Esteban,
Fair enough. Having taken unnecessary losses in my brief life as a trader, I'm somewhat fanatical about risk, and therefore more than a little over the top when it comes to closing doors.
One point: We're in honest disagreement about what I call QPGDCEBs, which I think is healthy. The truth will emerge, and I'll be equally happy if you're right or if I am. What does worry me, from a practical viewpoint, is that others who follow the cats with somewhat less than the singleminded fascination you and I harbor could conceiveably enter into a trade without understanding occasional differences of opinion. I'm not sure if that's happened with DAVE. I think I stated my reservations ON the signal day, but, if I did, it didn't stop two brother 56ers from losing (if only a little) on the trade. If we're both posting on a signal day, and opinion is mixed, I think we should go to special trouble to make that known. In the case of ORCL, I've gone as far as I care to to state my feeling that it would not have been a trustworthy signal even if it had closed up a few ticks, and that to my mind, obeying the few rules we currently have is not sufficient protection against risk. Playing ANY cat-signal in a $hit$torm, IMO, is tantamount to gambling. Look at the McClellan Oscillator or just the advance/decline line and the new highs/new lows ratios from yesterday (and, I'm afraid, for the coming Monday). To my mind, they'll show you an unacceptable vigorish.
Do you know of any other failures we can study?
Ivan |
