Iâm not talking about "proof" just an objective metric generated by applying the ideas discussed. I consider that among many other things is evaluating the ideas. Something can sound great but if is has no benefit in actual reality (trading) then it's discussion is just intellectualism. Personally, I have a metric for any system I trade (system = combination of measures and rules for turning measures into executable trades) of 80% gross Win/Loss ratio in dollars and 300% annual return on total account capital. Would you care to share yours? I use predictive analytics to trade in contrast to a combination of TI's and market measures discussed here so I can't contribute directly to this discussion. However when I find a defined set of TIs + rules giving decent performance above non-random I do mine it for components to use in predictive analytics. Jerry
Jack, you've talked about the "like kind" criterium by Keynes in several posts. Can you explain what this criterium is and how it relates to the market?
The general understanding at the time was this: A standard limited POA was used. I maintained an amateur status under NFA 208 etc and on the record. The obligation of the professionals (those trained to help others) for whom I traded at arms length was that they donate 20% of their time continually and regularly at a mutually determined service center. A 50/50 split on profits was imagined; as it turned out I let profits ride for compounding and NEVER took profits (they got a bonus so to speak). For adult challenged children of parents, life time trusts were simply filled to a servicable CW capacity for the adult challenged child. My record is three in one day trading at six digit upper share limit. I got into trouble with the SEC for this effort. Trading multiple accounts, 11 to 15 at the times, caused SEC surveilance. The SEC was looking for people who did illegal things. The SEC was not very competent in their efforts. In terms of Jerry's demands or interests, this is like looking at financial records to see the accumulation of wealth and performance effectiveness and efficiency. Lets say Jerry could recognize the significance of the SEC doing investigations for some reasons. Reasons like "making money". reasons like "timing the market". The SEC looks for patterns and relationships. They found them in my accounts. And brokers were "coattail" trading me for some reason. The reasons turned out to be that brokers talk to clients and the clients are influenced. So Jerry asks if I just teach and talk. Brokers I had were not taught. But they did talk the talk of my trades for some reason. If Jerry reasons through the SEC, the brokers, the "money making" and the "timing of the market", he may be able to fathom what all these people figured out. As a dectective or FBI or CIA agent might say: "this guy knows something". Brokers used the information to benefit their clients and their pockets with commissions. Regulators do things to earn their pay checks and sometimes they enforce regulations for the benefit of the public. I benefitted greatly as well. I got a reputation for bing a "criminal' who was getting very rich and making others wealthy by my criminal activities all supported by the coattail trading brokers. I had to be a criminal. In ET, there are these "detectives" that have, again concluded I am a "criminal" in my trading approach. Or what I do is what I do. Jerry is joining the investigation. The fucking moderator deleted my post on a way to back test a proven approach. There are people here who became OCD's as a consequence of finding flaws in what they think I do. They are mentally screwed for a long time to come. So I spoke of ignorance previously. I did not anticipate humply would just see a blank chart. I posted on too high an intellectual plane yet once again. The deep and really great humor here is the way people behave when something is beyond their deep and purposeful experience and super expert skills in judging others by their standards. Do I have to go through TZ's sophomoric paragraphs and straighten out this "indicator" oriented group? There is a reqirement to "worK" and not be superficial. MONEY IS INVOLVED and no one can bullshit the markets. We are now at the end of an inverted saucer formation economically speaking. The Depression returns to work in all seriousness and earnestness. Now is a time to be rational and really think through this and that. I do not give a fuck if a post I make is deleted. Stupidity is common everywhere. It took me years to get adjusted to not caring if others fail to take asdvantage of what is profered to them. But with support of others I became rational about my failures to be able to help others. I do not care if jerry, talontrading, humply or traderzones are unteachable or cannot think critically about the markets. Suppose jerry or tradezones posted all their perfomance data precisely and comprehensively. None of the people who use our methods are going to post the multiples of the performance of these types of people for comparison purposes. In the first place they have nothing to post. When a major CW trader tells me after seeing a few trades that what we do is something else and he can't sleep at night, then I know he has seem the "walk". Most don't get it at all and they just coattail in my personal experience. Most people screw themselves by their choices. That is NOT going to change. A person either learns how to learn and learns the markets OR he tries to learn how to make money, instead. One group fails, the other succeeds. If you are using induction to learn an edge to make money, you are fucked and you will perform like a CW follower peforms (not beating the markets). The definition of a full time trader is a trader who HAS to trade full time to make marginal ammounts of money. Acrary explained that anyone using little of thier capital (1.75%) makes 200% a year. John Netto wrote "One Shot One Kill" and he trades "ALL IN" because he learned the markets and he knows that he knows. He knows that the last four digits of my cell phone are 7, 6, 5, 4. Thats because in scoring equities the "hold" is the scores 7, 6, 5, and 4; ask any indicator. QED.
Trade the P's (volume)....LOL..... beginner's 4 to 7 trades a day. trading the point to point (1, 2, 3's) takes you up to 15 trades a day. At the bottom of this screen (right screen) you see my little indicator helpers: The OTR, the S/S and the DOM. you also see the "walls" on the price in each place. This is the "level II TT referred to that cannot (he says) be back tested. I have a left screen with 31 colors on the indicator generators (things that need flagging). the indicaotrs are there too below P and V (which have flags as well).
As the day goes by you will see what it is like after an invertes saucer cokmpletes. right now a long tape is "trying its best. the green horizontal line is where it will announce whether it failed. If longs are failing on markets, does this mean anything?
Dear Jack, I'm simply asking for an objective metric of performance to make the decision if there is anything of value to me here. Everyone makes that choice for themselves. If the maximum actual result is say an average annual return on account capital of 20% then it has no value to me as I do an order of magnitude better. Is that too much to ask? Thanks, Jerry
In non inductive systems, there is logic and science involved. As you see jerry has posted his mining critria for doing inductive reasoning and analysis. He is, I'm sure, in demand at the various money making corps of the financial industry. His work does two things: makes money and is a terrific sales support for gaining the client's attention and capital. Traderzones could sell his stuff in a New Jersey minute. Lets turn to the reasoning of Keynes and Carnap and Bayes. Bayes and the "frequentists" get axed by Keynes and Carnap. Both avoid the "Riddle of Induction" and allow for paradigm type replacements. When a person constructs a model, he does work that allows evaluation. Jerry cites his go/nogo relative to money making. In examining a model ap erson looks at how well the model works in terms of science. To have a foundation from which to work, it is necessary to make it solid and thoughtful. Keynes defined this requirement in terms of the expressions of the model description. All the parts of the description, for him, had to be of like kind. when it did this I had only four words that were inserted in all the hypotheses that were "identical in construction. So like kind meand "identical" for me. And with the proviso that, further, the parametric measures were like kind too. The measures are the four words. I made them like kind no matter what they applied to in terms of market variables. I did not create any additional degrees of freedom here. I uses the market variables in the foundation construction of the Hypothesis Set (HS)and its Parametric measure (PM) There is no loosie goosie with using Crays and massive amounts of data, all inductively. People pay for that stuff and they get what they paid for. The charts you see have little P's on volume occasionally. Do a calc for the returns in cash to cash using some % of total capital of your choice. you have a blow up on retruns if you get to any significant portion of total capital. Blow up means the model has no comparison anywhere in the financial indusrtry and THEREFORE it dies not work in any way. I used IF, THEN statements for my HS. I used increasing, decreasing, continuing and changing for my PM. These are all time rate of change terms in market data which is composed of non continuous functions. Keynes said that the "in kind" dictates the use of mathematics. Bayes and "frequentists" are out of the picture at this point. They do not have to be, the statistical mechanics part of theoretical physics proves this in a NY minute. If I have two words for volume that are mutually exclusive and the same for price, volume's antecedent, then the math is dictated. Why long ago did the indicator designers not use the correct math? jounalists and historians do not know where to look or write about it. Perhaps, it was because the indicator designers used what was convenient for them. I did as well, but I played by the science and reasoning rules instead of the "money making" rules. Jerry does not ask me anything but he does ask others about "money performance". He may be usiung mathematics to analyze "money making". He gets nothing related to the market's offer. The little P's do, however. Here your question is about "in kind". That was spoken of. Choosing the "ings" was a consequence of the IF, then construct. Having time rate of change involved was the key to moving out of the CW orientation. Buffett is a cool cool example bcause he is a codger as am I. He does not time the markets. He is not an "ing" man; he onoly does "durable value". Cows do that with cream; they know to make milk that sepates, if it sit for a while or gets spun hard enough. Choosing "ings" that relate to the mechanism for making money was a by product of thinking logically. Alol of the ATS stems from the "foundation" of the HS and PM whcich are precisely "in kind". I generate about 70 degrees of freedom using a Boolean Algebra "in kind" construct. By havinga go/nogo orientation to time rate of change, I am in the cat bird's seat. Look at SKO's last pass on Q's (volatility and overlap). They are "ing's" too, IF a person is wired to "inging" it. I am. volatility increasing or decreasing. overlap increasing or decreasing. These are all IF's. The THEN is used for making money. Money has two characteristics and they are orthogonal. Here, again, inductive approaches are fucked royally. they deal in opposites about 150% of the time; much more than all of the time. Lets have a shoot the messenger moment for laughs. Ho HO. What does it take for a person to deal "in kind" and recognize the market does not deal in opposites? As you see on bar 57 the market long failed... Price does two in kind things: continue and change. In Boolean terms these are mutually exclusive. Ig you are not in one you are in the other. BUT you find out deductively using the science of the null hypothesis. This is getting long. Nice long failure.
Jack, I have no clients, accept none and seek none. I do have business partners but don't need any new ones. So I'm not trying to sell you anything or teach you anything only determine if what you do I worth my time. When a person constructs a model, he does work that allows evaluation. Jerry cites his go/nogo relative to money making. In examining a model ap erson looks at how well the model works in terms of science. [/QUOTE] In science there are numeric resutls of all experiments: cure rate for a drug, melting point of a high temperature metal alloy. In tradign those numbers express things like risk, porit/loss and retrun on capital. I'll keep repeating my question to you...just either say NO and were done or say YES and state a number: My Question To Jack Hershey: "I'm simply asking for an objective metric of performance to make the decision if there is anything of value to me here. Everyone makes that choice for themselves. If the maximum actual result is say an average annual return on account capital of 20% then it has no value to me as I do an order of magnitude better. Is that too much to ask?" Many thanks for a simple honest answer. Jerry
I do wish Jack you would take your war off somewhere else ?? This thread seems to have become another of your battlegrounds, It was meant to be an interesting discussion of indicators so Hasta la vista