# Lifestyles & Discussion > Bitcoin / Cryptocurrencies >  All (non-daytrading) Libertarians should make preparations now for the Great Scoop ($80-150)

## muh_roads

The good chartists out there that seem to hit their targets quite well unanimously agree that the final leg down is in that range, ($80-$150).  Setting a spread of descending limit orders is best IMO if you aren't the kind of person that likes to watch the markets all the time.

Now is the best time to begin researching how you would like to buy Bitcoin.  The preparation time you will be afforded for that price range I believe will be about 1-3 months.  Presence, WVPaul, newbitech...I'd like your thoughts as well...

As for buying Bitcoin, a lot of people like Coinbase because of the instant $1K after registering.  I'm not a fan of Coinbase, personally.  Too American.  (isn't that sad to say?)

I've been using Bitstamp.  But I also pay my welfare queens their "entitled" taxes regardless.

Would really like to see more RPF members involved and asking more questions.  We are here to help you.

----------


## Carlybee

nm//

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The good chartists out there that seem to hit their targets quite well unanimously agree that the final leg down is in that range, ($80-$150).  Setting a spread of descending limit orders is best IMO if you aren't the kind of person that likes to watch the markets all the time.
> 
> Now is the best time to begin researching how you would like to buy Bitcoin.  The preparation time you will be afforded for that price range I believe will be about 1-3 months.  Presence, WVPaul, newbitech...I'd like your thoughts as well...
> 
> As for buying Bitcoin, a lot of people like Coinbase because of the instant $1K after registering.  I'm not a fan of Coinbase, personally.  Too American.  (isn't that sad to say?)
> 
> I've been using Bitstamp.  But I also pay my welfare queens their "entitled" taxes regardless.
> 
> Would really like to see more RPF members involved and asking more questions.  We are here to help you.


I tend to agree.  We've come up and kissed the long-tern downtrend line, but we haven't broken it yet.  We're sitting just under it now, so I expect some sideways before we start the descent.  I made some good profit on the recent price action so now I'm just sitting back and enjoying it.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Considering, is anybody shorting and leveraging to the hilt at this point?

----------


## presence

Honey Badger Enterprise says hold 6 more days minimum. 

S 349
B 312
S 322
B 205
S 249 
B 255 

Holding BTC.

285 Last

----------


## amonasro

I would not listen to "the best chartists" as that doesn't really exist. If they really were the best they would be retired and not pushing their charts on Tradingview or selling a service. Some of them offer good viewpoints and I enjoy reading them, but it certainly should not be investment advice. Most of the charts on Tradingview don't even include volume analysis, how am I supposed to take that seriously? And don't even get me started on Elliot Wave nonsense, which seems very en vogue right now but offers investors dozens of possible outcomes from one trading setup.

As a trader, you need to separate yourself from outside influences and seek to understand the market on your own.

The fact is, nobody is that interested in buying Bitcoin right now and certainly won't be if it crashes to $150 again. The public doesn't buy down markets, they buy up markets when everyone else is buying. During down markets, they are preaching doom and gloom while the smart money accumulates. During up markets, they are preaching moon while the smart money sells on their heads. That's just how professional traders operate, and until human psychology changes their methods won't either.

The best advice I would offer the public if they are interested in a position in Bitcoin is to dollar cost average during down markets and plan on holding for a couple years.

----------


## Zippyjuan

If the "experts" were always right and knew everything they would be trillionaires. If they are right most of the time, they should be billionaires.

----------


## NoOneButPaul

Could not agree more with the last two posts...

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I would not listen to "the best chartists" as that doesn't really exist. If they really were the best they would be retired and not pushing their charts on Tradingview or selling a service. Some of them offer good viewpoints and I enjoy reading them, but it certainly should not be investment advice. Most of the charts on Tradingview don't even include volume analysis, how am I supposed to take that seriously? And don't even get me started on Elliot Wave nonsense, which seems very en vogue right now but offers investors dozens of possible outcomes from one trading setup.
> 
> As a trader, you need to separate yourself from outside influences and seek to understand the market on your own.
> 
> The fact is, nobody is that interested in buying Bitcoin right now and certainly won't be if it crashes to $150 again. The public doesn't buy down markets, they buy up markets when everyone else is buying. During down markets, they are preaching doom and gloom while the smart money accumulates. During up markets, they are preaching moon while the smart money sells on their heads. That's just how professional traders operate, and until human psychology changes their methods won't either.
> 
> The best advice I would offer the public if they are interested in a position in Bitcoin is to dollar cost average during down markets and plan on holding for a couple years.


Winner winner chicken dinner!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Bitcoin is not an investment and should not be considered an investment.  It is a speculation.

It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.

Technical analysis, of all the *superstitions* held by traders, has probably the least amount of value.  There _is_ no "head and shoulders" there _is_ no "support" there _is_ no "leg down" and there _is_ no "Great Scoop".  All nonsense, all worthless.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Considering, is anybody shorting and leveraging to the hilt at this point?


Not yet.  It could go sideways for a while and those fees add up quick.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If the "experts" were always right and knew everything they would be trillionaires. If they are right most of the time, they should be billionaires.


Some of them are decent and are just millionaires.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Bitcoin is not an investment and should not be considered an investment.  It is a speculation.
> 
> It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.
> 
> Technical analysis, of all the *superstitions* held by traders, has probably the least amount of value.  There _is_ no "head and shoulders" there _is_ no "support" there _is_ no "leg down" and there _is_ no "Great Scoop".  All nonsense, all worthless.


Don't knock it till you try it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Don't knock it till you try it.


Just stating my opinion.  You should perhaps instead advise me "Don't laud it till you have scientific, independently-verified evidence that it works."  That would, in fact, be better advice.

Will you be putting up your personal portfolio as publicly-viewable evidence for us to track as to how successful your methods are?

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Some of them are decent and are just millionaires.


And there aren't very many of those.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Bitcoin is not an investment and should not be considered an investment.  It is a speculation.
> 
> It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.
> 
> Technical analysis, of all the *superstitions* held by traders, has probably the least amount of value.  There _is_ no "head and shoulders" there _is_ no "support" there _is_ no "leg down" and there _is_ no "Great Scoop".  All nonsense, all worthless.


Speculating on a volitile speculative investment is a great way to give away money.

----------


## amonasro

> Just stating my opinion.  You should perhaps instead advise me "Don't laud it till you have scientific, independently-verified evidence that it works."  That would, in fact, be better advice.


Proponents of TA will never be able to provide this. It's educated guessing. Markets do have structure and cycles that repeat, and when you begin to understand that one can find opportunities that yield a favorable risk/reward ratio. I found out long ago that trading on indicators and patterns alone without understanding what the market has done in the recent past will simply lead to frustration. One really needs a deeper understanding of the market and figure out what and who moves it.

Personally I only use indicators to see what the retail traders and bots are up to. It's important to know why they work and be familiar with the most common ones, but overall price, volume and support/resistance are king.

----------


## amonasro

> Speculating on a volitile speculative investment is a great way to give away money.


Speak for yourself. Plenty of money to be made if you know what you're doing. It takes some balls, but so does doing anything worthwhile in life.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Proponents of TA will never be able to provide this. It's educated guessing. Markets do have structure and cycles that repeat, and when you begin to understand that one can find opportunities that yield a favorable risk/reward ratio. I found out long ago that trading on indicators and patterns alone without understanding what the market has done in the recent past will simply lead to frustration. One really needs a deeper understanding of the market and figure out what and who moves it.
> 
> Personally I only use indicators to see what the retail traders and bots are up to. It's important to know why they work and be familiar with the most common ones, but overall price, volume and support/resistance are king.


Would you agree, then, with my general sum-up opinion on speculation that it's an art more than a science?  Someone great at it wouldn't necessarily be able to even explain to you after the fact _why_ they made a certain trade, or if they tried it might not be accurate.  They may not even know, themselves.  You can't learn it from a book, any more than you could read a book about "How to write great music" and expect to become the next John Lennon or Bach.  It's internal.  It's fuzzy.  Not everyone is going to be good at it.  It's a "knack."

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Speak for yourself. Plenty of money to be made if you know what you're doing. *It takes some balls,* but so does doing anything worthwhile in life.


Meaning luck and having money you can afford to lose. You CAN make money but many do not. Even those who think they know what they are doing can lose lots of money.  I am more risk adverse- buy and hold (I do not have any bitcoin). And yes, I am just speaking for myself.  Others may have different tolerances for risk.

----------


## RonPaulIsGreat

More red cars than white cars passed my house today. A solid indicator we will knockup against 300 again. If we can have the elusive purple car day, I'm confident can break 400.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Just stating my opinion.  You should perhaps instead advise me "Don't laud it till you have scientific, independently-verified evidence that it works."  That would, in fact, be better advice.
> 
> Will you be putting up your personal portfolio as publicly-viewable evidence for us to track as to how successful your methods are?


Obviously the sensitive nature of one's finances puts a lot of strain on people seeking "evidence".  Suffice it to say, though, a lot of people do make money this way, and yes, I am one of them.  The key, of course, is not being right, it's about placing a probability on a trade and managing risk.  Patterns are very effective at this by defining areas of support and resistance that act as barriers to the price that should not be crossed if the model is correct.  Yes, I have seen this in action and your claim that there is no "support or resistance" is quite frankly absurd.  You can see this very clearly just by looking at the price action on the chart.  It's plain as day to anyone who knows what to look for.  

One of the things that turns people off is that there are often very many levels of support or resistance within close proximity to one another, but you can reasonably expect a certain trend with breaks of key support or resistance levels.  

I still hold by my original statement that you should not knock it until you try it because there are many people who have tried it and it would be absurd for you to claim to know more about it than they do while making absolutely no effort to even understand it.  You don't even have to trade to understand it, so you really have no excuse for telling people it doesn't work without even knowing anything about it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Would you agree, then, with my general sum-up opinion on speculation that it's an art more than a science?  Someone great at it wouldn't necessarily be able to even explain to you after the fact _why_ they made a certain trade, or if they tried it might not be accurate.  They may not even know, themselves.  You can't learn it from a book, any more than you could read a book about "How to write great music" and expect to become the next John Lennon or Bach.  It's internal.  It's fuzzy.  Not everyone is going to be good at it.  It's a "knack."


I guess you could subscribe to the belief that these people just have innate luck and can't really explain what they're doing, but it goes against the fundamentals of scientific thinking, in which a repeatable test is deemed to be valid based on the fact that it's repeatable.  If you can repeat it, there's no reason to think you can't understand why it keeps working.

----------


## muh_roads

> Just stating my opinion.  You should perhaps instead advise me "Don't laud it till you have scientific, independently-verified evidence that it works."  That would, in fact, be better advice.
> 
> Will you be putting up your personal portfolio as publicly-viewable evidence for us to track as to how successful your methods are?


The topic of predictive analysis is what I find interesting...

One of many explanation threads ---> https://www.tradingview.com/v/kbjPw4sh/
BTC/Yuan ---> https://www.tradingview.com/v/S9D9Chhg/

I combine it with my own style of setting a spread of orders depending on whether I want to get out or in.

I've been trading since about 550 spot or so as it dropped.  Mistakes are made (for me when I deviate from my own plan) but we are beating the market.  No I won't post my portfolio, but we've been posting a lot of our entry's and exits in the presence thread for people to follow.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Suffice it to say, though, a lot of people do make money this way, and yes, I am one of them.


 Oh, come on.  You've been doing this for what, a year and a half?  Get serious.  Set your sights a little higher.




> The key, of course, is not being right, it's about placing a probability on a trade and managing risk.  Patterns are very effective at this by defining areas of support and resistance that act as barriers to the price that should not be crossed if the model is correct.  Yes, I have seen this in action and your claim that there is no "support or resistance" is quite frankly absurd.  You can see this very clearly just by looking at the price action on the chart.  It's plain as day to anyone who knows what to look for.  
> 
> One of the things that turns people off is that there are often very many levels of support or resistance within close proximity to one another, but you can reasonably expect a certain trend with breaks of key support or resistance levels.  
> 
> I still hold by my original statement that you should not knock it until you try it because there are many people who have tried it and it would be absurd for you to claim to know more about it than they do while making absolutely no effort to even understand it.  You don't even have to trade to understand it, so you really have no excuse for telling people it doesn't work without even knowing anything about it.
> 
> I guess you could subscribe to the belief that these people just have innate luck and can't really explain what they're doing, but it goes against the fundamentals of scientific thinking, in which a repeatable test is deemed to be valid based on the fact that it's repeatable.  If you can repeat it, there's no reason to think you can't understand why it keeps working.


 Calmarse, Paul.  Look, again, what I wrote about speculation is: *it's more an art than a science.*

Now what does that mean?  Are you under the impression that I would claim that art does not exist?  Or perhaps even that art is theoretically impossible?  Or that art is inferior to science?

Speculation exists.  Speculation is fine -- for money you can afford to lose.  Nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you have your eyes open.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> The topic of predictive analysis is what I find interesting...


 Interesting, yes.  What's perhaps _most_ interesting about the matho-jumbo voodoo we call technical analysis is how many people people believe it, utterly believe it, when there is no evidence that it works, no causal explanation of why it possibly _should_ work, and reams of contrary evidence showing that it absolutely does not work.  In contrast, very few people base their speculative trading on cloud patterns, a practice for which there are no reams of contrary evidence showing that it doesn't work.

Interesting.




> Mistakes are made (for me when I deviate from my own plan) but we are beating the market.


 Beating what market?  The Bitcoin market?  

I'm sincerely glad for you if you've happened to realize a positive return using whatever techniques, even if they make no sense to me.  I'm just kind of giving my opinion, and maybe sounding a warning voice to any tempted by your siren call of easy money.

----------


## presence

> What's perhaps _most_ interesting about the matho-jumbo voodoo we call technical analysis is how many people people believe it, utterly believe it, when there is no evidence that it works



Here I have plotted a very simple 90/20 12h moving average cross against:

# 1 - LTCUSD
# 2 - DDD 3D Systems
# 3 - QCOR Questcor Pharmaceuticals
# 4 - MTGOX pre 2012
# 5 - EBIX
# 6 - LTCBTC 
# 7 - Polycom Inc

https://tradewave.net/strategy/EDiQXzOKnj

A simple BTCUSD version that doesn't import stock data is here:

https://tradewave.net/strategy/zlJMRckBNN

You can speed up or slow down time and see that the simple cross beats the market and gains shares in almost all circumstances.




> no causal explanation of why it possibly _should_ work


Quantitative Analysis works for one very simple reason:

Mean Reversion









> even if they make no sense to me


Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean Berkshire Hathaway doesn't employ platoons of Technical Analysts at $150k a pop.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Here I have plotted a very simple 90/20 12h moving average cross against:
> 
> # 1 - LTCUSD
> # 2 - DDD 3D Systems
> # 3 - QCOR Questcor Pharmaceuticals
> # 4 - MTGOX pre 2012
> # 5 - EBIX
> # 6 - LTCBTC 
> # 7 - Polycom Inc
> ...


 There's ten charts there.  The first two appear to show your hypothetical portfolio vs. LTCBTC trade volume.  Actually, they all do, except the last, which shows the imaginary portfolio vs. MTGOX volume.  What are you trying to show/prove/demonstrate by posting these particular charts here?

Why don't you do a #8 of Apple Corp.  And a #9 of peanut futures.  I mean, explain to me this: why, exactly, should I expect Bitcoin to go up after QCOR goes up, and down after QCOR goes down?  What in the world does QCOR have to do with Bitcoin?




> Mean Reversion


 Impressive!  So what's the mean, presence?  QCOR?  Really?  Why?  It would seem like determining just what the mean is would be an important first step to taking advantage of any kind of "mean reversion" phenomenon.  So let's figure it out.  What's the mean?




> Just because you don't understand it


Just wondering... Are you claiming that you _do_ understand it?

----------


## amonasro

> Meaning luck and having money you can afford to lose. You CAN make money but many do not. Even those who think they know what they are doing can lose lots of money.  I am more risk adverse- buy and hold (I do not have any bitcoin). And yes, I am just speaking for myself.  Others may have different tolerances for risk.





> Interesting, yes. What's perhaps _most_ interesting about the matho-jumbo voodoo we call technical analysis is how many people people believe it, utterly believe it, when there is no evidence that it works, no causal explanation of why it possibly _should_ work, and reams of contrary evidence showing that it absolutely does not work. In contrast, very few people base their speculative trading on cloud patterns, a practice for which there are no reams of contrary evidence showing that it doesn't work.


There is absolutely risk involved but I wouldn't call successful trading luck or interpretation of TA mumbo-jumbo. 

In most markets where there is profit to be made, there are professional traders feeding on the public's fear: fear of missing out on profit (in a bull market) and fear of loss (in a bear market) that tend to drive prices to extremes. Once you understand how they use these fears to affect market cycles (accumulation--markup--distribution--markdown) all you really have to do is recognize this behavior and join them. Markets move on supply and demand and little else. If you recognize market participants quietly accumulating an increasing line of stock at the bottom of a market, the available supply of it to sell will decrease and the price will naturally go up. You'll see this reflected in the price and volume before it happens if you know what to look for. If they are selling their holdings at a market top, you'll see mirror-opposite structures indicating distribution which will flood the market with supply and push prices down. The classic head and shoulders pattern for example, is a distribution pattern. The reverse head and shoulders is an accumulation pattern. Continuation patterns are a study of when buying and selling forces are in relative harmony and price moves sideways in order to guage supply versus demand to predict which way the price will go next. Obviously this is not an exact science, it is an art, which is why there is no mathematical proof that it works. But markets have undergone these cycles for hundreds of years, so it must be working for someone. 

Chart patterns are a reflection of supply and demand in a market, their structure driven largely by professionals with huge bankrolls manipulating the fear of the majority. This is why most inexperienced traders lose money. The fact is, humans as a group when presented with opportunity or crisis, act in similar ways: Joe Blow will not buy Bitcoin at $250, but he will buy at $600-$800-$1000 out of fear of missing out, having watched the price skyrocket for months and his friends make huge profits. If the price goes higher, he will not sell. Instead, he will sell at $180 during a market capitulation, having watched in fear for months as his investment goes down the drain. And the traders (having bought much lower) will be there at $800 selling to him. The same traders (with plans to sell higher) will be more than willing to take them off his hands at $180. This process simply repeats over and over.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Oh, come on.  You've been doing this for what, a year and a half?  Get serious.  Set your sights a little higher.


What in the world are you talking about?  What do you presume to know about how high or low my sights are currently set?  Are you insinuating that a year and a half is too long to be making money and that I should be a billionaire by now?  If I'm making money, why should I stop?  What else should I be doing?  Trading doesn't really get in the way of anything because you choose your own hours.

In reality, I haven't been "doing this" very long.  When I started, I was completely ignorant, but I have learned a lot and I have a teacher and I do pretty well.  There's no secret key to knowing every single move, but there are certain high-probability areas that come maybe 2 or 3 times a month that give you a very good trade setup on which you can make real money.




> Calmarse, Paul.  Look, again, what I wrote about speculation is: *it's more an art than a science.*
> 
> Now what does that mean?  Are you under the impression that I would claim that art does not exist?  Or perhaps even that art is theoretically impossible?  Or that art is inferior to science?
> 
> Speculation exists.  Speculation is fine -- for money you can afford to lose.  Nothing wrong with speculation, as long as you have your eyes open.


I never said anything about my impression of your claims or the theoretical probability of art being real.  I guess my concern is that you really need to define what you mean by "art" and how it is different from science.  The patterns, the support and resistance, they're all real!  What is this notion of "art" you're getting, where are you getting it from, and why do you call it that?  Sure, some aspects of charting can be artistic, but that doesn't take away the hard, logical basis on which traders base their strategies.

By the way, I had to look up the word "calmarse" which seems to be derived from the words "calm" and "arse" (ass).  I really don't understand why you chose to use it, but I assure you my arse is calm.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Interesting, yes.  What's perhaps _most_ interesting about the matho-jumbo voodoo we call technical analysis is how many people people believe it, utterly believe it, when there is no evidence that it works, no causal explanation of why it possibly _should_ work, and reams of contrary evidence showing that it absolutely does not work.  In contrast, very few people base their speculative trading on cloud patterns, a practice for which there are no reams of contrary evidence showing that it doesn't work.


What is this contrary evidence you speak of?  Give me your best reason for believing it does not work.

----------


## presence

> There's ten charts there.  The first two appear to show your hypothetical portfolio vs. LTCBTC trade volume.  Actually, they all do, except the last, which shows the imaginary portfolio vs. MTGOX volume.  What are you trying to show/prove/demonstrate by posting these particular charts here?


ok... so using that script each of those securities can be traded against 90/20 cross... INDEPENDANTLY.  And in each circumstance... regardless of which security you choose... the 90/20 cross will gain both assets and currency.

Change the parameter:



```
SECURITY =
```

to try it against each different stock/crypto numbers 1 through 7





> Why don't you do a #8 of Apple Corp.  And a #9 of peanut futures.  I mean, explain to me this: why, exactly, should I expect Bitcoin to go up after QCOR goes up, and down after QCOR goes down?  What in the world does QCOR have to do with Bitcoin?


Bitcoin and QCOR are completely not related.   You're misunderstanding.  

Bitcoin goes up when BTCUSD 90/20 crosses up, Bitcoin goes down when BTCUSD 90/20 crosses down

QCOR goes up when QCORUSD 90/20 crosses up, QCOR goes down when QCORUSD 90/20 crosses down

follow?




> Impressive!  So what's the mean, presence?  QCOR?  Really?  Why?  It would seem like determining just what the mean is would be an important first step to taking advantage of any kind of "mean reversion" phenomenon.  So let's figure it out.  What's the mean?


mean = average

price tends oscillate above and below the long moving average (90 12h candles in the example provided)

So we can take a shorter moving average (20 in the example provided)

and say... when the 20 crosses bullish over the 90... that security is prone to rise.

When 20 moving average crosses under the longer 90 moving average that security is prone to fall.

And because we know that historically... in the world of finance... price doesn't move like pink noise... when 90 12h crosses 20 12h there will be many days in between until they cross back the other way...

So you want to be on the right side of the ball. 





> Just wondering... Are you claiming that you _do_ understand it?



Considering I can write code, not just to use, but to actually calculate every financial indicator known to man.  

Yeah.  I understand it.


Here's my parabolic SAR calculation:

https://discuss.tradewave.net/t/para...out-ta-lib/220

Here's how I place Iceberg Limit Orders:

https://discuss.tradewave.net/t/iceb...tepresence/142

Here's how I calculate Aroon Oscillator:

https://discuss.tradewave.net/t/aroo...out-ta-lib/245



If you check through the Tradewave forums you'll see I've shared open source code for just about any indicator you can imagine.

Which would you like to know more about?   They're more than just squiggly lines to me.   I know how to crunch the numbers that plot the lines.   From that knowledge comes the intiution of the signicance, or non significance of two squiggly lines crossing.

A+ Finance 402 many moons back, mathematics scholarship

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What in the world are you talking about?  What do you presume to know about how high or low my sights are currently set?  Are you insinuating that a year and a half is too long to be making money and that I should be a billionaire by now?


 No, year point five = short time, not long.  Take whatever you thought I was trying to say and reverse it.




> I never said anything about my impression of your claims or the theoretical probability of art being real.  I guess my concern is that you really need to define what you mean by "art" and how it is different from science.


  I can't define art.  The point of art is you can't define art.  




> By the way, I had to look up the word "calmarse" which seems to be derived from the words "calm" and "arse" (ass).  I really don't understand why you chose to use it, but I assure you my arse is calm.


It's just Spanish for "calm down".  Doi bu chi for being confusing.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, year point five = short time, not long.  Take whatever you thought I was trying to say and reverse it.
> 
>   I can't define art.  The point of art is you can't define art.


Then what do you mean when you refer to TA as "art"?  That you can't define TA?  You'll have to be more specific.




> It's just Spanish for "calm down".  Doi bu chi for being confusing.


Was I excited?  The internet is a notoriously poor conductor for states of mind, so I'm not sure why you assumed I needed to calm down.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply, presence!  And I hope that I didn't and don't come off as disrespectful of you, despite the radical difference of opinion that I think we have on this matter.




> ok... so using that script each of those securities can be traded against 90/20 cross... INDEPENDANTLY.  And in each circumstance... regardless of which security you choose... the 90/20 cross will gain both assets and currency.
> 
> Change the parameter:
> 
> 
> 
> ```
> SECURITY =
> ```
> ...


  Yes, I was misunderstanding.  Of course, there was no explanation whatsoever, and I have never been to that site or any like it, so you can surely understand my failure to rightly interpret it upon a cursory glance and a minute's examination.

I had thought your two crossing lines were Bitcoin and [QCOR, DDD, whatever-the-other-thing-was, #1-7].  That was a complete misunderstanding.  The two crossing lines are two different averages of the same thing.




> Bitcoin goes up when BTCUSD 90/20 crosses up, Bitcoin goes down when BTCUSD 90/20 crosses down
> 
> QCOR goes up when QCORUSD 90/20 crosses up, QCOR goes down when QCORUSD 90/20 crosses down
> 
> follow?
> 
> 
> 
> mean = average
> ...


 Yes, I do follow all this.  And I appreciate the explanation.  So many purveyors of this stuff have the tactic of using as much secret lingo and inside baseball short-hand as possible, to make it solidly incomprehensible to the layman, so that they (the gullible ones) will say "Wow, that guy must be smart, because I have no idea what he's saying."  I appreciate that you are not taking this approach.  You even defined mean! 




> Considering I can write code, not just to use, but to actually calculate every financial indicator known to man.  
> 
> Yeah.  I understand it.


 OK, well, I have no evidence that you actually do.  It's one thing to set up something that back-tests well.  To paraphrase Archimedes, give a man a spreadsheet large enough and he will make you the richest man on Earth.  On paper.

But just because you can turn a thousand 1900 dollars into a trillion 2014 dollars doesn't mean you can turn a thousand 2015 dollars into a trillion, a billion, or even a thousand 2100 dollars.




> A+ Finance 402 many moons back, mathematics scholarship


 That's wonderful!  And I can crunch numbers, too.  But I zoom out to what I see as a bigger picture, and that bigger picture is this:

Market Timing, Technical Analysis, and Other Superstitions Practiced by Investment Advisors
Why the Best-Laid Investment Plans Usually Go Wrong
One paper on market timing, chosen at random (couldn't find the one I wanted)

It doesn't make sense that what you are doing would work reliably.  Here's why.  If what you are doing worked, then others would start to do it, too.  As more and more did it, juicing their returns, the behavior of the market would change.  The oscillation period that you think you've discovered would change.  You don't know how it would change.  You could try to adapt.  It might work, it might not.  This is not a future scenario, to be worried about down the road.  In my view, all of this already happened long ago.  The vast, vast, vasty vast majority of trades that occur today in mature markets like the US Stock Exchange are automated trades made by computers programmed with algorithms just like yours (but, no offense, probably better).  It all cancels out.  There's just no way to _reliably_ win with very short-term trading in this zero-sum game.  Note: I'm saying reliably.  No way you can count on.  Obviously sometimes you will win.  A lot of the time.  About 50% of the time.

As you can see, I am just very, very skeptical.  I believe that you are probably making money, not through getting returns on your own capital, but through selling your advice/algorithm/management services to others.  And OK, that is what it is!

----------


## dannno

> The vast, vast, vasty vast majority of trades that occur today in mature markets like the US Stock Exchange are automated trades made by computers programmed with algorithms just like yours (but, no offense, probably better).


We're talking about trading bitcoin, though, in an immature market. 

I don't f with day trading stocks... and I don't f with day trading bitcoin.. but I do have one of litepresence's algorithms setup to trade some bitcoin for me.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Then what do you mean when you refer to TA as "art"?  That you can't define TA?  You'll have to be more specific.


 Speculation is an art.  So-called technical analysis is one type of that art, one with which I personally am none too impressed by.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We're talking about trading bitcoin, though, in an immature market.


 True, so who knows, maybe it _could_ work!  If so, it shouldn't continue to do so for long.





> but I do have one of litepresence's algorithms setup to trade some bitcoin for me.


Well, let us know how it goes.  It will be a good case study.  How much do you have now?  Multiply or divide by a hundred, we don't care about your personal finances, it's just to track the algorithm's success.

----------


## muh_roads

> True, so who knows, maybe it _could_ work!*  If so, it shouldn't continue to do so for long.*
> 
> Well, let us know how it goes.  It will be a good case study.  How much do you have now?  Multiply or divide by a hundred, we don't care about your personal finances, it's just to track the algorithm's success.


Nah, nah, nah, nah. Now come on man.  You can't just do a hit and run.  Are you refering to Bitcoin with that bolded statement?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Nah, nah, nah, nah. Now come on man.  You can't just do a hit and run.  Are you refering to Bitcoin with that bolded statement?


 No, I am saying exactly what I seemed to be saying: as the bitcoin market matures and grows, more and more computer trading resources should be brought to bear on it, making it increasingly impossible to have any hope of using a timing system to reliably beat the returns of Bitcoin generally.  That is, we would expect it to become more and more like the US stock market, or (better analogy) the market for a large currency on the global foreign exchange market.

----------


## muh_roads

> I am saying exactly what I seemed to be saying: as the bitcoin market matures and grows, more and more computer trading resources should be brought to bear on it, making it increasingly impossible to have any hope of using a timing system to reliably beat the returns of Bitcoin generally.  That is, we would expect it to become more and more like the US stock market, or (better analogy) the market for a large currency on the global foreign exchange market.


I'm not really talking about bots.  In a down market, you sit in a personal % of fiat.  (Or gold with the Coinapult lock system)

That's how you beat the market.  BTC down 80%, but personal is down much less % if our starting reference is $1250.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> That's how you beat the market.  BTC down 80%, but personal is down much less % if our starting reference is $1250.


 So in other words, you are bragging about beating the market, but still losing money.  Right?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

This "Locks" service from Coinapult is very interesting.  It is not clear to me, however, what they are doing behind the scenes to safely provide this.  If, that is, they are doing it safely.  They may not be.

Also, this is an interesting and discouraging news item that came in four hours ago from Coinapult:

http://www.coindesk.com/coinapult-lo...et-compromise/

One of the longest-operating bitcoin startups has suffered a hot wallet attack that resulted in the loss of 150 BTC, or roughly $42,900 at press time.

Founded by Ira Miller and investor Erik Voorhees in 2012, Coinapult announced the compromise on Twitter, advising customers to refrain from sending bitcoin to Coinapult addresses until the problem is resolved.

Coinapult COO and CFO Justin Blincoe stressed that the hot wallet was used only for funds owned by the bitcoin wallet and service provider, and that no customer funds were affected.

Blincoe told CoinDesk:

“Our team is looking into all possible scenarios in regards to what happened.”

The hack is the latest in a string of high-profile breaches at exchanges including Bitstamp and CAVirtex, with the later ceasing its operations after password hashes and two-factor authentication details were lost.

Customers that may have sent funds to the hot wallet since it was compromised or who have more specific questions, Blincoe said, can contact Coinapult directly at support@coinapult.com.

----------


## muh_roads

> So in other words, you are bragging about beating the market, but still losing money.  Right?


Most people here got in $30-70

Some have lowered their buy-in by trading.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Speculation is an art.  So-called technical analysis is one type of that art, one with which I personally am none too impressed by.


I can't speak for the stock market, which, admittedly, is a whole different animal and probably more difficult to trade.  However, I can verify that simple charting patterns and trading techniques DO work in the bitcoin market, which does not have the high-algorithm trading computers of the stock market.  

What really puzzles me, however, is how you can speak against this form of trading while simultaneously admitting complete ignorance except for a few convenient articles that confirm your bias toward it.  You can't know absolutely nothing about it and then claim to have evidence against it.  How can you trust yourself to evaluate evidence against it if you, yourself, know nothing about it?

----------


## muh_roads

> This "Locks" service from Coinapult is very interesting.  It is not clear to me, however, what they are doing behind the scenes to safely provide this.  If, that is, they are doing it safely.  They may not be.
> 
> Also, this is an interesting and discouraging news item that came in four hours ago from Coinapult:
> 
> http://www.coindesk.com/coinapult-lo...et-compromise/
> 
> One of the longest-operating bitcoin startups has suffered a hot wallet attack that resulted in the loss of 150 BTC, or roughly $42,900 at press time.
> 
> Founded by Ira Miller and investor *Erik Voorhees* in 2012, Coinapult announced the compromise on Twitter, advising customers to refrain from sending bitcoin to Coinapult addresses until the problem is resolved.
> ...


Erik Voorhees has an estimated 200,000 BTC.  He was also the creator of Satoshi Dice and sold the company for 100K BTC.  The early adopters themselves are the FDIC, practically.  He hails from the FSP in New Hampshire.

Their locks service is like a private bullion custodian, I think.

This is a nice interview with Erik.

----------


## presence

> Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful reply, presence!  And I hope that I didn't and don't come off as disrespectful of you, despite the radical difference of opinion that I think we have on this matter.


no worries.  just realize.... like anything else its a job.  You can't build a house just because you own a hammer and saw.  You have to put in many hours and additional resources.   Sometimes you get hurt; cut your fingers off with a circular saw.   Trading isn't for everyone, just like framing ridge lines isn't for everyone.   Likewise, bot trading isn't for everyone, things can and do go horribly wrong.  





> I believe that you are probably making money, not through getting returns on your own capital, but through selling your advice/algorithm/management services to others.  And OK, that is what it is!


I think you'd be surprised at how well I do on not selling, but on gratuity.  I took in a 1.5 BTC tip last week.   That represents 5% of a client's gains since January using my pay per view algo.

Here's live trade decisions by customer reported averages since I released Honey Badger in December 11:


[2015-03-17 21:00:00] start date: 2014-12-11 05:00:00
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] start BTC value: 1.00
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] start USD value: 348.00
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] end BTC value: 1.62
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] end USD value: 456.58
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] trades 8
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] days 96.00
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] frequency 12.00 days/trade
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] ROI_assets 1.62X
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] ROI_currency 1.31X
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] ROI_BNH 0.81X
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] MAX DD......: -23.56 pct
[2015-03-17 21:00:00] MAX BNH DD..: -52.96 pct

Detail and image here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5813621

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What really puzzles me, however, is how you can speak against this form of trading while simultaneously admitting complete ignorance.  You can't know absolutely nothing about it and then claim to have evidence against it.


 Well, I would not want to admit to more ignorance than I actually have.  As much as possible, yes, but no more!

We all have our own perspective.  Mine is that you're playing with explosives and don't really understand what you're doing and are going to blow an arm off eventually (if you're putting the bulk of your net worth into TA-based trading).  Yours is that things seem to be going fine, you have made a little money and so must be on the right track, you will only get better with time and practice and this hobby will get more and more profitable.  My perspective is seriously not of any value to you at all, because you're not going to listen to it.  Don't worry about it.  You have to blow your arm off first.  Your perspective is somewhat interesting for me to hear, but not very likely to change my current fundamental outlook on technical analysis.  I _have_ heard both sides of the story.  I have settled on what I see as closest to the truth, always open to revision, but thinking about it on quite a completely different level than you.

Investment/speculation is such a strange space, I don't think there's too much risk that very many people are going to figure it out any time soon.  So don't worry, presence, I'm not a threat to your business.  People are still paying trillions of dollars for management fees in actively-managed mutual funds, even actively-managed bond funds for heaven's sake.  They aren't going to stop believing the dream any time soon.  "_You too can beat the market!"_  Just use my secret system.  Buy my newsletter.  Download my algorithm.  Don't be average: live the dream!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Erik Voorhees


I know who Erik Voorhees is.




> Their locks service is like a private bullion custodian, I think.


 You think.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think you'd be surprised at how well I do on not selling, but on gratuity.  I took in a 1.5 BTC tip last week.   That represents 5% of a client's gains since January using my pay per view algo.


 Right.  Supposedly.

Look, saying things like this is part of your job.  I get it.  Every investment adviser has to have the obligatory page of testimonials.  But I'm not your mark.  And you know that, you're posting for the lurkers who may start using your system and tipping you or asking you to manage their funds or however it is that you make money.  And to them, it sure looks like you won.  You demolished me.  They're seeing dollar signs dancing before their eyes.

And that's fine.  That's how it is.  But the fact is these systems never work.  And so I am very skeptical that it has worked in your case.  I think for every customer who _made_ 30 bitcoins with you there are 30 more who _lost_ bitcoins.  That's what I think.  I don't think you're an exception to the general rule.  And I'm probably right.  Now, if you have been lucky and your hokey oscillation-timing actually has made real-life forward-going positive returns up to now far above and beyond the returns of Bitcoin generally (not likely, but statistically possible!) that does not mean that it will continue to do so.  It almost certainly will not.  It will stop working and what out-performance it had will be reversed and undone by under-performance.  You know all this, Mr. Math Major.  You can read the Nobel Prize-winning research as well as I can.  But I just post it for the innocent bystander.  *Past performance does not guarantee future results.*

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Most people here got in $30-70


Oh really?  Who are you talking about?  Most of whom?  The four of you actively posting on this thread?  And what do you mean "got in"?  You bought a bunch of bitcoins at $30 and then never bought any more?  Just sat on 'em?

Also, seriously ask yourself: how much more would you have made if you _had!_  If you had just bought and held rather than trying to get something for nothing through hoodoo voodoo in and out games!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Right.  Supposedly.
> 
> Look, saying things like this is part of your job.  I get it.  Every investment adviser has to have the obligatory page of testimonials.  But I'm not your mark.  And you know that, you're posting for the lurkers who may start using your system and tipping you or asking you to manage their funds or however it is that you make money.  And to them, it sure looks like you won.  You demolished me.  They're seeing dollar signs dancing before their eyes.
> 
> And that's fine.  That's how it is.  But the fact is these systems never work.  And so I am very skeptical that it has worked in your case.  I think for every customer who _made_ 30 bitcoins with you there are 30 more who _lost_ bitcoins.  That's what I think.  I don't think you're an exception to the general rule.  And I'm probably right.  Now, if you have been lucky and your hokey oscillation-timing actually has made real-life forward-going positive returns up to now far above and beyond the returns of Bitcoin generally (not likely, but statistically possible!) that does not mean that it will continue to do so.  It almost certainly will not.  It will stop working and what out-performance it had will be reversed and undone by under-performance.  You know all this, Mr. Math Major.  You can read the Nobel Prize-winning research as well as I can.  But I just post it for the innocent bystander.  *Past performance does not guarantee future results.*


How do you know TA "never works"?  You're relying on the testimonials of salesmen whose only goal is to get people to send them money, promising them great things and then not delivering?  That's no evidence against actual TA which can be done personally rather than through a middle man.  You admit quite a great bit of ignorance on this matter and yet you presume to know that it "never works" even though people like me, my teacher and many others know that it's no "get rich quick" scheme, but that there are certainly patterns within the market that have generally been true since the beginning of public trading.  Breaks of key support levels mean people are beginning to panic and that the selling will continue until another level is reached where a lot of trading has previously occurred.  You can always find that the market does not simply stop in the middle of a trend with no indication of why, but that there is usually a prior area where a lot of trading took place that acts as support or resistance.  

Secondly, once a huge move in either direction has been made on high volume, that is a very good indication that the number of people willing to continue the trend is quickly diminishing.  For instance, it was very easy to see that selling volume was very high when the market panicked from $270 to $160.  When one takes this information in conjunction with the fact that $160 was an area of prior support from before the big bubble, it is reasonably safe to say that selling will not continue because it is simply unsustainable.  This fact simply does not change over time.  There are a limited amount of actors in any market, so any time a big move is made in any direction, a reversion to the mean is virtually inevitable.  It is less certain to postulate that people WILL panic, but once they do, it is very easy to conclude that the panicking cannot continue, and you can use volume to indicate just when that panicking is running out of steam.  

I'm still curious what reasons you have for believing that things will always change or that there are no constants in the market and no predictable aspects to the behavior of greed-motivated buyers and fear-motivated sellers.  The fact that sentiments change is a given, but that doesn't invalidate the underlying assumption that greed and fear can move price and that the existence of greed is an indication that the price will go down.  Conversely, the existence of a large amount of fear indicates that the price will go up.  Figuring out when is just a matter of comparing price action to volume and confluence of fast price action with large volume along with the meeting of an area of prior support or resistance.  

The ignorance of people who think they can get rich off the markets is not evidence of the invalidity of TA, but rather the engine behind it.  Furthermore, there is a certain level of understanding that must complement any TA, so it follows that only good technical analysts will be able to effectively predict price action.  The existence of a standard of quality, however, does not mean all TA is invalid, it just means that you have to be doing it right.  Is it 100% effective?  No, but it has a darn good probability of being effective when you know what to look for.  The rest is just managing risk by figuring out how much you are willing to lose if you are wrong in proportion to what you stand to gain if you are right.  

Even if it's really just pure chance, you can still make money in this way because standing to make $50 half of the time creates far more earning potential than loss if you only stand to lose $10 half of the time.  That said, though, there are ways to tell and I think your fundamental ignorance is that there is no way to stay ahead of the masses psychologically and that you are doomed to be trying methods that will become obsolete shortly after you adopt them.

My problem is not that you are ignorant, it is that you are arrogantly ignorant.  You believe that your ignorance is proof of everyone's ignorance, and that's just fallacious.

----------


## muh_roads

> Oh really?  Who are you talking about?   Most of whom?  The four of you actively posting on this thread?  And  what do you mean "got in"?  You bought a bunch of bitcoins at $30 and  then never bought any more?  Just sat on 'em?
> 
> Also, seriously ask yourself: how much more would you have made if you _had!_   If you had just bought and held rather than trying to get something  for nothing through hoodoo voodoo in and out games!


I'm  going to assume you didn't mean I should "still be holding" instead of  trading...that would be kinda silly.  My best trades during this current  bear market was getting back in on a run from 400's to 600's when Tim Draper bought his SR portion, and a couple nice runs from  300's to 400's.  Some of the guys here did well on the most recent 170's to 300's.  I kinda screwed that one up, but you can't win them all.

Probably  closer to 10-15 ppl here when I say "some".  Some got in before that  price range given, some after.  I just remember when I started posting  here about it, that was the price range...30-70  Hazek and others posted  their fair share too.  There was enough ppl talking about Bitcoin in  the Econ board that we had to split off and form a new board.  A lot of  users just lurk now so I have no clue if they held all the way to 1K or  are still holding.

Since you are being so inquisitive, I  discovered BTC @ $2 in 2011 but didn't invest, read as much as I could  over the next few months and I was absolutely fascinated.  Eventually I  moved a low 5 figures from the 401k in @ $10 in 2012.  Dabbled in both  FPGA mining rigs (generation after GPU & before ASIC), 65nm ASIC,  28nm ASIC, and buying direct.  I was always looking for an excuse to cash out my 401k  because I  don't believe in their long-term ability due to how broke the   Government constantly is.  I don't regret that decision for a moment.

I've been selling on the way up the  entire time.  But yes, held a decent chunk all the way to the last  top.  Didn't really start heavily trading / buying stuff with them until  $600 or so after coming back down.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> How do you know TA "never works"?


 I just do, Paul.  Suffice it to say.  Have fun.  Just try not to lose _both_ arms.  You want one for afterwards.





> My problem is not that you are ignorant, it is that you are arrogantly ignorant.  You believe that your ignorance is proof of everyone's ignorance, and that's just fallacious.


 I am perfectly content being arrogant, or ignorant, or outrageously arrogantly ignorant, or whatever it is that I am.  My opinion is my opinion, smear it however you like. 

I do not, however, believe everyone else is ignorant.  Far from it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Eventually I  moved a low 5 figures from the 401k in @ $10 in 2012.


 See this, to me, is a more sensible way to speculate.  You see something you are convinced is going to become very valuable, and you buy it.

That's it!

Simple!

If you'd done that, you'd have _six_ figures right now.  And maybe you do anyway.  When you're in an asset undergoing a meteoric ascent, you can make an awful lot of mistakes, like trading in and out randomly, and still come out on top.  But if you sit down, calmly, objectively, detachedly, and just look at the spreadsheet of your personal finances, I think there's a good chance you'll see that you would have had just bought in 2012 and held, held, held, and yes, were still holding, you would have _more_ six figures than you do after all your trading in and out.  I mean, I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no.  You might have had lucky timing.  But realize that it's very likely a lot to do with luck and you may not be so lucky in years to come.

Plus, what you're trying to get with "technical analysis" trading is kind of peanuts.  Realistically, even if you have "cracked the code" and can beat the market, are you going to make a 10,000% return or something while the Bitcoin price level just puddles around staying about the same?  Surely you are not so caught up that you can't see the unlikelihood of that.  On the other hand, could the value of Bitcoin go up 10,000% if it becomes a, or even the, major world currency?  Hmm.  So where is the real money to be made?

I'll answer my own question by going one step beyond it: it's not in either.  Buying an asset you think will go up is incalculably better than goofball "Technical Analysis" hand-waving, but neither is likely to make you a fortune.  But you know what can?  *Your career.*

This is more my kind of speculation that makes sense to me:

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I just do, Paul.  Suffice it to say.  Have fun.  Just try not to lose _both_ arms.  You want one for afterwards.


Ok, you just do.  In that case, I can't persuade you otherwise, but I can conclude that your reasons for believing so are completely irrational.




> I am perfectly content being arrogant, or ignorant, or outrageously arrogantly ignorant, or whatever it is that I am.  My opinion is my opinion, smear it however you like.


And yet you masquerade your opinion as fact.  You can be arrogantly ignorant all you want as long as you admit that you are arguing from ignorance and are being arrogant about it, but you aren't doing that at all.  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.




> I do not, however, believe everyone else is ignorant.  Far from it.


So you believe those who think TA works in an objective sense are wrong, and yet you don't believe they are ignorant?  You seem to take some kind of personal satisfaction in calling TA "hoodoo voodoo" and yet you can't respond to any of the evidence I gave that it's NOT and you also don't presume that others are ignorant although you do believe they are wrong.  If you don't think they are ignorant, then what do you think they are?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> See this, to me, is a more sensible way to speculate.  You see something you are convinced is going to become very valuable, and you buy it.
> 
> That's it!
> 
> Simple!
> 
> If you'd done that, you'd have _six_ figures right now.  And maybe you do anyway.  When you're in an asset undergoing a meteoric ascent, you can make an awful lot of mistakes, like trading in and out randomly, and still come out on top.  But if you sit down, calmly, objectively, detachedly, and just look at the spreadsheet of your personal finances, I think there's a good chance you'll see that you would have had just bought in 2012 and held, held, held, and yes, were still holding, you would have _more_ six figures than you do after all your trading in and out.  I mean, I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no.  You might have had lucky timing.  But realize that it's very likely a lot to do with luck and you may not be so lucky in years to come.
> 
> Plus, what you're trying to get with "technical analysis" trading is kind of peanuts.  Realistically, even if you have "cracked the code" and can beat the market, are you going to make a 10,000% return or something while the Bitcoin price level just puddles around staying about the same?  Surely you are not so caught up that you can't see the unlikelihood of that.  On the other hand, could the value of Bitcoin go up 10,000% if it becomes a, or even the, major world currency?  Hmm.  So where is the real money to be made?
> ...


How do you know that simply buying an asset you think will go up is better than TA?  It's true that, in the stock market, MOST stocks do go up long-term.  In fact, the vast majority of them do.  This, however, does not invalidate TA, which does not presume to know the long-term value of any asset or stock.  What reasons would even be valid for thinking a stock would go up long-term?  This strategy is just as unfounded as you claim TA to be because there are often no indications of catastrophic failure.  Really, putting your money into anything presumes that you would want to get it out at some point, and it would be foolish to think that you could simply wait through years and years of losses to receive your gain.  There's no evidence that your investment would ever become profitable, and what's more, is it really worth it to give up that investment for so long just to get some kind of return even when you have no idea how big the return might be?  

Speculation is either completely baseless or we're all engaging in TA and it's just a matter of the time frame and losses that we're willing to accept for the risk we incur.  Technical analysts, however, do not simply speculate but know that they could be wrong and they define risk and reward before ever entering the trade.  What's more, they do not presume to know whether an asset will go up long-term, so I think TA is ultimately a more reasonable endeavor than pure speculation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If you don't think they are ignorant, then what do you think they are?


 Different.

Different people than me.

Look, Paul -- or, I guess since it's right there in your sig line, I'll just call you Levi -- Levi, I have posted lots and lots and lots of stuff on RPF regarding my investment philosophy.  I would be delighted if you wanted to look it up and read it.  In this very thread, I have posted some good explanation directly, and more importantly have linked to a lot of good background material if you are seeking to understand.  I posted a half hour radio broadcast.  Did you listen to it?  I posted a book.  Did you order it?  I posted an article, but whatever, you can skip that, I didn't even read it.  I also posted an hour-long video, that I think is highly relevant, and if you can figure out why (you're going to be watching it initially thinking "how does this have to do with any of this at all?") you'll have come far to understanding my thinking on these issues.

----------


## dannno

> Well, let us know how it goes.  It will be a good case study.  How much do you have now?  Multiply or divide by a hundred, we don't care about your personal finances, it's just to track the algorithm's success.


One of his bots sold my bitcoin yesterday at 280 and its down to 255 currently.

----------


## presence

> Different.


What is the qualitative difference between charting bitcoin price and predicting the weather? 

Both are fuzzy math and our understanding is enhanced by computer models.  Neither are perfectly accurate.  But a good number of times out of ten when the weather man says rain tomorrow you get rain.  When the weather man says sun tomorrow... you get sun.  Like the weather, the further you extrapolate price into the future the fuzzier your results; that doesn't mean you shouldn't check the weather report before getting dressed in the morning.  It seems odd that one could be so accepting of something "normal" like weather prediction but so at odds with the prospect of price prediction when the mechanisms are very much the same.

----------


## newbitech

I think the market was gaining confidence coming off that last spike down.  I think at this point the weak hands on the long end have been wrung out and what is left is the battered die-hards.  This isn't a consumer market right now.  This is a niche tech market that has a nice slogan and logo looking for a product to get behind. 

The market needs to find consumer demand to drive growth.  If this is about investing in a currency, I think the latest moves are nothing more than a reallocation of capital into a much stronger currency, in this case fiat.  There is a currency war happening and some high volatility over on forex which had a pivotal fed reserve meeting this week.  

I suspect that once fiat settles down, the speculative money will come back in spades.  This is a head fake in the midst of a counter trend.  

I wouldn't go short here at all.  l

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> One of his bots sold my bitcoin yesterday at 280 and its down to 255 currently.


Dannno, this is good news for you!, but useless information.  Useful information would be: "Right now, I have the equivalent of 12,354 US Dollars being managed by presence's algorithm."

Then, see, we can revisit in a year, and each year after that, how it is going, and have an actual halfway decent account as to the real performance of the algorithm.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What is the qualitative difference between charting bitcoin price and predicting the weather?


Man, you are good.  Here's the differences:

*1. One works.  The other doesn't.  At all.*

Actually, I'll just stop there.  The myriad other differences are really academic and will just be clutter taking away from that: the only important, bottom line point.  It's not a matter of being fuzzy, or imperfect, or anything else.  It's a matter of TA's *totally failing* to achieve its stated purpose: to make money.

----------


## Weston White

> If the "experts" were always right and knew everything they would be trillionaires. If they are right most of the time, they should be billionaires.


In following this logic, it would indicate that you are a quadrillionaire, yes?

----------


## amonasro

> Dannno, this is good news for you!, but useless information.  Useful information would be: "Right now, I have the equivalent of 12,354 US Dollars being managed by presence's algorithm."
> 
> Then, see, we can revisit in a year, and each year after that, how it is going, and have an actual halfway decent account as to the real performance of the algorithm.


I ran one of his algorithms last summer. Turned 7 btc into 20. Some of the trade history is buried in Pres' thread.

----------


## newbitech

People do TA without even realizing it.  When you look at the tape and notice more red than green, that informs your decision on whether or not to get in.  When you evaluate the fundamentals, you are going to want to know if the P/E is historically high/low.  

These are very crude forms of TA that go into decision making.  Some people just take that to a different level.  TA and investing in businesses by looking at fundamentals are not mutually exclusive strategies.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> People do TA without even realizing it.  When you look at the tape and notice more red than green, that informs your decision on whether or not to get in.  When you evaluate the fundamentals, you are going to want to know if the P/E is historically high/low.  
> 
> These are very crude forms of TA that go into decision making.  Some people just take that to a different level.  TA and investing in businesses by looking at fundamentals are not mutually exclusive strategies.


Thanks for bringing that up.  I was actually going to say something to that effect, but I figured why bother?  Anyway, since you've said it, I might as well.  It turns out helmuth_hubener is advocating TA more than he thinks!  After all, he is suggesting that people invest in a stock they think should go up.  He either thinks they should do this on blind faith or should look at the circumstances to some extent.  Either way, I would submit that TA is a far better alternative.  It's just a matter of deciding what time frame you want to trade on and what risk you're willing to take, which is essentially all TA is.  It doesn't have to be in-n-out every single day, but every trade and investor alike has some time frame he has in mind and some reward he is expecting or else he is just a fool for even thinking about investing in anything!  

TA is simply the science of calculating risk versus reward and finding high probability scenarios in which you can reasonably expect your investment to pay off.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Man, you are good.  Here's the differences:
> 
> *1. One works.  The other doesn't.  At all.*
> 
> Actually, I'll just stop there.  The myriad other differences are really academic and will just be clutter taking away from that: the only important, bottom line point.  It's not a matter of being fuzzy, or imperfect, or anything else.  It's a matter of TA's *totally failing* to achieve its stated purpose: to make money.


Once again, you expose your hypocrisy making a knowledge claim while simultaneously admitting gross ignorance on the subject.  I already refuted your underlying assumption that TA can never serve as a reliable long-term model for investing.  You have no answer and yet you still insist that TA doesn't work.  

At the same time, however, you encourage investing, but if you do not have a defined risk/reward ratio and a specific time frame for which you are willing to wait for your investment to develop, then it logically follows that you're even more foolish than the most foolish technical analyst because you are investing on nothing but blind faith!  

I don't understand how you can continue to be so obtuse.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You have no answer


 If you ever have a question, let me know.

If you ever have any desire for actual understanding or communication, let me know.

Until then, just keep the rhetoric coming!  That's all it is, just rhetoric.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you ever have a question, let me know.
> 
> If you ever have any desire for actual understanding or communication, let me know.
> 
> Until then, just keep the rhetoric coming!  That's all it is, just rhetoric.


And what is it that you're doing??

Is there something inherently invalid about rhetoric?

----------


## presence

> That's all it is, just rhetoric.




_
Once every hour I make a decision that will either lose or gain 1%

I do this every hour for 20 weeks._




```

#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 50 

import random
def tick():

    # do this 10 times
    for a in range(10):
        
        # create a group of numbered objects named walk
        walk = str(a) + 'walk'
        storage[walk] = storage.get(walk, 100)
        
        # random float 0.0 to 100.0
        z = 100*random.random()  
        
        if z < PERCENT_CORRECT:
            # if correct gain 1%
            storage[walk] = 1.01*storage[walk]
        else:
            # if wrong lose 1%
            storage[walk] = 0.99*storage[walk]
        
        # plot each random walk    
        plot((str(a)+'random_walk'), storage[walk])
```

Lets say I have $100 invested.  


*The MOST I could possibly lose is $100.*

*
#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 45*

Final Balance Range ($5 to $15)


*#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 50*

Final Balance Range ($50 to $150)

*#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 51* 

Final Balance Range ($100 to $700)



*#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 55*

Final Balance Range ($1000 to $5000)





*#how many good guesses out of 100?
PERCENT_CORRECT = 60*

Final Balance Range ($25000 to $250,000)

----------


## Dianne

I mean you guys are all great, and there should be no hard feelings towards anyone ................... but admit you don't know $#@!e about what btc is going to do.  No one knows what btc is going to do.    Just go back to the start of the litepresence thread for months; and 90% was incorrect information. 

Get your testosterone levels in check and stop trying to be experts in a new field, that no one is able to predict.

----------


## muh_roads

> I mean you guys are all great, and there should be no hard feelings towards anyone ................... but admit you don't know $#@!e about what btc is going to do.  No one knows what btc is going to do.    Just go back to the start of the litepresence thread for months; and 90% was incorrect information. 
> 
> Get your testosterone levels in check and stop trying to be experts in a new field, that no one is able to predict.


I'm doing quite well following who I told you to follow in PM.  I got out 290's.  As did Paul.  You shouldn't go all-in with Litecoin.  It's a $#@!coin.

----------


## dannno

It's all about balance. I have some litecoin, it could break out and overall I'm up on that as well but it's a smaller portion of my investment.

Cthulhu bought back in for me at 257.30

----------


## muh_roads

> It's all about balance. I have some litecoin, it could break out and overall I'm up on that as well but it's a smaller portion of my investment.
> 
> Cthulhu bought back in for me at 257.30


Yeah I'm not 100% against $#@!coins.  They are all markets and will bounce.  But if BTC is heading to low 100's, then LTC could head to 50 cents...it is currently 1.80

I don't wanna touch it right now.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I mean you guys are all great, and there should be no hard feelings towards anyone ................... but admit you don't know $#@!e about what btc is going to do.  No one knows what btc is going to do.    Just go back to the start of the litepresence thread for months; and 90% was incorrect information. 
> 
> Get your testosterone levels in check and stop trying to be experts in a new field, that no one is able to predict.


Pfffff.

I love how all the ignoramuses try to tell me what I can and cannot do.  Pres isn't even the best (no offense).

----------


## muh_roads

> Cthulhu bought back in for me at 257.30


btw, because Cthulhu is a timed bot, it makes a move every 3 days or so regardless of chart geometry.  I need pres to correct me on its intent but I would consider it a good sideways bot.  We kinda look like we're going sideways atm so you might be okay.  But using it right now would make me a bit nervous.

I think you just happened to get lucky with it when it sold previously.  Just keep an eye on it and manually sell if you need to.  It doesn't trade based on any indicators I don't think...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Any good TA doesn't just rely on a prediction, but also a plan of execution, and that's why so many ignorant people hate on TA, because they see a lot of predictions and assume that the person who made the prediction can't see when the prediction is going to fail.  What's more, those who try to imitate these predictions often will take their failure to execute and the mistakes they make due to their own emotions of fear and greed to be proof of the failure of the plan.  The person who panics at just the wrong time does so because they are acting just as the market predicts they would act.  The problem with trying to communicate a plan to someone is that it takes more than just a prediction to tell people when the prediction is invalidated and how to manage their own fear.  Someone who's just looking for predictions will fail because they don't have a concrete plan and their emotions still determine how they react to the market, which is exactly how the market works... on emotion.

Many people see lines being crossed and they see them as some sort of concrete barrier that cannot be violated, and yet technical analysts can see exactly when the idea is invalidated and look at volume and price action to tell if the idea is truly invalidated even though it might appear to temporarily violate some line.  The lines aren't set in stone.  They're guidelines to show the patterns and the patterns aren't necessarily invalidated just because the lines are crossed at one moment and back inside the next.  They are illustrations of a general idea, but there is often an understanding behind it that a more concrete barrier lies just beyond the line where we can tell when the idea is truly invalidated.  

You can't teach this to someone who doesn't know how to read a chart.  They will always assume it's just a bunch of mumbo jumbo because it's difficult.  Well, if it was easy, then everyone would do it.  That's why everyone does NOT do it.

----------


## amonasro

Frankly I'm tired of defending TA. It's like the same arguments over and over again on multiple forums. Y'all can hate on it, so much the better. I tried to explain how I apply it but everyone is quick with the talk and not the listening.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And what is it that you're doing??


 Just communicating, sharing what I consider to be interesting ideas and absorbing other people's thoughts, looking for gems.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Once again, you expose your hypocrisy making a knowledge claim while simultaneously admitting gross ignorance on the subject.  I already refuted your underlying assumption that TA can never serve as a reliable long-term model for investing.  You have no answer and yet you still insist that TA doesn't work.  
> 
> At the same time, however, you encourage investing, but if you do not have a defined risk/reward ratio and a specific time frame for which you are willing to wait for your investment to develop, then it logically follows that you're even more foolish than the most foolish technical analyst because you are investing on nothing but blind faith!  
> 
> I don't understand how you can continue to be so obtuse.


Levi, are you capable of communicating like a human being?

I'm not just here to be your punching bag, you know.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Levi, are you capable of communicating like a human being?
> 
> I'm not just here to be your punching bag, you know.


What do you mean, "like a human being"?  I'm genuinely curious what you mean by that.

----------


## muh_roads

> Frankly I'm tired of defending TA. It's like the same arguments over and over again on multiple forums. Y'all can hate on it, so much the better. I tried to explain how I apply it but everyone is quick with the talk and not the listening.


This isn't really how I wanted this to turn out.

----------


## presence

> btw, because Cthulhu is a timed bot, it makes a move every 3 days or so regardless of chart geometry.



That's not correct.  Cthulhu has no timers.

It trades approximately every 36 hours  based on bollinger band mean reversion and channel expansion. 



1) Price touches bottom of channel; BUY
2) Price touches top of channel; SELL
3) Channel opens; Price is above MA, BUY
4) Hold Trending until Price is below MA, SELL
5) Repeat 1
6) Repeat 2
7) Repeat 1
8) Repeat 2
9) Channel opens bearish after sale, wait until expansion stops then, BUY
10) Channel opens bullish after buy, wait until expansion stops then, SELL
11) Expansion continues, BUY and hold
12) Repeat 4


The midline of bbands is just a moving average.   The outer channel lines represent +2 and -2 rolling standard deviations respectively.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> What do you mean, "like a human being"?  I'm genuinely curious what you mean by that.


Let me give you a condensed summary of your posts, and maybe you will see it:





> Obviously your claim is quite frankly absurd.  You can see this very clearly just by looking.  It's plain as day to anyone who knows what to look for [which you clearly don't].
> 
> You should not knock it.  It would be absurd for you to claim to know more about it than me.  You're making absolutely no effort to even understand it.  You don't even have to trade to understand it, [that shows how dense you are]!  So you really have no excuse for telling people it doesn't work without even knowing anything about it.
> 
> You go against the fundamentals of scientific thinking.  What really puzzles me, however, is how you can speak against this form of trading while simultaneously admitting complete ignorance!  You know nothing but a few convenient articles that confirm your bias toward it.  You can't know absolutely nothing about it and then claim to have evidence against it.  How can you trust yourself to evaluate evidence against it if you, yourself, know nothing about it?  You're relying on the testimonials of salesmen.  You admit quite a great bit of ignorance on this matter and yet you presume to know that it "never works" even though people like me, my teacher and many others know that you're wrong.
> 
> I think your fundamental ignorance is that there is no way to stay ahead of the masses psychologically and that you are doomed to be trying methods that will become obsolete shortly after you adopt them.
> 
> My problem is not that you are ignorant, it is that you are arrogantly ignorant.  You believe that your ignorance is proof of everyone's ignorance, and that's just fallacious.  Your reasons for believing so are completely irrational.  And yet you masquerade your opinion as fact.  You can be arrogantly ignorant all you want as long as you admit that you are arguing from ignorance and are being arrogant about it, but you aren't doing that at all.  You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
> ...


Get it?

----------


## muh_roads

helmuth,

You were the one who came in here with an attitude from the very beginning stating an ignorant post as fact, and then later said it was just your opinion.  Those two comments should not have been split.  Your first post out of the gate is the very definition of a troll.  Trying to provoke a negative response.

Of course people will reply with agitation.

---------------------------------

pres,

Thanks for the info on cthulhu.  I think I'll switch the coinsetter test over to it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Let me give you a condensed summary of your posts, and maybe you will see it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get it?


See, now I'm starting to wonder about your sanity.  You can't just repeat my words back to me and expect me to understand the problem that YOU have with them. 

You know what, I don't care...  go ahead and believe what you want.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Took a long at $263 a few hours ago.  Up to $270 already.  Wooow, how did I do that?

----------


## amonasro

> This isn't really how I wanted this to turn out.


No worries, muh_roads, I'll post more analysis when I get some time. Just finished a big show so I have a few months until the next one 




> Took a long at $263 a few hours ago.  Up to $270 already.  Wooow, how did I do that?


Hey me too, but I got in at $261, having gone short from $270 after going long from $240-$280 AFTER having gone short from $290-$230 AFTER having gone long from $220 to $290. 

I admit: TA made me do it

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> helmuth,
> 
> You were the one who came in here with an attitude from the very beginning stating an ignorant post as fact


  Here was my post:

Bitcoin is not an investment and should not be considered an investment.  It is a speculation.

It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.

Technical analysis, of all the *superstitions* held by traders, has probably the least amount of value.  There _is_ no "head and shoulders" there _is_ no "support" there _is_ no "leg down" and there _is_ no "Great Scoop".  All nonsense, all worthless.

~~~

That's what I believe.  There is no proof that it works, there will never be any proof that it works, and there are overwhelmingly convincing reasons to believe that it most definitely does not work.  Here is perhaps the best explanation:

Market Timing, Technical Analysis, and Other Superstitions Practiced by Investment Advisors

Here's Harry's rule on trading systems:

_Rule #6: No trading system will work as well in the future as it did in the past.

You'll come across many trading systems or indicators that seem always to have signaled correctly where your money should have been, but somehow the systems never come through when your money is on the line.
_
Here's an example of technical analysis:

http://www.crawlingroad.com/blog/201...-up-in-flames/

Just ask yourself: *why?* _Why_ would the price change directions when the 90-day moving average crosses the 20 day moving average?  Why wouldn't the 150 day average crossing the 10 day average cause the change?

Let me just answer and save you the trouble: 



> _Why_ would the price change directions when the 90-day moving average crosses the 20 day moving average?


Reversion to mean!



> Why wouldn't the 150 day average crossing the 10 day average cause the change?


There's no absolutes, it's not an exact science.  Sometimes maybe it would.  You have to do your research and understand the particular market you're TAing.  And then you have to be flexible and alert and constantly adapting.


My replies:



> Reversion to mean!


 But that's not a coherent _explanation_.  That's not science.  What's the _causality_?  These are human beings we're talking about.  _Why_ would they predictably act so as to make things revert to the 90-day moving average on a certain, predictable schedule?

There is no reason!

Plus, more importantly, they _don't._  They don't do that.  There is no trading formula you can follow that can consistently beat the market.  There just isn't.  We humans are great at finding non-existent patterns in noise.  But they're not real: it's just noise.  And back-testing can make a dumb trick look like roses, but forward into-the-future _reality_ testing is another matter, and never seems to work out nearly so well.




> There's no absolutes, it's not an exact science.  Sometimes maybe it would.  You have to do your research and understand the particular market you're TAing.  And then you have to be flexible and alert and constantly adapting.


 Yes, this is how TAers and other market fortunetellers do it: make enough caveats and enough excuses and be vague and ambiguous enough to give yourself an out when your confident predictions fail utterly and spectacularly.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> See, now I'm starting to wonder about your sanity.  You can't just repeat my words back to me and expect me to understand the problem that YOU have with them.


 I very selectively repeated _some_ of your words, even amplifying in places.

What you've been saying is:

You're foolish
You're absurd
You're blind
You're ignorant
You're a hypocrite
You're arrogant
You're presumptuous
You're so obtuse
You're an ignoramus
You're even more foolish than the most foolish


See!   Endearing, right?

Did you listen to the Harry Browne radio show I posted yet?

----------


## amonasro

> There's no absolutes, it's not an exact science.  Sometimes maybe it would.  You have to do your research and understand the particular market you're TAing.  And then you have to be flexible and alert and constantly adapting.


My god, he gets it. I don't think any of us disagree with you here about what TA is and what it's not. 

Indicators, moving averages, oscillators... useful sometimes, completely worthless at other times. Most human traders fail--they don't see the forest through all of the indicators, and they listen to outside influencers on *blogs, websites, news* and *radio shows* with their own agendas. These people are not out to help you, or to make you money. They are in it for themselves and whatever special interests are paying them. 

Indicators work to the extent that traders use them and that they are mathematical derivatives of price and/or volume action, which is driven largely by crowd psychology, which is predictable and scientifically provable. If you're smart enough to plan a trading system using this information and understand markets and their cyclical action, more power to you.

----------


## presence

> It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.


Can you understand the basic premise:

$100 * 0.99^1000 = $100 loss
$100 * 1.01^1000 = $2,000,000 gain

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Can you understand the basic premise:
> 
> $100 * 0.99^1000 = $100 loss
> $100 * 1.01^1000 = $2,000,000 gain


 Wow!  Sounds like a sure thing to me!  It's not speculative at all; it's a sure thing.  That money may as well already be in my bank account.  Why did no one realize this simple iterative mathematical principle before?  What dunces we all are!  How can I send you money so I can get your Hot Tips?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I very selectively repeated _some_ of your words, even amplifying in places.
> 
> What you've been saying is:
> 
> You're foolish
> You're absurd
> You're blind
> You're ignorant
> You're a hypocrite
> ...


I simply don't care.  I just wanted you to know how ignorant you are.  You can either get the message or ignore it (again).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No worries, muh_roads, I'll post more analysis when I get some time. Just finished a big show so I have a few months until the next one 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey me too, but I got in at $261, having gone short from $270 after going long from $240-$280 AFTER having gone short from $290-$230 AFTER having gone long from $220 to $290. 
> 
> I admit: TA made me do it


lol.  I admit you're doing better than I am, but I think we're both doing pretty well.  Btw, I closed that long for a small profit because I somehow magically knew that it wasn't going to break $272 resistance.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Here was my post:
> 
> Bitcoin is not an investment and should not be considered an investment.  It is a speculation.
> 
> It is a _particularly speculative speculation_.
> 
> Technical analysis, of all the *superstitions* held by traders, has probably the least amount of value.  There _is_ no "head and shoulders" there _is_ no "support" there _is_ no "leg down" and there _is_ no "Great Scoop".  All nonsense, all worthless.
> 
> ~~~
> ...


This is $#@!ing hogwash, all of it.  You don't even know anything about how charting works and yet you feel qualified to say it's worthless.  I don't even understand how someone can be so mind-numbingly idiotic as to repeat as certainty things of which he knows absolutely nothing.

To say there is no such thing as support and resistance is the most insanely stupid thing I've ever heard anyone say about TA.  It would take me about 5 minutes for me to explain to you how it works so that you can see it in action for yourself and prove you wrong.  You talk about me spouting my rhetoric and yet somehow you come up with this $#@!.

I don't care if you're offended because I don't feel the need to convince you.  I just feel the need to let others see how stupid what you're saying is.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Well, Levi, glad to see you're still as calm and cool as a cucumber as you've been, of course, throughout this thread. 

I am here because I am attempting to communicate and _understand_ other people and their points of view.

I like you, Levi.  We've had very friendly message exchanges in the past.  You may not remember, but I do.

And I _really_ like presence.

So, I'm sorry if I've come in here and rained on you guys' parade.  Levi, if you want to have any understanding of my point of view, just listen to the Harry Browne radio show episode:

*The Superstitions of Investment Advisors*

You're reacting violently against my thoughts for perfectly predictable and understandable reasons, but if you'd just calm down and slow down (I _am_ calm!!1!), ask yourself does it really make sense that I go from someone you can respect and listen to all the way straight to down someone worthy of nothing but _utter contempt_ just because I'm saying something you don't like?  You're heavily involved and thus emotionally committed to TA.  But more mature minds, such as amonasro, can recognize the truth in at least some of what I say and I personally think he and I agree to an extent.  I *am* capable of defending my point of view.  I haven't done so much here, but I could become willing to, if you showed any inkling of good, old-fashioned curiosity and open-mindedness.

So listen to my old pal Harry, and then come back here and tell us all why he's wrong!

----------


## presence

> Wow!  Sounds like a sure thing to me!  It's not speculative at all; it's a sure thing.  That money may as well already be in my bank account.  Why did no one realize this simple iterative mathematical principle before?  What dunces we all are!  How can I send you money so I can get your Hot Tips?


Lets just go back to post 71

Do you understand what this code is doing?




> ```
> 
> #how many good guesses out of 100?
> PERCENT_CORRECT = 50 
> 
> import random
> def tick():
> 
>     # do this 10 times
> ...


If you wrap yourself around that little code snippet... you'll realize all you have to do to be successful in trading boils down to two things:

1) keep trading at a fairly consistent frequency
2) be right more than 51% of the time

= huge win.

and the worst you can fail is... out $100

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Lets just go back to post 71
> 
> Do you understand what this code is doing?


 Yes, I do.  And, my snarkiness aside, yes, I do understand of course the equations you posted in #93.




> If you wrap yourself around that little code snippet... you'll realize all you have to do to be successful in trading boils down to two things:
> 
> 1) keep trading at a fairly consistent frequency
> 2) be right more than 51% of the time
> 
> = huge win.
> 
> and the worst you can fail is... out $100


 Very true, no disagreement there.  Bottom line:

I do not believe that anyone can reliably get more than 50% accurate, doing an activity which is inherently 50% accurate.  You can't depend on it.  It can happen.  But not because of some "sure thing" mathematical secret that some guru has cracked.  No, it's because of intuition, deep understanding, a knack, and actually, probably a lot of luck.  Second thing to realize is that having large long-term success due to TA happens _occasionally_.  Not often.

So, again, two big things to remember:

1. Success is *not* a sure thing.  It is not a proven certainty.  It is an art, not a science.  Results are *not* repeatable in the lab, and your mileage *will* vary.
2. Success is rare, not common.  People succeeding in making large amounts of money due solely to TA with their own funds is rare.  It is the exception, not the rule.

You can count on math.  You can't count on being an exception.  So, bottom line, what you can count on is this:

*You will be right 50% of the time.*

Thus, this graph is the only interesting one:



Now, believe it or not, my own investment strategy, the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio is... to an extent, and looking at it a certain way, and maybe squinting a little... a reversion-to-mean portfolio.  It takes advantage of the reversion to mean phenomenon to an extent through rebalancing bands, though in a far more agnostic and open-ended way than assuming that everything's going to follow a certain oscillation timing, like the 90 day/20 day band-crossing tactic you posted earlier.

You see, there's an interesting phenomenon called Shannon's Demon that's actually real, hard math that actually _does_ work in the lab and _is_ repeatable, which means that one could, at least in theory, _maybe_ be able to reliably get real return from some kind of volatility pumping.

Check it out, man:

http://www.stableinvesting.com/2013/...ons-demon.html

I may be creating a monster and just giving you one more tool to make impressive-seeming algorithms that will snag customers but not really work, but what the hey, I don't care!  I think you'll find it interesting, so enjoy and do with it what you will.

Meanwhile, Levi is totally lost at this point, wondering "Uhh, what just happened there?"

----------


## muh_roads

> There's no absolutes, *it's not an exact science*.  Sometimes maybe it would.  You have to do your research and understand the particular market you're TAing.  And then you have to be flexible and alert and constantly adapting.


I'd think with such a wide range of 80-150 mentioned, not being an "exact science" should've already been apparent.  This is why I stress doing a spread of limit orders.

Yes predictive analysis TA is constantly adapting.  You can argue it has no value because it can't give an exact target.  I argue it has great value because it helps me predict where we might be going on the larger A-B-C-D-E waves.  (generally a 4H chart)  In between each large letter is a smaller 1-2-3-4-5 wave.  This part tends to be a little harder to follow...(generally 1H chart or less)  But people can do it.  I'm not a day-trader myself, more of a swing trader.

Choose to ignore the trendlines and fib lines people talk about at your own peril.  But for general up-down market direction, it works quite well.  And it has worked well for me since I started paying attention around Q3 2014.  Call it self-fulfilling prophecy if most ppl follow similar stuff, or not.  Monitoring where trends break or find resistance does indeed work.

The one thing you have to not be afraid of is tiny amounts of loss.   It can happen.  If it isn't moving as planned, you quickly get out and lick the wounds.  Opportunities are there every day.

This thread was never meant to be about day-trading anyway...

----------


## muh_roads

> Well, Levi, glad to see you're still as calm and cool as a cucumber as you've been, of course, throughout this thread. 
> 
> I am here because I am attempting to communicate and _understand_ other people and their points of view.
> 
> I like you, Levi.  We've had very friendly message exchanges in the past.  You may not remember, but I do.
> 
> And I _really_ like presence.
> 
> So, I'm sorry if I've come in here and rained on you guys' parade.  Levi, if you want to have any understanding of my point of view, just listen to the Harry Browne radio show episode:
> ...


You aren't raining on anyones parade...lol  We're making money.

You remind me of what I like to do to my wife.  I say "calm down" and "behave" to agitate her.  I do this after choosing to ignore the rational things she was telling me, it just makes her more upset.  You are essentially trolling.

Anyone that simply ignores trendlines, whether they break or resist is a fool that shouldn't be listened to.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> We're making money.


 Mmm hmm.  I'm sure.  So are these guys!

http://www.dreamteammoney.com/index.php?showforum=111

And these:

http://www.talkgold.com/forum/

And these:

http://www.moneymakergroup.com/forums.html

They can tell you all about it!  Don't believe?  Well, you're just a blind, ignorant fool and a troll.




> to agitate
> choosing to ignore the rational things 
> You are essentially trolling.
> You are a fool that shouldn't be listened to.


 Gee, thanks!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, Levi, glad to see you're still as calm and cool as a cucumber as you've been, of course, throughout this thread. 
> 
> I am here because I am attempting to communicate and _understand_ other people and their points of view.
> 
> I like you, Levi.  We've had very friendly message exchanges in the past.  You may not remember, but I do.
> 
> And I _really_ like presence.
> 
> So, I'm sorry if I've come in here and rained on you guys' parade.  Levi, if you want to have any understanding of my point of view, just listen to the Harry Browne radio show episode:
> ...


I remember, and I don't dislike you.  I just don't like what you're doing.  And please, for the love of God, stop calling me by my real name.  It's just weird.

----------


## muh_roads

Correcting the thread title, would you guys believe $65 - $92 as a range for the absolute bottom?  Sounds so low...

This is what 4x claims if my CNY conversions are correct...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Correcting the thread title, would you guys believe $65 - $92 as a range for the absolute bottom?  Sounds so low...
> 
> This is what 4x claims if my CNY conversions are correct...


Sounds about right.  That's the range a lot of good technical analysts have their eyes on.

----------


## amonasro

> Correcting the thread title, would you guys believe $65 - $92 as a range for the absolute bottom?  Sounds so low...
> 
> This is what 4x claims if my CNY conversions are correct...


Technically EW makes any price possible depending on how you construct the waves.

Realistically you'll have hordes of buyers near $200 which will act as major, major resistance. I mean, look at the volume when we crashed to $166. Is that possible again? Those are rare events. The weak hands who bailed did so then and I'm not convinced there are that many left. And you need weak hands (who have watched their investments at $500, $800 and $1000 slowly bleed out over a year's time only to panic sell at or near the bottom) or no crash.

What we are seeing is a large accumulation zone after capitulation. It takes time, months. You'll see volume peter out as coins change hands and people who want a position in this price range take a position quietly, pulling coins off exchange and into wallets. Buying volume will increase on the upswings as traders are more and more convinced that the bottom is in, and decrease on downswings as available floating supply of coins for sale dwindles. All this has a net effect of pushing the price up, especially toward the end of the zone where it drifts up easily and good news begins to affect the market positively again.

We may eventually shakeout to $200 or even spring below for a very short time to clean out any remaining weak hands, but based on the market's ho-hum reaction to the recent dump to $235, I think it's too expensive a maneuver, at least for now.

----------


## muh_roads

> Technically EW makes any price possible depending on how you construct the waves.
> 
> Realistically you'll have hordes of buyers near $200 which will act as major, major resistance. I mean, look at the volume when we crashed to $166. Is that possible again? Those are rare events. The weak hands who bailed did so then and I'm not convinced there are that many left. And you need weak hands (who have watched their investments at $500, $800 and $1000 slowly bleed out over a year's time only to panic sell at or near the bottom) or no crash.
> 
> What we are seeing is a large accumulation zone after capitulation. It takes time, months. You'll see volume peter out as coins change hands and people who want a position in this price range take a position quietly, pulling coins off exchange and into wallets. Buying volume will increase on the upswings as traders are more and more convinced that the bottom is in, and decrease on downswings as available floating supply of coins for sale dwindles. All this has a net effect of pushing the price up, especially toward the end of the zone where it drifts up easily and good news begins to affect the market positively again.
> 
> We may eventually shakeout to $200 or even spring below for a very short time to clean out any remaining weak hands, but based on the market's ho-hum reaction to the recent dump to $235, *I think it's too expensive a maneuver, at least for now.*


Yeah I wouldn't expect it to happen for a couple months.  Probably lots of bouncing between 200 & 300 for now.  But you could tell big players were definitely beating down the price and were trying to suppress the recent Nasdaq news.  If they are doing that, it means they want cheaper before they can no longer pinch shut the crypto-urethra.

I think they're going to try to get it as low as they can for one final scoop.  By the time any of these low estimations are reached, they will be buying at that point, not selling.  They will have already cashed out.  If it gets that low, it will be brief.  Like that flash crash to 100 on btc-e last summer.

When the price is halfway between 200 & 300, I think I'd rather just sit (mostly) in fiat until the whales are done fondling their crypto-sacs.

Are you on tradingview also?

----------


## amonasro

> Yeah I wouldn't expect it to happen for a couple months.  Probably lots of bouncing between 200 & 300 for now.  But you could tell big players were definitely beating down the price and were trying to suppress the recent Nasdaq news.  If they are doing that, it means they want cheaper before they can no longer pinch shut the crypto-urethra.
> 
> I think they're going to try to get it as low as they can for one final scoop.  By the time any of these low estimations are reached, they will be buying at that point, not selling.  They will have already cashed out.  If it gets that low, it will be brief.  Like that flash crash to 100 on btc-e last summer.
> 
> When the price is halfway between 200 & 300, I think I'd rather just sit (mostly) in fiat until the whales are done fondling their crypto-sacs.
> 
> Are you on tradingview also?


Right, any sort of accumulation whether it be by big players or lots of smaller players (likely a little of both) affects a powerful force on the market. It removes selling, which enhances rallies and makes the market easy and cheap to pump. The who is not important, but to recognize the clues in price and volume will give you a sense of which force is dominant (supply or demand) and give a pretty good indication to where the price is going to go eventually. 

You'll still have miners wanting to cash out, but bull markets are a funny thing: They encourage holding as one hopes for higher prices. This is why there wasn't much selling into the parabolic move to $1200--people were simply being greedy. Conversely, bear markets encourage selling so the miners were probably helping to push the market down with everyone else during the last few months, scared that Bitcoin might see double digits and cutting losses. Everyone is always blinded by fear or greed and distracted by negative or positive sentiment at market climaxes so they act irrationally. This presents the best opportunities for traders. Point is, the mining coin supply that puts pressure on the market will weaken during a sustained bull move, and strengthen during a sustained bear move.

We may see $230 again eventually if demand peters out as we approach $300. If we break it, things will get wild for a bit and would be a great low-risk long as we likely wouldn't return to $200s again (never say never though).

I'm not on tradingview, I generally don't like to share my analysis with a lot of people. But the crowd here is pretty cool, and I've been a Ron Paul fan since seeing him speak in 2007, so I have an attachment to the forum.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I do not believe that anyone can reliably get more than 50% accurate, doing an activity which is inherently 50% accurate.
> 
> *You will be right 50% of the time.*
> 
> Thus, this graph is the only interesting one:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, believe it or not, my own investment strategy, the Harry Browne Permanent Portfolio is... to an extent, and looking at it a certain way, and maybe squinting a little... a reversion-to-mean portfolio.  It takes advantage of the reversion to mean phenomenon to an extent through rebalancing bands, though in a far more agnostic and open-ended way than assuming that everything's going to follow a certain oscillation timing, like the 90 day/20 day band-crossing tactic you posted earlier.
> ...


Come on, presence, give me some feedback on this!  That's why I posted it, after all.  Did you read up on Shannon's Demon?  What do you think?

----------

