EricP is the most successful trader I know. He's given much over the years to ET, but somehow recently there's always a resident idiot or two feeling they have to argue/criticize every little thing he posts. I understand why he no longer cares to participate.
I guess this is your one critical question: "jack, You really haven't answered anything... You know that right? OK, let me re-ask the questions, I'm guessing that my questions weren't done correctly. Maybe I've been scattering questions too much: Q1. Please provide an explanation of the theories for your 3 models and the supporting proof of it. Q2. Please provide a log (preferable *.csv) of your trade results. Preferably, if you can also include the statistics used to analyze the trade log would be helpful. My tester can analyze the viability of a model based on it's trade log so it's not big hastle. It would help though, if the format is (It's not a bid deal even if you don't): yyyy/MM/dd hh:mm:ss.fff, symbol, price, contractsize ... single trade per line, my app will match the orders, even if it's legged trades, on it's own. If it's a US exchange traded symbol, I usually have data for it. It can handle any timeframe, also. If you have your models under ATS, you must keep a log of your trades, right. I just need a snippet of them... reasonable size to validate the significance statistically though." My response: We use a different type of log. The biggest difference is we include the trade direction information and what the signal source was, meaning the logic source(s). All the trading addressed here is in one futures market as you may know. We also have many more columns than you use. Use the one pager for PVT and SSR. The basic core was end of bar trading so the times are just multiples of 5 minutes. The seasonal shift was noticable on the version being done and after the time of your critcal question. There are only about 150 trades a month and per contract the monthly variation was 4400 to 1400 as summer set in. We shifted the income by refinements. A monthly shift of 2800 was noticed on the 1400. For question 1. refer to the P,V Boolean relationship and its parametric measure. Let me repeat it here to save a lot of work: H1 If volume is increasing, then price trend will be continuing. H2 If volume is decreasing, then price trend will be changing. The parametric measure is a binary vector. The four measures are: 1. increasing and 2. decreasing for volume. They tell you what is going on now for price trend. 3. continuing and 4. changing for price trend. This is a result and it is measured to determine the answer to "What is the right side of the market?" The basic core measures the channel of price. The first shell measures the channel as well using degrees of freedom that allow for the connection of a series of bars to address the "order of events" in a cycle of price and volume. As you know a cycle of a variable, as measured in binary vectors, has many aspects. I'm sure you recognize the normal displacement has its derivatives than can be measured one upon the other using a binary approach as applied to non-continuous functions. displacement, velocity and acceleration each have direction and magnitude. Two other shells are devoted to traverses of channels and tapes of traverses. In addition to determining what event in the order of events; it is good to know how fast or slow events are occurring in terms of bar times. The above provide such an early warning system. We also know "What Must Come Next". I would make this simple for you too by adding another hypothesis for your benefit. It is not a rigorous requirement since this is already included by deduction in H1, H2 and their combo. H3 The operating point of the market migrates in its matrix and does not jump around. While some would approach this problem with probability, we do not; we use Carnap instead. (See: logic theory) This is a case limiter according to the dimensions of the matrix. Our maximum case limit is 16 in the basic core. The deductive test is conflict. You do not test in the deductive manner nor do you include a conflict function nor its resolution logic. Unfortunately, from what you shared with us, you have an invalid statistical method. (See: inductive proofs). I know that the matrix test can only yield correponding powers of bases as the series of values, but it is easy to recognize that the binary aspect does more than reduce the series value. Dealing with "What Must Come Next" is an intellectual exercise that is unsurpassed for learning to trade. It is what shifts trading from checkers to chess. As you see easily on a playing board, only half of it is used for checkers and all of it has possible uses in chess. The market operating point only moves if ther is only one move possible. So in trading, conclusing waiting is the primary trading function of analysis; the name of this waiting is called "HOLD". anyone who is assessing the quality of trade results is primarily interested in the hold between behavioral actions. Your evaluation cannot do that in any sense. How does logic examine what is not possible and only leave what is correct in the piture? This is deduction as exemplified by null hypothesis testing. Hold, in effect, is the answer, over time until all alternative possibilities have been eliminated. Keynes requires that the hypothesis set be of like kind and the parametric measure be of like kind. This, once established, allows the application of logic theory in either a probabalistic orientation (the orientation you have without passing Keynes tests) or non probabalistic. Choosing to not have to face Bayes or "frequentists" is not a difficult choice. Most people go quant and choose both Bayes and"frequentists". We chose non probabalistic, the opposite of your choice. You have seen our volatility vs volume nonstationary look up tables. Horizontal and vertical Gaussian distributions abound. (See charts' recent post) Pragmatically we unanchored volume from an axis so it more resembled price which is far from its horizontal axis. Hi and H2 still apply and apply more neatly. geometry can now be used more easily and in "like kind" ways to the variables of the market. The hypothesis set, its parametric measures and What Must Come Next, completely answer all questions needed to be sked to trade with certainty at all times. The proof is: Ask all questions required for "sufficiency", then when all answers are binary vectors, certainty is achieved. The set of questions define holding and taking timely action between holds. A sequence is used to apply the requirements of sufficiency. Monitor, Analysis, Decide, Act. The most common ction is hold. Here are some things to notice. You deal inductively and get the consequence. I do not and I am not part of the inductive world; it is simply too risky. What I did was build something for markets that is like the periodic table is to science. The coe is composed of sub atomic particles called components that are algebraically defined using raw data. The components are combined to form balanced atoms and the atoms make simple and complex molecules and compounds. As in chemistry and biology and physics, there is no need for uncertainty in their Basic use. Going beyond basics, we design effective and efficient applications as shells that create greater yields all the way to optimum. What is done is move to faster fractals, fractal by fractal. the effect is that time stretches out and many things can be observed. Human observation is limited to the senses. The PC goe way beyond sensory capabilities of humans. Pool extraction is the result. Your Q1 has been answered. Q2 was an poor inductive question. I chose to not simply back away from it. Instead I suggested to you that the deductive way of doing business is a requirement. If anyone is doing any logging or analysis of logs, the work has to be done deductively. I haven't gotten to te level of participation where I would start a thread.
Agreed, it is sad that idiots who have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE, are allowed to run guys like him off this site, id be willing to bet if any of these morons saw pnl statements they would change their tune in a second, and most likely proceed to flamboyant (Bruno Style) ass kissing. I consider myself extremely lucky to personally know a couple of the other heavy hitters on this site, who also choose to no longer post here, but yet are kind enough to answer any question you ask. Without them id probably be out of work right now..... it is sad that a few losers who appear to have no desire to make money, (based on their action of pissing off unreal traders) are able to completely destroy an otherwise productive site. Thx to all the guys who have graciously shared their time with me over the years(past and present), just want you all to know there are still people like me who are commited to learning, and who also appreciate your time. Your work does not go unappreciated. Thx -Dan
Austin already explained it . . . you have turned into that annoying drunk who keeps coming around bothering everybody. "Earth shattering" . . . really? that's your criteria for who should stay or go? At least these two guys are respectful and consistent with their points of view. You, however, do not have anything to offer.
All these so called "heavy hitters" and "long time valuable members" of the site cannot post up one blotter or make calls in real time. All we have to go by is their word and cryptic formulas that many do not understand. When we ask for a blotter, then the answer we get back in return is that its none of our business yet they come to these forums begging for attention. Just go already and stop pandering to us all for attention. Stop crying and whining to the administration because of a few constructive critics. These critics, by the way, make many valid points and are on here because they simply cannot re-construct the trading systems that are bandied about in this forum. I bet you anything they will be back on here crying and whining for attention in a few weeks looking for another social outlet. If their trading skills were so good in real life then they would have a line of people at their door wanting to sit-in with them. They dont want anyone sitting in with them because their skills are simply not all that. So they come to these forums posting up their cryptic nonsense making us want to believe. If you are looking for a social outlet then please go somewhere else. Im looking for real systems, real calls and just real stuff. Im not here to be buddy buddy. You can hit the men's lockerroom in the morning for that.
Point 3 contains some humour. Some 'moderators' here actively promote the agenda of a 'Guru'.Some people were allowed to become 'moderators' and did nothing but promote such an agenda.(They deleted hundreds of posts trying to point it out,too).Maybe they are power hungry,maybe cash hungry, who knows? but a certain brokerage makes $100 or $200 per month from some of the guru's victims depending on the level of 'coaching' they require (on top of commission costs).Who knows what kick backs are forthcoming and to whom? This is a commercial site so it's 'browser beware' of course! If you ever feel part of a community on the internet,you need to go down to the pub quickly.
Getting rid of Eric and Austin's constant whining is simple. All you have to do is implement a simple system of moderation. If someone violates the rules once, give them a warning and then another violation is banning their IP. The simple rules should be the following: 1.) No profanity. A simple filter can be used to eliminate the profanity. 2) No baseless personal attacks such as "Hey Eric, your mother sucks". Wherease "Hey Eric, your mother sucks because her call on BIDU was awful" would be acceptable. 3) No content-less posts. For example, a post that simply states "We will reach March lows this year" is unacceptable where as "We will reach March lows this year because of valuations" is acceptable. A "Fight Zone" forum should be established similar to "Chit Chat" except this one shows on the front homepage. When two posters start an aggressive debate, then the thread gets moved to the "Fight Zone". Some people enjoy reading aggressive threads with two users who are engaged in an aggressive debate. While some others may not enjoy such aggressive debates. It might promote more webhits having such a fight zone because those who enjoy those types of threads would go straight to it. I have seen this implemented successfully on other sites.
Lack of consistent proof of success? . . . that's just the nature of the beast. That has never existed. So I can't argue much with you on that one. You either believe money can be made as a trader or you don't. I learned to make money before I gave up the belief, luckily. You will never make it looking for real systems or real calls. That's the wrong path. Anybody putting forth either one of these never shows sustainability. The true money-makers stay in the shadows more and more as the purveyors of "get rich" systems and services have swelled beyond comprehension. Austin and Eric simply post ideas and perspectives without over-the-top claims that they are the "real deal". It'd be nice to see more of that. I didn't come to this free forum to post messages like this childish garbage.
When a suggestion is couched within an insult, that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. *** EriP and austinp have made a letimate request/suggestion, one idea (besides having someone moderate their own thread or having someone else moderate it for them) is as follows: 1. Creat a "Members Only" forum. 2. When someone starts a thread, for another member to access it, their name would have to be put on a list (think of it as a reverse "ignore" list). 3. Once someone's username had been added to the "Members Only List" they would be able to access the thread. 4. If the OP of the thread did not want someone to remain in the thread, they could simply remove their name from the list. 5. The OP of the Members Only thread could start a thread in the "Trading" section (for example) and have people PM them if they wanted to be added to the "members only list" to bring it to the awareness of the general ET populace. *** This solution effectively lets the "status quo" of ET remain as it is (with the Journals, Trading, ATS, Politics, chit-chat, etc. forums remaining "as is") while still catering to the needs of valued members who want to share what they have learned through their trading, without being "harrassed" while doing so. FTR, this is already being done with members going off-line via other website forums and/or the use of SKYPE, etc., so I think it is something which is worth your consideration Baron. Regards