Trend Following dying?

<b>An oscillation is a flow of price changing from a maximum (resistance) to a minimum (support).
15 years of objective testing in real time.</b>

Pure untestable BS. Traderbabble of the portfolio dangerous kind.

Sony
 
Quote from sonyericson:

While there is some truth in Jack's post---- what a tremendous amount of complication for such a simple situation.

terrible
More...

There may be a need for me to get my point across on a different level of reasoning.

The higher highS and higher lows for long and vice versa is stupid and senseless. In a word it is terrible and bizarre. If you are a chipomunk, it is kindred to a rotten nut. If you are Trader666, you can test it and think it works. If you are a moderator, you would not move it to chit chat.

Trends begin and end. A trend is onward going when its volume is DOMINANT.

A trend begins, goes forward in three moves: dominant. non dominant and dominant and then it has ended. For a long trend, the first and third portions have higher highs and higher lows.

LOOK AT THE SECOND PORTION. IT IS NON DOMINANT AND MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE AIR HEAD WHO POSTED the stupid sensless definition. BUT IT IS NOT A SHORT TREND. HIS DEFINITION IS FUCKED UP, IN OTHER WORDS. HE DOES NOT KNOW THIS IN ANY WAY OR FORM.

Anyone can, after a while get it straight in his mind that a trend has three moves. He can also figure out that after the intitial move, RETRACE OCCURS, Then the trend resumes in the dominant direction in its third and final movement.

My explanations just happen to be science, problem solving and logic oriented. They are explicit and technical and VERY TRADEABLE TO MAKE UNBELIEVABLE AND ASTONISHING AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

Managed money traders do not know beans about making money by using trends to trade, apparently.

Down and dirty get it straight. Trends can go on a fair amount of time having both higher highs and higher lows AND LOWER HIGHS AND LOWER LOWS IN THE SAME SINGLE THREE PART TRADE.

TRENDS HAVE DOMINANT AND NON DOMINANT MOVES.
A trend is not over until the overlap begins between successive trends.

All of this is codable using logic. It is not codable using inductive probability. Trend following managed money traders prove time after time they are a dumb as the guy who posted the stupid higher high, etc airhead definition.

Are you just as stupid as he is????

Do you make 20% a year or 20% a day????

The two trades I used as an example is an hour of trading that made 25% of conservative margin.

You are giving everyone a big laugh.

No one can use simplistic airhead definitions to be successful in markets.

Trading is KISS.

Look at the two consecutive trades that have OPPOSITE DOMINANCE!!!!!!!! PRESENTLY YOUR MIND IS SO UNDIFFERENTIATED THAT YOU CAN NOT SEE WHEN DOMINANCE SHIFTS FROM ONE SIDE TO ANOTHER. GET WITH IT MENTALLY, NOW, TODAY AND HENCEFORTH. DON'T BE STUPID ANY MORE.

READ MY PRIOR POST 50 TIMES IF YOU HAVE TO, TO BE ABLE TO GET IT!!!!! DON'T BE A CHIPOMUNK!!!!!!
 
Quote from sonyericson:

Whoa, that is seriously harsh. Why the personal attacks?
Back on topic--- you say BAR BASED OSCILLATIONS, not me.
The language tricks, claims and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.
Just admit that you WISH this method worked, or BELIEVE that it works but have no testable proof or even a framework that can be tested.
By the way, based on your description, not mine, the method is simply not testable as it constantly changes and remains vague.
Sony
More...

Harsh . . . yes when you lie. My responses will be harsh.
Personal attacks . . . yes, again when you misrepresent my post as you have always done, I will respond personally.

Here is EXACTLY what I posted.

My definition of "Trend" - A series of 3 or more sequential Constant Volume Bar based defined extreme (Prime) oscillations where those oscillations determine either a Bull Trend (3 sequential extreme oscillation HH's & HL's) or Bear Trend (3 sequential extreme oscillation LL's & LH's). My definition determines my sentiment or strength that price exhibits inside of my defined "Trend".

I didn't say anything about my method not being testable. Again you lie . . . this is why your ass was banned from this site the last time. I see you are shooting for 3 times huh.

Go back to being Neiderhoffer's or Anna's bitch. It is all you are good at.
 
Quote from jack hershey:

There may be a need for me to get my point across on a different level of reasoning.

The higher highS and higher lows for long and vice versa is stupid and senseless. In a word it is terrible and bizarre. If you are a chipomunk, it is kindred to a rotten nut. If you are Trader666, you can test it and think it works. If you are a moderator, you would not move it to chit chat.

Trends begin and end. A trend is onward going when its volume is DOMINANT.

A trend begins, goes forward in three moves: dominant. non dominant and dominant and then it has ended. For a long trend, the first and third portion have higher highs and higher lows.

LOOK AT THE SECOND PORTION. IT IS NON DOMINANT AND MEETS THE DEFINITION OF THE AIR HEAD WHO POSTED IT. BUT IT IS NOT A SHORT TREND. HIS DEFINITION IS FUCKED UP, IN OTHER WORDS. HE DOES NOT KNOW THIS IN ANY WAY OR FORM.

Anyone can, after a while get it straight in his mind that a trend has three moves. He can also figure out that after the intitial move, RETRACE OCCURS, Then the trend resumes in the dominant direction in its third and final movement.

My explanations just happen to be science, problem solving and logic oriented. They are explicit and technical and VERY TRADEABLE TO MAKE UNBELIEVABLE AND ASTONISHING AMOUNTS OF MONEY.

Managed money traders do not know beans about making money by using trends to trade, apparently.

Down and dirty get it straight. Trends can go on a fair amount of time having both higher highs and higher lows AND LOWER HIGHS AND LOWER LOWS IN THE SAME SINGLE THREE PART TRADE.

TRENDS HAVE DOMINANT AND NON DOMINANT MOVES.
A trend is not over until the overlap begins between successive trends.

All of this is codable using logic. It is not codable using inductive probability. Trend following manage money traders prove time after time they are a dumb as the guy eho posted the stupid higher high, etc airhard definition.

Are you just as stupid as he is????

Do you make 20% a year or 20% a day????

The two trades I used as an example is an hour of trading that made 25% of conservative margin.

You are giving everyone a big laugh.

No one can use simplistic airhead definitions to be successful in markets.

Trading is KISS.

Look at the two consecutive trades that have OPPOSITE DOMINANCE!!!!!!!!

READ MY PRIOR POST 50 TIMES IF YOU HAVE TO, TO BE ABLE TO GET IT!!!!! DON'T BE A CHIPOMUNK!!!!!!
More...


Interesting, to say the least.

Are you talking about ProfLogic as the Airhead??
 
dead_thread.jpg
 
Quote from sonyericson:

<b>An oscillation is a flow of price changing from a maximum (resistance) to a minimum (support).
15 years of objective testing in real time.</b>

Pure untestable BS. Traderbabble of the portfolio dangerous kind.

Sony
More...

I offered to show you the testing data in person many times before but you bitched up each time.
Here's another offer.
You have my phone number on the card I gave you.
I'll even buy you a plane ticket you worthless hack.
 
Quote from makloda:

dead_thread.jpg
More...

As soon as Marketsurfer showed his ass up . . . the thread could only go in one direction.

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a raving ignoramus participating in the thread.
 
Quote from sonyericson:

Interesting, to say the least.

Are you talking about ProfLogic as the Airhead??
More...

LOL FUNNY...

Go back through the thread and find the airhead who posted what you use.

Prof is using a good system based on market profile. Proflogic stands for profile logic. It is possible that that zoomed too high in the sky for you to catch it.

People have a great deal of difficulty realizing it is time to begin thinking and building their minds. Maybe you cannot get you mind organized. But if you can drive a car and maintain insurance, then you have proven you can operate mentally in society on an acceptable level regarding driving a car.

You aren't reading markets however and neither is the airhead or the OP.

Fifth graders are good at differentiating market dominance and trending. They can operate rulers and crayons and run simple calculators.

Don't take my posts too seriously. Making 25% of capital an hour is not for most people since their minds are just guessing all the time and their minds are totally undifferentiated and instead filled with myths, etc.

Have a laugh and dismiss the opportunity to get rich fast.
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

As soon as Marketsurfer showed his ass up . . . the thread could only go in one direction.

It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a raving ignoramus participating in the thread.
More...

Marketsurfer isnt on this thread and has been banned from elite.

Too bad, cause I liked to see him kick your butt in these stupid arguments.
 
Quote from sonyericson:

Marketsurfer isnt on this thread and has been banned from elite.

Too bad, cause I liked to see him kick your butt in these stupid arguments.
More...

Wow, you are a truly a narcissist.

Grammar matching (data matching) software says that you are David Goodboy aka Marketsurfer.

Same signature.
Same verbiage (verbal garbage).
Same verbal mannerisms.
Same word usage.

Of course . . . as usual . . . software is wrong . . . Dave is always right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top