Prof Logic is a multi-millionaire. Hershey is a mad man with one system. There is no comparison between the two. One is sane and rational, and the other is just bonkers, and you know which one is which. No serious CTA wastes time developing their models? You're off your rocker. I use a state of the art platform and portfolio simulator for easy language to make my strategies. Multicharts will beat anyone's system and gives them the best chance of executing it at minimal cost. Since you know nothing about the validity of Prof's model, I'll just say Jack Hershey's is only for S&P Index futures and very limited. Given all the information and sleight of hand and just banter, it should be a relief to have a version that actually shows a profit, and this is a major accomplishment for anybody researching that system. Prof Logic has a 100+ page book called <u>Price Physics</u>. If you're not a novice, you can learn how to trade from it, any market, in any interval. There's nothing that makes that a waste of time, and incidentally you really have no idea what you're saying when you ask whether a CTA would look into such ideas for trading strategies. Of course you would. You look into it refining your methods like everyone else out there. I'm not doing anything different using my models than someone who takes 40% draw and only makes 10% annually. Also, if there's no performance summaries then there's no model. Many managers just try to make trades as soon as possible, but if they are doing their research there isn't any better platform than Multicharts. If you have a profitable strategy, using wl4.wealth-lab.com for EOD signal generation is also fine. You're confusing what "works" and what "doesn't work." The line is pretty cut and dry once you have the statistics in your hands. There isn't any other way to conduct research or develop trading strategies. You're dilluded if you think that every CTA doesn't do that because they all do. I have models that are very robust; just because one happens to come from a multi-millionaire who's a little eccentric online like everyone else who posts is doesn't mean that the theory isn't valid. Quite the contrary, I think what he has is ingenious, but if you keep mixing up what Jack Hershey's method is, versus what Prof Logic's method is, there is zero compairson. There's nothing to say for scale, and there's nothing to say for performance. Prof wins hands down no contest. When it comes to my pairs model the most recent changes were implemented on the last trade, turning a 1.3% profit versus the old model's 5% loss, which is a big difference. There is nothing to learn from other CTA's because they don't have a theory as well articulated as price physics, and if you want to learn how to trade Prof really is the man to go see. My pairs models are limited to indexes or ETF's that have double or triple leveraged instruments that you can form a ratio from. There's tens of these kinds of ETF's and as long as you optimize on them they will return a profitable model from the same template of code with parameters set to where they best fit the data. There isn't anything wrong with optimizing that way because if the theory simply requires optimization, the method is sound. I don't know what else you think other CTA's are going to tell you about their methods that I didn't learn from Price Physics or from my experiences pairs trading. Sell when everyone's buying and buy when everyone's selling. Your model has to do that, and if you're not doing that, let's say you play momentum the way Jack Hershey's method does then there's plenty of ways to develop strategies from theories that are already out there.
I don't know who or what Hershey is or what Price Physics is. But I agree with you. No spread trading system will make 30x your investment unless you are using stupid leverage which in the real world means you will go bankrupt eventually (and probably quickly). The fact that he can't answer a simple question about his actual performance vs his theoretical performance implies he doesn't know what he is talking about.
There's three performance measures, not one. There are: 1)Pairs 2)Physics 3)Actual Because your reading comprehension sucks, you should now be able to discern which three I'm talking about.
I can only point you to my model on Covestor. It seems discussing two different systems and their performance characteristics has confused a lot of people, especially given that both systems have to agree on the signal before entering. I don't have a combination of the two as a backtest; I only have results from the pairs and the physics strategies but not one backtest of both because it takes too long.
No backtest or any real idea what happens when you combine two systems, but heck, let's go live with this baby...and hope others pay to join us. You go, girl!
What's the old expresssion...."In God we trust...everyone else must have data"? Any tax returns, account statements, etc. for Prof? Every vendor and their grandmother claims to be a millionaire, have multiple yachts and houses, etc. His claims are no different. If you're going to prove this, account statements would be a must since there are non-trading ways to accumulate millions (including inheritance). Validity of his model? Again, an audited verification of his real-time results or kindly get the hell out with those claims. Waiting for the attachments (or not)...
Weirdinsky is a combination of naivete and day-dreamer. I don't doubt for a minute that he has "invested" all of his delusions into this mentor of his. After all, to keep his fantasies alive that he can make those 3,000% returns or the even crazier "dream" of his that he told investors he made 150,000%. The thing he still doesn't seem to understand is that any investor who spent five minutes talking with him and listening to these, to put it lightly "INSANE" claims would literally run, not walk, from the table. Once guys get lost in some fantasies about what they think they "can" do, but without any real world application, it's a black hole of delusion. Weirdinsky would have a captive audience if he just settled on something mundane and consistent, but since he's some deluded 20-something, he thinks that he'll be the next "Market Wizard". He simply isn't mature enough to be working in this profession. I think that it's a good thing he's only experimenting with this stuff on paper or he'd be in some big trouble if he had investors money in there.
Only the last trade was with the combined system. The first 4 months of live trading was just with one system and he can't tell if the account performed inline with the model. And there there's something about blaming execution or getting the benefit of execution. I didn't really understand. Apparently he can build multiple systems that produce 30x returns every year but can't be bothered to backtest them combined. Lot's of professionalism here.... exactly whom I would give money to!
Well, he does charge 1.5% for $10K minimum investment at Covestor. Not sure if he has any subscribers yet. Hopefully Covestor is his only venture. It would be scary if he managed large amounts of funds for clients who can't see his transactions and performance day-to-day.