Lance Begs' postulates - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
And a brief justification? )
Adaptability ъ.
Adaptability is there for both:
Chewist - simply breaks the rules
System player - changes the rules (after a partial flush) and then follows them
Chuukist = not a systems guy.
Well, it's hard to suspect Lance of that. He has a system. You could say he's on it tightly. That's if by system we mean a set of rules that are always followed. Another thing is that the rules can be quite complex and involve many different parameters, not just price.
A person believes that there are "zones of interest" - why not? A accumulation of stops in a narrow range is not a zone? I think it is a good zone. It is clear that a lot of interesting things often happen in these areas. And when he says that these zones may bounce or break, it should be clear.
Adaptability is there for both:
Chewist - simply breaks the rules
System player - changes the rules (after a partial flush) and then follows them
By the way, sneaky kick in the butt, Neo who was stitching the gaps, is he a chuukist? After all, he was drafting too, it seemed subjective to many, etc.
Has Neo been trading on "drafts"? I can't remember, can I get a link?
What exactly he trades is something he and probably a couple of other comrades know. And the subject of stitching gaps has been brought up twice (at least), over the years, on Bride (To lovers of TA-style drawing) and Spider (The day after GEPA). On Bride the pictures didn't survive, but on Spider you can find - interesting pictures. It's not that he only trades drawings (more like patterns, as he explained them), but the longstanding interest in the subject is there for a reason.
But just in case I correct the question, since the man has publicly and repeatedly discussed these "blueprints" is he a chuikist?
here, by the way, is one of his drawings, from the spider.
"For those who like to use a pencil and ruler, I suggest at your leisure to draw something similar to what is drawn in the above figure.(there was a drawing here).
Connecting (stitching) GEPs always leads to very interesting results. Moreover, the prognostic value of such figures allows not lazy traders to find quite specific levels and pay attention to them in advance.
I advise those who wish to criticize the drawing as a specific one not to be lazy and draw it themselves. I am sure the scepticism will disappear quite quickly.
Good luck drawing, everyone!" (that's from the bride)
or here, interestingly enough, the same from the bride.
"And here's the most intriguing part. I, like the vast majority of technicians, have drawn and sometimes continue to draw various support and resistance lines in traditional ways. The statistical reliability of such levels, imho, is rather conventional due to significant subjectivism in their definition, maybe someone will defend a different point of view. On the other hand, reliability of definition of the same levels, using straight lines stitching GEPs, by my estimations is about 78-83%! And as confirmation of it, i.e. in purely practical aspect, the use of such lines allows me quite often buy and sell at so-called extreme prices, i.e. just at bends of formations, i.e. at those moments when hypothetical trends are just forming. Moreover, I will add that in case of GEP approach to determination of possible turning points I practically never had to face the problem of bulls/bears traps during two years, which is traditional for support/resistance levels calculated with the tardian method!
What exactly he trades is something he and probably a couple of other comrades know. And the subject of stitching gaps has been brought up twice (at least), over the years, on Bride (To lovers of TA-style drawing) and Spider (The day after GEPA). On Bride the pictures didn't survive, but on Spider you can find - interesting pictures. It's not that he only trades drawings (more like patterns, as he explained them), but the longstanding interest in the subject is there for a reason.
But just in case I correct the question, since the man has publicly and repeatedly discussed these "blueprints" is he a chuikist?
here, by the way, is one of his drawings, from the spider.
"For those who like to use a pencil and ruler, I suggest that at your leisure you draw something similar to what is shown in the above drawing.(there was a drawing here).
Connecting (stitching together) GEPs always leads to very interesting results. Moreover, the prognostic value of such figures allows not lazy traders to find quite specific levels and pay attention to them in advance.
I advise those who wish to criticize the drawing as a specific one not to be lazy and draw it themselves. I'm sure the scepticism will disappear quite quickly.
Good luck drawing, everyone!" (that's from the bride)
or here, interestingly enough, the same from the bride.
"And here's the most intriguing part. I, like the vast majority of technicians, have drawn and sometimes continue to draw various support and resistance lines in traditional ways. The statistical reliability of such levels, imho, is rather conventional due to significant subjectivism in their definition, maybe someone will defend a different point of view. On the other hand, reliability of definition of the same levels, using straight lines stitching GEPs, by my estimations is about 78-83%! And as confirmation of it, i.e. from a purely practical aspect, the use of such lines allows me quite often buy and sell at so-called extreme prices, i.e. just at bends of formations, i.e. at the moments when hypothetical trends are just forming. Moreover, I would add that in the case of the GEP approach to determination of possible turning points I practically never had to face the problem of bull/bitre traps during two years, which is traditional for support/resistance levels calculated in the tardian way!"
I don't know if I am trading or not, I also draw sometimes)) to understand the process, but I don't trade in drawings. Discussed that topic too. Drawing can be formalised 100% without subjectivity. And is Neo an idol or what? I am against 100% unformalized rules, "subjective approach" - the use of flair, but I do not exclude that it can be used (in the first post I wrote). If someone likes to trade manually and haphazardly - let him do it if his abilities, timeframe, nerves etc. allow him to. I'm sure it is contraindicated for most of them :)
So we'll all start repenting that we sometimes doodle something there etc. :)
Maybe Neo is not an idol, but he gets a lot of kudos from me. As far as I understood, in 2003 he also did not trade "blueprints". However, while not trading them, he was using them to catch some nice extrema. So you know what is meant by trading.
The point was that 'manual' and 'unsystematic' are not the same thing, there is no equal sign between them. That's my point. I think "gut feeling" is trading based on emotions and has nothing to do with, say, intuition.
The next thing I wanted to say, testing and trading may look like this, a lot of calculations, etc. - but the direct opening and closing of the trade is done by hand. This style of trading may be called "by hand" - but I'm sure that not everyone would agree with this.
Next. Another thought. This adherence to the "system" (just an observation, not a call) is often accompanied by arguments that ultimately boil down to "convenience". Convenience of trade is certainly good, and necessary, but on the other hand, doesn't it remind one of trying to look for keys under a torch, not where one has lost them.
Now about formalisation. Both here and elsewhere this example has already been given. Try to formalise driving a car in Moscow. But it can be formalized in general, but it is difficult to cram this formalism into the computer. So there are different levels for formalism, depending on who implements this formalism?
In general, I have given my opinion, I will not argue, the rest is my own business.
So now we'll all start to repent, that sometimes we draw something there etc. :)
Maybe Neo is not an idol, but he gets a lot of respect from me. As far as I understood, in 2003 he also did not trade "blueprints". However, while not trading them, he was using them to catch some nice extrema. So you know what is meant by trading.
The point was that 'manual' and 'unsystematic' are not the same thing, there is no equal sign between them. That's my point. I think "gut feeling" is trading based on emotions and has nothing to do with, say, intuition.
The next thing I wanted to say, testing and trading may look like this, a lot of calculations, etc. - but the direct opening and closing of the trade is done by hand. This style of trading may be called "by hand" - but I'm sure that not everyone would agree with this.
Next. Another thought. This adherence to the "system" (just an observation, not a call) is often accompanied by arguments that ultimately boil down to "convenience". Convenience of trade is certainly good, and necessary, but on the other hand, doesn't it remind one of trying to look for keys under a torch, not where one has lost them.
Now about formalisation. Both here and elsewhere this example has already been given. Try to formalise driving a car in Moscow. But it can be formalized in general, but it is difficult to cram this formalism into the computer. So there are different levels for formalism, depending on who implements this formalism.
In general, I have given my opinion, I will not argue, the rest is my own business.