I think he was the best, before the markets changed in 2000 and again in 2008. Even Bill Dunn (another trend follower with huge returns in his time) admitted to having to change his systems in after 2000 because the markets were not the same. I don't have the latest data, but Dunn's equity appears to be slightly above where it was in 2000. Trivia question: How were the markets different from 1980-1999, 2000-2007, and 2008 to present?
If I did, I would have had a back test. But since my original point was about the opportunities lost to such limits, would it seem logical that I have automated something that can't be proven to work?
I am in Asia and I look at asian future so my answer would be very different from yours. Bill Dunn says he uses trend follow system but no one knows what kind of theory does he apply or create.
So you have an automated trading program which trade by itself, and youself uses wave theory to "check" if the program trades the same way as you predict? Once if the program is not at the right direction, just press "stop"?
Because I prefer to execute the trades myself. Not only can I only blame myself if I make a mistake but it keeps my mind sharp to analyze and trade the mkts.
Before we ask how the markets were different, isn't it necessary to identify what could possibly cause the markets to be different? Markets fluctuate, regardless of the date. The only known mechanisms for biological evolution are natural selection and random mutation. Since the market is not a biological organism, neither of those apply. Therefore, we need to identify either a different mechanism or say that the markets actually don't evolve. I'd say there can be subtle differences in markets over time, but nothing beyond the superficial. This is why I was saying in the other Elliott Wave thread that I don't even think there are such things as "impulse" waves vs. "corrective" waves because it postulates too much differentiation between one wave and another.