Anti-Jack Trading

OddTrader · Jun 29, 2006

Quote from Chicken Little:

But the rules DO have to produce profits over time, not necessarily every day , week or even every month.
The JH 30 min bar break out is a simple set of rules, however it was never profitable in backtesting to 1997 on the ES mini.
More...

Perhaps, if without those claims of profitability, Jack's input/ idea of offering a free system is aimed to stimulate others for additional input to finalise a truly profitable system. Just perhaps.

OddTrader · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from makosgu:

There is the stress of backtesting. So tell us how folks were backtesting before the advent of PC's.
More...

To certain degree, I would agree with you (and Jack) that commonly available (computerised) backtesting tools sometimes may not be able to produce correct profitability results fully.

nononsense · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from OddTrader:

To certain degree, I would agree with you (and Jack) that commonly available (computerised) backtesting tools sometimes may not be able to produce correct profitability results fully.
More...

That's one of Jack's pipe dreams. He wrote a couple of weeks ago that a first setup for a backtest was in the works.

So Jack NEVER RAN a BACKTEST. How can you justify then the above assertion. Only BS like all the rest of it.

Jack believers, keep on losing.

One further comment. You could as well say:
... that commonly available (computerised) trading tools sometimes may not be able to produce correct profitability results fully.

This is true for all tools at all ages. It's simply up to the skill of the craftsman putting those tools at work. Leonardo da Vinci once said: "most people only produce sh*t during their lives." He must have been thinking about the ET popular wisdom of 95+% losers.

OddTrader · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from nononsense:

One further comment. You could as well say:
... that commonly available (computerised) trading tools sometimes may not be able to produce correct profitability results fully.

This is true for all tools at all ages. It's simply up to the skill of the craftsman putting those tools at work.
More...

That would be very true, as the "Fully" above is the keyword that Jack's followers would like to hear.

Trader666 · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from OddTrader:

Perhaps, if without those claims of profitability, Jack's input/ idea of offering a free system is aimed to stimulate others for additional input to finalise a truly profitable system. Just perhaps.
More...

I've often thought that one of the many things on Jack's agenda is to toss nebulous scraps of trading "wisdom" to minions, hoping that one of them will eventually discover something that really works. I've seen people spin their wheels with his stuff for years on Usenet.

Trader666 · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from OddTrader:

To certain degree, I would agree with you (and Jack) that commonly available (computerised) backtesting tools sometimes may not be able to produce correct profitability results fully.
More...

Backtesting tools have become more and more sophisticated. In the "olden days" vendors and Svengalis could claim just about anything. The trading public started calling them on it WAY more when the first TA software came out. Now almost anyone can backtest almost any idea, to include those requiring historical fundamental data. Which means Jack needs to become even more vague

Woodies CCI people and Grobians are quick to slip into their classic backtesting denial mindset when someone proves them wrong because their need to believe is so great. Kinda pathetic actually.

Chicken Little · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from makosgu:

All else being said, the comments are largely irrelevant. 50 pages of alter egos and lines drawn in the sand. The backtest is largely irrelevant. I have emphasized that the framework for backtesting is understandable and useful a la Acrary simply because it approaches the market like a game of 21. The royal screwup is most do not consider that there are only 52 types of cards all with characteristics (ie. face values, color, suits).

All else being saiid, all indicators and all analysis has value. The real line in the sand is HOW and WHEN they operate. After some brief analysis, I figured out how to make indicators work and as usual they require the user of the instrument to understand how it functions. Looking at the output is meaningless unless you understand how it derives the output.

This is the royal screwup that i am finding in the invisible ink that spyder is addressing. There is the stress of backtesting. So tell us how folks were backtesting before the advent of PC's. If one cannot believe easy's results, then I will take the mirror approach and say your backtested results are photoshopped given that the argument that easy and spyder's forwardtested results are photoshopped. . There is the mention of the scoring but the screwup on the backtester is the difference between their sampling as opposed to streaming of the information. So this all sounds like BS. I know for a fact that Spyder, 100% understands the cycle scoring and how it broadly overlays for a given context (ie. fractal). He is not concerned with the numbers but rather the sequence of PV combinations. Breakouts (P) do not occur on low volume. Non performing companies do not perform (P) because masses do not take interest (V). Trends do not establish themselves witht he cycling of volume. Apparently in ET, this is all BS...

What it all boils down to is screwups of understanding. A backtest on non-performing stocks immediately fails the case due to the failure to qualify quality stocks. Sweeping generalizations in and of themselves are not the issue, however, understanding the boundaries of how something is to be applied is. Just to be CRYSTAL clear, it is no secret that General Relativity fails at the particle physics realm as evidenced by black holes (ie. a massively small object given it's mass density). Physicists know explicitly where the limits of application are for General Relativity. In other words, run trajectories into a black hole and your screwed within the event horizon. Throw a sattelite into orbit and the application is remarkably precise. The largely nonsensical comment about the scoring is similarly screwed up when the boundaries of it's application aren't considered. I'm sure Newton and his crew would not have told Bohr and his crew where the screwed up. However, both would surely acknowledge where the boundaries of the knowledge were and weren't applicable... Context dear watson... CONTEXT!

Candy ass MAK!

PS...
To the ghostwriter inquiring about V leading P. Even at the finest level, PV is CRYSTAL CLEAR on the DOM... Look at the size values. That size number has to reach zero before you get your new P value. Try to backtest it. You will not find any ordinary program to backtest it because the software writers have not figure it out yet. It is a dog chasing it's tale because software developers do not develop it unless there is demand for it. So that DOM number and it's sizes get's filled BEFORE you get a new P. Filling happens two ways, with V or with anti-V (ie. inventory being removed). If you watch carefully those fake bids, they reappear elsewhere for very common sense reasons as opposed to the percieved deception that the majority believe. Thus, it is irrefutable to have a new P before you had any V. Check your tape. This is the rule with few exceptions on your tape. Check the 40,000 or so ticks you see on your ES T&S. Also not that your T&S has also changed since ticks are no longer individual transactions but collections of transactions. In other words, an order of 253 contracts is likely to contain a dozen and even dozens of order which so happened to execute at the specified tick value... You can pull up the globex memo on "tick aggregation" that was sent around late last year...
More...

You, like JH, keep referring to Easyrider's success. Where is the reference to your success ?

OddTrader · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from Trader666:

I've often thought that one of the many things on Jack's agenda is to toss nebulous scraps of trading "wisdom" to minions, hoping that one of them will eventually discover something that really works. I've seen people spin their wheels with his stuff for years on Usenet.
More...

Mentor says: The students have to share what they find freely and publicly. A nice dream.

OddTrader · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from Trader666:

Which means Jack needs to become even more vague

More...

I've been waiting for watching a contest between Jack (or any of his followers) and you.

Trader666 · Jun 30, 2006

Quote from Chicken Little:

You, like JH, keep referring to Easyrider's success. Where is the reference to your success ?
More...

I have serious doubts about easyrider's success... if you check his posts, there's nothing about it until, all of a sudden, he needed "proof" to defend Grobian teachings.