90% for Short Skirt Setup?

Discussion in 'Educational Resources' started by daniel_m, Oct 13, 2002.

  1. just checked out LBR's 'short skirts' method to understand what tampa's going on about in his journal.

    this from her site:

    We try to look for Short Skirt setups that have the potential for a minimum of three points in the trade. This is to allow for a minimum of ½ point slippage in and ½ point slippage out. A 3-point STOP is placed from the trade entry price. The objective for the trade is a retest of the previous wing high or low, even though the market often makes a new leg up or down.

    Our mechanical system that we run on Trade Station has a win/loss ratio of 66%. However, through proprietary volatility filters and some basic pattern recognition, our real time track record for the past three years in our online trading room, as documented by the room members, has been 90%

    well, to call that a grandiose claim is a bit of understatement...
    90% accuracy on calls is beyond excellent by anyone's measure of performance (especially when risk:reward is 1:1).

    what's up with that?

    anyone actually tuned in to this chick's calls that can verify this stuff??

    makes you wonder what an official market wizard is doing flogging a chat room... but that could be just me..
  2. 90% is bullsh*t.. I would like to see her sample size.

    Common sense says that if she really had such great accuracy.. she wouldnt be looking for other revenue streams.. hmm.. would you?

    Running a cheaseball retail piker chat room is suspicious.. wouldn't she just be consulting some of the billion dollar hedge funds.. futures markets can handle any size.

  3. One way to find out guys. Fork over the $350 for a couple of months. I dont know about 90% but her win rate is very high. Most people do not understand the short skirt. They think that it is simply all one minute flags and that is not the case. It does not show up that often but is a good trade when it does.

    p.s. I think you could make a living by playing her longer calls. Its hard to play short skirts by following her calls because the entry is so tricky.
  4. BTW, LBR tried her hand at funds and failed miserably.
  5. That has happened to a lot of good traders. When youre good people throw money at you. Its hard to turn it down even if managing is not your thing. Some people are good at managing others people money, some at managing their own. I would imagine its pretty difficult to do both. Marty Schwartz tried trading other peoples money then said to hell with that crap. Hes not too bad a trader.
  6. "wouldn't she just be consulting some of the billion dollar hedge funds?"

    Easy answer: NO! "Billion dollar hedge funds" don't trade setups with 3pts target. :)

  7. Brother,

    No hard feelings but you are wrong. I actually am in close cohorts w/ the head of a research director at a pretty big hedgie... you'd be surprised at some of the things they do.

    I cant speak for all hedge funds but.. like I said many times I am in NYC.. and I know what some of these guys are upto. Lets just say 3 points is too much for some of them!

    They take chunks of their assets and diversify them interestingly....

  8. I believe you! :cool:
  9. Would you be so sceptical of a chat room that claimed a 45% hit rate with a 1:3 risk/reward ratio?

    Why do I ask? Well, both chat rooms will have the same expectancy of 0.8R.

    I'm not in anyway saying this is easy to achieve, but it is worth remembering that there is more to the bottom line than just signal accuracy.

    Disclaimer: FWIW, my only affiliation with LBR is that I own a copy of Street Smarts. I have never used her chatroom.
  10. Cute, nice point.. I agree.

    But, a 90% probablility of right to wrong.. has huge psychological benefits, although they have similar R results. Trading is not only about math and numbers.

    #10     Oct 14, 2002