NEVER LOSE AGAIN!! TheRumpledOne

2u9nb0w.gif


I know it is hard to believe but trading can really be this simple.
 
Please can someone enlighten me as to what this guy's strategy is? I keep reading all the posts and he is saying how brilliant it is, here he entered, here he exited... but what is the strategy? Is it an EA? Is this guy selling something? If the strategy is laid out clear somewhere can someone show me the link?

Sorry but i just don't get it and i keep seeing messages here day after day and it is driving me nuts.
 
Well I suggest you read a lot of posts. This guy changed my view of trading. And it is all for free.
He is observing price action and making entries according to that.

Go to babypips.com find neverloseagain thread and read it all. It will do a great thing to your trading.

Good luck!
 
debitel said:
Well I suggest you read a lot of posts. This guy changed my view of trading. And it is all for free.
He is observing price action and making entries according to that.

Go to babypips.com find neverloseagain thread and read it all. It will do a great thing to your trading.

Good luck!
Click to expand...


I've read a lot of his posts. Infact, i feel like i've wasted a lot of time reading his posts, and after wading through lots of nonsense i still haven't been able to find anything useful.

I have said before in another post, he may have a brilliant system for all i know- but it's so hard to tell for all the cr@p.

Observing price action- exactly how? What is his criteria for entering and exiting a trade? What kind of stop loss does he use? This is what i'm looking for.
 
TheRumpledOne said:
I believe you.

Let me help you. Look at the previous post. You'll see a chart with an explanation of what to do. It's really simple but it works more often than not. Do not let the simple instructions fool you. It's NOT a trick. It really works. If you do not believe me, then watch it on your own H1 chart so you can see for yourself.
Click to expand...

Could we first perhaps adress this issue of consecutive runs of "UNIQUE" green / red candles as you seam to be placing rather a lot of emphasis on this ?. Personally I'm of the opinion that this particular aspect of your analysis is fundementally flawed.

I really should have demonstrated this with price data, just to remove all argument, but as time is limited I'll use a coin as a proxy, but I assure you it works equaslly well on any timeseries. I intended to toss a fair coin (in this case a 1995 one Maltese Lire coin) 100 times, but it rolled away under the desk into a tangle of computers and wires, so the experiment was sadly abandoned after 60 tosses (so yes I guess that officially makes me a ****** !)

The results as they stand where:


HTTTTTTHHTHHTHHTTTTTTTTHHHTTHTHHHHTTHHTHHTTHTHTTTTHTTTHHTHTH

On the basis of simple probability theory we'd expect a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails (or red candles v green candles) So in our case we'd expect 30 heads, and 30 tails. Take it from me, there are 26 heads, and 34 tails, but feel free to check emm if you wish

The same theory tells us we should expect approximately 30 instances with a consecutive run length of one head occurring, 15 instances with a consequitive run length of 2 heads occurring, 7 instances with a consecutive run length of 3 heads occuring etc

Averaging the data from our fairly rough experimental evaluation resulted in the following:

Basic probability theory suggest that we should expect to observe:

A probability of 0.5 for consecutive run length of 1, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.495

A probability of 0.25 for consecutive run lengths of 2, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.255


A probability of 0.125 for consecutive run lengths of 3, our experimental data indicated a probablity of 0.13


A probability of 0.625 for consecutive runs length of 4, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.83%

If we'd tossed twice as many coins, the errors (which are only of the magnitude of 0.5% or so as it stands) would be further reduced. I trust that even you would agree that this simple experiment verifies that conventional probability theory is reasonably acurate ?


Conversely, you're methodology of "I only count unique candles" kind of falls down. If you look at the sequence above, there are only 6 unique tails by your definition, and 7 unique heads (and you'll notice that 2 of those 7 occur at the first and last positions in the sequence which means that on the basis of probability one of the has a pretty good chance of becoming non unique by your definition if this sub sequence became part of a larger sequence).

So whilst commommn sense tells us that the chance of getting a run length of one head or tail, is 50% and simple experimental verification proves this to be the case, by your definition, run lengths of a single head or tail will appear only 23% of the time. Even funnier still is that by your definition, something that should happen less frequently (and is proved to do so by experimental verification) by your definition leads you to the false belif that it actually occurs far more frequently than it actually does

These voodo statistics in which a run length of 11 can occur, without a run length of 7,8,9 or 10 occurring are quite simply complete and utter nonsense. Whilst its possible to analyse data in the way that you have, how in gods name can you apply any sort of conventional statistical analysis on something that makes little sense ?

I dont really feel as if You cant win this argument. You present statistics that say for example a run length of 7 greens rarely occurs for a particular instrument in a particular timeframe, so if price action dictates, go short on the next red candle (or probably more accurately, a candle where price action in a faster timeframe appears as though it might close as a red candle.) Now there's nothing wrong with developing a feel and trading price action, and I appreciate that its practically impossible to specify mechanical rules in these cases with respect to entry triggers, stops, targets etc. I also conced that this aspect of your system is probably what frustrates new traders who are generally looking for simple guidllines, where in reality non can be given. It takes time staring at charts day in and day out to develop an appreciation of these concepts, you either see it, or you dont, and no end of statistics is going to help.

However prior to these "set ups" which hopefully you'll agree have been proved to be based on the most bizarre and totally unreliable voodo statistics, there are often quite clear well defined moves of hundreds of pips. So why not use your skills at reading price action, and take a chunk out a strong trend, rather than attempting to scalp a few pips ?. If you are genuinelly trying to help new trades, Id suggest that teaching them to catch falling knives, whilst good fun isnt in all probability the best approach to take.

I really would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on the consecutive candle statistics issue, I take the point that theyre only there as a potential set up, not as a trigger, but why the completely bizarre implimentation ?

regards
zu
 
UKtradergirl said:
Please can someone enlighten me as to what this guy's strategy is? I keep reading all the posts and he is saying how brilliant it is, here he entered, here he exited... but what is the strategy? Is it an EA? Is this guy selling something? If the strategy is laid out clear somewhere can someone show me the link?

Sorry but i just don't get it and i keep seeing messages here day after day and it is driving me nuts.
Click to expand...



I have posted about 5 or 6 charts in a row with the strategy listed below:

SEE COLOR OF CANDLE

SEE COLOR OF CANDLE AT HORIZONTAL LINE WITH PRICE ENDING IN 00, 25, 50, 75.

IF CANDLE RED, GO SHORT AT HORIZONTAL LINE

IF CANDLE GREEN, GO LONG AT HORIZONTAL LINE.

What EXACTLY is your question?

It is NOT an EA. NO, I am NOT selling something.

This SIMPLE STRATEGY has been presented MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD WITH CHART EXAMPLES.

What is it that you do not "get"?

Perhaps all the people trying to derail this thread are distracting you.
 
TheRumpledOne said:
I have posted about 5 or 6 charts in a row with the strategy listed below:

SEE COLOR OF CANDLE

SEE COLOR OF CANDLE AT HORIZONTAL LINE WITH PRICE ENDING IN 00, 25, 50, 75.

IF CANDLE RED, GO SHORT AT HORIZONTAL LINE

IF CANDLE GREEN, GO LONG AT HORIZONTAL LINE.

What EXACTLY is your question?

It is NOT an EA. NO, I am NOT selling something.

This SIMPLE STRATEGY has been presented MANY TIMES IN THIS THREAD WITH CHART EXAMPLES.

What is it that you do not "get"?

Perhaps all the people trying to derail this thread are distracting you.
Click to expand...


So is the horizontal line just drawn at prices ending in 00,25,50,75?
 
You can plot lines random lines too. I use ForestGreen and Purple sometimes for my candle colors LOL.

Try this. Plot several lines and look at the past and see how PRICE cuts thru each line. OR just wait and see how future candles cross thru the horizontal lines. Now imagine you had taken some of those entries.... DO you see the winners? Yes, it is that simple. Expecially if you are not greedy and take 5-10 pips a pop. Just do that like 10 times a day and voala you have 100pips/day. There are ALOT of opportunities during the day.

Oh you say there are some losers?
When do you get out?

This is what I do.
I don't use stoplosses (I'll explain later)
I use a hedge.

If price goes against my entry, that is if the current candle or next candle go in the opposite direction.. the instant that happens I place an opposing entry(a hedge). Then I wait for price to do it's thing around another horizontal line. I then place a third entry and wait for all three to move in the direction of the last entry. Once I get an overall + pips from the 3 entries I GET OUT.

Oh, you say "what if it happens again and PRICE does another twist".
Price is price it goes up or it goes down. The Broker can do anything they wish.. but eventually they have to yield... PRICE will go up or it will go down.

This has only happened twice... so far I was able to get out with an overall winning trade. Practice makes perfect.

What I have noticed is this. The broker I use shows me the change in spread. Which is ok. But recently when I enter a trade all of a sudden BAM! The spread changes and becomes wider. No way in hec do I let that influence me into getting out of the trade. So I hedge it and wait till I see another opportunity to get out of the jam.

Yes it is simple... in the beginning not easy to do but once you get the hang of it and you throw some money management in will be amazed.

PEACE

UKtradergirl said:
So is the horizontal line just drawn at prices ending in 00,25,50,75?
Click to expand...
 
5xypx.gif


zupcon said:
Could we first perhaps adress this issue of consecutive runs of "UNIQUE" green / red candles as you seam to be placing rather a lot of emphasis on this ?. Personally I'm of the opinion that this particular aspect of your analysis is fundementally flawed.

I really should have demonstrated this with price data, just to remove all argument, but as time is limited I'll use a coin as a proxy, but I assure you it works equaslly well on any timeseries. I intended to toss a fair coin (in this case a 1995 one Maltese Lire coin) 100 times, but it rolled away under the desk into a tangle of computers and wires, so the experiment was sadly abandoned after 60 tosses (so yes I guess that officially makes me a ****** !)

The results as they stand where:


HTTTTTTHHTHHTHHTTTTTTTTHHHTTHTHHHHTTHHTHHTTHTHTTTTHTTTHHTHTH

On the basis of simple probability theory we'd expect a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails (or red candles v green candles) So in our case we'd expect 30 heads, and 30 tails. Take it from me, there are 26 heads, and 34 tails, but feel free to check emm if you wish

The same theory tells us we should expect approximately 30 instances with a consecutive run length of one head occurring, 15 instances with a consequitive run length of 2 heads occurring, 7 instances with a consecutive run length of 3 heads occuring etc

Averaging the data from our fairly rough experimental evaluation resulted in the following:

Basic probability theory suggest that we should expect to observe:

A probability of 0.5 for consecutive run length of 1, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.495

A probability of 0.25 for consecutive run lengths of 2, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.255


A probability of 0.125 for consecutive run lengths of 3, our experimental data indicated a probablity of 0.13


A probability of 0.625 for consecutive runs length of 4, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.83%

If we'd tossed twice as many coins, the errors (which are only of the magnitude of 0.5% or so as it stands) would be further reduced. I trust that even you would agree that this simple experiment verifies that conventional probability theory is reasonably acurate ?


Conversely, you're methodology of "I only count unique candles" kind of falls down. If you look at the sequence above, there are only 6 unique tails by your definition, and 7 unique heads (and you'll notice that 2 of those 7 occur at the first and last positions in the sequence which means that on the basis of probability one of the has a pretty good chance of becoming non unique by your definition if this sub sequence became part of a larger sequence).

So whilst commommn sense tells us that the chance of getting a run length of one head or tail, is 50% and simple experimental verification proves this to be the case, by your definition, run lengths of a single head or tail will appear only 23% of the time. Even funnier still is that by your definition, something that should happen less frequently (and is proved to do so by experimental verification) by your definition leads you to the false belif that it actually occurs far more frequently than it actually does

These voodo statistics in which a run length of 11 can occur, without a run length of 7,8,9 or 10 occurring are quite simply complete and utter nonsense. Whilst its possible to analyse data in the way that you have, how in gods name can you apply any sort of conventional statistical analysis on something that makes little sense ?

I dont really feel as if You cant win this argument. You present statistics that say for example a run length of 7 greens rarely occurs for a particular instrument in a particular timeframe, so if price action dictates, go short on the next red candle (or probably more accurately, a candle where price action in a faster timeframe appears as though it might close as a red candle.) Now there's nothing wrong with developing a feel and trading price action, and I appreciate that its practically impossible to specify mechanical rules in these cases with respect to entry triggers, stops, targets etc. I also conced that this aspect of your system is probably what frustrates new traders who are generally looking for simple guidllines, where in reality non can be given. It takes time staring at charts day in and day out to develop an appreciation of these concepts, you either see it, or you dont, and no end of statistics is going to help.

However prior to these "set ups" which hopefully you'll agree have been proved to be based on the most bizarre and totally unreliable voodo statistics, there are often quite clear well defined moves of hundreds of pips. So why not use your skills at reading price action, and take a chunk out a strong trend, rather than attempting to scalp a few pips ?. If you are genuinelly trying to help new trades, Id suggest that teaching them to catch falling knives, whilst good fun isnt in all probability the best approach to take.

I really would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on the consecutive candle statistics issue, I take the point that theyre only there as a potential set up, not as a trigger, but why the completely bizarre implimentation ?

regards
zu
Click to expand...

I really do not think you understand what I wrote by how you worded your example but you should NOT resort to name calling (voodoo statistics, bizarre, ). Let's have a civilized discussion/debate, OK?

Let's look at the simple case of three heads in a row - HHH.

You can say that H occurred 3 times, HH occurred twice and HHH occurred once. That would be 6 occurrences. BUT THERE WERE ONLY 3 TOSSES!!

Since you seem well versed on statistics, you must know the difference between COMBINATIONS and PERMUTATIONS. Are you implying that combinations are BIZARRE but permutations are not?

I prefer to look at the streaks or runs and count them as a whole instead of their parts. By doing so, I know that I have a statistical edge after 3 in a row that price will reverse.

Look at the above chart. The indicator is displaying the bar count for bars 1 - 24. Current bar omitted. If you look at the chart, you can see that after 3 RED candles, there was an opportunity to take pips going long. That's what I am after, an OPPORTUNITY more times than not to take pips.

Yes, waiting for 3 or more like colored candles in a row to appear is a potential setup to trade the reversal.

It's not about "catching falling knives", it's about trading the statistics.

I'll be happy to continue discussing/debating this if you can stop with the name calling.
 
Have you tried that experiment with two coins?
The odds of getting the desired results increases tremendously as you flip them more.

I'll post the info I have on that soon. I don't have it with me.
I think you'll find it interesting....

:)

zupcon said:
Could we first perhaps adress this issue of consecutive runs of "UNIQUE" green / red candles as you seam to be placing rather a lot of emphasis on this ?. Personally I'm of the opinion that this particular aspect of your analysis is fundementally flawed.

I really should have demonstrated this with price data, just to remove all argument, but as time is limited I'll use a coin as a proxy, but I assure you it works equaslly well on any timeseries. I intended to toss a fair coin (in this case a 1995 one Maltese Lire coin) 100 times, but it rolled away under the desk into a tangle of computers and wires, so the experiment was sadly abandoned after 60 tosses (so yes I guess that officially makes me a ****** !)

The results as they stand where:


HTTTTTTHHTHHTHHTTTTTTTTHHHTTHTHHHHTTHHTHHTTHTHTTTTHTTTHHTHTH

On the basis of simple probability theory we'd expect a 50/50 distribution of heads and tails (or red candles v green candles) So in our case we'd expect 30 heads, and 30 tails. Take it from me, there are 26 heads, and 34 tails, but feel free to check emm if you wish

The same theory tells us we should expect approximately 30 instances with a consecutive run length of one head occurring, 15 instances with a consequitive run length of 2 heads occurring, 7 instances with a consecutive run length of 3 heads occuring etc

Averaging the data from our fairly rough experimental evaluation resulted in the following:

Basic probability theory suggest that we should expect to observe:

A probability of 0.5 for consecutive run length of 1, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.495

A probability of 0.25 for consecutive run lengths of 2, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.255


A probability of 0.125 for consecutive run lengths of 3, our experimental data indicated a probablity of 0.13


A probability of 0.625 for consecutive runs length of 4, our experimental data indicated a probability of 0.83%

If we'd tossed twice as many coins, the errors (which are only of the magnitude of 0.5% or so as it stands) would be further reduced. I trust that even you would agree that this simple experiment verifies that conventional probability theory is reasonably acurate ?


Conversely, you're methodology of "I only count unique candles" kind of falls down. If you look at the sequence above, there are only 6 unique tails by your definition, and 7 unique heads (and you'll notice that 2 of those 7 occur at the first and last positions in the sequence which means that on the basis of probability one of the has a pretty good chance of becoming non unique by your definition if this sub sequence became part of a larger sequence).

So whilst commommn sense tells us that the chance of getting a run length of one head or tail, is 50% and simple experimental verification proves this to be the case, by your definition, run lengths of a single head or tail will appear only 23% of the time. Even funnier still is that by your definition, something that should happen less frequently (and is proved to do so by experimental verification) by your definition leads you to the false belif that it actually occurs far more frequently than it actually does

These voodo statistics in which a run length of 11 can occur, without a run length of 7,8,9 or 10 occurring are quite simply complete and utter nonsense. Whilst its possible to analyse data in the way that you have, how in gods name can you apply any sort of conventional statistical analysis on something that makes little sense ?

I dont really feel as if You cant win this argument. You present statistics that say for example a run length of 7 greens rarely occurs for a particular instrument in a particular timeframe, so if price action dictates, go short on the next red candle (or probably more accurately, a candle where price action in a faster timeframe appears as though it might close as a red candle.) Now there's nothing wrong with developing a feel and trading price action, and I appreciate that its practically impossible to specify mechanical rules in these cases with respect to entry triggers, stops, targets etc. I also conced that this aspect of your system is probably what frustrates new traders who are generally looking for simple guidllines, where in reality non can be given. It takes time staring at charts day in and day out to develop an appreciation of these concepts, you either see it, or you dont, and no end of statistics is going to help.

However prior to these "set ups" which hopefully you'll agree have been proved to be based on the most bizarre and totally unreliable voodo statistics, there are often quite clear well defined moves of hundreds of pips. So why not use your skills at reading price action, and take a chunk out a strong trend, rather than attempting to scalp a few pips ?. If you are genuinelly trying to help new trades, Id suggest that teaching them to catch falling knives, whilst good fun isnt in all probability the best approach to take.

I really would be genuinely interested in hearing your thoughts on the consecutive candle statistics issue, I take the point that theyre only there as a potential set up, not as a trigger, but why the completely bizarre implimentation ?

regards
zu
Click to expand...
 
xmess7 said:
I have yet to get any of TRO's donation indicators.
Just using the approach he calls out is yielding profit on this side of my computer.

In fact you if you know how to program you can easily take the free indicators and create the donational indicators.

Chill... just give it a try... you just might get some PIPS along the way.
Click to expand...

Some people just have an ax to grind. They don't know how to have a civilized debate or polite discussion. They have nothing to offer. They are DETRACTORS. This guy has been stalking me for a long time. It's time for the FORUM ADMIN to put a stop to it.

If I dare post on his thread, he'll cry FOUL and call for my banishment. That's what happened on BabyPips. So I'll just stick to posting in my thread and defending my turf on my turf.
 
Yes but if you had logged on after the price went through 0.6400 you would not be in a trade. You might have entered at 0.6425 according to your rules- would this have profited also?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

pedro01
All seminar files now on Rapidshare (except Feb)
Replies
8
Views
807
theprophe
T
A
TradeStation 8 - FREE FOREX Real-Time Data Feed
Replies
10
Views
17K
prathapjay
P
oildaytrader
handling losing sequence
Replies
7
Views
1K
oildaytrader
oildaytrader
K
I think I've got it!!
2 3
Replies
42
Views
7K
timsk
timsk
CYOF
  • Locked
How To Lose Money Trading
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
35K
barjon
barjon
Top