As long as everyone seems to enjoy wearing their 'setting the record straight' hats, this post clarify's much of the errors created by Trader666's coding efforts. In addition, within the post itself, links to backtests, forward tests, and live trades exist. All of the content covered thus far in this thread has been reviewed and discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseum elsewhere on ET with the exact same result each and every time. I see zero value to heading down the same tired old road under the flawed belief that "this time it's different." While I applaud the efforts of the moderation staff, this process need not be so complicated. Start by learning to thoroughly and properly annotate a chart (drawing trendlines and formations) and follow the directions located here. Whatever path you all decide to choose, I wish you success in your efforts. Good trading to you all. - Spydertrader
Thanks Jack. That simply implies a significance that ETFs would be potentially not suitable to trade with your methods. For Cornering purpose?
The possibility is you just gave up a good opportunity to prove what you believe by simply producing/ providing requested/ required statistics! Anyway, look forward to that later.
Looks like your message should have been directed at the usual suspects and not at Jack considering he was invited to show up to your thread that you created. Also, spydertrader appeared as expected when he notice you as a moderator didn't have the ability to moderate the usual suspects although I do give you credit for deleting a few profanity laced messasges in this thread so far. However, can some one please post a code considering that's what this thread is all about... Correct ??? Think about, there has been requests by the some here for Jack to be precise and post a simple code that can be backtested. Further, you said Trader666 has tested Jack's method. Yet, neither side has produced a code. In fact, both sides keep refering to prior posts of yester-year. Is this a big joke by both sides or you guys just prefer to argue and debate. Those that say it doesn't work or has failed via their own interpretation of the method must have a code...correct. Trader666, can you or Spydertrader help this thread at all via posting your codes ??? Thanks in advance. Mark
For simplicity, How about trading merely with QQQQ for one whole year in order to see the statistics? It doesn't matter how many total trades for the year. Much appreciated!
Frankly, that should be a positive development, simply to accept the updates. As Jack has acknowledged Spyder's contributions. Would you mind to incorporate any of the new updates for further testing (if the trading concept is wrong, the method derived from it would be never right! No matter how many updates added.)? Much appreciated again!
Actually, it's Jack and Spydertrader who keep taking this off topic to the past... not to mention that I said a few pages ago I'm perfectly willing to go over my backtest of buying the "0 to 7 turn" in a separate moderated thread with a fine tooth comb after we analyze PVT here. But I'll tell you right now that I did those tests carefully and honestly and a backtest of PVT in its entirety here won't negate them. That's just an Orwellian attempt to erase the past and it ain't gonna happen.
My god. It seems that quite a few people here do NOT want to see clarifying information about PVT by Jack. One almost gets the feeling that they make huge efforts to stop Jack from showing clearly what the method consists of. Why would that be? Perhaps because to some it is threatening, or because they had their own war going for so long that to now be proven wrong would be actually worse than to learn a profitable method? This is psychologically understandable, especially if you are some unhinged nutjob who posts 30 times per day over years regarding this subject. But: WHO except T666 cares what results T666 backtested if the proponents of the method say it was not done correctly? Why would T666 even post his backtest? If I backtest a method and the inventor of the method tells me I got it wrong, I would listen and try to correct it or find out if he is wrong. I understand that it seems to be very important to T666 to justify himself since he apparently spent a big amount of time on it, but I could not care less. This is not about T666 and his backtesting ability or lack of. I would be interested to have Jack clarify exactly how the method works, and THEN see either the proponents of the method or T666 to backtest it to exacting standards. The moderators should make sure that happens and throw out all the posts that do not deal with this matter, including my own after reading it.
Ok...thanks. However, my question still remains... Does anybody have any codes of anything that does with Jack's method that they can post for anyone that's neutral to test themselves for verification. Any hands being raised ??? If so...please just post it and then go over your results because results (good or bad) without the code or without a in-depth explanation of one strategy will always cast a dark cloud over the heads of all those involved... Although it's obvious you guys don't care so far via what's stated in this thread so far. If I don't see a posted code in a few more pages of arguing and debating... I can only assume that Jack's method is a rule based discretionary method. Thus, only some parts of his method can be coded while other parts can not be coded. Therefore, if such is true...there is no code that test the method 100% the way it is designed and is dependent upon the interpretation of those testing the method along with being dependent upon the programming skills of the coder to be accurate. That could explain why some results have been dismissed, not taken seriously or debatable ??? Mark
Oddtrader your question is N/A. Please read this post which explains my methodology. Thanks. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1978460#post1978460