Firstly you are so fond of advising any who disagree with you to buy a pair of glasses......then you title your post "another 1000+ poster needs bifocals".
So either you need glasses yourself or you can't count. Which is it?
........this thread is about money management "senior member"....suggest you stick to the thread topic. When discussing money management, show the proof of risking $$ with a higher risk than 1:3. You 400+, 1000+ posters throw bricks but don't have any documentation or proof of successful trading with risk > 1:3.
1: You see no reason to stick to the topic of money management, instead posting a bunch of market commentary and trade ideas as a way of drumming up business. The very tenuous link of "I'm talking about risk:reward of 1:3" aside, you have gone off topic right from the start.
2: You still have not shown any proof of successful trading so why do you keep asking others to do so?
mechanicaldaytrader said:
If you actually read my other threads, your comments would have been answered. BTW, trading history is useless since it can be done via discretion, the ability to prove the rules via past charts is what is sacred,
1: I have no interest in reading your other threads. I am responding to what you have posted in this thread. I shouldn't have to read every single post you ever make in order to understand what you have posted in this thread. If you can't explain yourself clearly and consisely in each post then you should learn better communication skills.
2: I would suggest the "ability to prove the rules via past charts is what is sacred" is absolute B.S. I can curve fit a bunch of rules to past charts with the best of them. It means nothing. What is "sacred" is the ability to make money.
mechanicaldaytrader said:
particularly the first hour's trading in the Dow (see trade journal thread) -- adding on contracts (via rules when a trend develops) increases the trading profit exponentially. The other thing the charts prove is the ability to get LIMIT ORDERS FILLED ! That issue is addressed in EACH post of the Trading Journal thread.
Again you are incorrect. A friend of mine does alot of backtesting using tradestation. I know that if, during backtesting, price touches your limit order on either entry or exit it is automatically assumed to have been filled. That is not realistic at all. Only if price penetrates your limit order can you be assured you got a fill but tradestation does not work that way.
mechanicaldaytrader said:
Folks one of the important issues trading intraday futures is not to get lousy fills by entering via market order. Mechanically, you want to enter 2 points > the Green Line (see earlier post with chart in this thread) for long entries and -1 point < Orange Line for short entries. Of course, if the market is trading equal or better than your limit, just execute a market order right there.
I agree getting good fills is important but something strikes me as strange...
You keep talking about gaining 100 points+ a day using your method and yet you think it is critical not to lose 2 or 3 in slippage?
mechanicaldaytrader said:
Also, PKFFW, you also need Bifocals, since I never use imo, I would have done this in my trade journals or in the posts in this thread discussing past trades. The terms are posted at the beginning of the journal; I specify the Institutional support or resistance level - if you can't discern what that is, then you're showing your lack of formal training in technicals. Also, join the club of 400+ posters that don't accurately read comments...;
Well ok yes you have never used IMO together with "I would have done this". But close enough. Lots of IMO, lots of "past charts this and back test that". And I'm still giggling about post #17 "This is posted almost realtime" classic!
mechanicaldaytrader said:
Obviously PKFFW, you have not read the blog info regard "the 500 point weekly guarantee" - it's withstood 2 yrs of scrutiny by a score of traders. I don't give out trading rules in Forums, those are for clients.
Actually I did have a browse of your site and saw your "guarantee".
Seems to me to be pretty useless as you are the sole adjudicator in the end.....
"If claim is substantiated by the author of the Guaranteed One Minute Methodology and DayRaider 1.1 software"
So legally speaking all you have to do is disagree with the claim and poof, it's gone!
Also for someone who keeps trumpeting his vast experience trading futures you don't seem to put much emphasis on that in your profile on the page. Only mention of it is that you have been using tradestation for 10 years. All the rest is about your computer experience and database programming, insurance salesman, raising capital and working for other companies. None of which has anything to do with trading.
So do share all this trading experience? Who for? Where at? Surely with your holy grail system that guarantees 100 points a day for over 2 years now you'd be one of the richest men in the world by this time simply by compounding the number of contracts?
mechanicaldaytrader said:
With todays' technology using Strategy Runner and the PATS system, issues with slippage in liquid markets is largely a moot point. Critiquing backtesting going back several years, one must question the data used, technology and liquidity available at that date and time. I have substantial sums currently traded by 3rd party Tradestation systems (that I pay CTA fees as their client) and the issue is moot in today's technology (the systems trade 100+ lots all the time, there is minimal variance with the corresponding Tradestation System Report).
The Mechanical Day Trader
But you have the guaranteed holy grail getting 100+ points a day for over 2 years now. Why would you ever pay fees to have someone else trade your money for you? Seems a bit silly.
Also, earlier you were saying a hugely important aspect about day trading is getting good fills and avoiding slippage. Now you are saying slippage is "largely a moot point". So which is it? I know, it is moot when it suits your argument and it is important when it suits your argument right?
Cheers,
PKFFW
