A Year With No Setups

[Chartsy]

Setups are useless without context, but they are still great.

 

[forker]

every time a setup battering thread pops up i feel the need to reach into the wife's girly box and apply a liberal dose of vagisl. sure failure is ubiquitous but placing a cross hair on TA in the unilateral context of failure is disingenuous. I really wish people would stop stereotyping setups as a fools game in the shadow of failing at it.

 

[VielGeld]

every time a setup battering thread pops up i feel the need to reach into the wife's girly box and apply a liberal dose of vagisl. sure failure is ubiquitous but placing a cross hair on TA in the unilateral context of failure is disingenuous. I really wish people would stop stereotyping setups as a fools game in the shadow of failing at it.

I don't think anyone's saying that -- just that setups applied blindly without context can lead to ruin.

You might have a perfect pin bar in front of you, but if the context runs counter to its use, then you might not want to take it.

 

[Hotch]

I'd disagree with the coding thing.

Now - bear in mind that I'm 41, have been coding since I was 13, had my first commercial system go live when I was 16 (tyre inventory/sales), had sex with Clive Sinclair at 17, took an IT graduate job at 18, discovered women at 35, worked in IT for quite a bit, basically I'm no slouch but I like to blow my own trumpet when my stomach doesn't get in the way.

Anyway - I can hand on heart say that there isn't a cat in hells chance you could program the way I trade.

And that is from someone that has succesfully programmed "not a cat in hells chance" on a number of occasions.

I'll agree to disagree

 

[scose-no-doubt]

rationale > set up

 

[shadowninja]

Interesting thread.

Due to the current nature of the markets, my tried and tested method of spotting set-ups (if you want to call them that - but it's more about identifying a sequence of events that improves the chances of me profiting; I don't have something as complicated as waiting for RSI>81, MA(8) crosses MA(25), Stochastic>73 etc) on daily charts has left me twiddling my thumbs for longer than I wanted to; it hasn't been a year of no set-ups - more like 3-4 months where experience has told me to avoid taking a trade even though the set-ups were present... and I have thus avoided trouble.

So, in the last couple of months, I had been trading more on feel looking at 5 minute charts having broken down candlesticks in my mind to understand how they really form and why a good candlestick pattern might fail. Now, this would be dangerous territory for a beginner who would be tempted to trade every other minute but one thing my longer term style taught me was patience...

One issue I've found, now, is that I can't explain to a newbie how to do it (I've always tried to share my ideas in the past as it doesn't bother me if someone copies my style). It's too organic to describe in precise terms.

 

[DionysusToast]

First off, this is not an anti TA. This isn't anti anything.
This is just about not being able to execute setups that require no thought but just simple repetition. Or even not being able to execute the setups we use.

To put it another way. If we were to approach trading and there were no books or websites to learn from what would we do?

So for now - I will throw away the DOM/T&S which are my best friends.

I will give one of the ideas I have for this mental exercise. No answers are necessarily right or wrong.

If I came at this fresh with no pre-conceived ideas, I would probably think along the following lines (eventually):

1 - Who are all these people buying and selling this stuff?
2 - What makes the price go up and down?
3 - If I am to buy, why would other people buy after me at a higher price than I brought?

I think number 3 is where the method would evolve.

 

[dan1986ccfc]

First off, this is not an anti TA. This isn't anti anything.
This is just about not being able to execute setups that require no thought but just simple repetition. Or even not being able to execute the setups we use.

To put it another way. If we were to approach trading and there were no books or websites to learn from what would we do?

So for now - I will throw away the DOM/T&S which are my best friends.

I will give one of the ideas I have for this mental exercise. No answers are necessarily right or wrong.

If I came at this fresh with no pre-conceived ideas, I would probably think along the following lines (eventually):

1 - Who are all these people buying and selling this stuff?
2 - What makes the price go up and down?
3 - If I am to buy, why would other people buy after me at a higher price than I brought?

I think number 3 is where the method would evolve.

Im still unsure on number 1!

For what its worth I agree with the idea that setups, to be succesful, will always need a certain amount of discretion. This is the reason why trading is so hard to learn... as I am currently finding out!

 

[michael922]

BS, BS, BS -

Dood, if you go a "year without setups" (and NO, I didn't read this whole damn thread), you're not making money and that's not what you're looking at those damned charts and indicators for (you know, for not making money). And, sorry to say, you're scared. Time for "re's" if you know what I mean.

re-group
re-analyze
re-hypothesize
re-test (oooh, a hint)

etc...

Dan, I think you would do well to eradicate the notion that a "certain amount of discretion" is required. Well, you're only right if a losing trade is a bad thing. . . Don't get mad; there is always the chance I'm full of it (and if you've allowed my obnoxiousness to offend you, then I've won!)



...the structure is encoded...

 

[forker]

did someone forgot to take their neurological disorder pills

 

[Splitlink]

Good point... exactly what does "no setups" mean?

In your case, I would think that you do not intend to use charts. I, myself use a chart and act on what I see. I cannot visualise looking at one and not being influenced by what it is doing. That, no matter how simple it is, is a setup, IMO, because my sixth sense is telling me something that I would find difficult to explain.

Random trading is what is probably going on but can the the chartreader look at a chart and trade randomly, without being influenced by what he sees?

This sounds like Double Dutch, to me. I know what I want to express, I hope it makes sense.

 

[wackypete2]

...(and NO, I didn't read this whole damn thread)

That explains why your post makes absolutely no sense within the context of this thread. Try reading Post #1 and then formulate another response. How can anyone trust you as a vendor if you can't even be bothered to read a 30-post thread before replying?

...there is always the chance I'm full of it

100% ?

Peter

 

[michael922]

Ha!!!! Forker!!! Got ya'!!!

How does it feel to be so manipulated?

You "bit". . . so easy. And if any of these folks have a head on their shoulders, it's clear, you've been exposed.

IMHO, Split, you make more sense than "forker"... I think I know what you want to express and I think it's exactly what I mean to say - game it, buddy, you're on the right track.

Forker - ca' mon... CA' MON, dood - GREAT personal attack (you too, peter-piper), but you're lacking anything else (in other words, you're doing yourself no service), i.e. intelligence, credibility, et al... and with your evangelistic gesture in your pic (my! do you have some authority!!...) provide some effing substance instead of trying to garner applause with a mudslinging statement (unless that's how you guys on this whole forum work... in that case, I'll stick around and have my fun, unless, of course "I'm banned."))

You make it boring with your boringly boring [cough] ad hominem [cough].

Is that all you've got??? You're not even entertaining. :-/

SUPPORT your "thesis" "man". If you want to declare that I'm full of it, tell me and everyone else where and why. Give me my lumps. Obviously I've contradicted a lot you've said in your reputable "1,000" posts (nope, haven't read a single one because the of the substance-less comment you've just made and wouldn't I be a fool to think you provided substance anywhere else?) Someone prove me wrong.

And sheesh, dude, rule number 1 on forums (especially if you're going to attack one's character and intelligence... geez... and not provide a damn thing to back it up), make sure you have your grammar and spelling grammared and spelled correcti-tigly... need I point it out? Nah, I won't. You're smart enough, right? Your pretty white-collar suit tells me so.

OKAY;

Challenge:

Do you want to provide any substance as to where you think I might be wrong? Or do you just like to stick to name-calling charades? (Again, I've read none of your posts - you've made me lose all interest already. I'm up for a challenge, and I AM one to say I was wrong, but, "neurological disorder????". . . HAHAHA!)

BRING IT. Otherwise...

otherwise, no, I won't. you're smart enough - and your pretty white-collar suite tells me so.

(By... the... way... if you want to make the ridiculous argument that I took your bait - then thanks for feeding me.)

and pete - geez - so smart, so piercing as to "who I really am" (you're wrong) - I'm responding only to post #1 in my initial response. If I make-a-no-sense, you no-a-speak-a-english.




...the structure is encoded... (and forker nor pete ain't found it.)

 

[forker]

Ha!!!! Forker!!! Got ya'!!!

How does it feel to be so manipulated?

You "bit". . . so easy. And if any of these folks have a head on their shoulders, it's clear, you've been exposed.

IMHO, Split, you make more sense than "forker"... I think I know what you want to express and I think it's exactly what I mean to say - game it, buddy, you're on the right track.

Forker - ca' mon... CA' MON, dood - GREAT personal attack (you too, peter-piper), but you're lacking anything else (in other words, you're doing yourself no service), i.e. intelligence, credibility, et al... and with your evangelistic gesture in your pic (my! do you have some authority!!...) provide some effing substance instead of trying to garner applause with a mudslinging statement (unless that's how you guys on this whole forum work... in that case, I'll stick around and have my fun, unless, of course "I'm banned."))

You make it boring with your boringly boring [cough] ad hominem [cough].

Is that all you've got??? You're not even entertaining. :-/

SUPPORT your "thesis" "man". If you want to declare that I'm full of it, tell me and everyone else where and why. Give me my lumps. Obviously I've contradicted a lot you've said in your reputable "1,000" posts (nope, haven't read a single one because the of the substance-less comment you've just made and wouldn't I be a fool to think you provided substance anywhere else?) Someone prove me wrong.

And sheesh, dude, rule number 1 on forums (especially if you're going to attack one's character and intelligence... geez... and not provide a damn thing to back it up), make sure you have your grammar and spelling grammared and spelled correcti-tigly... need I point it out? Nah, I won't. You're smart enough, right? Your pretty white-collar suit tells me so.

OKAY;

Challenge:

Do you want to provide any substance as to where you think I might be wrong? Or do you just like to stick to name-calling charades? (Again, I've read none of your posts - you've made me lose all interest already. I'm up for a challenge, and I AM one to say I was wrong, but, "neurological disorder????". . . HAHAHA!)

BRING IT. Otherwise...

otherwise, no, I won't. you're smart enough - and your pretty white-collar suite tells me so.

(By... the... way... if you want to make the ridiculous argument that I took your bait - then thanks for feeding me.)

and pete - geez - so smart, so piercing as to "who I really am" (you're wrong) - I'm responding only to post #1 in my initial response. If I make-a-no-sense, you no-a-speak-a-english.




...the structure is encoded... (and forker nor pete ain't found it.)

i thought you were familiar and now i am certain. I see you are polluting the same old tosh as you did before you were banned. its disappointing T2W doesn't have a strategy for dealing with trolls. so why are you back? did your doc prescribe you some new pills or were you banned from another site? if i recall you were a vendor back then too and i am wondering why Pete hasn't sniffed you out yet as he is normally on top of trolls. :whistling

And sheesh, dude, rule number 1 on forums (especially if you're going to attack one's character and intelligence... geez... and not provide a damn thing to back it up)

hows this for backing up my attack then!!!

 

[forker]

LOL

Who was he? Come on Forker, spill the beans...

well let me just put it like this.. he was an EXPERT in his posts

 

[forker]

i am sure you wont be disappointed. The only question remains is how long till the mods catch on.

 

[wackypete2]

well let me just put it like this.. he was an EXPERT in his posts

Nice.
I can't believe I missed that!
Back to his usual convoluted garbage.

Peter

 

[DionysusToast]

In your case, I would think that you do not intend to use charts. I, myself use a chart and act on what I see. I cannot visualise looking at one and not being influenced by what it is doing. That, no matter how simple it is, is a setup, IMO, because my sixth sense is telling me something that I would find difficult to explain.

Random trading is what is probably going on but can the the chartreader look at a chart and trade randomly, without being influenced by what he sees?

This sounds like Double Dutch, to me. I know what I want to express, I hope it makes sense.

Fair comments.

There is nothing wrong with using charts. You just cant use setups. Just for the sake of this discussion of course.

Where we seem to be heading is that if it's not mechanical, it's random.

Let's say the market is a story. Every story I have read is different. Still, they have all been stories and the beginning, middle and end have been discernible. If you could read the market like a book, then a mechanical 'thought free' setup would seem absurd.

When we start out, we are bombarded with books and web sites that tell us the way is mechanical. If we'd never been exposed to that through media, we'd most certainly come (after time) to the conclusion that the answer could not possibly be mechanical.

Maybe.

 

[DionysusToast]

i am sure you wont be disappointed. The only question remains is how long till the mods catch on.

Probably before any of us figure out WTF he is on about.

 

[Shakone]

Fair comments.

There is nothing wrong with using charts. You just cant use setups. Just for the sake of this discussion of course.

Where we seem to be heading is that if it's not mechanical, it's random.

Let's say the market is a story. Every story I have read is different. Still, they have all been stories and the beginning, middle and end have been discernible. If you could read the market like a book, then a mechanical 'thought free' setup would seem absurd.

When we start out, we are bombarded with books and web sites that tell us the way is mechanical. If we'd never been exposed to that through media, we'd most certainly come (after time) to the conclusion that the answer could not possibly be mechanical.

Maybe.

I've read that there are only really 7 basic story plotlines. So perhaps every story you've read isn't as different as you think. But perhaps that was kinda your point

A lot seems to have been said about mechanical not working. There are algorithms in the market that work. Does anyone dispute this? So mechanical can work.

I don't trade purely mechanically. But I noticed you said there's not a cat's chance in hell you could program your method. I have often wondered this. And I suppose in theory it should be doable, it would just be a nightmare to do, and probably not worth the time. By the time I'd finish, my methods (or the market) may have changed slightly and I'd have to redo it. What is there about any method that isn't relying on some information that a computer could obtain and interpret as you do?

For many years the best chess players in the world said that a computer would never be able to beat the best human player. That computers were too predictable, and would fall into traps a human could set. Eventually a program came along that beat the best. I'd guess that there are already many mechanical systems trading the market daily that do better than what you or I can achieve.