marketsurfer: "[nothing]"
To anyone reading these threads they would think that:
1. You are clueless.
2. Or a liar and just make stuff up.
3. Or you are not a "spec" at all and just made up that association with VN's group.
I like ya Surfy, but why should anybody believe what you say?
Let me give you an example, hopefully youâll be able to grasp and apply it. Consider the following:
Markets and minds are quite similar if you look at market movements within a limited timeframe, <i>and use a large imagination</i>. The mind, a bright one at least, is constantly thinking and can be thought of as a tweaking and critiquing processing machine. Consider an elementary thought that after being processed and altered becomes a more substantial and accurate one, which can then be acted on. These thoughts are constantly going thru the machine and changing. Obviously, not every thought is acted on since if it keeps going thru the machine it can be tweaked and made more efficient. A thought that is acted on, or relayed, before it has been tweaked or perfected - an inefficient thought; contains errors that are not known until after an efficient thought is released.
In the markets, consider thoughts to be prices and the tweaking and critiquing to be (new) information being impounded into prices. The price keeps going thru a machine (here you can think of the machine as trades) that perfects it based on available information. The most efficient price contains information for a price movement, after the modifications have occurred, and every other price then becomes inefficient. If you make a trade without all information, you get a less efficient price, which is only realized after an efficient price is reached.
Knowing this, isnât it quite possible that the thought relayed to surf (since we know they are personal friends, as surf appears on the spec list site) was not the most efficient, yet was not realized to be inefficient until an efficient one was finally reached? In other words, the price surf entered on had informational asymmetries? Perhaps someone from VNâs side did some last minute tweaking, which quickly happened to change surfâs efficient information to an inefficient set.
- Status