BWolinsky Trading

Discussion in 'Journals' started by bwolinsky, Jun 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. It's your system, Jack, certified by you. Nothing's been modified from the original version except for some optimization in values and removing the sell on close.

    There's no program that has surfaced drawing straight lines and predicting market movement out there, so I conclude that it doesn't exist. Scottd then, is in TS working on cash cow, but hasn't posted in over half a year now.
     
    #201     Jul 9, 2009
  2.  
    #202     Jul 9, 2009
  3. The only certification this ATS has is that it's going to be a Certified Failure ... :D

    ScottD doesn't dare show his face on ET again ... he got taken in by Jack and he's too embarrassed for everyone to know it. :p
     
    #203     Jul 9, 2009
  4. When you realize the whole system is predicated on failure, and jack hershey uses his tautology to attempt to pretend otherwise, it's one of the absolute funniest "trading jokes" I've ever seen. :D :D :D
     
    #204     Jul 9, 2009
  5. I'm not so sure if it's going to be a certified failure, but the Cash Cow in Scottd's system was pretty clear about what constituted a buy and a sell or sell short and cover, and it was all based on the Stoch 14,1,3.
     
    #205     Jul 9, 2009
  6. It now looks something like this

    All Trades
    Starting Capital $10,000.00
    Ending Capital $49,519.54
    Net Profit $39,519.54
    Net Profit % 395.20%
    Annualized Gain % 558.57% APR is quite volatile for periods less than 1 year.
    Exposure 22.83%
    Total Commission ($584.00)
    Return on Cash $0.00
    Margin Interest Paid $0.00
    Dividends Received $0.00

    Number of Trades 37
    Average Profit $1,068.10
    Average Profit % 2.43%
    Average Bars Held 19.11

    Winning Trades 28
    Win Rate 75.68%
    Gross Profit $54,166.31
    Average Profit $1,934.51
    Average Profit % 4.11%
    Average Bars Held 18.68
    Max Consecutive Winners 8

    Losing Trades 9
    Loss Rate 24.32%
    Gross Loss ($14,646.77)
    Average Loss ($1,627.42)
    Average Loss % -2.80%
    Average Bars Held 20.44
    Max Consecutive Losses 1

    Maximum Drawdown ($8,522.46)
    Maximum Drawdown Date 11/21/2008
    Maximum Drawdown % -35.95%
    Maximum Drawdown % Date 11/21/2008

    Wealth-Lab Score 1,566.83
    Sharpe Ratio 2.46 The Sharpe has crossed into a believable range. 2.5 is about the max for any decent long term profitable system
    Profit Factor 3.7 Profit Factor slipped from 4.1
    Recovery Factor 4.64
    Payoff Ratio 1.47
     
    #206     Jul 9, 2009
  7. Jack, please interpret the signals DU and FRV. I can see some as a percentage of the 65 day volume average, but it's not obvious from this table what DU or FRV is measuring.

    Also, there's nothing Scottd is doing that in any way relates to this document.

    After looking at it, it appears you are saying the market is controlled by volume, which I would say has no real basis....I'd have to backtest it.
     
    #207     Jul 9, 2009
  8. You're kidding, right? Backtesting this would be like checking yet another dog turd on the ground to see of it's somehow chunky peanut butter shaped like a dog turd. And then of course you'd claim the backtest was flawed when it's really your "method" that's broken. Like your "p,v relation."

    So instead why don't you tell us why you failed to turn $10,000 into $1 million in 100 days and post updates on ET as you promised your former IBD group you would? You can't blame your failure to do that on backtests.
     
    #208     Jul 9, 2009
  9. T, please try a different tact with Jack in my thread. There's literally 100's of threads with the same posts of you asking that question. Please try to be original in this one. You can let Jack cling to his delusions that 10k to 1 mil in 100 days is possible, but I've tried to show a more realistic version based on the certified cash cow.

    There might be something to only testing volume, and I'm not sure how you ever backtested the v5 of hershey equities method without the studies to go along with it. If you have the studies then I'd be interested in seeing them, otherwise it's not possible to backtest that chartscript properly.
     
    #209     Jul 9, 2009
  10. Truly ROTFLMAOOOO!

    Apperently is isn't too obvious to anyone but us? :p :D

    "High Five!"

    No, but it can be blamed on a fundamentally unsound trading methodology. :eek:
     
    #210     Jul 9, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.