C2`s realism factor is flawed somehow. The system only trades heavy volume ETF`s that offer zero to .01 slippage during my live trades. Yet somehow it wont up my score. Doesnt matter though. My pnl is realistic enough in the live account. I will not be renewing the c2 sub after the 6 month period is over. It is not worth the effort for the minimal income it may or may not produce.
That is like saying eating natural foods will be a guarantee you will live longer and then you make a habit of walking in the middle of the street and get hit by a bus. The analysis is only as good as the accuracy of the data and the environment it is based on. Then you have to have a person that can use it with some common sense & consistency. It is absolutely understandable why people continuously state that TA is garbage. Garbage in . . . Garbage out.
Missed this post. PM me the name of your C2 system and I will take a look. That will not be "advertising" I am already familiar with C2 systems, as well as TimerTrac and others... The stats are only part of the picture. The track record, equity curve, choice of instruments are also part of a system's "success."
A system lacking any real substantiation (sorry, there were the classic "accolades" or "testimonials") is not the kind of thing one should be using as proof of ability. How about your audited track record (not your backtest results) or broker statements? Just your focus on 2 corvettes and (I believe earlier, a "Lambo") shows a person who needs attention. Promotional materials with pictures or mentions of expensive cars, homes, exotic locations, or men surrounded with women -- in association with someone trying to portray "success" -- is a rather antiquated and juvenile approach. "Connect the dots, wouldn't you like to have all THIS?" Sounds like another Jeff Paul, MLM or Ken Roberts...
The study builds on prior work. Everyone notices that five rule families were used for classifying rules. One of the rule families couldn't be used with the MSCI, however. The daily averages for developed and non developed classifications were ranked by order of performance, thus 0.11 was compared to 0.05. It was noted that the 0.11 was achieved under higher risk. I thought back to another study (2004) which was a study of studies. I regarded this as notewothy because it also, naturally, built on other studies. One way or another about 36,000 rules have been taken into account. STW (1999) emerge as the rule family trend setters (small lol). Filter rules Moving Average rules Support and Resistance Rules Channel Breakout rules survived for examination. The set that did not, unfortunately, involved volume. Volume is not included in the MSCI which had such a universal appeal to the researchers. It has not been around long either and Greecian data started five days late. The excellent use of RC, SPA and FDR must have made the work even more incisive. Exits were of interest to me as they were to all of you. They cut losses using a % rule and they used the now familiar Trader666 time out rule as well (See words "fixed number of periods"). This thread may be addressing the state of the art of TA research; the thread may not. I use TA exclusively and I do not use any rules in the four accepted (used for research) rule families. I use a one pager for trading equities and there are three rules, all volume based timing rules. A priori, is the Universe selection which is based upon equity quality where quality is an overall performance characteristic that has one FA and one TA primary characteristic. The result is a Sharpe ratio over 60 as measured by one of the largest equity data suppliers in the world. Presently there are no data suppliers or platform renters who have any significant function libraries that can be used to construct TA trading systems. Most suppliers, until recently, were not able to monitor the quality of their data, meaning they could not determine when it was in error. The paper which is the subject of this thread had staff that did not have data nor function libraries as they stated or inferred. My contention is simply this: To determine the performance of TA, both FA and TA data are required. To process data, function libraries are required. IF these requirements are absent, THEN no conclusions may be reached. TA deals with three facets of markets: 1. the market status (operating point) 2. market signals in the context of the market operating point, and 3. the combined influences of the significant fractals each of which contain 1. and 2. What would research on investing and/or trading methodologies be like if the market's continuing offer were taken into account. Compare the test trade results in the paper to the time the market was operating and the cummulative offer of the markets during that period. In effect, the research was on the sidelines during RTH's. The market's offer is measured by price change over time. There are many concurrent fractals demonstrating this in observable ways on each tradeable fractal. Lets take a day and examine when and how the rule set families were used in conjunction with RC, SPA and FDR. Daily data was used so that approach is out. Only multi day periods were examined as shown by the results tables. What is, then, the capability of filter family rules with multiday trading? The filter rules apply to ranges with respect to prior extremes. This lagging requirement is biased to a great degree. Furthrmore, this possible trending measure is terminated by NOT using trending family rules. The moving average family also lags the extreme values. Do moving average rules come into play only when trending (they do not apply to trending) goes to consolidation? What about vice versa? No results during this shift because the MA's lag even more. The support and resistance family was used for only half the TA situations, conditions and circumstances. Strange to set up such a bias under research conditions. Why would only rule tests be limited to breakouts (going more extreme) of R or S. The channel aspect was the least effective. The rules employed dropped down to 1/5 of the channel rule set family main subgroups. Here the exit measurements were abysmal or worse. The paper at least owes a set of data on the correlation of entry and exit rule families. The correlation will be negative more likely. By eliminating a portfolio of strategies, this is like not having a global variable capability on a platform. It also created a negative corrolation with entries and exits. At some point non stationarity has to come into the picture vis a vis what may or may not constitute a profit segment. since they disregard or do not know this, they throw out any possibility of examining rules. something serious has to succeed RC, SPA and FDR. Here are some easily examined ommissions in this paper. 1. Not dealing with the impact of internals on time outs and shifts criteria. 2. Omitting the consequences of volatility changes. 3. Using prior research results to eliminate patterns (that are associated with all four rule families that were included). 4. No functions were used aside from the simplest MA functions. 5. Not using any aspect of market sentiment. 6. Using an incomplete index which only contained one of the two market variables. This paper failed this year as a final and last year as a working paper. There is little that can be done to turn the work effort into anything meaningful. It is fortunate that it has no circulation. ET doesn't take on the designing of research or modelling markets. Any historical analysis of the evolution of the ET forums shows that this sort of thing will be a long time coming. By comparing Krugman's paper (06SEP09) to the extrodinary bias of the Park, Irwin (review) 2004)) you get to see the miserable state of TA research. Induction is never going to hack it. How things work is based on science instead.
That would explain why you have constantly run away from the many dozens of people over the years who asked for proof of your returns (frankly, based on your constant claims & ramblings that have misled so many newbies. Now we see why...
Garbage is something mark brown should know a lot about. What is the name of the webpage u use to rip off the unsuspecting?