| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · NEVER LOSE AGAIN!! | << 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 ... 105 >>Post Follow-up |
| Eman93 4,750 posts msg #81151 - Ignore Eman93 |
10/15/2009 6:40:42 PM Rats didnt invent the stock market.....not the furry kind anyway. |
| Kevin_in_GA 4,599 posts msg #81253 - Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
10/16/2009 1:54:11 PM TRO: Been reviewing this thread. I can't day trade right now, but really like this approach, and decided to paper trade this for a bit to see if I get it. Problem 1. Do not have access to a platform that would draw these lines - using trademonster paper trading account right now, which is VERY limited in its capabilities. Had to "visualize" the lines. Will work on this and get better capabilities. You have written the following rules: 1. Use a 1 minute chart for the first 15 minutes of the day. CHECK. 2. ALWAYS FADE THE GAP YOUR FIRST TRADE. CHECK (I think). Today the price gapped down, opening at 189.25 and dropping quickly through the first 5 minutes. I couldn't get in right at the open, so I waited until I saw three consecutive green candles (at 9:38 AM, and I got in long at 188.73). Also need to have my trades set up and ready to go at the press of a button, as you do. 3. LONG TRIGGER IS OPEN + $.10 TO + $.20 NO CHECK (I think) I used your count to three rule to enter long once I saw the price stop dropping and begin to rebound. Technically a violation of your rules. Sorry. 4. SHORT TRIGGER IS OPEN - $.10 TO - $.20 (MISSED THIS - DID NOT SHORT THE OPEN) 5. EXIT WHEN YOU SEE PRICE WEAKEN IN THE DIRECTION YOU ARE TRADING. NO CHECK . I set a price target which was hit before there was any real weakening of the price. Technically I violated this one as well. 6. If price goes up a DOLLAR and it stops... EXIT! TAKE THE MONEY OFF THE TABLE. THIS IS SCALPING. CHECK Set a profit stop at 189.80, which was hit at 9:56 AM (18 minutes later). Boy, you are right when you compare this to a video game. Interesting though. I only paper traded 100 shares, so the net was ~$100. Pretty good for the time at risk. Not a great job of internalizing and following your rules, though. Hence the paper trading to get a feel for how this all comes together. Thanks for posting this, and for the illustrative graphs showing the trades - makes it easier to follow your process and thinking (or lack of thinking, to be more precise - REACTING is more like it). |
| stratiG 147 posts msg #81262 - Ignore stratiG |
10/16/2009 2:30:58 PM Kevin_in_GA You can download NinjaTrader and use it for free, but you will need a data feed. I have the code for NT and will e-mail it to you. stratiG |
| Kevin_in_GA 4,599 posts msg #81265 - Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
10/16/2009 3:19:55 PM Kevin_mcgrath at comcast dot net. Thanks! |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #81275 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
10/16/2009 4:56:06 PM So nice to see traders helping traders!! |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #81276 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
10/16/2009 4:56:56 PM Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson When highly verbal people get control of the audit process, they tend to make five critical mistakes: * They write verbal auditing standards that are too subjective and vague, with requirements like "minimal use of electric prod" and "non-slip flooring." Individual inspectors have to figure out for themselves what "minimal use" means. A good audit checklist has objective standards that anyone can see have or have not been met. * For some reason, highly verbal people have a tendency to measure inputs, such as maintenance schedules, employee training records, and equipment design problems, instead of outputs, which is how the animals are actually doing. A good animal welfare audit has to measure the animals, not the plant. * Highly verbal people almost always want to make the audit way too complicated. A 100-item checklist doesn't work nearly as well as a 10-item checklist, and I can prove it. * Verbal people drift into paper audits, in which they audit a plant's records instead of its animals. A good animal welfare audit has to audit the animals, not the paper and not the plant. * Verbal people tend to lose sight of what's important and end up treating small problems the same way they treat big problems. Page 268 - 269 Animals in Translation ==================== Sounds like these same people also write trading systems. |
| Kevin_in_GA 4,599 posts msg #81304 - Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
10/17/2009 7:53:04 PM TRO: Still learning this one, so hopefully a few questions worth answering (and yes, I have read this thread several times, as well as others you have on using this for Forex). My first question is this - would an equally correct definition of a cow be one that can be regularly milked for 1% profit each day? Looking at AAPL, making 1% is a challenge based on the share price. A cow could as easily be defined as a stock that frequently gaps up/down, and then fills that gap, and also has a decent day range above and below the open price - why not screen for stocks that always gap up/down by a minimum percentage (say 0.5%), but usually move up/down by 1+% each day. guaranteeing the gap is filled? My second question is this - why is the buy zone a set amount in cents, versus a set percentage of the open? Example: Yesterday's AAPL play - open was $189.25, buy zone was $0.40. Going back to when AAPL was trading in the $80ish range, the buy zone was still $0.40. It is always $0.40, regardless of the value of the cow being milked. Why is this not scaled to the stock price? The current MTC scan looks only at stocks that frequently move $0.50, rather than, say 1%. A 50 cent move on AAPL right now is only about 0.25%. at $0.40, the entire Buy Zone was only 0.21% of the stock price. If the buy zone were set based on a percentage of the open price (say, 0.1-0.2% in each direction) then one could work with lower priced stocks that don't have to regularly hit 50 cents as the "cow" criterion. I am not disputing the success of the system - quite the opposite. What I am trying to do is understand if the system can be played on lower priced stocks. My trade yesterday on AAPL had me make ~$1 per share - a good trade by MTC standards. However, I had to put $19,000 into play to get $100 back. If I had put the same amount in CNO (opened at 6.76) and used a 0.02 cent trigger on either side, I would have made almost 5 times as much by 10 AM. Just asking to understand, not challenge. Kevin |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #81310 - Ignore TheRumpledOne |
10/17/2009 9:49:45 PM A further complication One further complication of seeing needs mentioning. The eyes gather visual information by constantly scanning the environment. But visual data from "out there," gathered by sight, is not the end of the story. At least part, and perhaps much of what we see is changed, interpreted, or conceptualized in ways that depend on a person's training, mind-set, and past experiences. We tend to see what we expect to see or what we decide we have seen. This expectation or decision, however, often is not a conscious process. Instead, the brain frequently does the expecting and the deciding, without our conscious awareness, and then alters or rearranges?or even simply disregards?the raw data of vision that hits the retina. Learning perception through drawing seems to change this process and to allow a different, more direct kind of seeing. The brain's editing is somehow put on hold, thereby permitting one to see more fully and perhaps more realistically. This experience is often moving and deeply affecting. My students' most frequent comments after learning to draw are "Life seems so much richer now" and "I didn't realize how much there is to see and how beautiful things are." This new way of seeing may alone be reason enough to learn to draw. The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain http://www.4shared.com/file/109993404/6ec80112/The_New_Drawing_on_the_Right_Side_of_the_Brain.html |
| TheRumpledOne 6,529 posts msg #81311 - Ignore TheRumpledOne modified |
10/17/2009 9:54:42 PM My first question is this - would an equally correct definition of a cow be one that can be regularly milked for 1% profit each day? No. My second question is this - why is the buy zone a set amount in cents, versus a set percentage of the open? Because that is the way I designed it. If price moves X cents, what are the statistical probabilities it will move Y cents. RUN FOREST, RUN was designed for percent changes. MILKING THE COWS is for INCOME GENERATION. Trading 1000 shares, you make $100 for every 10 cent movement in your direction. $400/day * 250 trading days/year = $100k/year. RUN FOREST, RUN is for AGGRESSIVE GROWTH. Compounding your account by 2% or more per day will make you rich. I am not disputing the success of the system - quite the opposite. What I am trying to do is understand if the system can be played on lower priced stocks. I DO NOT ADVISE USING LOWER PRICED STOCKS DUE TO VOLATILITY, VOLUME AND RANGE considerations. It always amazes me how people want to change something BEFORE they master it. |
| Kevin_in_GA 4,599 posts msg #81332 - Ignore Kevin_in_GA |
10/18/2009 10:00:41 AM My first question is this - would an equally correct definition of a cow be one that can be regularly milked for 1% profit each day? No. (Kevin pokes the bear with a sharp stick) - Why not? Other than the pedantic view that "it is not a cow because it is not AAPL or RIMM", can you explain why a daily $1 move on AAPL makes it a good "cow" but a 1% move on another stock does not qualify it for the same status? My second question is this - why is the buy zone a set amount in cents, versus a set percentage of the open? Because that is the way I designed it. If price moves X cents, what are the statistical probabilities it will move Y cents. RUN FOREST, RUN was designed for percent changes. So the difference is in definition (cent versus percent) - if a stock statisitcally moves 50 cents a day, regardless of its stock price, it is a COW, and if it moves 1% a day or more, it is a RFR stock? MILKING THE COWS is for INCOME GENERATION. Trading 1000 shares, you make $100 for every 10 cent movement in your direction. $400/day * 250 trading days/year = $100k/year. Every trade I make is for income generation - at least that is my goal when I hit the button. However, I don't have $200K to trade every day on AAPL. I am looking to take the simplicity and statistical edge seen in MTC and adapt it to my limits and goals. I am not disputing the success of the system - quite the opposite. What I am trying to do is understand if the system can be played on lower priced stocks. I DO NOT ADVISE USING LOWER PRICED STOCKS DUE TO VOLATILITY, VOLUME AND RANGE considerations. Understood. It always amazes me how people want to change something BEFORE they master it. I knew asking questions regarding adapting this strategy would evoke this response. You are correct in that I am nowhere near mastering any strategy yet, as I am still trying to master my trading behaviors - until that is done, I put my monies at risk with every trade. Hopefully you'll be willing to continue a dialogue on this? |
| StockFetcher Forums · General Discussion · NEVER LOSE AGAIN!! | << 1 ... 67 68 69 70 71 ... 105 >>Post Follow-up |
Copyright 2022 - Vestyl Software L.L.C.•Terms of Service | License | Questions or comments? Contact Us
EOD Data sources: DDFPlus & CSI Data
Quotes delayed during active market hours. Delay times are at least 15 mins for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and Amex. Delayed intraday data provided by DDFPlus