An experiment

[rathcoole_exile]

you're right no doubt about it, and I was kinda just teasing you (I don't have enough enemies already )

but I'm kinda intrigued by Singh's theory. It's similar in a way to the way I trade where I plan in advance the trigger points at which I will go Long and Short and, in theory, stick to the plan for the day come what may.
Although I do adjust my targets/stops with the main trend in mind, so the Long target may be < or > than the Short target, or vice versa.

So good on ye Singh, I'll be following with interest ...

 

[Technically Fundamental]

Thats what I mean rathcoole

each trade would have to be kept and managed individually.

tbh i think it could be a good learing exercise if you have money to burn

 

[rathcoole_exile]

if i had to pick one filter that would determine how to play Singh's trades, I'd probably opt for Toby Crabel's Stretch - so depending on where price is at each hourly interval vis a vis the Stretch, may influence the way I play the trade.
as you rightly say, if the coin determines the direction, you could still manage each individual trade within defined parameters.

interesting ......

 

[Technically Fundamental]

Think about like this... every trader experiences losses so its f__kin 50/50 anyway when you click long or short lol

Also maybe that folowing trade thing i suggested is ******** because imagine the markets turns against you and you keep the trade open for a turn around... you could get stopped out by some mad means for a manually increased loss. Thats just madness lol.

 

[rathcoole_exile]

Think about like this... every trader experiences losses so its f__kin 50/50 anyway when you click long or short lol

if one can't accept that only 2 or 3 trades out of 10 will be small winners, and that 2 or 3 will be scratched for even and that 3 or 4, even 5 will be losers, with possibly only 1 in 10 trades being "payday" then one shouldn't even consider trading .......

 

[TheBramble]

Okay what if its directly after a retracement or bounce... would you still go long? or the double bottom is hourly at at a newly formed formed resistance turned support or at a new low after some bad news? would you still go short?

What's so difficult about this? The guy doesn't want to assimilate ANY trading related information into his trading decision-making process. Totally random. It's an experiment.

That you, I, or anyone else thinks it wont work is quite beside the point.

Providing his stop-size * probability of stop being hit is less than the target-size * probability of target being hit, he’ll make money.

If he manages the absolute size of stop and target to within the dynamic context of the underlying price action to ensure he gets a reasonable number of trades off, the random nature of the directional selection will, providing formula above it met, yield him a profit.

While I wouldn’t bet the ranch on Monte Carlo simulations, I’ve run many millions of combos on this and subject to caveats alluded to in my earlier posts, it’s not so dumb – in the timeframes he is suggesting.

Look, I’ve been playing this system on a demo account for EURUSD for coming up to 4 hours now. It’s very, very humorous. It’s actually done better than my live side.

 

[MrGecko]

Think about like this... every trader experiences losses so its f__kin 50/50 anyway when you click long or short lol

At any time you enter the position, the liklihood is that the price will reach A before B if A < B.

I mean, the skill of technical trading is finding the times when there is an imbalance between the liklihood of the stop being hit before the target.

 

[10pips]

[deleted comment]

 

[Technically Fundamental]

At any time you enter the position, the liklihood is that the price will reach A before B if A < B.

What? So you're saying odds are always in your favour if you short?

 

[MrGecko]

What? So you're saying odds are always in your favour if you short?

eerrr... no.

Think about it; you are picking two distances that price has to travel - either XX distance to your stop, or YY distance to your target. You are deciding which way they are on the flip of a coin.

It is more likely that the nearer distance will be met (i.e. the stop) before the longer distance (target).

 

[Technically Fundamental]

oh distance lol

i thought you were talking about price

 

[TheBramble]

[…]the skill of technical trading is finding the times when there is an imbalance between the liklihood of the stop being hit before the target.

It may be that this is why this topic has received such personal and heated responses.

It’s a complete effrontery to the thousands of hours of research and screen-time, the hundreds, possibly thousands of books read, the millions of bulletin board posts, the technical analyses, fundamental analyses, X-Market analyses and all the many thousands of reasons we have been ‘taught’ to understand why price does what it does.

To imagine a monkey throwing a dart or a fool flipping a coin could make money in any market without having gone through all those tortures is morally and psychologically unacceptable.

However, given the random nature of the markets, any market, at the lower timeframes, the closer you get to the unforgiving minute, the more the market’s movement approximates pure, random noise. What better tool to look at attacking this beastie with than a dose of its own random medicine.

Detecting imbalances in the likelihood of the target being hit before the stop may well encapsulate the ultimate definition of what technical analysis is all about. But if 95% fail at that endeavour; don’t you wonder why even random chance (50/50?) would appear to do better than the most avid, eager, enthusiastic, educated and intelligent tyro trader?

I’m glad the majority, so far, think this was a dumb question. It gives me much hope.

 

[Technically Fundamental]

maybe with a trailing stop... otherwise

all i msaying is there is no technical basis for it... its random chance. It cant be consistantly profitable in a system which can be influenced by the rest of the world.

 

[rathcoole_exile]

To imagine a monkey throwing a dart or a fool flipping a coin could make money in any market without having gone through all those tortures is morally and psychologically unacceptable.

/QUOTE]

i do ok

 

[SSINGH]

SSingh, You may as well fall off some stairs hit your head and come back and re-work your method

This wont work at all.

do you wana bet????

 

[kellygreen]

do you wana bet????

when is the experiment going to take place, I would like to know the results.

 

[SSINGH]

when is the experiment going to take place, I would like to know the results.

i'm travelling right now....will start the experiment when i get back.

 

[price777999]

However, given the random nature of the markets, any market, at the lower timeframes, the closer you get to the unforgiving minute, the more the market’s movement approximates pure, random noise. What better tool to look at attacking this beastie with than a dose of its own random medicine.

if using a random entry ,how can the timeframe have any significance ?

 

[TheBramble]

if using a random entry ,how can the timeframe have any significants ?

That was precisely my point.

In the lower timeframes, there is more noise than intent. More random than not. From a Daily, Weekly - even and hourly chart - you can assign major moves and pullbacks to specific design and intent.

On a 5 min chart you're just seeing the balance of aggregate short-term speculation. Take a look at today’s Cable (currently 16:45 CET) from 4963 down to 4834 and then back up to the level it was 12 hours ago. The longer term players wont even register that blip.

For those actively trading these TFs though, they will have made/lost money on both/either of those legs.

Is anyone brave enough to suggest a Grand Design in that? The only piece of potentially Cable moving data today was US Homes & Construction at 16:00 CET. Which just happened to coincide with the cap on the up move. Some (needing a rationale of some kind) might suggest this was the ‘cause’. Others would say it just ran out of steam. Still others would say, with the reality of lighter trading from London today, it wouldn’t take much to spook the steer one way and then the other. They are each as incorrect as the other.

There was no design or purpose.

Or, if there was, but if you treated it as a totally random series of events, you probably did no worse than those who thought they could discern a basis for each and every move.

 

[price777999]

Is anyone brave enough to suggest a Grand Design in that?

well if you were trading test and retests of fork lines it would have made some sense .
im no expert but a little bit brave :cheesy: