Is this as bogus as your claims of success for your other proteges? Neoxx and RoughTrader for example? Neoxx -- you said Neoxx was doubling his money every three days when he was actually losing money. RoughTrader -- your claims about his trading deflated each time I called you on it and he hasn't posted since May. 04-23-09 01:26 PM "For SCT like trading, rough trader takes 1500 dollars to 94,000 dollars" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2399521&#post2399521 04-26-09 06:51 PM "Bottom line: looks like roughtrader makes 20,000 a month on two contracts average while scaling out of entries on his ATS" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2403231#post2403231 05-22-09 07:28 PM "Rough trader is only making a couple thousand a month on a couple of contracts. He needs to make one adjustment to make 20,000 a month. He needs to add 18 contracts to his trading cars" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2437715#post2437715
There are many people like you and 666. Calculate the cost of the trades and put it on the print of the graph. Combine this cost with the average loss per trade. Run a test for stat sig. Also chart the old forward test done before ET was in existance. It is great to post gee whiz graphs of an approach invented by the backtester. I do not care if you get suckered in by an OCD; that is your business. BTW you may want to check out how the 500,000 initial capital was traded. Block size, etc.. There is a lot of humor in this fucked up backtest that proved nothing, fortunately.
No Jack, it's YOUR approach as outlined in YOUR paper, "Catch Up with Tomorrow's Paper Today" except I sold after 5 days instead of at the "4 to 3 turn" because YOUR model is so broken that the transitions from 4 to 3 are VASTLY outnumbered by the 0 to 7 transitions... enough to make the average trade last for YEARS. And what my test shows is that your "method" is about as good as flipping a coin but transaction costs drag it down. So much for catching up with tomorrow's paper today! Did you think your paper would get you a Nobel prize?
LOL. Nice try, Jack, but the backtest results are consistent with your other "accomplishments." Speaking of which, what happened with your failed promise to your former IBD group to turn $10,000 into $1 Million in 100 days and document it on ET? http://www.mediafire.com/?1gi2qygm3yh
1. Your selection of trades was not random but fully deterministic. 2. Your 50 % result of one single deterministic trade selection is completely irrelevant here. 3. What matters is the average result of a large number of random trade selections. In this case, the winning percentage averages to 60.5 +- 0.5 points. I apologize for having you called a liar. You have proven that you are just a fool who fails at math.
Jack, I'm not seeing this principle from the paper holding for the open-open system I intend to use. That's what I roughly inferred when I first played with volume, but eventually couldn't make anything out of it. Looking at some charts (daily ticks) tonight, what seems to happen is there's a general amount of noise in volume despite what's happening. But the a trend happens. On the day that a there's a particularly good gain, volume goes bonkers. The resulting bar is like a giant middle finger; basically if I see a spike in volume, it tells me I waited too long and the ship sailed, because the trend will then break. If I wasn't such a weeny I'd consider a shorting strategy from that. I don't have good intraday data to try to fill in volume any more, so I do wonder if it would be more clear if I could get more precision. As for looking at trends, I had to implement the advance/decline line in NinjaTrader (why isn't that included?) and did see it tend to indicate when a trend was happening. It didn't look like the whole picture, but I feared getting too far into it because I'm probably on the wrong path when I start smearing indicators all over the screen.
I was as random as yours. You have no basis for making such claims. The trades were generated by the data according to specs, not by my own rules. The only rule was a time delay in opening a position after another was closed for the purpose of varying the sample size. It disproves your statement. If you cannot understand that it is because you are an idiot. You have shown no data. All you have shown is a wrong application of EL. Obviously you do not understand EL. Show your data. I showed mine trade by trade. Also do not discount the commission and slippage effect. If you add commissions to your - wrong by the way - study you will get to negative performance. LOL. You are just a kid playing with mom's PC.
I'll post a brief "kit" for you of items that follow from your reference to the hypothesis set above. I'll work from the results back to the Hypothesis set in a few posts. Attached is the resourse Excel that was used for the trading this week that I mentioned. This is the list type that was posted in ET for years on a daily basis. This list is a compilation that comes from the group of people who use it. Regarding the 24,000 trades using inital capital of 500,000 dollars; anyone can simulate the trades. Start with 500,000 dollars and subtract 20 dollars 24,000 times. Try that in real life and see how long it takes to do it. At one trade a day, it is about a century. But the hold was 5 days so that makes it a little longer. OR..... This is just humor...