I agree with Steve46, this opportunity should excite you. The idea that the tests you did were incorrect and the opportunity comes about where you can try again, using the correct info this time. If you are able to code it up and it works, imagine how great that would be for you. So stop focusing on who's fault last times test was and focus on what you have in front of you now.
Spydertrader, stop LYING about me. You're totally misrepresenting what I've done yet again. Here's my disclaimer. Don't pretend I'm doing something I said I'm NOT doing. DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT saying this is an analysis of PVT and I'm not saying this is how you (Jack) intended for the universe to be traded. However, based on your comments about the importance of the universe and how high quality it is, I wanted to see how the stocks in the universe performed in June relative to the Dow, SP500 and Nasdaq indices. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1978460#post1978460
ROTFLMAO -- you A-Team folks are funny! Great job of trolling guys, you're obviously doing all you can to keep this thread off topic. One has to wonder why. My guess is you're afraid of what the results will be. Spydertrader and Jack are already misrepresenting what I posted about the final universe underperforming the indices, despite my disclaimer: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1978795#post1978795 DISCLAIMER: I'm NOT saying this is an analysis of PVT and I'm not saying this is how you (Jack) intended for the universe to be traded. However, based on your comments about the importance of the universe and how high quality it is, I wanted to see how the stocks in the universe performed in June relative to the Dow, SP500 and Nasdaq indices. How incredibly transparent. Do you really think you're fooling anyone? Later, I have better things to do for now... but I'll be back!
Actually I prefer ANYONE (either Trader666 or Jack or someone) to post a code of any of Jack's method considering both sides continue stating it has been tested along with saying they have posted results of the backtest. Until a code is shown (so far nobody on either side has stepped up to the plate)... It's safe to assume that one thing was revealed in this thread is that both sides are either lying or too damn afraid of revealing their code to neutral ET members. Once again, both sides (Anti-Jack and Pro-Jack) had a chance to step up to the plate to give their interpretations via a code that's valid and to show their own programming capabilities is an accurate representation of any of Jack's method. This leaves me to only believe its a discretionary rule-based method that any body can interpret any way they want and/or able to code only parts of it but why bother coding parts when its not reflective of the method as a whole. Don't misunderstand, there's nothing wrong with a discretionary rule-based method...many profitable traders out there using discretionary rule based methods that aren't coders. Further, many here should stop making a request for a code of Jack's method ifthey know the entire method can't be coded which may explain a lot of things I've seen recently... Request is just a facade for continuing this debate. Lets see...vikana will either delete all messages after you requested Trader666 and Jack to put the past behind them while forgetting to request the same of the usual suspects or you will close the thread or move it to Chit Chat. Gotta do something based upon your above quote. Time for another thread to be posted in feedback with complaints about being censored. Mark
Clearly you must mean "nobody has stepped up to the plate to post code in this thread." Otherwise, nobody would keep refering to the code, I have already posted. So rather than play the moral equivalency game, why not require the code which incorrectly follows the paradigm to be posted, so everyone can see the results. - Spydertrader