Just to help you out. I brought up NTRS simply because it is a good past example of PVT trading. what makes it a good example for me and not for you is that it became a tenured stock for a lot of people over the last few years. They, as I do, have an objective of making money with a comfortable workable universe. As we made the camtasias of the IBD meetings, anyone who looks at them can see the stocks discussed and how the participants traded various stocks. During that period we met twice a month. and on alternate weeks in between sub groups met around town in various places. Sometimes at a home where I might attend and we look at the market during RTH's NTRS was one of the fun stocks and several people did trade it as a tenured stock and during that period it had 4 consecutive 30% runs. It happened and a lot of people enjoyed it. I enjoyed it too. You think that people would miss the NTRS moves. Congratulations. I don't think so. The reason I don't is because they simply did it in the past and they are familiar with the stock. If I were to go on to talk about some of the actual meetings and the home subgroup chats, it would become more and more clear how individuals trade using PVT. You are screwed, in my opinion at this point with regard to PVT and trading it. ET needs people like you whom others can identify with and then decide to not trade using PVT. You are humping away proving this and that. As I suggested I can't figure out how losing 16 dollars a trade on 25,000 back test trades works to prove something. You may feel that it proves there is no statisitical significance to your backtest. Was it a backtest of a paper or was it a backtest of trading stocks to make money?? What kind of capital did you use and how did the sequence of 25,000 trades unfold?? Who cares anyway. Any answers just show the stocks you use aren't too uniform in their character because they are not sorted except by the rules to get into whatever S&P club you are refering to in this lap you are taking.
Sure Jack. First you write: "NO stocks of the S&P 500 have high enough QUALITY to get on the list EVER." Then you give us NTRS, an SP500 stock, as your poster child example: "Stocks like NTRS have 30% cycles in three days." Then you wax eloquently about how great your method is: "The machinery is tuned to make money continually day and night.... It is all very pleasant...I have crossed the Atlantic on boats, super connies and 707's and big jets...The three beta slice oscillates like a clock so you can do 100 turns a year. 3% a day is how to groove in stocks. Capital X1.03^100 is sweet as an annual return. Get some belts and hang on." Then we see that NTRS does NOT have 30% cycles in three days, nor does it fit the byzantine volume scheme you described a few posts earlier. Sure Jack. That's how to groove in stocks all right. Get some belts and hang on. LOL
Ouch!!........... this is getting brutal! For heavens sake, someone stop this! I dont wanna see Jack get tarred and feathered all over this thread like this...... too painful! Trader666 please have mercy and stop.
Just adding this to the mix. No I didn't trade it, but it seems to fit the criteria Jack teaches. I'm sure some people can see that.
Oh pleeeeeease... I see from your posts that you're a groveling cult wannabe. So seeing that you have comprehension problems, I'll type real slow for you. First, Jack wrote here that:"Stocks like NTRS have 30% cycles in three days" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2011743#post2011743 Then, when I called him on it, he backed off and highlighted a 10% and 20% rise here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2012759#post2012759 So I looked at NTRS in the days before those two rises to see if it met the volume criteria in Jack's post here. It did NOT by any stretch. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2011419#post2011419 BTW... in that same post, Jack arrogantly proclaimed: "NO stocks of the S&P 500 have high enough QUALITY to get on the list EVER." He didn't even know that NTRS is an SP500 stock Go back to iterative refinement and fetch spydie a koolaid.