7thSignalTrader
Well-known member
- Messages
- 351
- Likes
- 7
WisestGuy
“you are sounding stupid now . if I make certain claims about trading then I would back it up by providing proof in the way of trading statements . which part of that don't you understand ?”
------------------
That’s what you would do. That’s not what a sane and rational human being would do. Why would anybody pay attention to that which can be so easily falsified? Your live trades on the other hand cannot be falsified. Think about it, maybe one of these decades it will sink in.
“it is re-inventing the wheel”
----------------
That was the most telling statement coming from you of all. You just told the designer of a “thing” that YOU know more about the “thing” than he does. How much more irrational can this become? You don’t understand one scrap of what it took to build this project – yet – you somehow “know” all about it. That’s only possible if you were God – which you are not – so the statement is highly irrational.
“HAHAHAHA . listen to this crap guys . how many of you can believe a guy about " trading technology " who is arguing against the wright brothers and manned flight ? next thing you know , he'll be saying that he's in the flat earth society.”
-----------------
I can see that there is severe shortage of reading and comprehension skills on this board? Arguing against the Wright Brothers? That was a very succinctly put analogy (look the word up in the dictionary) that used YOUR false premise that prior-knowledge was necessary before progress could be made within the human race.
It was YOUR premise that “many people” needed to “already” have experienced high accuracy and high profitability trading with risk in check – before – such a trading technology could ever exist. You implied that since no one was reporting high profitability minus the implied high risk, that such a thing could not exist. That was your argument - remember? Or, have you conveniently forgotten?
Thus, I made it abundantly clear to you, that your premise was flawed, by using several analogies from human history that showed human progress being made without the benefit of broad spectrum knowledge and/or broad spectrum experience throughout human society. This exposed your premise as being unable to hold water and it showed that your dog won’t hunt.
In your world, a thing cannot exist – before YOU have evidence of its existence. Are you familiar with the Causality Principle? Or, the Deterministic Model? You don’t seem to be able to keep up here.
“And the fact is that trading and trading claims are unique in that they mean nothing until they proven exactly as they claim.”
-----------------
I agree. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China. My original intent was to post the live trades which speak for themselves. However, it was people like YOU that blew that opportunity for everyone else. Now, you are on some irrational bent that is not cogent to the facts that were being discussed. You state the painfully obvious here, as though it somehow makes a relevant point.
Proof does not come in the form of an electronic document that can be altered – period. The best form of “proof”, are un-modifiable and traceable elements of the claim being made. No element of the claim can be proven without market data. So, who in their right mind would want to exclude such evidence that allows for the appropriate tracking of the claim. Only somebody trying to hide something would want to exclude such data. The data is at the heart of the claim itself – so it is illogical to exclude it from the process. The live trade signal would have been traceable, verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, and un-modifiable using live data in real-time.
Any attempt to argue against such logic is futile. Your proof is ONLY as strong as the source from which is comes. The source ANY electronic or paper Brokers Statement comes from YOU. The source of a live trade result comes directly from the MARKET. I’ll take the market’s explanation of the success of a trade signal over YOUR electronic statement any day of the week. Why? Because the source cannot be faked.
This is ironclad logic that you cannot escape – period.
“pseudo intellectual BS. I asked for hard proof for your extravagant claims , that's all , I stand by it .”
---------------------
NO you did not! You did much more than that. You implied that because “many people” (your words not mine) were not “reporting” high accuracy trading results absent accounting for risk, that it could not be done. Pure and simple. That is light years away from simply asking for proof of results. Or, don’t you know the difference?
Now, you try to claim that all you ask for is proof. However, this is not what you initially claimed. You are changing your story as you type. You specifically implied that it could not be done simply because large numbers of people were not reporting such results. And, that is clearly a shallow understanding of how the world works. Not everybody trades using the same tools – so just because “people” in your mind, don’t report the results that I am personally seeing, does not make my results flawed, or non-existent. That is a very narrow minded world view in my opinion – that before a thing can exist, YOU must have the proof of its existence.
In other words, nothing exists in this world without Wisestguy’s knowledge of its existence. Do you realize that this sets you up to be god? Talk about haughty.
“there you go , flattering yourself again . I don't know your so called technology and I DON"T want to know . is that clear ? no matter how much sales hype and self proclaimed expertise you profess , it ain't gonna work .”
------------------
Its not flattery – its fact. You don’t know what you are talking about, yet you blow you lips as though you do. Furthermore, I am not here to please you or get your approval. Your opinion about my work is moot at best and meaningless on average. And, you continued predilection for the irrelevant never ceases to amaze me. Your ability to get it wrong instead of right is also amazing. No one is selling anything. Your assumptive jump the gun attitude told you that, but no one else ever did. Nothing is for sell, or ever was for sell – and the intelligence readers among us already understand that.
As far as my expertise is concerned – you are correct. I am an expert when it comes to the trading technology that I’ve built. You are not. Therefore, you know not what you talk about – period. But, I will place my trading knowledge up against yours any day of the week – granted. If you are trading with conventional TA then I already know your flaws and weaknesses and I already know why you fail more times than you succeed in the Forex. That’s because I’ve done the homework and paid the dues.
All the jealousy in the world won’t change these facts. Get over it.
“in trading there is only 1 kind of risk and that is how much money you can lose . all systems have to effectively account for it , so far you have demonstrated nothing of the sort .”
-------------------
Then that says a massive amount about what you really know in this business. Risk is one of the most variable things in trading. With my trading technology, I can adjust what I term the FR2F (Forward Relative Risk Factor) an it could change the entire approach to the trade, or it can take a valid Trade Signal and turn it into an Invalid Trade Signal. That’s the difference between what you trade with and what I trade with.
I use a completely new and different technology that changes the rules that conventional TA practitioners are familiar with. The FR2F is a built-in component of the system and therefore, I get specific output parameters that show me where the best trade opportunity resides. The FR2F Module provides 10 inputs into the Probability Module, so the probability statement that appears on my screen has the risk factors built-in. So, when I walk into a trade, I know with a high degree of Probability what the outcome will be and what the potential risk will be and it is NOT the same “1 kind” that you so incorrectly stated above.
This is fully integrated technology based on years of research, design, testing and engineering, not some piecemeal lumping together of a few conventional technical indicators that work only under certain restricted market conditions. This trading technology is alive. It has a pulse, a respiration rate, brain waves and a logical structure. This application LEARNS as it moves through time.
And you got it wrong again: There was a clear demonstration of its capability but you ignored the 266% net return, so that you could focus on the completely irrelevant issues of the day - namely, trying to talk negatively about a technology that you can’t possibly understand.
“AH , THANK YOU , I KNEW YOU WOULD HANG YOURSELF SOONER OR LATER . THIS KIND OF " RISK " CONTROL IS WAY TOO LOOSE , ANOTHER NAME FOR IT, IS GAMBLING.”
-------------------
Way to lose for who - YOU?
Not too lose for me and not too lose for this trading system. That’s my point, here. You don’t understand enough to talk about this technology intelligently. You then go off the deep end thinking that you some how found your “eureka” by claiming that “risk controls are too lose”.
You have no idea how silly you sound, do you? You are trying to argue that which you know nothing about – that’s silly.
If you knew how this trading technology worked and if you knew how the Revenue Model that I use worked, then you would also know the risk factors are BUILT INTO THE TRADE PROFILE ITSELF. LOL!
You just don’t get it and I don’t have the time, nor the inclination to share it with you. Suffice it to say that what I do, would blow your mind along the line or “risk”. I don’t see “risk” the same way you do, because I DON”T HAVE TO. You on the other hand have to be dreadfully concerned what you label as “risk”, because you cannot produce a Probability Statement for each trade that reflects the historical and empirical facts of any given currency pair. So, if you cannot produce a Probability Statement before you enter the trade as part of the Trade Profile itself, then you have no idea how to even begin to understand what I’m doing, or how I do it.
Got it? Risk is based on Accuracy and Probability. When you can trade more effectively, more accurately, more consistently, and with pre-stated Probabilities, THEN you will come to understand how the “risk” factors change. Until you get that, you won’t understand this.
“if I have make 200% on my last winner , I could lose it all in the next trade, what kind of risk control is that ? better off playing Black Jack . And this is your so called technology ? HA !”
------------------
Very simple. It is the kind of Risk Factor that you don’t understand – period. I “your mind”, YOU are “risking” 200%. In my actual trade, I’m never risking 200%. But, you don’t get that point – that goes in one ear and right out the other – you don’t see it and therefore you don’t understand it. Read the above answer again on how risk factors are built into my trade profiles and converted into Probability Statements, and maybe then you will start to “see” things “clearly”. Right, now – you are in a severe fog.
I tie Risk to Probability in a very unique way. It is one (1) of over 150+ mathematical constructs within this trading technology. This trading technology is built on the concept of synergies between modules. One module is logically and physically linked to the other. The concept that you call “risk” has been thoroughly modified with the development of this trading technology.
It is NEW and therefore it is OUT OF THE BOX THINKING. You cannot remain in your conventional BOX and have a snow-balls chance of understanding this. There is nothing conventional about this technology - period. And, that is a big reason why you don’t understand half the things I type.
“in other words you are making a claim . well , you may not be a good trader but I tell you what - you certainly win the prize for coming up with the most long winded crap .”
-------------------
You are so wrong headed that you make it difficult to communicate with you. You twist things way out of proportion and you assume far too much. You then make these massive leaps on logic that I never made.
I specifically said (for the 1 billionth time) that was seeking feedback in a specific format and for a specific purpose. Why that easy to understand fact escapes you is beyond me. Secondly, your obvious distain for me is apparently deeply rooted in your obvious jealousy. You completely ignored the Weekly Parameters that were given on this forum. You completely ignored the 266% net return that came as a direct result of the Trade Signal given in that Weekly Parameter. And, now you throw insults simply because you cannot argue that the trade was unsuccessful.
It’s your party – you can fail if you want to.
“I don't think you're nuts , I think you're scared because it will reveal that you cannot live up to your claims.”
---------------------
You read like a repetitious fool. I continuously have to correct your misstatements and I continually have to direct your attention to the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades that were given to you on a silver platter. You continually pretend that 266% net gain was not made, and you continually pretend that the target was struck within 11 pips exactly as the Parameter post indicated it would.
You don’t fool or convince any intelligent being on this forum – that you really know what’s going on. You ask for personal financial documents that YOU have never put forth and NEVER will put forth. Yet, you cannot seem to understand the fact that electronic documents can be doctored, while Live Market Data cannot. You ignore, yet again, this massively inarguable fact. Why? Because if you cannot argue the facts, all you have left are these red herrings and non-sequitur underpinnings that lack relevance to the issue at hand.
Did the Parameters given work out as stated – or not? It really is just that simple. Everything else you say is moot.
“The fact is a broker statement ( as mine did ) can very easily come via email , and that cannot be altered if you copy and paste straight to the webpage .”
---------------------
And, that CSV file that comes to you via email can then by placed directly into your desktop scanner and altered until you little hearts content. So, you claim that the Brokers Statement cannot be altered simply because it gets delivered to your mail client, is really more of a showing about just how little you do know about “technology”.
BTW – My last “j.o.b” was as a Systems Engineer and I worked in the Enterprise Software Industry for 10 years (Oracle, Actuate, Hyperion). Therefore, I understand just a little bit about “hi-technology” especially when it comes to computers and software. So, save it for somebody that you can fool – please. That dog won’t hunt here.
“a post is a post . what bloody proof have you got that you actually made that trade within the parameters that you claimed?”
---------------------
I think this is why you are so hung-up on not getting the point here. The issue is not whether or not ”I” personally make the trades. Who cares what I do - that’s not important. What is important is whether or not the trading system get it right or wrong! This is your biggest hang-up. This whole thing was never about me, nor was it ever about you, or anybody else for that matter. The focus was supposed to be on the TECHNOLOGY, not any particular human being.
I don’t make the Trade Calls – period. I built the Trading Application to take care of that for me. I “authorize” the trade that the technology calls out. I make the final go/no go decision. The trading technology generates that Signal, not me and not you. So, the ONLY thing that was supposed to have been tested and verified is the trading system itself.
This is why you are so stuck on red herrings.
“I could sit down and post 50 different trades a day on whatever electronic forum, and nobody would know if I actually traded them, unless I show my statements.”
-------------------
It is not about YOU. It is about the Technology. Hello! How many times must I repeat myself? YOU are not at issue here – and neither am I. Was the Trade Call Accurate? THAT is the ONLY question that matters.
“you just try to stiffle all opinion countering your claims, by posting masses of BS , in the hope we cannot keep up. got news for you , took me 5 minutes.”
---------------------
You are not countering any claim – because no “claim” was made. The only thing of relevance that was posted regarding your last misguided retort was the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades. Did you read it and did you see what actually happened?
No one is trying to stifle you. But, getting through to you is very difficult because there is so much that you fail to understand. So, you go off half cocked thinking you’ve got answers when you don’t even understand the questions.
The issue is the trading technology via the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades post, and whether or not it worked, or failed. That is the focus, no matter how much you try to turn the focus elsewhere. You cannot argue with success, and that is another reason why you are all over the place in your posts.
Did the technology get it right or did it fail – that’s ALL that matters.
“you are sounding stupid now . if I make certain claims about trading then I would back it up by providing proof in the way of trading statements . which part of that don't you understand ?”
------------------
That’s what you would do. That’s not what a sane and rational human being would do. Why would anybody pay attention to that which can be so easily falsified? Your live trades on the other hand cannot be falsified. Think about it, maybe one of these decades it will sink in.
“it is re-inventing the wheel”
----------------
That was the most telling statement coming from you of all. You just told the designer of a “thing” that YOU know more about the “thing” than he does. How much more irrational can this become? You don’t understand one scrap of what it took to build this project – yet – you somehow “know” all about it. That’s only possible if you were God – which you are not – so the statement is highly irrational.
“HAHAHAHA . listen to this crap guys . how many of you can believe a guy about " trading technology " who is arguing against the wright brothers and manned flight ? next thing you know , he'll be saying that he's in the flat earth society.”
-----------------
I can see that there is severe shortage of reading and comprehension skills on this board? Arguing against the Wright Brothers? That was a very succinctly put analogy (look the word up in the dictionary) that used YOUR false premise that prior-knowledge was necessary before progress could be made within the human race.
It was YOUR premise that “many people” needed to “already” have experienced high accuracy and high profitability trading with risk in check – before – such a trading technology could ever exist. You implied that since no one was reporting high profitability minus the implied high risk, that such a thing could not exist. That was your argument - remember? Or, have you conveniently forgotten?
Thus, I made it abundantly clear to you, that your premise was flawed, by using several analogies from human history that showed human progress being made without the benefit of broad spectrum knowledge and/or broad spectrum experience throughout human society. This exposed your premise as being unable to hold water and it showed that your dog won’t hunt.
In your world, a thing cannot exist – before YOU have evidence of its existence. Are you familiar with the Causality Principle? Or, the Deterministic Model? You don’t seem to be able to keep up here.
“And the fact is that trading and trading claims are unique in that they mean nothing until they proven exactly as they claim.”
-----------------
I agree. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China. My original intent was to post the live trades which speak for themselves. However, it was people like YOU that blew that opportunity for everyone else. Now, you are on some irrational bent that is not cogent to the facts that were being discussed. You state the painfully obvious here, as though it somehow makes a relevant point.
Proof does not come in the form of an electronic document that can be altered – period. The best form of “proof”, are un-modifiable and traceable elements of the claim being made. No element of the claim can be proven without market data. So, who in their right mind would want to exclude such evidence that allows for the appropriate tracking of the claim. Only somebody trying to hide something would want to exclude such data. The data is at the heart of the claim itself – so it is illogical to exclude it from the process. The live trade signal would have been traceable, verifiable, measurable, quantifiable, and un-modifiable using live data in real-time.
Any attempt to argue against such logic is futile. Your proof is ONLY as strong as the source from which is comes. The source ANY electronic or paper Brokers Statement comes from YOU. The source of a live trade result comes directly from the MARKET. I’ll take the market’s explanation of the success of a trade signal over YOUR electronic statement any day of the week. Why? Because the source cannot be faked.
This is ironclad logic that you cannot escape – period.
“pseudo intellectual BS. I asked for hard proof for your extravagant claims , that's all , I stand by it .”
---------------------
NO you did not! You did much more than that. You implied that because “many people” (your words not mine) were not “reporting” high accuracy trading results absent accounting for risk, that it could not be done. Pure and simple. That is light years away from simply asking for proof of results. Or, don’t you know the difference?
Now, you try to claim that all you ask for is proof. However, this is not what you initially claimed. You are changing your story as you type. You specifically implied that it could not be done simply because large numbers of people were not reporting such results. And, that is clearly a shallow understanding of how the world works. Not everybody trades using the same tools – so just because “people” in your mind, don’t report the results that I am personally seeing, does not make my results flawed, or non-existent. That is a very narrow minded world view in my opinion – that before a thing can exist, YOU must have the proof of its existence.
In other words, nothing exists in this world without Wisestguy’s knowledge of its existence. Do you realize that this sets you up to be god? Talk about haughty.
“there you go , flattering yourself again . I don't know your so called technology and I DON"T want to know . is that clear ? no matter how much sales hype and self proclaimed expertise you profess , it ain't gonna work .”
------------------
Its not flattery – its fact. You don’t know what you are talking about, yet you blow you lips as though you do. Furthermore, I am not here to please you or get your approval. Your opinion about my work is moot at best and meaningless on average. And, you continued predilection for the irrelevant never ceases to amaze me. Your ability to get it wrong instead of right is also amazing. No one is selling anything. Your assumptive jump the gun attitude told you that, but no one else ever did. Nothing is for sell, or ever was for sell – and the intelligence readers among us already understand that.
As far as my expertise is concerned – you are correct. I am an expert when it comes to the trading technology that I’ve built. You are not. Therefore, you know not what you talk about – period. But, I will place my trading knowledge up against yours any day of the week – granted. If you are trading with conventional TA then I already know your flaws and weaknesses and I already know why you fail more times than you succeed in the Forex. That’s because I’ve done the homework and paid the dues.
All the jealousy in the world won’t change these facts. Get over it.
“in trading there is only 1 kind of risk and that is how much money you can lose . all systems have to effectively account for it , so far you have demonstrated nothing of the sort .”
-------------------
Then that says a massive amount about what you really know in this business. Risk is one of the most variable things in trading. With my trading technology, I can adjust what I term the FR2F (Forward Relative Risk Factor) an it could change the entire approach to the trade, or it can take a valid Trade Signal and turn it into an Invalid Trade Signal. That’s the difference between what you trade with and what I trade with.
I use a completely new and different technology that changes the rules that conventional TA practitioners are familiar with. The FR2F is a built-in component of the system and therefore, I get specific output parameters that show me where the best trade opportunity resides. The FR2F Module provides 10 inputs into the Probability Module, so the probability statement that appears on my screen has the risk factors built-in. So, when I walk into a trade, I know with a high degree of Probability what the outcome will be and what the potential risk will be and it is NOT the same “1 kind” that you so incorrectly stated above.
This is fully integrated technology based on years of research, design, testing and engineering, not some piecemeal lumping together of a few conventional technical indicators that work only under certain restricted market conditions. This trading technology is alive. It has a pulse, a respiration rate, brain waves and a logical structure. This application LEARNS as it moves through time.
And you got it wrong again: There was a clear demonstration of its capability but you ignored the 266% net return, so that you could focus on the completely irrelevant issues of the day - namely, trying to talk negatively about a technology that you can’t possibly understand.
“AH , THANK YOU , I KNEW YOU WOULD HANG YOURSELF SOONER OR LATER . THIS KIND OF " RISK " CONTROL IS WAY TOO LOOSE , ANOTHER NAME FOR IT, IS GAMBLING.”
-------------------
Way to lose for who - YOU?
Not too lose for me and not too lose for this trading system. That’s my point, here. You don’t understand enough to talk about this technology intelligently. You then go off the deep end thinking that you some how found your “eureka” by claiming that “risk controls are too lose”.
You have no idea how silly you sound, do you? You are trying to argue that which you know nothing about – that’s silly.
If you knew how this trading technology worked and if you knew how the Revenue Model that I use worked, then you would also know the risk factors are BUILT INTO THE TRADE PROFILE ITSELF. LOL!
You just don’t get it and I don’t have the time, nor the inclination to share it with you. Suffice it to say that what I do, would blow your mind along the line or “risk”. I don’t see “risk” the same way you do, because I DON”T HAVE TO. You on the other hand have to be dreadfully concerned what you label as “risk”, because you cannot produce a Probability Statement for each trade that reflects the historical and empirical facts of any given currency pair. So, if you cannot produce a Probability Statement before you enter the trade as part of the Trade Profile itself, then you have no idea how to even begin to understand what I’m doing, or how I do it.
Got it? Risk is based on Accuracy and Probability. When you can trade more effectively, more accurately, more consistently, and with pre-stated Probabilities, THEN you will come to understand how the “risk” factors change. Until you get that, you won’t understand this.
“if I have make 200% on my last winner , I could lose it all in the next trade, what kind of risk control is that ? better off playing Black Jack . And this is your so called technology ? HA !”
------------------
Very simple. It is the kind of Risk Factor that you don’t understand – period. I “your mind”, YOU are “risking” 200%. In my actual trade, I’m never risking 200%. But, you don’t get that point – that goes in one ear and right out the other – you don’t see it and therefore you don’t understand it. Read the above answer again on how risk factors are built into my trade profiles and converted into Probability Statements, and maybe then you will start to “see” things “clearly”. Right, now – you are in a severe fog.
I tie Risk to Probability in a very unique way. It is one (1) of over 150+ mathematical constructs within this trading technology. This trading technology is built on the concept of synergies between modules. One module is logically and physically linked to the other. The concept that you call “risk” has been thoroughly modified with the development of this trading technology.
It is NEW and therefore it is OUT OF THE BOX THINKING. You cannot remain in your conventional BOX and have a snow-balls chance of understanding this. There is nothing conventional about this technology - period. And, that is a big reason why you don’t understand half the things I type.
“in other words you are making a claim . well , you may not be a good trader but I tell you what - you certainly win the prize for coming up with the most long winded crap .”
-------------------
You are so wrong headed that you make it difficult to communicate with you. You twist things way out of proportion and you assume far too much. You then make these massive leaps on logic that I never made.
I specifically said (for the 1 billionth time) that was seeking feedback in a specific format and for a specific purpose. Why that easy to understand fact escapes you is beyond me. Secondly, your obvious distain for me is apparently deeply rooted in your obvious jealousy. You completely ignored the Weekly Parameters that were given on this forum. You completely ignored the 266% net return that came as a direct result of the Trade Signal given in that Weekly Parameter. And, now you throw insults simply because you cannot argue that the trade was unsuccessful.
It’s your party – you can fail if you want to.
“I don't think you're nuts , I think you're scared because it will reveal that you cannot live up to your claims.”
---------------------
You read like a repetitious fool. I continuously have to correct your misstatements and I continually have to direct your attention to the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades that were given to you on a silver platter. You continually pretend that 266% net gain was not made, and you continually pretend that the target was struck within 11 pips exactly as the Parameter post indicated it would.
You don’t fool or convince any intelligent being on this forum – that you really know what’s going on. You ask for personal financial documents that YOU have never put forth and NEVER will put forth. Yet, you cannot seem to understand the fact that electronic documents can be doctored, while Live Market Data cannot. You ignore, yet again, this massively inarguable fact. Why? Because if you cannot argue the facts, all you have left are these red herrings and non-sequitur underpinnings that lack relevance to the issue at hand.
Did the Parameters given work out as stated – or not? It really is just that simple. Everything else you say is moot.
“The fact is a broker statement ( as mine did ) can very easily come via email , and that cannot be altered if you copy and paste straight to the webpage .”
---------------------
And, that CSV file that comes to you via email can then by placed directly into your desktop scanner and altered until you little hearts content. So, you claim that the Brokers Statement cannot be altered simply because it gets delivered to your mail client, is really more of a showing about just how little you do know about “technology”.
BTW – My last “j.o.b” was as a Systems Engineer and I worked in the Enterprise Software Industry for 10 years (Oracle, Actuate, Hyperion). Therefore, I understand just a little bit about “hi-technology” especially when it comes to computers and software. So, save it for somebody that you can fool – please. That dog won’t hunt here.
“a post is a post . what bloody proof have you got that you actually made that trade within the parameters that you claimed?”
---------------------
I think this is why you are so hung-up on not getting the point here. The issue is not whether or not ”I” personally make the trades. Who cares what I do - that’s not important. What is important is whether or not the trading system get it right or wrong! This is your biggest hang-up. This whole thing was never about me, nor was it ever about you, or anybody else for that matter. The focus was supposed to be on the TECHNOLOGY, not any particular human being.
I don’t make the Trade Calls – period. I built the Trading Application to take care of that for me. I “authorize” the trade that the technology calls out. I make the final go/no go decision. The trading technology generates that Signal, not me and not you. So, the ONLY thing that was supposed to have been tested and verified is the trading system itself.
This is why you are so stuck on red herrings.
“I could sit down and post 50 different trades a day on whatever electronic forum, and nobody would know if I actually traded them, unless I show my statements.”
-------------------
It is not about YOU. It is about the Technology. Hello! How many times must I repeat myself? YOU are not at issue here – and neither am I. Was the Trade Call Accurate? THAT is the ONLY question that matters.
“you just try to stiffle all opinion countering your claims, by posting masses of BS , in the hope we cannot keep up. got news for you , took me 5 minutes.”
---------------------
You are not countering any claim – because no “claim” was made. The only thing of relevance that was posted regarding your last misguided retort was the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades. Did you read it and did you see what actually happened?
No one is trying to stifle you. But, getting through to you is very difficult because there is so much that you fail to understand. So, you go off half cocked thinking you’ve got answers when you don’t even understand the questions.
The issue is the trading technology via the Weekly Parameters & Test Trades post, and whether or not it worked, or failed. That is the focus, no matter how much you try to turn the focus elsewhere. You cannot argue with success, and that is another reason why you are all over the place in your posts.
Did the technology get it right or did it fail – that’s ALL that matters.
