RFT.... I just sent you a PM. I was out most of the day so I didn't have a chance to reply much. And you're right, I shouldn't waste my time with the people who oppose my claim, although I did have a little amusement making the out-of-order bs meter...lol. Anyway... I'm going to spend some time with my kids tonight before they go to bed. I'll be back on later. Doug
First apply that rule to yourself. Since you did not by intruding on what I should say and what I should not on a matter that does not regard you, you are not credible. You see, I just used a logical system to strike you out. That is how you should trade. I however appreciate your candid point of view which i respect even if I do not agree with all of it, and I also appreciate the positive elements in it which may make my head a bit bigger.
Indeed Doug sent me a PM. I did not PM him before, which is something to his credit. I wish well to you Doug, and the people who would go with you. I hope that you do not mind the skeptisism of some folks here, particularly the old timers on ET. Best of luck!
It's likely a bad deal for anyone with any skill. A good trader will be managing a book large enough to earn a living without risking the loss of intellectual property. A good trader won't risk the loss of IP for some vague offering on a message-board. The bad news? It's a terrible deal for the thread-starter. A bunch of abject-hacks like increasenow, stock_trad3r, bwolinsky and ML_QUANT inundating the guy with flowery bullshit between 099 remedial math classes at the local community college. I'll wager that the aforementioned ETers were among the first to respond.
You are right. I might also suggest that your analysis is the model of the world that's yours. Other people have different experiences than you, and different models, which often include making decisions to change their state. Of course you are smart enough to realize there's a flaw in this model. The entire scientific model is only valid if one presupposes a number of conditions. Models made on Sept. 10, 2001 would be far different than those made Sept. 12, 2001. You're right. If you own a casino it's a no brainer to keep the tables open 24/7. The challenge is that unlike easily modeled casino games, trading models are inherently uncertain because the data set continually changes. And the problem isn't only that the data set changes, it's that the trader KNOWS that data set is changing. This is where fear/uncertainty sets in. And this is where, in my experience, traders have the biggest challenge. Even with a mathematical model that's right 60% of the time, the traders never can tell if the losing trades are consistent with the model, or if the underlying premise of the model has changed. 2008 is a great example of this. Generally speaking, what we as humans understand is proportional to a single grain of sand in the Sahara Desert. Of course we all have room to learn. It's those who think they know the answers who are most at risk. As an aside, do you have any idea why one of the world's most well-known and most successful traders would pay TR for continual coaching? I would take a wild guess he isn't talking with Tony about math problems... lol. Doug
Someone with positive expectancy who is profitable more times than not would never opt to split their profits. Likewise anyone who is contacting you is of the 85% or so of traders who lost, who also lost confidence to trade with their own money. And when and IF they do reach success and become profitable with you, then tell me, what benefit do you provide?
<i>"What if someone shows up just like Doug on here, pays for the classifieds (say $300), then collect a hundred or more names/contacts, etc, then go out and sell them to 10 agencies for 10 buck a piece. So a person like doug will collect at least 10K, pays 300 to ET, and get out fresh. The suckers would then be us (those giving their names, and those responding to a person who would pose like doug).</i> $10 per name sold as a list to ten agencies... $10,000.00 total rake? I'm not sure where to even begin there, so let's just leave it at that. Atticus, even a CTA running $10mil now with a legit offer to add $1mil or more would naturally listen to the prop. Why not? How many managers are trump tight with cash that cannot be aptly put to work? As for IP, that's something only mechanical managers need worry about. Valid concerns indeed for those who are mostly or fully mechanized. The OP said he's assuming all liability here. That includes wading thru myriad pms sorting out which may be what. Cannot be any worse than those who comb this site pouring thru each & every thread. At least this one met the topic criteria for "elite traders"
I have a close friend who produced a 400% gain in 2008 on 6-figures at inception. A Sharpe exceeding 12. Everybody is wining and dining the guy, but he won't go to bed with any of them. They simply can't offer him enough cash to make the move to OPM worthwhile. His strategy doesn't scale beyond $5MM, so it's moot to offer him more. I realize this place is simply overflowing with edge and that scale is never an issue with all the pros on this site. It's really inconceivable that the source of funding would be interested in solving for the trader's edge? The CTA doesn't reveal his edge unless his only alternative is an arm's length LPOA. I can't think of one CTA managing >10MM who would consider an LPOA deal for a mil. In reality, it's not the point. Sure, I'd gather that 10% of those responding will be profitable with 1% having a replicable edge that scales to a mil or two.
<i>"His strategy doesn't scale beyond $5MM, so it's moot to offer him more. I realize this place is simply overflowing with edge and that scale is never an issue with all the pros on this site."</i> Well, rough math says that a -$200 per ES contract max loss per trade @ $20,000 per contract is -1% risk per trade. Scaling that thru $5mil = 250 ES contracts turned. Entering all-in with that can be filled just about anywhere volume flow is normal and slippage is maybe two ticks across the block. Midday and dull periods could be worse, up to a full handle spread across the block. That is stretching limits for ticky-scalp traders. Not scalable. But for intraday traders who scale in looking for several handles minimum can easily fill 1,000 contracts within a small zone and exit for +4pts to +10pts or greater. Some days not at all, some days more than once. 1,000 ES contracts flipped in blocks = $20mil for the same scale of risk noted above. Twice that size routinely crosses the tape numerous times daily. ZB and ZN can handle plenty of traffic too. Some days they chop ceaselessly, some days they run two index points A to B like a dream. It all depends on the method approach, aka entry and trade management methods which are never related. The tighter someone trades, the less scalable it is. Bigger trades with +3 or greater potential per -1 risked and win ratio greater than 40% can handle much more size than something scalpy or tight. 1,000 ways exist to skin the markets... and 100,000 ways will peel us in kind :eek: