Why Can't I Trade with the Trend

OldTrader · Mar 13, 2005

Quote from WAEL012000:

I really belive that there are two types of traders, a trend trader and a reverse trader...You seldomly have a trader who could master both.

How does a "reverse trader" make any money if he doesn't hold for the "trend" following the "reverse"?

OldTrader

vikana · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from ProfLogic:

Since you seem to be unable to post the entire sentence . . . twice, I will do it for you.

"Due to problems with "Theft of Information" and harassment this Website is CLOSED except for current Subscribers. The only new Subscribers given access will be on a referral basis from a current Subscriber or a verified college or graduate school educator."

boo bye

I have asked ProfLogic to tone down references to his site and cut back on the "self promotion". Anyone with interest in promoting services can contact Baron to become a paid sponsor.

Now ... let's get back to the very good original question posed by Flashboy.

WAEL012000 · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from OldTrader:

How does a "reverse trader" make any money if he doesn't hold for the "trend" following the "reverse"?

OldTrader

Good question!

I usually do not care if the position that I take will end up to be a trend for I usually exit based on specific profit targets that ideally corresponds with either the price and volume chart or the median on the "channel linear regression."

I careless if the it continues for another 50 points after my exit.
If it does, I will not beat myself over the lost opportunity, instead, I will be looking for that trend to fade so I could reverse it.

Having me saying that, you really need to know how the smart money like to play their game in particular market you are trading. In my case, it is the NQ and nothing but.

Cheers

Coffeebean · Mar 14, 2005

Nothing helps a trader in doubt quite like 49 pages of suggestions from different styles!! Here's mine: MA's on candlesticks (daily, weekly) for long term, market profile for intra-day and scalping (add splits, it's right there). Success, CB

LoosenUp · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from ProfLogic:

I do . . . if you use that and are satified with it . . . marvelous!

I don't use measurement because randomness can not CALCULATED with any accuracy. I'm saying that when price is trending the current oscillation can have only 4 possible PHYSICAL outcomes.

1 - a Breach of the last resistance or support level (designating the continuation of the trend at least till the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
2 - a Failure to Breach the last resistance or support level (designating the beginning of the end of the trend at least till the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
3- an exact match of the last resistance or support level (designating that price will challenge that specific price level on the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
4 - and FINALLY - a weak breach/weak failure of the last resistance or support level {strickly defining weakness}(designating that price will challenge that specific price level on the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)

It is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for price to do something other than one of these 4 outcomes. At least in this dimension.

Yes, in a sense, price can only do one of the 4 things. But what are you trying to say here? Can you trade profitably knowing that price will do one of the 4 things but not knowing which comes first or the different manifestations of these simple classifications?

nononsense · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from John Merchant:

Equalizer. A lot of ass-muptions buried in that derivation, such as a constant drift and a constand diffusion. Neither of which allow for the fact that a tewn tick change often is followed by a four tick reversal. Help an old man understand your point, please? Is it ridiculous to talk of derivatives of P and V, or not?

John,
Your skepticism is that of any serious mathematician smelling foul odors. Applying common derivation to diffusion processes is nonsense.

Long time ago, people used to treat such problems in a non-rigorous manner. Diffusion and Brownian motion problems have to be treated rigorously by applying 'Stochastic Differential Equations' (Ito).

However, for many such processes, probabilities can be shown to obey partial differential equations in the commonly understood sense.

Equalizer · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from nononsense:

Long time ago, people used to treat such problems in a non-rigorous manner. Diffusion and Brownian motion problems have to be treated rigorously by applying 'Stochastic Differential Equations' (Ito).

Cognitive Dissonace take 2.

Gee thanks for pointing out what I already was referring to in my post, i.e., Ito.

Did you even bother to check out the link before shooting your mouth off like a Cannon?

Here it is again:
http://www.mathserv.okanagan.bc.ca/math/math414/walk/Ito.htm

Anyone interested in rigorous derivations, etc, would be better served by referring to one of the standard texts on Stochastic Processes and Fin Maths, like - for example - Karatzas and Shreve, Billingsley, Shiryaev, etc, etc...

nononsense · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from Equalizer:

Cognitive Dissonace take 2.

Gee thanks for pointing out what I already was referring to in my post, i.e., Ito.

Did you even bother to check out the link before shooting your mouth off like a Cannon?

Here it is again:
http://www.mathserv.okanagan.bc.ca/math/math414/walk/Ito.htm

Anyone interested in rigorous derivations, etc, would be better served by referring to one of the standard texts on Stochastic Processes and Fin Maths, like - for example - Karatzas and Shreve, Billingsley, Shiryaev, etc, etc...

Hi equalizer,

No, my eye fell on John's rightful comment. In my attempt to wade through the mass of prior posts, I missed your shining nugget burried in it.
Sorry to see you so worked up about this. May I be forgiven,

nononsense

hank rollins · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from ProfLogic:

I do . . . if you use that and are satified with it . . . marvelous!

I don't use measurement because randomness can not CALCULATED with any accuracy. I'm saying that when price is trending the current oscillation can have only 4 possible PHYSICAL outcomes.

1 - a Breach of the last resistance or support level (designating the continuation of the trend at least till the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
2 - a Failure to Breach the last resistance or support level (designating the beginning of the end of the trend at least till the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
3- an exact match of the last resistance or support level (designating that price will challenge that specific price level on the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)
4 - and FINALLY - a weak breach/weak failure of the last resistance or support level {strickly defining weakness}(designating that price will challenge that specific price level on the next oscillation at a matching extreme or minor level)

It is a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY for price to do something other than one of these 4 outcomes. At least in this dimension.

the stock will go up, the stock will go down. it is impossible for it to do anything else. anything else, genius ?

i think the "chanelling stock" people and wade cook beat you to this idea by several years.

you are way behind the times.

Equalizer · Mar 14, 2005

Quote from nononsense:

Hi equalizer,

No, my eye fell on John's rightful comment. In my attempt to wade through the mass of prior posts, I missed your shining nugget burried in it.
Sorry to see you so worked up about this. May I be forgiven,

nononsense

Don't give up your day job