Jack, are you talking about when you failed to turn $10K into $1M in 100 days as you promised your former IBD group you would? Yeah, that's a good one "and I'll be posting prints on a couple of accounts over time at elite trader just as a measure of this is how it really works... you know, just throw some money in some accounts, make 'em work for a while and we'll see how it goes. we want a change in order of magnitude... does everyone know what that means in wealth? see, right, yeah it's ten times. we'll take a $10,000 account and we'll see how long it takes to make it to 100,000... and then we'll take the $100,000 account and make it to a million... with this group. and we're doing it now and i'm starting tonight... at approximately four times the rate i need to do it, to get it done in 100 days" http://www.mediafire.com/?1gi2qygm3yh
You may wish to look a little closer. Get three coins to start of with; one for each of the three variables. As you flip and record the scores you will see that the scores appear in a random order for you. Do as many flips of the est of three coins as you wish. You will find that there is no order to your appearance of the 8 possible scores. Also check out the people who flip coins to prove things. Some, as you, flip one coin. Others flip sets of coins to deal with more complex problems. Thomas Bayes and the "frequentists" (two diffenrent groups of people) did what they called "probability" and they applied it to many different things where its application was warranted. It is interesting and part of information theory is in relation to what they logically determined. I am not a user of their works. In computer design, there is an aspect that is often used. It supports calculations. For those who have computer design experience, you may recal the bistable multivibrator. Gangs of these were used in computers. the genral subject was counting. For example to multiply, repeated addition may be done. n-1 additions of the multiplicand provide the product. The multiplier is counted down one step at a time and one less times (n-1). As an IBM employee, I was surrounded by 1's and 0's and all kinds of logic for solving problems. We did not flip coins at IBM. We did thinking. IBM imortalized two things: "THINK" and Kotex Blue. I used "binary vectors" to define the PM of the HS. "ing" is a suffix used on words to express a binary vector. There is also a prefix. In and de were used for volume. A coin labelled in and de can be "ing'ed". the price coin is labelled continuing and changing on opposite sides. The third coin is labelled accumulating and distributing on opposite sides. With three coins, you think that each is flipped the same number of times to get the randomness. It is also possible to flip the coins in a different way that you didn't think. If any way is chosen that is a way you didn't think, then the same random answer is achieved for having random scores. As your back tests show, there is almost no trading in any backtest you do. Lets say you flip the labelled coins until your p<0.05 or <0.005 or <0.0005.; one thing is for sure, you will not know the average value of the flips. This answer involves THINKING so it is not possible for you to gain the answer. you have done 1000's of backtests and you have published one primarily and a couple of others as we know. Your primary posting is statisitcally insignificant in its posted results using any statisitcal test deployable. The scoring is designed to describe the stock cycle using the variables of the cycle: P, V and A/D. Most people do not know what these variables describe in a market. The variables are direct and independent variables over time. Traditionally people have seen the cycles of the markets and, for whatever reason, they have given them names. I associate scoring with those market names on the fractals those names are applied to. Scoring follows the convention of the ST, IT and LT nomenclature for market cycles. Coin flippers do not see the named cycles of the markets. There are many many words used to describe all of the market's activities. Maybe you use these terms even if you are a coinflipper, who knows. Your posts have no substantive content. Scoring is a tool useful in recording on logs as part of the trading strategy when using the paradigm and its applications to the different instruments traded in the markets. On the DAS it is the right most columns of the M section of MADA that goes across the chart. You relate flipping one coin to trading stocks (you do not trade anything else you say). From this strategy of yours you get a statisitcally insignificant result through backtesting since it is akin in some way to you, to your results of back testing a creation you exptrapolated from a paper you fouind somewhere in that form posted (the original has an author and a publication date and is not indented). So you ask a question. It is this: Is there any diference between two statisitically insignificant back tests? I an answer is the standard answer for this question that is rarely asked by anyone. The never will be any different answer to the comparison of tests (any number) which share the same statistically insignificant result. Applying a perfectly random signal to any market will always get a statisitically insignificant result. This is a text book answer that is found in all text books. You have proved that entering on any signal and exiting in five days, yields a statisitically insignificant result. Ask yourself: What is the minumum dollar return Z for Y trades involving X capital that yields a minumum statistical significance. Obviously a table containing the three variables results. One axis is Y, the other is X and the cells are filled with Z's. When you look in that table your value 20 bucks is not there; it is too small to appear in the cells where X equals 500,000 and goes to 100,000 on all of those columns and where Y goes from 1 to 24,000 on all of those rows. These diagonal cells that are pertinent all have values greater than 20 bucks. Lousy back test to vary capital that way and vary the round lot size for given instuments. and there was little trading over the years. Buy hold five days and sideline for weeks. Not too swift at all.
Jack I'm sure what you have to say is informative and I appreciate you taking the time to write these replies, but I'm afraid I may be a narcoleptic since I can't seem to stay awake long enough to finish reading your replies, do you actually have any videos published or a simpler solution for the "rest of us"?
There are several helpful references for gathering the information on how PVT trading works. One is the weekly batting order. Another is the Universe which is kept current. The third is the one pager entitled "Unusual Volume Correlation Table" People construct the Universe using a sort based upon EPS and RS wwhich are IBD determined percentiles. Elsewhere the subsidiary criteria are described in Q and A's in the PVT forum which ensued for years. An IAS is used to calculate the columns entered on the Excel Universe. One document appropriately entitled "Putting the Pieces Together" shows how the prep is done to get the batting order, the use of the batting order(illustrated by real time market snagits) and how the chips pile up. Mingled in the above mentioned journals are the results (making specific profitable trades as time passed) of doing the process as it was learned and used to set up capital for future efforts on the paradigm and its applications. In the years that followed these efforts were also done. Anyone can determine the efficacy of following the process. Any passive person can do the calculations. Use the compound interst formula. By looking at the hold period (look at the range, even), the profit per cycle, and how capital is rotated through the batting order, it is possble to have a ball park view of the time requirement for changing capital an order or orders of magnitude. Trader666's hardon comes from something. Who knows why he is the way he is. People who do it usually give it up at some point. You can read their reasons. Their reasons are the reasons SCT and SSR are other applications of the paradigm. 4 out of 5 people reject the paradigm and its applications. Others start with PVT and move on to SCT, etc.... That is their business and they have their reasons. Use trader666's time out number and the ranks (% per day of gains during the FRV to Peaking) you see in the Universe. The results can be made more and more effective and efficient by utilizing the opportunity of learning by doing. The gradual improvement of the exponent from 30 to 40 to 50 to 60 to 80 to 100 per year, may show you the worth of investing the effort to do PVT. It proves that anyone can start small and spend the time to gain a diffrentiated mind. The wealth is just a consequence. Much has changed over the generations. Today people are very different and a lot of people are really perplexed by their environments. On the plus side, it is global and seeing people all over the world get rolling is a terrific delight. We can see there is a great deal of anguish among the have's and have not's. People decide on their fortunes and misfortunes. Everyone gets the consequences of their decisions. In life, some people just have to work for what they get. For others, unfairly perhaps, everything is just dumped in their laps. My view is that helping others is important. It is also important to share wealth by solving local problems. It really doesn't take much brainpower to be a very successful trader. What it takes is doing drills over and over until your mind gets organized properly. A routine makes that possible and it is definitely fun to work in a team doing it. "Tomorrow's Paper...." suggests the value of working together in an asterisk. Differentiating the maind is done by everyone in any number of arenas..why not in trading? Obviously the answer is that "it cannot be done and I can prove something can't be done by thinking irrationally." lol ... Trader666 will always have his hardons about this and that. He loves posting the same old crap over and over. It free advertizing...... What would the world be without cheerleaders and their pom poms? So the plan is this: 1. We keep the thread on the list by Trader666 doing the work. with his hits... He is my foil... 2. References are provided and shared and those who can help others out. Set up a local team or a remote one by emails. forward stuff like in the olden days. 3. If you can, help solve local problems with your time and money. Don't do anything half baked or take short cuts or "invent", just go with the flow.... You can use the indicators too....... lol ......
I do three or four hours of videos a week. Keep up man.... Watch Cramer and the talking heads and chicks.... All the PVT stuff is documented weekly by "The Team"; their work, their words. Then we do the ES. So why did you sign up on the "B" list.... There have always been lazy people.. Its nothing new. It that tradition of the takers and the givers.. I hang with givers and you do the taker thing. Have you guessed yet why trader666 can't "get it"???? give it a guess. Sometimes my daily emails are 12 pages long.... Can you imagine why? probably not... keep up your hardon ...its like, we need the advertizing....
and the beat goes on. Anyways, people who create indicators also give you the means of deploying their signals. In this case of using a vernier (a vernier is a "fine" measure of a signal riding on a carrier in this case) of how the smart money trades. Smart money, defacto, front runs the market. So our job is to front run the frontrunners as parasites of these folks. This chart has no spikes on it since the values are very small compared to the values from which they are dervived. A lot of people are persuaded that this lags that. For them it certainly does and that was their decision and how, consequently, their minds operate. No one has to be drawn into these myths that prevail in common ways. Lets say you are not satisfied with the lead time that the derivatives give you. Then come up with a better lead time. Think in terms of algo detectors for example. Do you see the algos operating on the attached? A guy commented here on my failure to be a suitable provider. His mind is limited to U tubeness at this point. He is more than just passive. For a very dynamic indicator experience google the "pinwheel indicator" that uses the angular velocity rates of change (first and sceond derivatives). It will keep the simplest mind's attention throughout the day. Have a roller coster indicator experience. Use a pinwheel MLR ratio of 1, 2 and 4 (see the same on scoring...lol).
Oh please... do you really think anyone believes your BS? If one compares trades from your "method" to trades from random entries, they'll find that the two groups of trades are statistically indistinguishable. Meaning, as I said, your "method" is no better than flipping a coin. How well do you think a drug would do in a clinical trial if its benefits were statistically indistinguishable from those of a placebo? Would you call those results statistically insignificant and try to sell it anyway? That's what snake oil salesmen do. I tested buying YOUR "0 to 7 turn" (per page 8) on 1000 stocks from 2000 to 2005 -- a total of 5000 stock-years -- using spydertrader's code for the scoring and exiting 5 days later and got the equity curve below. On the other hand... if one tests a profitable entry method and compares those trades with trades generated from random entries, the differences between the two groups are statistically off the charts. For example, I tested one of MY entry methods under the exact same conditions and parameters I used for testing your "method" -- 5 day exits, same stocks, same time period, NO prescreened "universe," same transaction fees, etc., and got this equity curve. <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2715590> There's a reason why these charts look so different. And that is, your "method" doesn't work. Get it now?
Nothing here addresses my point. Which was, that you failed to turn $10K into $1M in 100 days as you promised your former IBD group you would. You can't address it because it's yet another example of the canyon sized gap between your phony grandiosity and reality. So you spew even more BS, hoping no one will notice. Classic Jack
It's no coincidence losers like Hershey, Proflogic and Spydertrader keep talking each other up, but just check their track record for the real story Hershey: Lost 24% in a trading contest the only time he has ever gone on record Spydertrader: Turned up to a trading function only to be refused entry for being dressed like a bum Proflogic: The ultimate fade, has he ever predicted the correct direction?
"The mid-term eMini S&P Chart (16807) is showing the creation of a short term top up here. If we can't breach 1103.50 then a challenge of 1066.50 is eminent." This was posted to over 500 traders, the evening of February 2nd, 2010. We failed to breach 1103.50 by creating the resistance oscillation at 1101.50 at 3:21 pm EST on the 2nd and again confirmed it at 2:21 am with the oscillation failure at 1100.00 on the 3rd. I don't post many set ups because there aren't many that were this clear.