Price Action Trading

[15 min tlb]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

Something to think about...

A doctorate in finance doesn't translate into being a good trader. How many of us here would listen to advice about trading from someone who has never made a trade? Would you buy an ea or a course from a marketer who is not a trader? Why then should we listen to finance professors who most likely have never taken a currency or equity trade. They may be brilliant in finance but telling others how not to trade when they aren't traders themselves is no different than the scammers telling us the same thing.

Peter

These professors have better analytic methods and can give unbiased opinions based on objective studies .They are a reality check.

The videos posted above are advertising leads to their sites , so these videos are biased and not objective , they leave out a lot of probability information and failure rates.They are saying " we want to sell courses on this type of trading , which will make you money". The truth is far the opposite .Most of these educators are not traders just they pretend to trade . and they are telling others how to trade when they can't afford new underwear from trading profits.

Here is my return for October of 30% monthly, these pretenders (coaches) are useless traders because they CLAIM TO MAKE 30 % a year.So why should anyone listen to them?

 

[Lickyluciano]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

These professors have better analytic methods and can give unbiased opinions based on objective studies .They are a reality check.

The videos posted above are advertising leads to their sites , so these videos are biased and not objective , they leave out a lot of probability information and failure rates.They are saying " we want to sell courses on this type of trading , which will make you money". The truth is far the opposite .Most of these educators are not traders just they pretend to trade . and they are telling others how to trade when they can't afford new underwear from trading profits.

Here is my return for October of 30% monthly, these pretenders (coaches) are useless traders because they CLAIM TO MAKE 30 % a year.So why should anyone listen to them?

Are you telling us you consistently average 30% profits per month for the entire year therefore criticizing one with 30% per year?

 

[Shakone]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

They can be used very well and for profit by experienced and skilled traders , but not the way some failures describe them.They add no value on their sole application.

Is Technical Analysis a Waste of Time? - CBS News


A recent study by finance professors at Massey University in New Zealand examined more than 5,000 technical trading rules to see if they added value. The authors found "no evidence that the profits to the technical trading rules we consider are greater than those that might be expected due to random data variation."

More of the same funny research as usual.

There are an infinite number of possible technical strategies, so is studying 5000 strats somehow more convincing than 5? I wonder how much more convincing the authors think this makes things?

There are a few papers like this every year, every one of them missing the point. There are technical traders, trading on price alone, out there making money from technical systems beyond reasonable chance.

So instead of trying to prove something which is plainly false, with the same ol' tired research, they should be carrying out research that might be fruitful.

Bill Eckhardt: The random walk model of price change has been so durable because it’s nearly correct. The difference between futures prices and certain random walks is too small to detect using traditional time series analysis. Incredibly, this difference is detectable using trading systems.

 

[15 min tlb]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

Are you telling us you consistently average 30% profits per month for the entire year therefore criticizing one with 30% per year?

30 % a month is easily achievable without compounding.Your profits are magnified 100 times because of 100 to 1 leverage.

30 % a year is only 1000 pips a year x 3 lots on a 100 k account.20 pips a week isn't exactly guru stuff to train others.

200 pips a week isn't difficult.Last week alone I called live 93 pips in advance, and i call only a very tiny proportion of my trades .

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/dis...ing-general-chat-lounge-1248.html#post2020744

 

[15 min tlb]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

More of the same funny research as usual.

There are an infinite number of possible technical strategies, so is studying 5000 strats somehow more convincing than 5? I wonder how much more convincing the authors think this makes things?

There are a few papers like this every year, every one of them missing the point. There are technical traders, trading on price alone, out there making money from technical systems beyond reasonable chance.

So instead of trying to prove something which is plainly false, with the same ol' tired research, they should be carrying out research that might be fruitful.

For the last 10 years his company manage 9.7 % per annum , some funds returned 6 % ,prior year returns included money printing inflation returns and current financial crisis money printing inflation is included , and note the huge draw downs in his returns.There is very little evidence of the success based on his papers and theories on t/a.

Program Performance

WALOABXXXXCKS

 

[Lickyluciano]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

30 % a month is easily achievable without compounding.Your profits are magnified 100 times because of 100 to 1 leverage.

30 % a year is only 1000 pips a year x 3 lots on a 100 k account.20 pips a week isn't exactly guru stuff to train others.

200 pips a week isn't difficult.Last week alone I called live 93 pips in advance, and i call only a very tiny proportion of my trades .

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/dis...ing-general-chat-lounge-1248.html#post2020744

Of course achieving 30% in a month or even several months is achievable. But that is not what I asked you. I asked you if you are telling us you consistently achieve 30% each and every month? This means you never have drawdowns or losing months or losing periods.

I assume this is what compels you to critique one who achieves 30% in a year.

 

[Shakone]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

For the last 10 years his company manage 9.7 % per annum , some funds returned 6 % ,prior year returns included money printing inflation returns and current financial crisis money printing inflation is included , and note the huge draw downs in his returns.There is very little evidence of the success based on his papers and theories on t/a.

Program Performance

WALOABXXXXCKS

Well, 20 years of trading, up 4600%, despite no doubt large costs in commissions and spread each and every year, which if TA provided him with nothing, should have sent his equity in a sharp trend down. He's also trading a large fund, 500mil - billion. And you don't think this is evidence. Given the costs of trading, how many standard deviations away from where the fund should be (assuming TA has no benefit), would you guess this is, and how likely is that to happen?

 

[15 min tlb]

Re: Price Action Trading- Video

Well, 20 years of trading, up 4600%, despite no doubt large costs in commissions and spread each and every year, which if TA provided him with nothing, should have sent his equity in a sharp trend down. He's also trading a large fund, 500mil - billion. And you don't think this is evidence. Given the costs of trading, how many standard deviations away from where the fund should be (assuming TA has no benefit), would you guess this is, and how likely is that to happen?

Sometimes it is not the p/a or t/a that makes money , it is fundamentals and other reasons like holding power of the money backing you , 40 % to 50 % drawdowns from t/a systems is evidence of t/a p/a benefits.

 

[Shakone]

Fair point 15 min tlb, I agree about the bad drawdown, but disagree that it is not evidence, and that there aren't others also profiting from TA beyond what we could expect by randomness.

Equity curves should trend directly down + or - some random variable. As the number of trades goes up, in the long term, the downward trend will take control. Even breaking even would be evidence of something useful (although not profitable) in my opinion.

 

[15 min tlb]

Fair point 15 min tlb, I agree about the bad drawdown, but disagree that it is not evidence, and that there aren't others also profiting from TA beyond what we could expect by randomness.

Equity curves should trend directly down + or - some random variable. As the number of trades goes up, in the long term, the downward trend will take control. Even breaking even would be evidence of something useful (although not profitable) in my opinion.

A simple 30 pip move in one direction within 1 hour /2 hour will give you a 50/50 hit rate and breakeven results (tested over thousands of trades) .Attached is t/a based systems which give a 50 % hit rate , here the profit is made by managing trades i.e letting your winners run and cutting your losses , therefore t/a p/a adds no value, which is what the professors said and there is proof from a trader.

 

[Shakone]

Well as usual, this seems to be heading into semantics. When talking about price action, it's not just about entry. In my opinion it's less about entry and more about management to exit. But this management and exit is still TA to me, it is still price action. You're using the price to make your decisions, not fundamental situations, not gut feeling but the price. If it's not working out so well, you're cutting it early. If it is moving your way, you're running it, that is price action trading.

The academics found what they wanted to find, because they were applying the wrong type of analysis, with the wrong approach, trying to prove the wrong solution. They succeeded in getting it wrong.

 

[wackypete2]

Well as usual, this teams to be heading into semantics. When talking about price action, it's not just about entry. In my opinion it's less about entry and more about management to exit. But this management and exit is still TA to me, it is still price action. You're using the price to make your decisions, not fundamental situations, not gut feeling but the price. If it's not working out so well, you're cutting it early. If it is moving your way, you're running it, that is price action trading.

The academics found what they wanted to find, because they were applying the wrong type of analysis, with the wrong approach, trying to prove the wrong solution. They succeeded in getting it wrong.

Peter

 

[15 min tlb]

Well as usual, this teams to be heading into semantics. When talking about price action, it's not just about entry. In my opinion it's less about entry and more about management to exit. But this management and exit is still TA to me, it is still price action. You're using the price to make your decisions, not fundamental situations, not gut feeling but the price.

It is really about trading probabilities to professionals.Trading is a probabilities game.

If this t/a p/a works consistently , why do 95 % of traders lose ?You could write an automated program ,but you can't.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q= ...fficial&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

 

[wackypete2]

It is really about trading probabilities to professionals.Trading is a probabilities game.

If this t/a p/a works consistently , why do 95 % of traders lose ?You could write an automated program ,but you can't.

They lose because of one or more of these reasons:
a) undercapitalised
b) emotionally or psychologically unfit to be a trader
c) lack of discipline

95% would still lose even if you taught them a guaranteed time tested proven method. It has little to do with t/a , p/a, f/a, or any method, system, or strategy.

Peter