You shouldn't easily classify everything that doesn't apply to you as bs. Before that I tried everything else like TA, trendfollowing etc. So, I have some experience and insight into this stuff.
Small account vs big account: - trading with small account is more risky than with a big account, seen percentually - trading with a big account gives more flexibility, more possibilities, more safety (cushion), than with a small account - trading with big account leads to a smooter equity curve, ie. drawdowns are small; the opposite is true with small accounts, it's all simple maths - On a sociological level it can explain why riches get richer and the poor get poorer
Except when you can return 1000%/year with a 5% drawdown. Then big account vs small account is meaningless. 60k becomes 6Bn in 5 years.
Correlation is a huge issue especially when the market suddenly achieves extremely high correlation. It's easy to get great results for normal market conditions. Since it was simulated data with many (intraday?) trades, the spread would eat either most of the profits or turn the whole strategy into a loser. You're essentially selling something that still needs a lot of work to even prove profitability, never mind 1000% returns.
He's using geometric brownian motion for his stock sample. He's using black scholes pricing for his options pricing. It's obvious that there are at least one of 2 very basic flaws in his model. It's obvious system has not been vetted in anyway and he's looking for hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions for it.
Simply not true, because not every value can be traded equally or easily. In this system a starting position is limited to maximally $25k as a higher order would negatively impact the market. The solution would be to trade more (different) titles, but that too is limited. Ok, then one can add some more titles from foreign exchanges, but that too is limited... Ie. to get a smooth equity curve with small drawdowns (small risk) one need to trade multiple titles. So, there are some real constraints...
I cannot think of a better model than what was used in the system. If you know better, let me know pls. No, I'm not asking for millions. It is up to the customer who want to trade his account with this system. The bigger his account is the better it is regarding absolute profits, smooth equity curve, small drawdown (aka small risk) etc. An account of size 600k is IMO an ideal size, for bigger accounts more titles would need to be traded, and this could mean adding some more exchanges. I'm asking only for 15% to 20% (negotiable) of the profits the system makes.
The system does not make use of any correlation in the market. So its task is then even harder... As was stated, the system works with intraday data. To speed things up 702 bars/day was used (about 33.33 seconds/bar; in the next version this has been changed to 780 bars/day giving a round 30-sec bars). The system uses limit orders, not market orders. I'm offering the results of my research. Yes, there is still some work todo to connect this to the exchange, as was stated in the offer, and because I cannot know in advance which of the many APIs the customer has to connect to the exchange/broker. Regarding the results: I would say they are very real. One just needs to apply the system nearly 1:1 to the market. And this is possible.
Just wondering whether the above " Highest Daily Gain of AV " and " Highest Daily Loss of AV " would be actually " Weekly Gain / Loss " data!
No, it is really daily. And you can verify it in the XLS/CSV file by opening it with Excel or LibreOffice-Calc. The column name for daily win/loss is named "dayPLpct" (column O). MAX and MIN functions were used to get them, ie. these values are the extremes, ie. outliers; the majority is just about 1% per day on average (--> Avg Daily Rate of Return). The XLS file has additionally the above calculation and 2 charts (Profit-Curve and InvestedPct-Curve) at the end. Or did you mean to have the weekly values of these?