As I've said twice in this thread:- I like BW's psychology...not his technical models. There is a qualitative difference.
Reread the thread. I did not see it you mentioning even once anything about it.
In any case, since you like his psychology, perhaps you can share how you have applied it and utilized in your trading. If that has already been mentioned in this thread please provide the reference.
Not to get off track or anything. It seems that many books whether it be on TA, stock market analysis, trading, etc. can actually be applied to the Forex market in one way or another. The issue is that one cannot take the same parametrics and just apply it directly to the Forex market without any type of backtesting and forward testing. Forex is probably the only trading environment which use technical indicators unlike other markets. Awhile back, I saw a video from John Carter, he also had explicitly said that he had tried to apply settings in from his futures market to Forex and had gotten killed. After extensive testing, he had finally found the correct settings to use with his indicators to trade forex successfully even though he is still mostly a futures trader....
Sure. Even to a greater extent, setups that work for one pair might not work for another, the setup/system that produced discent results all of a sudden produce consistent losses. Therefore, naturally why one would suspect that a good setup from another market would work in Forex. That is naive. Price action is the only common element.
For any system the backtesting is essential not only for the market but for any currency pair and most importantly internalized to your personality and style. IMHO
From post #6:-
"Having said all that I still quite like them for the trading psychology/philosophy side of things...."
From post #17:-
"At the very least they get to the core of what trading is all about: disseminating information.....tearing down old models and building new ones."
You are now testing my patience...
Cab you please answer my question, How have you applied that psychology in your trading. Seems you have strong opinon about his systems and psychology.
Have you read all his books?
Not testing your patience. Just checjing th psychology
In post #6 I made the statement:-
"None of his books are true books about 'Chaos' theory either. They are merely books about trading.
He makes some conflicting statements as well....e.g 'Traditional technical analysis doesn't really work' and
then goes on to describe AO which is just MACD in disguise. Right on."
Logic being impicit....
Patience all gone sorry....
I can honestly say that reading Bill's books taught me 'how to approach the game of trading' - New Trading Dimensions is a philosophical bible to me.
I guess, we will never hear your explanation about psychological impact. All you can come up with "dislike" of his technical indicators and past conversations with his daughter.
What is the poin of your participation if you cannot even explain or backup your own statements.
No need to respond. Thanks
I guess we'll never hear yours. As I say....logic being implicit...
Mine? Was there any question that I have not responded? I do not see any value that you brought to this thread except gossips and unsubstantiated statements about some indicators that you probably did not even test in the way Fractals and EW described in his book.
AO, Allegators etc... are part of his entire outlook on trading. But bease on your comments all you were trying to do is comparing AO with CCI.
And all your biblical refrences to psychology will have to stay with you, since that impact can not come out in the open. Logic? No, lack of other many abilities....
I get a little bit annoyed when newbie traders make comments a long the lines of 'tell my why?' when the answer is available by a little inspection. Linuxser substantiated my AO/MACD comment in post #6 with his post #15.
Why ask basic questions when the answers are readily available by inspection?
I've made some simple statements in this thread...AO is MACD....Alligator is too subjective...BW's fractal theory is flawed. Most intelligent people can look at these comments and decide for themselves by simple inspection whether they are valid or not.
When I say 'logic is implicit' I mean find it out for yourself......Psych/Indicators or whatever.