06 April 2010
R (R-Multiples)
By Michael on September 6, 2006 8:45 PM
There seems to be a lot of controversial over the concept of R-Multiples. I've been seeing people complain about them for months now and I've been meaning to write a post about "R". I really wanted to do it last week but I'm glad I didn't get to it because this week a raging debate about R has popped up. Glenn, at DehTrader can serve as the poster child for the anti-R crew. Here's part of his recent rant against R-Multiples (emphasis is mine):
I post real numbers as opposed to R values, I always have. I like real numbers, I understand real numbers and I see truth in real numbers and I think the reader does too. As a reader of many blogs I find zero value in any post or summaries containing R values, I don't see any point in sharing that information. I suppose if I posted in R values I could look like a pretty good trader, but we all know I am a struggling trader. R can mean anything so why even bother with it... R stands for bullsh!t imo and that's my rant (that and ads haha). The best blogs out there post real numbers, Boogtser, JC (NYSE), the Kirkster all come to mind.
He's joined by folks like Paul who left this comment over on Ugly's post about R multiples:
I believe dollar values are more important than R value. I agree that the actual $ value is meaningless. However, R values are subjective and don’t give you a true idea on how successful the trade was. If you defined your risk at 15 cents and made 30 cents on the trade, while another person made 50 cents but decided his risk would be 50 cents, R values would say the guy who made 30 cents was more successful. I have a problem with that. It could very well be that the guy who only risked 15 cents is playing it too safe and his 2R gain was a bad trade.
So that gives you an idea of the anti-R sentiment. I'm going to explain why I think R-Multiples are so useful and why I use them in my trading and on this site.
What is R?
R is simply the dollar risk per trade. It's nothing but a reward-to-risk ratio. I first heard it called "R" in Van Tharp's book "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom". In another of his books, "Financial Freedom Through Electronic Day Trading", Dr. Tharp reveals the great secret of trading:
The golden rule of trading is to keep losses at a level of 1 R as often as possible and to make profits that are high-R multiples.
You often hear (read) that traders should only look for trades with a reward/risk ratio of at least 2 or 3 to 1. Expressing your results in terms of how many times your risk allows you to easily see how well your trades measure up to such a standard. So when I look at my results in terms of multiples of R I can easily tell how good or bad the trades were. I like to think of R-Multiples as telling you the efficiency of your system.
So why not just use dollars?
Expressing my results in dollars would achieve the same result if I always risked the same amount of money. But what if I triple my account and therefore trade larger positions compared to when I started trading? Or what if I hit a rough spot and decide to cut my share size down while I ride out the storm? Then the dollar results won't easily tell me how trades from one period of time compared to another period of time. But if I use R making such comparisons is simple. Either my trades passed the risk / reward ratio test or they didn't. The actual number of dollars at risk doesn't matter, how many multiples of the dollars at risk does.
Along the same lines, recording trades in terms of R-Multiples allows you to easily calculate your system's expectancy. (Follow the link for why you should care about expectancy.)
Also, as Rx said:
talking and thinking in terms of R-multiple when you discuss about profits is an excellent approach - that by itself makes you focus on risk and money management - the actual "grail" to successful trading.
That is a very important point. Whenever I see people posting dollar returns, especially losses, that are all over the place the first thing I ask myself is "I wonder what his risk per trade is". It's almost a certainty that those traders aren't focusing on risk and as a result keep having huge losses. The mere fact that you have to define R and then place a stop to keep your loss to 1R is probably too constraining for those gamblers traders. Dr. Tharp says about determining your initial stop-loss point as soon as you enter a trade, which, by definition woud give you a 1 R loss:
This principle is so important that if you cannot follow it, then you might as well give up the idea of electronic day trading right away.
The reason I use R on the blog is because I don't want to discuss dollars or my account size on the site (as Ugly stated). That's nobody's business but mine. Also, it makes it easy for people to figure out what they could have made or lost on a trade with their own account size and risk per trade amount. If you see a trade that returned 3R all one has to do is plug in their dollar risk per trade to figure out what they could have made / lost.
To the R Haters
Let me address the "alleged" issues which I quoted above...
Glenn thinks that R is just some made up number and could mean anything. He likes "real" numbers. While it may be fun to see that somebody made $10,000 on a trade that in and of itself doesn't tell you how good that trade was. What if that person risked $30,000 to make that $10,000? Or what if they risked $1,000 to make that $10,000? Those are two very different trades. Sure they both made the same amount of money but isn't the second trade a much more efficient use of capital?
What if somebody is trading $500,000 lots to make $1,000 in profit? It may be nice to see somebody saying that they made $1,000 here and $1,000 there but damn(!) that's an inefficient use of capital. So while R could mean anything in terms of dollars, in my humble opinion what really matters is how many multiples of R were made or lost. That tells you the quality of a trade or system.
Glenn also states that if he reported his trades in terms of R he could appear to be a good trader. I'm sorry to tell him that's simply not the case. If you lost money that means your expectancy, which is just your average return expressed in R-Multiples, was negative.
Paul said that "R values are subjective and don’t give you a true idea on how successful the trade was". That is exactly wrong. R-multiples are the very thing that tells you exactly how successful a given trade was, if you choose to grade on a risk/reward basis.
Percentages vs. Dollars
This debate about R reminds me of a conversation I had a couple of weeks ago. I was in a presentation for Trade-Ideas' new tool, the Odds Maker. They were showing how you could backtest all these different scenarios with the tool. The results were expressed in average dollars won or lost. Another viewer and I asked about seeing the results in percentages. They kept saying that perhaps they would do that in a later revision. I kept harping on it because to me seeing the results in dollars was of little use for the way I size my positions
The argument from the presenter was that all you had to do was multiply the average dollar return by your average lot size to figure out how much money you could have made with a given system you were testing. I had to disagree because my lot size can vary drastically depending on how far away my stop loss is. Here's a situation which could be problematic -- I trade Google with a 2 point stop (which is only about half of a percent) and get lucky and make 6 points of profit. All of my other trades are on stocks under $50 with stops less than 50 cents. I could have some combination of winners and losers mixed in there... most of them probably well less than $6. That $6 gain may skew the results when presented as average dollars won. That's an over-simplification and there are all kinds of possible permutations. But I hope my point is clear that looking at the results in terms of average dollars won/lost may not tell accurately tell you the story.
So how can we make the results clearer? Simple, express them in percentages. That way, regardless of how many shares were traded or the prices of the stocks traded the results can be equalized across all the trades. I feel much better being able to say , "OK, this system would have returned X%" instead of "X number of points.
We debated the merits of each way of reporting for a few minutes and at one point somebody said, well , for this release we're aiming for the "lowest common denominator". In other words, the average person can't think in percentages, so we're just gonna report in points. I was like, F the average person, make it work the "right" way! The funny thing is that after debating all of that the software actually could express the results in percentage terms. We just had to switch a setting.
So my point of that little story is that I always prefer to think in terms of percentages in stead of points. I always see people talking about number of shares of point moves. For example, you might hear somebody exclaim "Google is up 5 points!!!" I don't see that as anything to get excited about. That just over a 1% move -- a normal fluctuation. You'll hear similar things from reporters talking excitedly about the Dow being up some triple-digit amount. The Nasdaq may actually be up a lot more on a percentage basis but they'll just say, eh, the Nasdaq is "just" up 30 points.
Looking at the percentages makes those kind of comparisons easier. R-Multiples do the same thing for traders. They can accurately compare their own trades and they can take another trader's results expressed in R and easily relate them to their own system.
By Michael on September 6, 2006 8:45 PM
There seems to be a lot of controversial over the concept of R-Multiples. I've been seeing people complain about them for months now and I've been meaning to write a post about "R". I really wanted to do it last week but I'm glad I didn't get to it because this week a raging debate about R has popped up. Glenn, at DehTrader can serve as the poster child for the anti-R crew. Here's part of his recent rant against R-Multiples (emphasis is mine):
I post real numbers as opposed to R values, I always have. I like real numbers, I understand real numbers and I see truth in real numbers and I think the reader does too. As a reader of many blogs I find zero value in any post or summaries containing R values, I don't see any point in sharing that information. I suppose if I posted in R values I could look like a pretty good trader, but we all know I am a struggling trader. R can mean anything so why even bother with it... R stands for bullsh!t imo and that's my rant (that and ads haha). The best blogs out there post real numbers, Boogtser, JC (NYSE), the Kirkster all come to mind.
He's joined by folks like Paul who left this comment over on Ugly's post about R multiples:
I believe dollar values are more important than R value. I agree that the actual $ value is meaningless. However, R values are subjective and don’t give you a true idea on how successful the trade was. If you defined your risk at 15 cents and made 30 cents on the trade, while another person made 50 cents but decided his risk would be 50 cents, R values would say the guy who made 30 cents was more successful. I have a problem with that. It could very well be that the guy who only risked 15 cents is playing it too safe and his 2R gain was a bad trade.
So that gives you an idea of the anti-R sentiment. I'm going to explain why I think R-Multiples are so useful and why I use them in my trading and on this site.
What is R?
R is simply the dollar risk per trade. It's nothing but a reward-to-risk ratio. I first heard it called "R" in Van Tharp's book "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom". In another of his books, "Financial Freedom Through Electronic Day Trading", Dr. Tharp reveals the great secret of trading:
The golden rule of trading is to keep losses at a level of 1 R as often as possible and to make profits that are high-R multiples.
You often hear (read) that traders should only look for trades with a reward/risk ratio of at least 2 or 3 to 1. Expressing your results in terms of how many times your risk allows you to easily see how well your trades measure up to such a standard. So when I look at my results in terms of multiples of R I can easily tell how good or bad the trades were. I like to think of R-Multiples as telling you the efficiency of your system.
So why not just use dollars?
Expressing my results in dollars would achieve the same result if I always risked the same amount of money. But what if I triple my account and therefore trade larger positions compared to when I started trading? Or what if I hit a rough spot and decide to cut my share size down while I ride out the storm? Then the dollar results won't easily tell me how trades from one period of time compared to another period of time. But if I use R making such comparisons is simple. Either my trades passed the risk / reward ratio test or they didn't. The actual number of dollars at risk doesn't matter, how many multiples of the dollars at risk does.
Along the same lines, recording trades in terms of R-Multiples allows you to easily calculate your system's expectancy. (Follow the link for why you should care about expectancy.)
Also, as Rx said:
talking and thinking in terms of R-multiple when you discuss about profits is an excellent approach - that by itself makes you focus on risk and money management - the actual "grail" to successful trading.
That is a very important point. Whenever I see people posting dollar returns, especially losses, that are all over the place the first thing I ask myself is "I wonder what his risk per trade is". It's almost a certainty that those traders aren't focusing on risk and as a result keep having huge losses. The mere fact that you have to define R and then place a stop to keep your loss to 1R is probably too constraining for those gamblers traders. Dr. Tharp says about determining your initial stop-loss point as soon as you enter a trade, which, by definition woud give you a 1 R loss:
This principle is so important that if you cannot follow it, then you might as well give up the idea of electronic day trading right away.
The reason I use R on the blog is because I don't want to discuss dollars or my account size on the site (as Ugly stated). That's nobody's business but mine. Also, it makes it easy for people to figure out what they could have made or lost on a trade with their own account size and risk per trade amount. If you see a trade that returned 3R all one has to do is plug in their dollar risk per trade to figure out what they could have made / lost.
To the R Haters
Let me address the "alleged" issues which I quoted above...
Glenn thinks that R is just some made up number and could mean anything. He likes "real" numbers. While it may be fun to see that somebody made $10,000 on a trade that in and of itself doesn't tell you how good that trade was. What if that person risked $30,000 to make that $10,000? Or what if they risked $1,000 to make that $10,000? Those are two very different trades. Sure they both made the same amount of money but isn't the second trade a much more efficient use of capital?
What if somebody is trading $500,000 lots to make $1,000 in profit? It may be nice to see somebody saying that they made $1,000 here and $1,000 there but damn(!) that's an inefficient use of capital. So while R could mean anything in terms of dollars, in my humble opinion what really matters is how many multiples of R were made or lost. That tells you the quality of a trade or system.
Glenn also states that if he reported his trades in terms of R he could appear to be a good trader. I'm sorry to tell him that's simply not the case. If you lost money that means your expectancy, which is just your average return expressed in R-Multiples, was negative.
Paul said that "R values are subjective and don’t give you a true idea on how successful the trade was". That is exactly wrong. R-multiples are the very thing that tells you exactly how successful a given trade was, if you choose to grade on a risk/reward basis.
Percentages vs. Dollars
This debate about R reminds me of a conversation I had a couple of weeks ago. I was in a presentation for Trade-Ideas' new tool, the Odds Maker. They were showing how you could backtest all these different scenarios with the tool. The results were expressed in average dollars won or lost. Another viewer and I asked about seeing the results in percentages. They kept saying that perhaps they would do that in a later revision. I kept harping on it because to me seeing the results in dollars was of little use for the way I size my positions
The argument from the presenter was that all you had to do was multiply the average dollar return by your average lot size to figure out how much money you could have made with a given system you were testing. I had to disagree because my lot size can vary drastically depending on how far away my stop loss is. Here's a situation which could be problematic -- I trade Google with a 2 point stop (which is only about half of a percent) and get lucky and make 6 points of profit. All of my other trades are on stocks under $50 with stops less than 50 cents. I could have some combination of winners and losers mixed in there... most of them probably well less than $6. That $6 gain may skew the results when presented as average dollars won. That's an over-simplification and there are all kinds of possible permutations. But I hope my point is clear that looking at the results in terms of average dollars won/lost may not tell accurately tell you the story.
So how can we make the results clearer? Simple, express them in percentages. That way, regardless of how many shares were traded or the prices of the stocks traded the results can be equalized across all the trades. I feel much better being able to say , "OK, this system would have returned X%" instead of "X number of points.
We debated the merits of each way of reporting for a few minutes and at one point somebody said, well , for this release we're aiming for the "lowest common denominator". In other words, the average person can't think in percentages, so we're just gonna report in points. I was like, F the average person, make it work the "right" way! The funny thing is that after debating all of that the software actually could express the results in percentage terms. We just had to switch a setting.
So my point of that little story is that I always prefer to think in terms of percentages in stead of points. I always see people talking about number of shares of point moves. For example, you might hear somebody exclaim "Google is up 5 points!!!" I don't see that as anything to get excited about. That just over a 1% move -- a normal fluctuation. You'll hear similar things from reporters talking excitedly about the Dow being up some triple-digit amount. The Nasdaq may actually be up a lot more on a percentage basis but they'll just say, eh, the Nasdaq is "just" up 30 points.
Looking at the percentages makes those kind of comparisons easier. R-Multiples do the same thing for traders. They can accurately compare their own trades and they can take another trader's results expressed in R and easily relate them to their own system.
Labels: Stock Trading System
Position Sizing
By Michael on July 4, 2005 12:12 PM
Position sizing could very well be the most important aspect of a trading system, yet, like expectancy, it's rarely covered in trading books. A position sizing model simply tells you 'how much' or 'how big' of a position to take. Position sizing can be the key factor in whether or not you stay in the game or whether your gains are huge or minimal.
Dr. Van K. Tharp did an experiment which shows the importance position sizing. In his book "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom" Van gives the results of his testing of four different position sizing models. He tested the models on the same trading system, so the only variable was the position sizing. The simulations were run with an initial equity of $1,000,000 and took 595 trades over a 5.5 year period. The models produced drastically different results:
The worst was the baseline model which just bought 100 shares of stock whenever a signal was given. That model returned $32,567 or 0.58% annualized.
Fixed-amount model: This method traded 100 shares per $100,000 in equity. It returned $237,457 or 5.75% annualized.
Equal leverage model: Each position in this model was 3% of the account equity. So at the start of the trial each position was $30,000. This method returned $231,121.
Percent risk model: According to this model positions were sized such that the initial risk exposure was 1% of the account equity. So with $1,000,000 equity the initial risk would be $10,000. So if the initial stop on a trade was $1 the system would trade 10,000 shares. For an initial stop of 50 cents the system would trade 20,000 shares, etc. This model returned $1,840,493 or 20.92% annualized.
Percent Volatility model: Positions were sized based on each stock's volatility -- the more volatile the stock the fewer shares are traded. For this trial positions were pegged at 0.5% volatility (initially $5,000 per position) -- so if a stock's average true range was $5 the system would trade 1,000 shares. This model returned $2,109,266 or 22.93% annualized.
You can see how important position sizing is by that simple experiment. Remember that's the same trading system with the only difference being the size of the positions.
In the past when I was swing trading I used to simply divide my equity by 5 and that would determine my position size. I wanted my maximum risk per trade to be 1% of my equity so that dictated that my maximum loss per position was 5%. I still do that with my long term account but I'm seriously considering changing that.
Now that I'm daytrading it makes a lot more sense to me to use the percent risk model. I always liked that model but I never felt comfortable using it when I was holding stocks overnight. Now that I don't have to worry about overnight gaps I feel much better about using this method. It allows me to put a lot of money to work when I have an entry with a tight stop. But despite the fact that I could have 2 or 3 times as much money in play versus my old position sizing model I can still keep my risk per trade very small. It's also kept me out of trades that were just too risky because it forces me to really look at where my initial stop will be. Often the stop will be so wide that I can only buy a handful of shares so it becomes clear that the trade isn't worth the effort. This method also allows me to equalize my 1R risk across all trades which helps in my expectancy calculations.
Here are some position sizing resources:
Van Tharp's books are by far the best work I've seen on position sizing, expectancy and money management. I've read "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom" and "Financial Freedom Through Electronic Day Trading" and recommend both highly.
Money Management or Position Sizing or Bet Size... No Matter What You Call It, Better Know It
Michael Taylor on his position sizing trials.
Stephen Vita on his position sizing model.
Jon Tait's argument for trading many small positions. (I don't necessarily agree with Jon's conclusion but he covers some important topics in this post.)
Position Sizing: Why Size Matters to All Investing Greats
TradersCALM - Introduction to Position Sizing
Position Sizing - The Most Powerful Investment Concept
Size Really Does Matter! Position-Sizing Management Can Make a Difference Between Profit and Loss - (Free subscription required)
T.I.P.S. - Trading is Position Sizing
My position sizing spreadsheet
TradeStars' position sizing calculator
Dave Laplander's position sizing calulators
By Michael on July 4, 2005 12:12 PM
Position sizing could very well be the most important aspect of a trading system, yet, like expectancy, it's rarely covered in trading books. A position sizing model simply tells you 'how much' or 'how big' of a position to take. Position sizing can be the key factor in whether or not you stay in the game or whether your gains are huge or minimal.
Dr. Van K. Tharp did an experiment which shows the importance position sizing. In his book "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom" Van gives the results of his testing of four different position sizing models. He tested the models on the same trading system, so the only variable was the position sizing. The simulations were run with an initial equity of $1,000,000 and took 595 trades over a 5.5 year period. The models produced drastically different results:
The worst was the baseline model which just bought 100 shares of stock whenever a signal was given. That model returned $32,567 or 0.58% annualized.
Fixed-amount model: This method traded 100 shares per $100,000 in equity. It returned $237,457 or 5.75% annualized.
Equal leverage model: Each position in this model was 3% of the account equity. So at the start of the trial each position was $30,000. This method returned $231,121.
Percent risk model: According to this model positions were sized such that the initial risk exposure was 1% of the account equity. So with $1,000,000 equity the initial risk would be $10,000. So if the initial stop on a trade was $1 the system would trade 10,000 shares. For an initial stop of 50 cents the system would trade 20,000 shares, etc. This model returned $1,840,493 or 20.92% annualized.
Percent Volatility model: Positions were sized based on each stock's volatility -- the more volatile the stock the fewer shares are traded. For this trial positions were pegged at 0.5% volatility (initially $5,000 per position) -- so if a stock's average true range was $5 the system would trade 1,000 shares. This model returned $2,109,266 or 22.93% annualized.
You can see how important position sizing is by that simple experiment. Remember that's the same trading system with the only difference being the size of the positions.
In the past when I was swing trading I used to simply divide my equity by 5 and that would determine my position size. I wanted my maximum risk per trade to be 1% of my equity so that dictated that my maximum loss per position was 5%. I still do that with my long term account but I'm seriously considering changing that.
Now that I'm daytrading it makes a lot more sense to me to use the percent risk model. I always liked that model but I never felt comfortable using it when I was holding stocks overnight. Now that I don't have to worry about overnight gaps I feel much better about using this method. It allows me to put a lot of money to work when I have an entry with a tight stop. But despite the fact that I could have 2 or 3 times as much money in play versus my old position sizing model I can still keep my risk per trade very small. It's also kept me out of trades that were just too risky because it forces me to really look at where my initial stop will be. Often the stop will be so wide that I can only buy a handful of shares so it becomes clear that the trade isn't worth the effort. This method also allows me to equalize my 1R risk across all trades which helps in my expectancy calculations.
Here are some position sizing resources:
Van Tharp's books are by far the best work I've seen on position sizing, expectancy and money management. I've read "Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom" and "Financial Freedom Through Electronic Day Trading" and recommend both highly.
Money Management or Position Sizing or Bet Size... No Matter What You Call It, Better Know It
Michael Taylor on his position sizing trials.
Stephen Vita on his position sizing model.
Jon Tait's argument for trading many small positions. (I don't necessarily agree with Jon's conclusion but he covers some important topics in this post.)
Position Sizing: Why Size Matters to All Investing Greats
TradersCALM - Introduction to Position Sizing
Position Sizing - The Most Powerful Investment Concept
Size Really Does Matter! Position-Sizing Management Can Make a Difference Between Profit and Loss - (Free subscription required)
T.I.P.S. - Trading is Position Sizing
My position sizing spreadsheet
TradeStars' position sizing calculator
Dave Laplander's position sizing calulators
Labels: Stock Trading System
04 April 2010
股市或许就是你的取款机
(ZT) 2010-03-31 23:03:30
◆股票涨跌的浪是主力造的，没有主力就没有大的涨跌,没有主力，再好的题材，再好的概念，再多的理由，一样是一潭死水。前进股市第一个思路，就是要知道无风不起浪，浪是庄家主力造的，没有当庄的主力就不容易有波 动，你要想在股市获利，就要与庄家共舞与主力同进退。思路理清了吗？
◆底部让一点，头部让一点，中间多吃一点，操作就是这样。
◆做股票：一、工具要单纯；二、想法要单纯。
◆ 买进的方式有两种，逢低接，转强买，
◆股票到了高档，不知道要跑，到最后肯定是白忙一场，纸上富贵而已。会买是徒弟，会卖才是师父。
◆上涨找支撑，下跌找压力，不要弄错这个趋势操作的大原则，操作功力肯定可以大幅提升。
◆怎样获利了结？当你满意的时候就可以走了。简单的方式是：当你买进的理由消失时，就是很好的出场时机。
◆涨的时候不要看太好，跌的时候不要看太坏
◆瞄准胜率大于70%的时机，有时候一个月出手一次也很够了。猎人不会看到飞鸟就举枪射击，他会把有限的子弹慢慢瞄准，然后，一枪命中。
◆多头的浪？空头的浪？ 与大势同步的庄就是好庄。
多头的浪：一高高过一高，低点不破前低。
空头的浪：一低低于一低，高点不过前高。
跌深会反弹，涨多会回档，这是股价的惯性，整理有时间整理和空间整理。
◆带头的浪先行 跟随的浪后至。看盘要先看大盘，再看板块，最后才挑个股。
◆知道如何等待，才是股市成功的秘诀，“未赢先想输”是我们祖先留下的高度智能，看得懂的时候就进场，看不懂的时候就观望，观望也是一种策略。
◆光会看如何是买点、如何是卖点还是不够的，心态的锻炼才是散户投资人最欠缺的，散户欠缺的是杀手的本质，心性不够残忍，该买时不敢买，该杀的时候又迟疑，该抱的时候也没有坚持。
◆股票不必天天买，功课却要天天做。
1.每天找出涨幅前30名的股票，在K线图上看看，为什么它会涨？上涨前 的征兆是什么？是哪些类股上涨家数最多？是电子？金融？还是医药？哪种价位上涨家数最多？高价？中价？还是低价？资金集中在哪些类股？电子？金融？还是塑料？从这些信息上，你可以发现，哪一类股可能将成为主流，哪一种技术型态会使股价大涨，然后在可能的主流群中，去找到你喜欢的股票。
2.每天抓出5档符合起涨浪头条件的股票，或者找5档下跌浪头的股票，做 成记录，看看你的功力如何？三日内果真上涨则打“○”，否则打“×”， 你将从中检视并精进你的选股能力。
◆看好后买进，买进后就休息，等待卖点，卖出后又休息，等待买点。
◆多头时做多，空头时做空，箱型整理时，可以少量高出低进，短线应对。
◆“不看盘的人赚最多”。
◆k线的浪头是转折的起点，符合切入标准就勇敢进场，进场三天内，你可以知道庄家要不要造浪，有没有出现庄家都守不住的点，出现了，你就赶快跑，没出现就是续抱，如果一直都不动，也不必和他耗，反正随时有预备的股票 可以替入。
◆其实，谈的最多的就是均线，也就是控盘线，操作上主要的依据也是控盘 线，如果你想在市场上轻松操作，均线是你必须用心去挖掘钻研的一门功课。
◆简单的使用“市场动力哲学”规则，等待价格突破前一天的高点，在这种有利的情况之下才会下单，因为这是最省时间的下单选择方式，也是最可能买在发动点的方式。
◆开盘价突破昨日高点，可能暗示当天或以后数天交易的动向, 尤其以在利多或利空消息报导后为然。
◆记住，如果你的股票已出现，或早已出现了空头的浪头，要快刀斩乱麻，先走再说，留着青山在，永远有材烧。
◆真正在股票上赚得到大钱，大半是依技术面波段操作。
◆浪头抓到了，也快速的脱离了成本区，接着就是线不转单不转的轻松控盘。
◆钱，是往上推的力量；股票，是往下压的力量。
◆红K线是用银子画出来的，黑K线是用股票打下来的
◆一般来说，可以介入的时机点有两种：一是卖力竭尽之时--低接，一是买力展现之时--追进。
◆起浪的源头是一根红k，红k的高点要比前一天高，低点要比前一天低，这是抢浪头的基本本领
◆量、价、指针、型态、类股强弱、盘中走势，都是我选股考虑的要件。
◆ 股话有云：涨三不追，已经涨了四天的盘，你想还有多少空间？有多少力道？有规划，但不预期，这是操盘原则。
◆要看多，过近期高给我看，浪翻多，我一定踏浪而行，绝不和庄家对做。你可以去预测将会翻多，但我却要看到他“真正”的翻多，第一浪没乘上也死 不了人，因为有第一浪必然会再掀起千层浪，而且浪会愈来愈凶，愈来愈猛，那才能享受真正踏浪了的快感。
◆每一条均线为一匹马，如果往上跑的马多，马力自然大，跑起来快又稳。
◆大盘是会说话的，他会用各种方法告诉你他要干什么，这些语言包括K线、型 态、均线、指针等等。
◆股市操作的三项法宝：心态、技术、资金控管。
◆起跌之时，强势股不要买；末跌之时，弱势股不要卖。起涨之时，强势股抢 着买；末涨之时，弱势股抢着卖。
◆吞噬(高开低收吞掉前一根阳线)，发生在型态高档是吞噬顶，为卖出讯号，但若是发生在型态低档，却是吞噬底，反而应注意买进时机。低档的空头吞噬(更妙的是还带破底)，是洗盘k线的一种，这种吞噬是最后吞噬底，代表着空头气力用尽，失望卖压全出，将来多方只要小小力量就可反攻大涨，k线战法将之归类为空头骗线的一种，也是买进讯号!
◆K线会在关键时刻，连续透露着反转讯息。
◆破底量缩，易见底，破底量大，则底部深不可测。
◆均线的力道要比k线的力道来的大。k线适合抓转折，均线却能指出趋势，两者配合看就会较为清楚了。如何在转折和趋势之间取得调和，在转折之中不 背离趋势，在趋势之中看到转折，是一种艺术化的功夫，也是我们努力的目标。
◆定心、定法、依法，自然操作无碍。定法，简单的说，你学了很多方式之后，想办法把它融合为一种简单，而且合于你操作周期的公式。包括，如何切入？如何抱着不动？停损点？获利点？定心，简单的说，就是只注意自己的股票有没有买卖点，然后，依法执行，不理其它。操盘手最重要的是盘中的应变能力，而不是行情的预测。
◆利用时间，花点精神学习一套操作方法，将是一生中受用无穷的技能。有一 套符合自己的操作模式之后，你将会发现，原来你拥有一口会自动出泉的井，那将是人生一大乐事。
◆不见长红不回头，不见长黑不止跌。
◆股票涨跌的浪是主力造的，没有主力就没有大的涨跌,没有主力，再好的题材，再好的概念，再多的理由，一样是一潭死水。前进股市第一个思路，就是要知道无风不起浪，浪是庄家主力造的，没有当庄的主力就不容易有波 动，你要想在股市获利，就要与庄家共舞与主力同进退。思路理清了吗？
◆底部让一点，头部让一点，中间多吃一点，操作就是这样。
◆做股票：一、工具要单纯；二、想法要单纯。
◆ 买进的方式有两种，逢低接，转强买，
◆股票到了高档，不知道要跑，到最后肯定是白忙一场，纸上富贵而已。会买是徒弟，会卖才是师父。
◆上涨找支撑，下跌找压力，不要弄错这个趋势操作的大原则，操作功力肯定可以大幅提升。
◆怎样获利了结？当你满意的时候就可以走了。简单的方式是：当你买进的理由消失时，就是很好的出场时机。
◆涨的时候不要看太好，跌的时候不要看太坏
◆瞄准胜率大于70%的时机，有时候一个月出手一次也很够了。猎人不会看到飞鸟就举枪射击，他会把有限的子弹慢慢瞄准，然后，一枪命中。
◆多头的浪？空头的浪？ 与大势同步的庄就是好庄。
多头的浪：一高高过一高，低点不破前低。
空头的浪：一低低于一低，高点不过前高。
跌深会反弹，涨多会回档，这是股价的惯性，整理有时间整理和空间整理。
◆带头的浪先行 跟随的浪后至。看盘要先看大盘，再看板块，最后才挑个股。
◆知道如何等待，才是股市成功的秘诀，“未赢先想输”是我们祖先留下的高度智能，看得懂的时候就进场，看不懂的时候就观望，观望也是一种策略。
◆光会看如何是买点、如何是卖点还是不够的，心态的锻炼才是散户投资人最欠缺的，散户欠缺的是杀手的本质，心性不够残忍，该买时不敢买，该杀的时候又迟疑，该抱的时候也没有坚持。
◆股票不必天天买，功课却要天天做。
1.每天找出涨幅前30名的股票，在K线图上看看，为什么它会涨？上涨前 的征兆是什么？是哪些类股上涨家数最多？是电子？金融？还是医药？哪种价位上涨家数最多？高价？中价？还是低价？资金集中在哪些类股？电子？金融？还是塑料？从这些信息上，你可以发现，哪一类股可能将成为主流，哪一种技术型态会使股价大涨，然后在可能的主流群中，去找到你喜欢的股票。
2.每天抓出5档符合起涨浪头条件的股票，或者找5档下跌浪头的股票，做 成记录，看看你的功力如何？三日内果真上涨则打“○”，否则打“×”， 你将从中检视并精进你的选股能力。
◆看好后买进，买进后就休息，等待卖点，卖出后又休息，等待买点。
◆多头时做多，空头时做空，箱型整理时，可以少量高出低进，短线应对。
◆“不看盘的人赚最多”。
◆k线的浪头是转折的起点，符合切入标准就勇敢进场，进场三天内，你可以知道庄家要不要造浪，有没有出现庄家都守不住的点，出现了，你就赶快跑，没出现就是续抱，如果一直都不动，也不必和他耗，反正随时有预备的股票 可以替入。
◆其实，谈的最多的就是均线，也就是控盘线，操作上主要的依据也是控盘 线，如果你想在市场上轻松操作，均线是你必须用心去挖掘钻研的一门功课。
◆简单的使用“市场动力哲学”规则，等待价格突破前一天的高点，在这种有利的情况之下才会下单，因为这是最省时间的下单选择方式，也是最可能买在发动点的方式。
◆开盘价突破昨日高点，可能暗示当天或以后数天交易的动向, 尤其以在利多或利空消息报导后为然。
◆记住，如果你的股票已出现，或早已出现了空头的浪头，要快刀斩乱麻，先走再说，留着青山在，永远有材烧。
◆真正在股票上赚得到大钱，大半是依技术面波段操作。
◆浪头抓到了，也快速的脱离了成本区，接着就是线不转单不转的轻松控盘。
◆钱，是往上推的力量；股票，是往下压的力量。
◆红K线是用银子画出来的，黑K线是用股票打下来的
◆一般来说，可以介入的时机点有两种：一是卖力竭尽之时--低接，一是买力展现之时--追进。
◆起浪的源头是一根红k，红k的高点要比前一天高，低点要比前一天低，这是抢浪头的基本本领
◆量、价、指针、型态、类股强弱、盘中走势，都是我选股考虑的要件。
◆ 股话有云：涨三不追，已经涨了四天的盘，你想还有多少空间？有多少力道？有规划，但不预期，这是操盘原则。
◆要看多，过近期高给我看，浪翻多，我一定踏浪而行，绝不和庄家对做。你可以去预测将会翻多，但我却要看到他“真正”的翻多，第一浪没乘上也死 不了人，因为有第一浪必然会再掀起千层浪，而且浪会愈来愈凶，愈来愈猛，那才能享受真正踏浪了的快感。
◆每一条均线为一匹马，如果往上跑的马多，马力自然大，跑起来快又稳。
◆大盘是会说话的，他会用各种方法告诉你他要干什么，这些语言包括K线、型 态、均线、指针等等。
◆股市操作的三项法宝：心态、技术、资金控管。
◆起跌之时，强势股不要买；末跌之时，弱势股不要卖。起涨之时，强势股抢 着买；末涨之时，弱势股抢着卖。
◆吞噬(高开低收吞掉前一根阳线)，发生在型态高档是吞噬顶，为卖出讯号，但若是发生在型态低档，却是吞噬底，反而应注意买进时机。低档的空头吞噬(更妙的是还带破底)，是洗盘k线的一种，这种吞噬是最后吞噬底，代表着空头气力用尽，失望卖压全出，将来多方只要小小力量就可反攻大涨，k线战法将之归类为空头骗线的一种，也是买进讯号!
◆K线会在关键时刻，连续透露着反转讯息。
◆破底量缩，易见底，破底量大，则底部深不可测。
◆均线的力道要比k线的力道来的大。k线适合抓转折，均线却能指出趋势，两者配合看就会较为清楚了。如何在转折和趋势之间取得调和，在转折之中不 背离趋势，在趋势之中看到转折，是一种艺术化的功夫，也是我们努力的目标。
◆定心、定法、依法，自然操作无碍。定法，简单的说，你学了很多方式之后，想办法把它融合为一种简单，而且合于你操作周期的公式。包括，如何切入？如何抱着不动？停损点？获利点？定心，简单的说，就是只注意自己的股票有没有买卖点，然后，依法执行，不理其它。操盘手最重要的是盘中的应变能力，而不是行情的预测。
◆利用时间，花点精神学习一套操作方法，将是一生中受用无穷的技能。有一 套符合自己的操作模式之后，你将会发现，原来你拥有一口会自动出泉的井，那将是人生一大乐事。
◆不见长红不回头，不见长黑不止跌。
Labels: Stock Trading System
股神巴菲特8大经典预言
1.衰退永远无法避免
2007年末巴菲特曾说，美国失业率若窜升，将导致“骨牌效应”，美国经济将于2008年衰退，果然一语成谶。他强调，资本主义的本质，难逃循环性衰退。
2.我们能因应过去衰退，未来也行
巴菲特时常重申，美国经济体质强健，堪称历来之最。过去一世纪有“经济大萧条、二次世界大战与冷战”等打击，美国仍屹立不摇。
3.衰退创造机会
巴菲特曾说：“截至目前，我人生最成功的一次投资在1974年，当时美国虽面临石油危机以及停滞性通膨等威胁－－但股票很便宜”。
4.并非所有股票都便宜
就像棒球打者等待好球进垒，成功的投资者也在等待时机(股价与标的)，但不会每天发生。巴菲特说：“投资的好处是，你不用被迫挥棒，没有主审会判你出局”。他强调，盲目听从群众的“挥棒”要求，麻烦就大了。
5.群众会犯错
这句话是巴菲特引述其师葛拉罕(BenjaminGraham)的说法：“因为其它人会附和，所以你既不正确也没犯错。当你掌握的事实与推理正确时，预测才会准，且无需理会他人”。
6.股价下跌，不尽然是坏事
诚如巴菲特所说：“任何你未来想买的东西，你都希望它便宜一点”。因此，不需操心股价下跌。
7.好时机，也有坏选择
巴菲特2000年致函柏克夏股东时曾说，在荣景进入股市的投资人就像灰姑娘，总以为能在午夜(股市下跌)前离开，因此一昧追高。问题是：股市派对里，根本没有时钟。
8.痛苦后，总会出现另一场狂欢派对
回头看网络泡沫，巴菲特说：“那时全世界都疯了。”他强调，我们从历史中学到的就是－－“人们永远不会从历史中学教训”。
2007年末巴菲特曾说，美国失业率若窜升，将导致“骨牌效应”，美国经济将于2008年衰退，果然一语成谶。他强调，资本主义的本质，难逃循环性衰退。
2.我们能因应过去衰退，未来也行
巴菲特时常重申，美国经济体质强健，堪称历来之最。过去一世纪有“经济大萧条、二次世界大战与冷战”等打击，美国仍屹立不摇。
3.衰退创造机会
巴菲特曾说：“截至目前，我人生最成功的一次投资在1974年，当时美国虽面临石油危机以及停滞性通膨等威胁－－但股票很便宜”。
4.并非所有股票都便宜
就像棒球打者等待好球进垒，成功的投资者也在等待时机(股价与标的)，但不会每天发生。巴菲特说：“投资的好处是，你不用被迫挥棒，没有主审会判你出局”。他强调，盲目听从群众的“挥棒”要求，麻烦就大了。
5.群众会犯错
这句话是巴菲特引述其师葛拉罕(BenjaminGraham)的说法：“因为其它人会附和，所以你既不正确也没犯错。当你掌握的事实与推理正确时，预测才会准，且无需理会他人”。
6.股价下跌，不尽然是坏事
诚如巴菲特所说：“任何你未来想买的东西，你都希望它便宜一点”。因此，不需操心股价下跌。
7.好时机，也有坏选择
巴菲特2000年致函柏克夏股东时曾说，在荣景进入股市的投资人就像灰姑娘，总以为能在午夜(股市下跌)前离开，因此一昧追高。问题是：股市派对里，根本没有时钟。
8.痛苦后，总会出现另一场狂欢派对
回头看网络泡沫，巴菲特说：“那时全世界都疯了。”他强调，我们从历史中学到的就是－－“人们永远不会从历史中学教训”。
Labels: Stock Trading System
忍等稳准狠
努力做好五个字
忍: 机会没来，不盲目交易，空仓忍耐；持盈时需要忍耐， 忍得住回调。
等: 耐心等待机会，没有机会不交易；交易开始盈利时， 等待系统的止赢点，不随意清仓。
稳: 只选低风险和较高回机会交易，避免高中风险；建仓后，风险控制第一。
准: 交易时机，一个进点两个出点（止损和止赢）选择恰到好处。好的交易系统解决一半问题。
狠:资金管理上，盈利时敢于加码。交易执行要果断，机会来时不犹豫；止损时，斩仓要坚决。
尽量避免两个字
急：时机不成熟，急于交易。
贪：不能太看重“利”，只专注价格和势的变化。
忍: 机会没来，不盲目交易，空仓忍耐；持盈时需要忍耐， 忍得住回调。
等: 耐心等待机会，没有机会不交易；交易开始盈利时， 等待系统的止赢点，不随意清仓。
稳: 只选低风险和较高回机会交易，避免高中风险；建仓后，风险控制第一。
准: 交易时机，一个进点两个出点（止损和止赢）选择恰到好处。好的交易系统解决一半问题。
狠:资金管理上，盈利时敢于加码。交易执行要果断，机会来时不犹豫；止损时，斩仓要坚决。
尽量避免两个字
急：时机不成熟，急于交易。
贪：不能太看重“利”，只专注价格和势的变化。
Labels: Stock Trading System
