Drill number 1 it seems is only for something or other but is not intended for actually making money according to Grob. So no point in back testing or forward testing as far as I can tell.
don't worry about 1. It is way beyond your reasoning capability as a requirement to understand to make money. be dumb and glib.
What good is a baseline that depletes your equity ? You can't polish a turd. You can chrome plate a turd and then polish it, but its still a turd.
So many bad words in one post! Why Jack, you naughty boy. You should be ashamed of yourself. If I were there I'd wash out your mouth with soap! You claim the most recent attempts to backtest your methods are f'ed up. What about the guys from Harvard who came up with air after trying for over a year? Your stuff didn't test out in 1999 Jack Hershey's Method Doesn't Work, and here's how far they got more than a year later. Excerpt: I don't understand why it's not possible to verify such a successful futures trading system if it is based on objective rules. My own attempts to automate the system have been frustrated at every turn by an enormous problem that is apparently only resolvable by gut instinct: when to let it ride. Jack gives instructions sometimes to get out at congestion, but other times this congestion may really just be a temporary jumble before the market continues its previous direction. Of course, if we move to a higher fractal, this jumble won't look so much like a jumble and we can ex post justify a decision not to sideline. But I cannot figure out an objective system for determining ex ante which fractal to make decisions on. Eerily reminiscent of today if you ask me. But backtesting aside, why did nwbprop go down in flames even with all your personal coaching? Was he a f-up too? And what about this trading contest where you returned -24%? Was that also f'ed up? Hmmmmm. So many questions...
People do not trade baselines. Why do people not trade baselines? Baselines are not for trading. Baselines are a reference for setting up a system based upon improvements. This base line on the 30 minute chart has several features that relate to trends, bar length and having a relationship between entries and exits. The post you copied from the year 2000 was focussed on several market elements that were of interest to a diverse group of people who knew about how the markets work, knew about market variables and knew a lot of statisitcal tools. So far you are thinking that the base line is a way to make money and so you are doing it once in a while. Actually you didn't trade it using money in a real account at all. And you do not get what was posted in the post you copied and put into ET along side some other comments taken from other times and places. We were lucky to have jerry chime in with his list and to have a backtester chime in too. Now you are doing the theme jeryy started with his SCT shit comment. The base line is a turd. you suggest two trader techniques to deal with the turd: 1. Chrome plating, and 2. Polishing. I suggested three. Maybe you might think up another to stay even with me six years back. The three were: 2. slope pairs of bars. 3. overlapped pairs slopes 4. retracement. There is a chart that is used for 2 and 3. the 4. does not need a special chart. 2. Introduces channels as a concept. and the slope is used to project into the future a region in which the next bar will be forming if the slope of the trend continues. 3. Uses two interleaved charts that are both 30 minute charts but the 30 minute bars of one chart are offset 15 minutes from the other chart. One chart started at :20 after the hour and the other started at 35 after the hour. Both have 30 minutes bars. Here two slopes give two channels each offset by 15 minutes from the other. For 2 the region of future price movement is simple and it provides a space that can be seen as favorable for continuing to make money. There is also a space defined outside of the space for making money. What gives when this is considered? Gerry doesn't know. You are polishing turds. And the backtester is found to have been bullshittting about backtesting the parts of this yet one more time. 2. Serves to divided the future into two zones (think trading in the zone). This introduces a concept that I will call the one after the first three I gave jerry to think about. He is gone from this thread by now. The concept, 4, introduces "continuation" and "change". The space inside is where "continuation" occurs and the space outside is where "change" occurs. You do not recognize these two elements as the two predications of the P, V relationship stated as Boolean algebra and not stated as probability and statisitcs of gaming. I do and so do a lot of others. 3. serves to narrow the space that is the continuation space and to broaden the space that is the change space. By now all of this is much turdier for you and more SCT shitty of jerry. for me it is a better situation from the baseline and when I compare performance of each of 2 and 3 they make more money than the baseline. Why? Because the rules have changed for the better and now there are no (zero) arbitrary rules. You don't get this and by now there are more individual parts to backtest that also fail individually and none of this is on jerry's list either. So I have three people still fucking up and fucking up more in different ways. 4. says retraces. It is about movement in the space. Di you ever wonder where FTT comes from? No you didn't. you are polishing chrome plated turds instead.
for those who don't have the time to go through the details i filtered out what is the substance of this rather long post of somebody who obviously is one of the most valuable contributors to these boards as he proved once again here. as you can see - this is pretty much information for one single post - but reading it several times you may find the red line. the above seems to be the kernel of his potential. **************************** what we have here is definitely a well balanced person who is for sure stable enough to trade the financial futures day by day. a person who is open minded and can bear some criticism from time to time. a person who doesn't hesitate to show his real ego occasionally
I guess I was attracted to the "Deadwood" comment. Jack may not remember but the last time someone (I) commented this way, Chicken Little decided to initiate a denial of service attack on this site. Apparently if you say the wrong thing to this poster he has a special way of bringing the conversation to a halt. It is his version of an internet "temper tantrum". Strangely enough my current method seems to be similar to Jack's. I hesitate to say this because until recently I have not thought of it in these terms. I follow a "decision tree" that is similar to the one I read here. However I base my decisions on the status of price on several fractals. Oddly I get a much different result than has been suggested (-24%) here. If there is a "turd" here "Chicken Parts" that funny smell is probably coming from your part of the world. Look out folks, the sky is falling! Steve