 |
bwolinsky
Registered: Jul 2008
Posts: 4559 |
01-27-12 04:20 PM
NQ #F's 117,649 contract chart made 9.75 points since 2008, which is nothing if you were to include slippage and commish there, too.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |
bwolinsky
Registered: Jul 2008
Posts: 4559 |
01-27-12 04:25 PM
Quote from bhardy307:
B. WOL, what little credibility you had just vanished!
World Cup doesn't see it that way, bhardy.
If you could produce a backtest from $30,000 to $3.8 million you wouldn't try doing anything but that for 2 years.
Also, try not to confuse what I'm doing for World Cup with what I'm doing for Covestor. They aren't the same. One's for futures with futures risk characteristics, and the other just uses pairs trading when the futures system uses a combination of three systems I don't utilize in my model.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |

SimpleTrades
Registered: Feb 2011
Posts: 1267 |
01-27-12 04:33 PM
Quote from bwolinsky:
World Cup doesn't see it that way, bhardy.
If you could produce a backtest from $30,000 to $3.8 million you wouldn't try doing anything but that for 2 years.
Actually, I did last spring when I was working as a prop trader. It was a very simple piece of code that went long after a green candle and held for 2.5 candles. Tested with 5 years of data on stocks randomly selected from the nasdaq exchange.
Can you say, "too good to be true?!!!"
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |

bwolinsky
Registered: Jul 2008
Posts: 4559 |
01-27-12 04:49 PM
Quote from bhardy307:
Actually, I did last spring when I was working as a prop trader. It was a very simple piece of code that went long after a green candle and held for 2.5 candles. Tested with 5 years of data on stocks randomly selected from the nasdaq exchange.
Can you say, "too good to be true?!!!"
Using candles and curve fitting that way doesn't work, but this was a 2 year, not 5 year backtest I'm referring to.
Futures are a lot more difficult to find systems for. Stocks introduce too much randomness than their derivative indices.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |

SimpleTrades
Registered: Feb 2011
Posts: 1267 |
01-27-12 04:54 PM
Quote from bwolinsky:
Using candles and curve fitting that way doesn't work, but this was a 2 year, not 5 year backtest I'm referring to.
Futures are a lot more difficult to find systems for. Stocks introduce too much randomness than their derivative indices.
Beau,
This is a quote from you from the thread that Atticus was so kind to reference.
Quote from bwolinsky:
How old do you think I am, ASSICUS? I'm an adult bitch. I own an RIA, A CTA, AND A GODDAM STOCK EXCHANGE SO SHUT THE FUCK UP! JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP! JUST THE FUCK UP!
You are a very disturbed young man. You need to get help. I am not trying to mean. I am not trying to be insulting. I am trying to be kind so that you won't throw away your life.
Please, get some help.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |

bwolinsky
Registered: Jul 2008
Posts: 4559 |
01-27-12 05:02 PM
Quote from bhardy307:
Beau,
This is a quote from you from the thread that Atticus was so kind to reference.
You are a very disturbed young man. You need to get help. I am not trying to mean. I am not trying to be insulting. I am trying to be kind so that you won't throw away your life.
Please, get some help.
What makes you think I haven't (gotten help)?
I've gotten help for over 10 years now, and I'm not 30.
The models I have are really good, that's all I'm saying.
I like systematic trading than discretionary. Discretionary trading leads to overtrading in addition to poor risk management and losses because there's no discipline unless you've traded the market or been a financial advisor for at least a couple years.
I would rather see somebody lose systematically than risk too much on their gut instinct or hunches.
Systematic rules that can be coded will always lead to better risk management, even if in the short run that might lead to periods of underperformance.
|
| |
|
Edit/Delete • Quote • Complain |

| Receive
an email whenever a new post is added to this thread by subscribing
to it. |
|
|
|
|