On Richard Dennis the Master of Turtletraders program http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31485&perpage=6&pagenumber=19 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from harrytrader: Richard Dennis was an extreme talent before he exploded his account also no -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Rearden Metal: Well, investing in Richard Dennis' gay ass fund cost me a six figure loss 4 years ago, when he blew out his second fund. I do highly respect Linda Bradford Raschke though. Extreme talent there, I've seen it first hand. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember or know this: backtesting a MARTINGALE is nothing but scientific. So before investing in any usual trading system or hedge fund - especially I foresee they will be the next hecatomb (see http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30656&highlight=Hecatomb): Thread on Larry William http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=472506&highlight=martingale#post472506 5. In general one track record doesn't prove statistically speaking nothing about the future as it is ONE SAMPLE only. I'm laughing when people chose a system based on that: they are like the public who chose the hottest hedge fund or mutual because it was the hottest of the year. And the following one or two year it often perform very badly. 6. Most system is hugely based on martingale rules which marketing disguises under the term "money management" whereas money management without true forecast is a martingale. A martingale amplifies chance (including bad luck) but it stays chance. And that is seen when the martingale is continued to be applied in same proportion there is nothing astonishing that the system reloses everything. People are impressed by an illusion. 7. Nevertheless it doesn't mean that it is not worth: it is a strategy. The strategy is more or less futile at long term if the edge of the casino is against you. In stock market it is more controversial see http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...mp;pagenumber=4 When you say "few walk with their winnings" do you mean just for the day or forever ? . Because if they don't go away forever, it doesn't change much as each party of black jack is independant from each other probabilistically speaking. I also remark that people now use the term "money management" to avoid the proper term that is martingale mathematically because when there is no edge you can do whatever you want it won't change it. Gamblers seem to be very difficult to be convinced by that whereas it is rigourously mathematically demonstrated. Doubling at each lost is a martingale, but reducing at each lost also, although it is commonly called "anti-martingale" rule or more nobly "money management" - to make things appear more serious - it doesn't change the mathematical fact that it is still a martingale. [/B]
Curtis & Others: Have you tested the system on equities when adjusting for the positive average return (single equity's trend, or behavior explained by the market)? Any luck? If you haven't, I'll make this a project for myself. Best, Morgan
It seems that many of his students go back to being seminarists : after Russell closed his fund here's his advertisment http://www.turtletradingprogram.com/ Another one I don't know if he was a turtle or not http://www.homebased-books.com/
To set the record straight, again, only one Turtle has ever sold seminars, Russell Sands, all the other turtle "secrets" vendors are not related to Turtles in any way. Russell was a Turtle for not even a full year before being fired by Richard Dennis for violating the confidentiality agreement. He was not profitable as a Turtle. Morgan, I haven't done that specific test but it is one that I have on my testing to-do list. I've been revisiting futures for the last year or so and haven't done a lot of equity testing in that time. - Curtis
Russell Sands is the same guy than than turtletrader.com or is it yet another one ? How was he able to create a hedge fund based on the reputation of the turtles without being attacked ? How is it that he is associated with Larry Williams in promoting his seminars ? And how do you explain that Richard Dennis, the creator of the turtles, exploded his funds twice ? I don't mean to be harsh as I know perfectly that it can happen to any hedge fund that bases its method on martingale but I would like your opinion.
harry, with all due respect, i would be grateful if you would not participate in this thread. thank you very much.
And why not ? You can keep your respect I don't like hypocrits. If I remember well you are the kind of guy that spoilt my time to answer you whereas your only purpose was not to get any answer but just make me lose my time. So don't expect me not to persue this post if I can give back your respect haha ! P.S.: I didn't address you as far as I know.
I believe Russell used the success of the other Turtles and his claimed access to "secret" information to raise money. I think both he and Larry have always been more interested in seminars, books and selling trading related items than in trading. I have no idea how they got together but I put them in the same category. As I explained in the other thread referred to above, Richard Dennis, has not yet made the transition from Trader to Money Manager successfully, but he's been quite successful as a trader. One of the issues is the way that investors look at total account equity which includes open position profits. As Turtles, we didn't even care about open equity levels, we looked at trades when they closed out. So we never counted our chickens until they were hatched. If you made a trade that put your account up 50%, we viewed that as a good thing. We didn't care so much that we may have been up 200% a few weeks prior to our exit. Yeah sure, we would rather have closed out the trade at up 150%, but we weren't complaining about making 50% on a trade. That same trade would result in "blowing up" a managed account or fund since going from up 200% to up 50% is a 50% drawdown. You can make a lot of money ignoring open trade profits. I'm not saying that's the best way to look at things, or that we couldn't have made more money by giving back less, but it certainly was and is a reasonable approach that can work well if you can handle the drawdowns from a psychological perspective. Unlike most investors, Rich was comfortable with this kind of give back of open position profits. This approach is definitely not correct for managing a fund or institutional money. Many of the Turtles couldn't handle these kinds of drawdowns and they either traded less agressively and didn't make the same level returns or just plain weren't profitable because of the resultant psychological destabilization. - Curtis