Quite the opposite actually, as I got sidetracked for a while, but, glad to say my head is now back exactly where it was before my sidetracking, and I must thank ye monkeys for my speedy recovery When you actually see the idiots you are trading against talking, it confirms how thick they really are, and enforces the required mindset that is required when trading against monkeys. If you think I am joking, just read what you actually write J_S
Likely just a manufactured good excuse in order to attract low-knowledge investors, imo! Not a new trick on ET at all!
This isn't proof of anything. It is not shocking that a system designed with terrible entries will produce terrible results. If you don't know where to enter, how in the hell can you know where to exit?
What everyone seems to have missed .... How does one get the results of over 400,000 individual trades, by only running 100's of tests? How does one test individual trades with an aggregate? Typical, Durf hyperbole...
Wow, great to see that even after Surfs report thread has been moved to the garbage area, he can still pollute ET better than anyone else. I think people need to realize that when arguing with Surf, you are arguing with a guy who has blown out trading a few times and never "got it". He's a failed trader who "writes" about it now. Of course he's gonna say stops are bad. He lost at trading every time without using stops. Guys who trade without stops (or at least a price area that they will get out of a loss no matter what) all end up blowing out. I have seen it tons of times over the last 20+ years. It's not rocket science here. They end up holding losing positions way too long and either have a series of a few huge losers wipe them out, or one gigantic one. It amazes me at times that traders who have blown out will come on here and defend their crappy views on risk management: "Stops are bad for performance". Really.......how about trades where your losers are 10 times bigger than your winners? How does that work for the performance. Again, consider the source here guys. The OP is a failed trader. Thank you and good day.
The Stock Tip. 1990 Seinfeld episode. Jerry lost, he was stopped out. -- While George cleaned up. http://www.crackle.com/seinfeld/2483704
This is bizzare reasoning One test can be run on a data base of 400,000 trades OR 1000 tests can be run on the same data. I don't get your point. surf
It's the results of an empirical study. You can believe it or not. man, your town was a zoo last night for st patty day. Insanity!
Not bizarre at all, no parameters were given (proprietary and all) How is anyone to determine how 400,000 trades can be tested accurately with only a few hundred tests... let alone what "hurts" implies... I would gladly give up a percentage of profit, if I can decrease my chance of ruin... But then again, generalizations... can't be confirmed or denied... as is typical