I think you and I have a very different definition of a mess. I've never had a backtest as good as cash cow. And, as I say on so many places on the net, even if it is just half as good, it'll still be awesome.
The mess I'm referring to is relying on a unique, proprietary black box datafeed... that is not only critical to your system but unreliable.
Hey bwolinsky, It's like you've eaten mushrooms, are wondering the streets naked, and we are trying despeately to get you to wake-the-fuck-up before you walk into traffic and become roadkill. * Are you gonna wakeup, or are you gonna keep sleepwalking in your kool-aid induced slumber? Only time will tell. * actually happened to some young girl in Cali. the guy who gave her the 'shrooms got 15 years.
PTQQS was not destroyed by any means. I traded QLD at $117 to watch it go to it's $20 lows. I greatly exceeded that benchmark of double leveraged ETF, but what I really measure myself on is the S&P. You can google me if you're looking for the audited track record. Magna won't let me tell you where it is. I have no idea what the outcome for Cash Cow will be, and I hope you don't get the impression I gave it that name. Scottd gave it that name. You're absolutely right. I in no way expect my trading abilities will be aided by any of the CFA curriculum. I do expect that it will allow me to invest with greater certainty, and I've been able to beat benchmarks through overweightings as an RIA Rep. It's not trading, sure, but it's still investment. Buy and hold is fine if its in synch with the life cycle. As you get older you adjust, and I have no pity on boomers that expected to retire in less than 5 years that still had greater than 70% of their money in stocks.
I don't think that's a mess at all. I think it's a problem unique to trading. Who do you trust? Hubba hubba, money, money, money, who do you trust? Me? And where is the.... Ten points for guessing where that line was from.
LOL, jack hershey, ProfLogic/Swineflu and these other wanna be GURU's are soo far down their own rabbit hole their shit will never see the light of day!
You haven't read much about me, d. I'm the epitome of cerebral. You sit and wait for years hashing out code until you find what works. The people on here that I read about who claim to have black boxes are older. They've spent years at it, and that's where I am, and this just happens to be that point in time. I already know I'd be great as an analyst, but no one has given me the shot, most likely due to my pedigree, which isn't fifth tier. Centre College is the 42nd best institution in this country by Newsweek the last I checked, and for good reason.
Yeah, they're a bit off their rocker. I've never found that ProfLogic's ergodic oscillator works, and I did have a TS system based on it. Didn't work at all, too few degrees of freedom. I fit it on 10000 sp tick data, which might have been an immediate problem. JH still doesn't talk about his system the way it's meant to be talked about, which is in the form of a program. I've waited years just as you have to see a working version, as the Wl4.wealth-lab.com version weren't the real version.
Alrighty then... but I'd have reservations about the validity of a system that only works on one tradable, that requires a unique, proprietary and unreliable datafeed, and uses a constant volume threshold of 20,000 as if the markets are stationary.
You know, t, I've found the only consistency about Jack and his system name Jack Hershey Methods in my WL5 program is that it has always been presented as an S&P system primarily for the ES. For whatever reason, and I'm pretty sure it's due to a fateful day when spydertrader met Jack to put pen to paper in a tradeable system that it was just for the s&P. Every user I knew that talked about spydertrader's system was always like, "This thing doesn't work." because we were testing on stocks like you were. Then we got a bit of a clarification once Scottd published the real system. I don't really think stationarity or non-stionationarity in particular is a problem for systems based on quantiative or technical analysis because they do not attempt to minimize variances to make predictions about future events. Linear regression depends on it, but these systems are not linear regressions, so stationarity by itself is not relevant. And, yes, I've studied it. It was all of quant at Level II with time series, and I realized it only makes a difference if you're working with regression in predicting your output, in this case a trade. I'm not saying that markets are stationary, but that just having hard and fast rules don't apply to a trading system because it's a different kind of dataset that you are trying to do something completely different than minimizing variances for best fit. If you were to place two time series consecutively, match them, and test to see if they were covariance stationary they probably wouldn't be, but that only applies to regression, especially time series regression. There are no rules in particular that apply and especially the rule governing the pre-conditions for when to use linear regression don't apply in this trading system. It's only applicable if you are actual doing linear regression as your only predictor of values.