Re: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge

From: "Pritish Shah" <pshah@lason.com>
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:56:38 -0400

Next Article (by Date): RE: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge "Katherine Malm"
Previous Article (by Date): RE: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge "Katherine Malm"
Top of Thread: Re: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge "Gene Ricci"
Next in Thread: RE: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge "Katherine Malm"
Articles sorted by: [Date] [Author] [Subject]

DMC,

Please do not consider what I say as criticism.

With TC2K, you also have to purchase the subscription. Once you do that, =
you have to do the programming in it with the information that it gives. =
If such a program exists, then great. If not, then you have to do it =
yourself.=20

Also with TC2K, do you have to have the software running to get the =
alerts?

I am one of the subscribers of breakoutwatch.com and I find it convenient =
that I can get the alerts anywhere via email.

I look at Total Cost of Ownership. If I were to spend five weeks programmin=
g and perfecting TC2K, then I would have spent 5 wks * 40 hrs/wk * $40/hr =
or $8000 +$300/yr. In contrast, my Total Cost of Ownership for breakoutwatc=
h.com to be effective is $900/yr.

No indicators are infallible. This is an "odds" game. What are the odds of =
you succeeding? If you can improve the odds above 50%, you are successful. =
If you improve the odds to 60%, it is good. If a tool helps you improve =
the odds to 80%, it is great and that is what any indicator is about.

For some TC2K makes sense. For others breakoutwatch.com makes sense.

Pritish

>>> dmc197807@comcast.net 7/25/2003 12:30:15 PM >>>
Hong,

I'm not familiar with breakoutwatch.com's service (although I did just =
visit
their site).  It looks pretty pricey for something you can probably =
program
pretty well with TC2K and a subscription to IBD.  $900 per year for the
"platinum" service?

In general I don't think black boxes or canned trading systems work.  What
works is careful screening, careful analysis, disciplined trading and
disciplined money and position management.  Of  these four, the most
important are the latter two.

Academics (business schools) like to point out that no TA system has been
successfully backtested to perform over lengthy periods of time.  True
enough, because it is impossible to put in enough general market and proof
of trend indicators to reach a "scientific answer."  Further proof of
failure of black box systems was the LTCM debacle.  Also, as Steve Nison
likes to point out in analyzing candlesticks, unless you can define the
trend, you don't have a candlestick.

The big question here, the first question, is what is the condition of the
market.

Finally, as for the CET thing on OSTE, with a rating of 6.8 out of 7.0 and =
a
big plunge, what does that tell you about the infallibility of their =
rating
system?

DMC


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Hong Hsu" <honghsu@bellatlantic.net>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com>
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] Another mystery plunge


>      DMC,
>
>     For OSTE, the total TA score  (CET) from breakoutwatch.com is 6.8
> out of 7.  With that score I will tend to believe it has solid TA.  Does
> it?   Maybe Katherine could share her insight.
>
>     -Hong
>
>
>
> -
> -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
> -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
> -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.


- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.


- -
- -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
- -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
- -"unsubscribe canslim".  Do not use quotes in your email.

Go to Jeff Salisbury LWGate Home Page.