[postlink]http://gained11.blogspot.com/2011/01/al-forex-secrets.html[/postlink]
This delusion globally entails identical aftermaths: 90-95% of traders turn steady to loose their deposits having studied books by Bill Williams, Alexander Elder, Thomas Demark, J. Schwager, et al.
Following the burn down of their first deposit trader's plunge themselves again into scrutinizing Forex scholars, in this manner suffering losses of the second, the third and subsequent deposit. I will hereinafter try to elucidate where from the above regularity grows, so that no trader repeats his forerunners' mistakes.
This statistics is common knowledge: 90% of traders constitute Forex losers... But the figure has always been giving rise to a leviathan of my doubts. It isn't because of somewhat different 95%-5% loser-to-winner ratio quoted in the Van Tarp and Brian June "Intraday trading: secrets of mastership". With 90% quoted universally, there naturally emerges the question, as to whether there is someone capable to check, to specify or to disprove the above figure.
NO ONE IS, besides the directors of largest Western banks providing streamline Forex quotes, but having never raised the issue.
WHY? Because should this statistics be published, there will be sharp and ultimate decline in number of those chasing easy profits from the world Forex market. Otherwise banks would not keep mum in advertising purposes. Neither would they be silent if losers constituted at least by few points less than 90%. In any advertising, customer attraction is ensured by quoting beneficial maxima and non-lucrative minima. This has always been, is being and will always be a universal practice.
As a conclusion, 10% Forex winners is a maximum result among traders. It's them, who have understood Forex market absolutely simple truisms and who attained steady daily earnings in amounts being gained by others within years or even the whole of life.
Certainly, those are to be recollected, who in late 80s were the first in the ex-USSR to grasp laws of commerce and who began accumulating their initial stock. The rules used to be so simple that presently any schoolboy or a first-year student can show the way the capital might have been easily scraped up and augmented on the USSR debris and in the course of market relations being established in the post-Soviet space.
I do exactly allow for the fact that through the years a new generation will be laughing at the way we are now incapable to comprehend the laws, where under currency rates either spike up or fall down, all of a sudden.
With this provision, those seeking fast money at Forex have a much greater time limit than the ones engaged in capital building in the post-Soviet space (Forex market is incommensurably greater than that in the ex-USSR), but not to the extent thought by many.
By now trends are thoroughly less numerous than they used to be 10-20 years ago. By way of taking a glance the charts history You are in the position to understand the way traders used to earn under 20- 40 pts spread, commission and slippage. A trend was followed by a trend at that epoch.
AND WHAT'S NOW? Nowadays many of traders are impotent to gain under 3 pts spread without commission and slippage.
Thus, this book is intended for those willing to perceive Forex market laws.
In order to get understanding of the way 5-10% of successful traders obtain profits, let's at the outset analyze the reasons and the way the outstanding 90% of traders suffer losses. The 90%-figure looks scaring, to say nothing of 95% or 98%. It occurs despite the amount of literature on the issue equals to hundreds of fundamental books, written by authors, having gained capitals expressed by means of more than 7-digit figures (G. Soros, B. Williams, A. Elder, T. Demark).
Thus, the above minimum of 90% of smart, well-read, broad-knowledged people:
- scrutinize the really great traders' heritage;
- open accounts with Forex Broker's and banks, start trading and...
- loose funds up to complete rout!
AND WHERE'S THE LOGIC? The answer springs to mind by itself... There's something wrong in the literature (by the way, recognized throughout the world, where the deposit-killing statistics is as disappointing as it is in our country) so long as its studying yields such oppressive results.
STRANGE? No, rather natural, than strange on account of the following:
1. Being a great trader is not indicative of everyone being a great teacher.
2. Multitude of rules elaborated by scholars 10-40 years ago, has grown obsolete, since the Forex market is changing.
3. The scholars HAVE NOT revealed ALL the secrets even WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE THEN
FOREX, therefore by now their advice and recommendation turn out either obsolete or naïve.
Thus, once one's advice and recommendations bring every 9 of 10 market participants to loose their money in each country, where one's books have used to be published and have enjoyed all sorts of hosanna in the press, THEN ONE IS NONE OF A TEACHER.
Naturally, no trader will reveal his professional secrets to the full. But when studying Forex literature one gets astonished by a negligible extent the above secrets are "confided" at all, with a book on Forex containing 99% of common truth and 1% only of useful novelties. But should one train up even several thousands perspective traders, one will in no way burden oneself with competitors, due to the Forex market huge sale nature. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the above traders are really great. You may agree or not, but anyone, having earned USD1 bn or more, deserves being named "great". So, one's books should be published as memoirs. I am not attaching any irony hereto, since these persons have acquired gains by virtue of their minds and labor, as opposite to Rockfellers, who inherited their fortunes or to Russian oligarchs, who either stole or got their capitals dirt-cheap from state authorities.
Hopefully, understandable is the difference between such editions and manuals for beginners.
G. Kasparov, say, is far from writing manuals for chess beginners, since the job can be better completed by others with this fact not at all undermining Kasparov's being a great chess player. And his advice and recommendation is sure to be of interest rather to a close circle of grand masters, than to those having touched the chess for the first time.
Actually Kasparov is but to be respected for not being tempted by the lust for fast money, by virtue of his name in the chess world and by way of cooking up manuals for beginners.
At Forex, by contrast, and for some reason, everyone deems oneself a teacher, which fact results in millions educated people worldwide leaving stock market being disappointed, angry with an inferiority complex life-time pursuit.
And hence, the unanswered question for them: is that all a fraud or not, since gains are midget, whereas losses are titanic?
I am recalling the book titled "The Alchemy of Finance" by G. Soros (the one I've read in early 90-s). I admit, it's interesting, instructive..., but it is all narrated in so an inarticulate and tangled manner. As indicated in the foreword by an American investor, the theory has hardly been understood by few only.
So what's the use of writing in such a manner? A theory may generally be complicated to any extent, BUT IT MUST BE wrapped in a simple, clear and understandable wording.
You are welcome to attempt to read the above book once You have time to. Shortly, the Soros reflexivity theory of the countries' cyclic development may easily bear a couple-sentence confinement:
1. Following liberation from totalitarian yoke, a country is granted credits, then, there is a rapid growth and flourish of economy.
2. As soon as the above credits are to be paid back, a country's economy faces a natural recession.
Is it as difficult? The question may be addressed to a schoolboy (to say nothing of an American investor): when should those countries' companies' shares be purchased and when they are to be advantageously sold in order to acquire maximum profit? What's going to happen in case one is too late to sell the shares, shortly exhibiting an impetuous growth in price?
Propounded long before, the Soros theory has been entirely corroborated in August, 98 by the dismal practice established in Asian and Pacific countries and later in Russia.
There still is another question: how inarticulate should Soros have been to enable his theory to be grasped by few only?
The second part of the book is not worth retelling. Reading its original is sure to be much more instructive with my annotation leaving no conundrums therein.
The theory is permeated by Soros's strategy: enter long on what's shortly going to enjoy price growth with a 100% probability and "pull out" Your money along with profits before the companies enter crisis, thus facilitating bankruptcies thereof.
This is the way I clearly lecture my students on Forex-related complexities, thus conveying my logics to them. Despite its own complexities (news, TA, corrective actions, etc.), Forex is essentially reduced to a very simple truth: at a certain moment one should not be late with going long or short on a currency with "tertium non datum".
And when asked if the Williams Alligator needs something to be added thereto, the majority of my students reply "Yes!", indicating what exactly is to be added.
I'll present a detailed vivisection of the issue in a separate chapter by way of proving that the Williams Alligator is but 50% effective.
Fig. 4. H1 EUR chart as of April 12, 2005. (See Note below)
The Alligator's jaws display upward opening with a fractal formed at 1.3006. According to Williams, one should enter long one point higher, i.e. at 1.3007. Upward motion continues extra 11 points. Then the rate sharply swivels to fall down by 170 pts.
Another example.
Fig. 5. H1 EUR chart as of April 22, 2005. (See Note below)
Please, figure out 1.3094, 16 pts above the previous fractal, following the Alligator upward opening. Thereafter, a sharp down swivel covering 140 pts.
Hundreds of similar examples may be drawn. But what are the implications?
With the Alligator's mouth opened, 50% of entries should be pro-Williams while the outstanding 50% - counter-Williams (i.e. vectored opposite to the Alligator mouth opening). When embarking on Forex, You must possess clear knowledge of the difference between either of the above 50%-portions. Otherwise..., You are doomed to loose even if You follow Williams's technique, let alone other ones.
Even my students are in the position to advise what is to be added to Alligator in order to realize proper entry vectoring. Least of all would I want this example to be taken as a personal criticism of Bill Williams, whose contribution to the Forex theory is a significant one. And the majority of traders, like me, used to begin earning after studying HIS books. But not to go astray..., even without any addenda Williams managed to make a tremendous fortune, since a skilled trader (moreover being the Alligator's father) is capable to differentiate between a steady travel and a pullback, or, say, a flat, or, visa versa, a trend low for the entry to be vectored oppositely. It is all fairly understandable for an experienced trader. But what about beginners as regards their interpretation of a flat, a recovery or a trend change?
These folks are sure to require assistance, especially, in information not presented in literature on Forex.
Without this knowledge a trader will never perceive the ABCs of stable daily earnings. But why the Forex scholars do not clear out the issue? This query is to be addressed to them, not to me. While reading these opuses, I am getting horrified at the fact that we are being foisted expensive high-sounding titled books, which are not going to ever teach a trader how to attain profits at the market.
Let's open one of them (E. Nayman's "Trader's Minor Encyclopedia" and "Master-trading: Secret Files") to get the understanding of the way almost all the books on Forex are written and supposed to have the price of USD20-100.
You may agree or not, but the name looks very beautiful and pretentious: "Master-trading: Secret Files", 320 pages of sheer secrets...
HOWEVER, I HAVEN'T FOUND ANY SECRETS THERE! You are welcome to discuss an argue Yourself:
1. "The interrelation between fundamental factors and exchange rate dynamics" being a detailed story of how a country's macroeconomic growing, benign rumors trading and political stability promote the exchange rate growth.
A "valuable" secret to be practically encountered in any Forex edition. But below is a real FA secret (not paid any attention to by Nayman): why does currency use to reverse against its country's economic news? A whole chapter here will be dedicated to the issue.
2. "Construction of two moving averages on a single chart and twin combinations thereof". The author furnishes a "wise" recommendation: entries should be made in the direction the MAs diverge (adding secretly that the most effective MA combination is 21, 55, 89, etc., as per Fibonacci).
The pseudo-secret nature of the above recommendation underlies the fact that any MA combination (should it be 21+55, as the author's; 10+20 as in many Western trading systems; 5+8+13 as per B. Williams or 1+21 as used by numerous traders) yields the same results.
Ok. It all looks great. However, E. Nayman et al., seem to have circumvented the MA intersection chief secret, through which traders suffer constant losses: a "lighter" MA has crossed a "heavier" one, say, upwards, but... thereafter there is sharp downturn resulting in the MAs intersection again.
Fig. 6. GBPUSD H1 chart as of April, 21-26, 2005. (See Note below)
A fivefold reciprocating crossing of MA 21 and 55. You are welcome to calculate traders' losses.
Now, let's call it a day with examples. The MA intersection technique operates perfectly in certain circumstances, while turning out impotent in others, thus inflicting losses upon traders. No criteria have ever been stipulated by Forex scholars as to entries to be effected pro- or counter-divergence of moving averages.
3. MACD construction and analysis. What sort of secret may one expect from the following statement of Nayman's: "a subsequent high being lower than the preceding one suggests a bullish trend depletion or even its changing with the same being visa versa under minimum MACD values". Much of a secret, isn't it? I thought it were the MACD operation principle, familiar to any Forex novice. The secret-fancier B. Williams hasn't even taken effort to advise to perform inputs change from 9, 12, 26 into 5, 34, 5 to provide for a lag killer.
Assuming the above, authentic MACD secrets are not paid any attention to by scholar, which fact inflicts losses upon traders. The situation comes into effect, when upon a divergence formation, no trend change is observed with another same-trend wave taking place instead.
This delusion globally entails identical aftermaths: 90-95% of traders turn steady to loose their deposits having studied books by Bill Williams, Alexander Elder, Thomas Demark, J. Schwager, et al.
Following the burn down of their first deposit trader's plunge themselves again into scrutinizing Forex scholars, in this manner suffering losses of the second, the third and subsequent deposit. I will hereinafter try to elucidate where from the above regularity grows, so that no trader repeats his forerunners' mistakes.
This statistics is common knowledge: 90% of traders constitute Forex losers... But the figure has always been giving rise to a leviathan of my doubts. It isn't because of somewhat different 95%-5% loser-to-winner ratio quoted in the Van Tarp and Brian June "Intraday trading: secrets of mastership". With 90% quoted universally, there naturally emerges the question, as to whether there is someone capable to check, to specify or to disprove the above figure.
NO ONE IS, besides the directors of largest Western banks providing streamline Forex quotes, but having never raised the issue.
WHY? Because should this statistics be published, there will be sharp and ultimate decline in number of those chasing easy profits from the world Forex market. Otherwise banks would not keep mum in advertising purposes. Neither would they be silent if losers constituted at least by few points less than 90%. In any advertising, customer attraction is ensured by quoting beneficial maxima and non-lucrative minima. This has always been, is being and will always be a universal practice.
As a conclusion, 10% Forex winners is a maximum result among traders. It's them, who have understood Forex market absolutely simple truisms and who attained steady daily earnings in amounts being gained by others within years or even the whole of life.
Certainly, those are to be recollected, who in late 80s were the first in the ex-USSR to grasp laws of commerce and who began accumulating their initial stock. The rules used to be so simple that presently any schoolboy or a first-year student can show the way the capital might have been easily scraped up and augmented on the USSR debris and in the course of market relations being established in the post-Soviet space.
I do exactly allow for the fact that through the years a new generation will be laughing at the way we are now incapable to comprehend the laws, where under currency rates either spike up or fall down, all of a sudden.
With this provision, those seeking fast money at Forex have a much greater time limit than the ones engaged in capital building in the post-Soviet space (Forex market is incommensurably greater than that in the ex-USSR), but not to the extent thought by many.
By now trends are thoroughly less numerous than they used to be 10-20 years ago. By way of taking a glance the charts history You are in the position to understand the way traders used to earn under 20- 40 pts spread, commission and slippage. A trend was followed by a trend at that epoch.
AND WHAT'S NOW? Nowadays many of traders are impotent to gain under 3 pts spread without commission and slippage.
Thus, this book is intended for those willing to perceive Forex market laws.
In order to get understanding of the way 5-10% of successful traders obtain profits, let's at the outset analyze the reasons and the way the outstanding 90% of traders suffer losses. The 90%-figure looks scaring, to say nothing of 95% or 98%. It occurs despite the amount of literature on the issue equals to hundreds of fundamental books, written by authors, having gained capitals expressed by means of more than 7-digit figures (G. Soros, B. Williams, A. Elder, T. Demark).
Thus, the above minimum of 90% of smart, well-read, broad-knowledged people:
- scrutinize the really great traders' heritage;
- open accounts with Forex Broker's and banks, start trading and...
- loose funds up to complete rout!
AND WHERE'S THE LOGIC? The answer springs to mind by itself... There's something wrong in the literature (by the way, recognized throughout the world, where the deposit-killing statistics is as disappointing as it is in our country) so long as its studying yields such oppressive results.
STRANGE? No, rather natural, than strange on account of the following:
1. Being a great trader is not indicative of everyone being a great teacher.
2. Multitude of rules elaborated by scholars 10-40 years ago, has grown obsolete, since the Forex market is changing.
3. The scholars HAVE NOT revealed ALL the secrets even WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE THEN
FOREX, therefore by now their advice and recommendation turn out either obsolete or naïve.
Thus, once one's advice and recommendations bring every 9 of 10 market participants to loose their money in each country, where one's books have used to be published and have enjoyed all sorts of hosanna in the press, THEN ONE IS NONE OF A TEACHER.
Naturally, no trader will reveal his professional secrets to the full. But when studying Forex literature one gets astonished by a negligible extent the above secrets are "confided" at all, with a book on Forex containing 99% of common truth and 1% only of useful novelties. But should one train up even several thousands perspective traders, one will in no way burden oneself with competitors, due to the Forex market huge sale nature. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the above traders are really great. You may agree or not, but anyone, having earned USD1 bn or more, deserves being named "great". So, one's books should be published as memoirs. I am not attaching any irony hereto, since these persons have acquired gains by virtue of their minds and labor, as opposite to Rockfellers, who inherited their fortunes or to Russian oligarchs, who either stole or got their capitals dirt-cheap from state authorities.
Hopefully, understandable is the difference between such editions and manuals for beginners.
G. Kasparov, say, is far from writing manuals for chess beginners, since the job can be better completed by others with this fact not at all undermining Kasparov's being a great chess player. And his advice and recommendation is sure to be of interest rather to a close circle of grand masters, than to those having touched the chess for the first time.
Actually Kasparov is but to be respected for not being tempted by the lust for fast money, by virtue of his name in the chess world and by way of cooking up manuals for beginners.
At Forex, by contrast, and for some reason, everyone deems oneself a teacher, which fact results in millions educated people worldwide leaving stock market being disappointed, angry with an inferiority complex life-time pursuit.
And hence, the unanswered question for them: is that all a fraud or not, since gains are midget, whereas losses are titanic?
I am recalling the book titled "The Alchemy of Finance" by G. Soros (the one I've read in early 90-s). I admit, it's interesting, instructive..., but it is all narrated in so an inarticulate and tangled manner. As indicated in the foreword by an American investor, the theory has hardly been understood by few only.
So what's the use of writing in such a manner? A theory may generally be complicated to any extent, BUT IT MUST BE wrapped in a simple, clear and understandable wording.
You are welcome to attempt to read the above book once You have time to. Shortly, the Soros reflexivity theory of the countries' cyclic development may easily bear a couple-sentence confinement:
1. Following liberation from totalitarian yoke, a country is granted credits, then, there is a rapid growth and flourish of economy.
2. As soon as the above credits are to be paid back, a country's economy faces a natural recession.
Is it as difficult? The question may be addressed to a schoolboy (to say nothing of an American investor): when should those countries' companies' shares be purchased and when they are to be advantageously sold in order to acquire maximum profit? What's going to happen in case one is too late to sell the shares, shortly exhibiting an impetuous growth in price?
Propounded long before, the Soros theory has been entirely corroborated in August, 98 by the dismal practice established in Asian and Pacific countries and later in Russia.
There still is another question: how inarticulate should Soros have been to enable his theory to be grasped by few only?
The second part of the book is not worth retelling. Reading its original is sure to be much more instructive with my annotation leaving no conundrums therein.
The theory is permeated by Soros's strategy: enter long on what's shortly going to enjoy price growth with a 100% probability and "pull out" Your money along with profits before the companies enter crisis, thus facilitating bankruptcies thereof.
This is the way I clearly lecture my students on Forex-related complexities, thus conveying my logics to them. Despite its own complexities (news, TA, corrective actions, etc.), Forex is essentially reduced to a very simple truth: at a certain moment one should not be late with going long or short on a currency with "tertium non datum".
And when asked if the Williams Alligator needs something to be added thereto, the majority of my students reply "Yes!", indicating what exactly is to be added.
I'll present a detailed vivisection of the issue in a separate chapter by way of proving that the Williams Alligator is but 50% effective.
Fig. 4. H1 EUR chart as of April 12, 2005. (See Note below)
The Alligator's jaws display upward opening with a fractal formed at 1.3006. According to Williams, one should enter long one point higher, i.e. at 1.3007. Upward motion continues extra 11 points. Then the rate sharply swivels to fall down by 170 pts.
Another example.
Fig. 5. H1 EUR chart as of April 22, 2005. (See Note below)
Please, figure out 1.3094, 16 pts above the previous fractal, following the Alligator upward opening. Thereafter, a sharp down swivel covering 140 pts.
Hundreds of similar examples may be drawn. But what are the implications?
With the Alligator's mouth opened, 50% of entries should be pro-Williams while the outstanding 50% - counter-Williams (i.e. vectored opposite to the Alligator mouth opening). When embarking on Forex, You must possess clear knowledge of the difference between either of the above 50%-portions. Otherwise..., You are doomed to loose even if You follow Williams's technique, let alone other ones.
Even my students are in the position to advise what is to be added to Alligator in order to realize proper entry vectoring. Least of all would I want this example to be taken as a personal criticism of Bill Williams, whose contribution to the Forex theory is a significant one. And the majority of traders, like me, used to begin earning after studying HIS books. But not to go astray..., even without any addenda Williams managed to make a tremendous fortune, since a skilled trader (moreover being the Alligator's father) is capable to differentiate between a steady travel and a pullback, or, say, a flat, or, visa versa, a trend low for the entry to be vectored oppositely. It is all fairly understandable for an experienced trader. But what about beginners as regards their interpretation of a flat, a recovery or a trend change?
These folks are sure to require assistance, especially, in information not presented in literature on Forex.
Without this knowledge a trader will never perceive the ABCs of stable daily earnings. But why the Forex scholars do not clear out the issue? This query is to be addressed to them, not to me. While reading these opuses, I am getting horrified at the fact that we are being foisted expensive high-sounding titled books, which are not going to ever teach a trader how to attain profits at the market.
Let's open one of them (E. Nayman's "Trader's Minor Encyclopedia" and "Master-trading: Secret Files") to get the understanding of the way almost all the books on Forex are written and supposed to have the price of USD20-100.
You may agree or not, but the name looks very beautiful and pretentious: "Master-trading: Secret Files", 320 pages of sheer secrets...
HOWEVER, I HAVEN'T FOUND ANY SECRETS THERE! You are welcome to discuss an argue Yourself:
1. "The interrelation between fundamental factors and exchange rate dynamics" being a detailed story of how a country's macroeconomic growing, benign rumors trading and political stability promote the exchange rate growth.
A "valuable" secret to be practically encountered in any Forex edition. But below is a real FA secret (not paid any attention to by Nayman): why does currency use to reverse against its country's economic news? A whole chapter here will be dedicated to the issue.
2. "Construction of two moving averages on a single chart and twin combinations thereof". The author furnishes a "wise" recommendation: entries should be made in the direction the MAs diverge (adding secretly that the most effective MA combination is 21, 55, 89, etc., as per Fibonacci).
The pseudo-secret nature of the above recommendation underlies the fact that any MA combination (should it be 21+55, as the author's; 10+20 as in many Western trading systems; 5+8+13 as per B. Williams or 1+21 as used by numerous traders) yields the same results.
Ok. It all looks great. However, E. Nayman et al., seem to have circumvented the MA intersection chief secret, through which traders suffer constant losses: a "lighter" MA has crossed a "heavier" one, say, upwards, but... thereafter there is sharp downturn resulting in the MAs intersection again.
Fig. 6. GBPUSD H1 chart as of April, 21-26, 2005. (See Note below)
A fivefold reciprocating crossing of MA 21 and 55. You are welcome to calculate traders' losses.
Now, let's call it a day with examples. The MA intersection technique operates perfectly in certain circumstances, while turning out impotent in others, thus inflicting losses upon traders. No criteria have ever been stipulated by Forex scholars as to entries to be effected pro- or counter-divergence of moving averages.
3. MACD construction and analysis. What sort of secret may one expect from the following statement of Nayman's: "a subsequent high being lower than the preceding one suggests a bullish trend depletion or even its changing with the same being visa versa under minimum MACD values". Much of a secret, isn't it? I thought it were the MACD operation principle, familiar to any Forex novice. The secret-fancier B. Williams hasn't even taken effort to advise to perform inputs change from 9, 12, 26 into 5, 34, 5 to provide for a lag killer.
Assuming the above, authentic MACD secrets are not paid any attention to by scholar, which fact inflicts losses upon traders. The situation comes into effect, when upon a divergence formation, no trend change is observed with another same-trend wave taking place instead.
0 التعليقات:
إرسال تعليق