ROTFLMAO, cough, cough, uh, shit! - I have to leave you guys alone, can't concentrate while laughing and crying my eyes out.
OK, so this debate is finally over. The method that produces zero losing trades popped out a loser on it's first live call. Can we close the thread now?
That was my call, not Jack's. The first trade was anticipated, and the second trade produced a profit which took the account to breakeven. *** If you guys are judging something based on 2 live calls on ET, (while actually doing none of your own) you're not too bright. Bye, Jimmy Jam
Certainly not bright enough to understand anticipating a losing trade. Especially with a system that has no losing trades. BTW, I have over two years worth of live trades posted.
And 24,000 trades on X amount in capital lost 17 bucks each. Would an ordinary back tester use a statisitical approach than would state the results in a comprehensive way? We know so far that if the trades were done in the opposite direction (contrarian) that they also lose money. Two back tests using opposite entries both generate a negative equity curve. Perhaps stating the back testing results would be helpful. That way what the equity curve represents could be related to back testing. What is still missing from the report out is what he did. That may help to know. My guess is that he did something with some amount of capital to be able to get the loss as he covered the waterfront. Another thread, just started, takes up failure and its consequences. I wonder what the consequence is of failing at back testing? Is the example trader666? A lot of people offered him assistance and he was unable to accept it.
Yes, he deserves credit for answering the challenge. Most of the trades I post are losers, probably about seven out of ten. I position trade stocks. My posts are on another message board, I just recently moved my "office" to here when I found this site in a google search. I like it a lot, except for this never ending Heshey debate. The debate could be brought to a close if the Hershey proponents just answer the challenge like Jimmy did today. Win or lose, it doesn't matter as long as the challenge is answered. I would do it if I were in their shoes.
I don't know how backtesting works. It is something I am trying to get a handle on. The initial results formed a baseline for me. Idid figure out that the way backtesting was set up affects the results. Right now there is just one order of magnitude difference in the results of different people do the same thing. I was hoping to see how iterative refinement worked as well but that opportunity has passed us by.
Show me where, in Jack's document (attached), that he said which portfolio to trade. He didn't which implies it works on all stocks, so I chose 1000 over a 5 year period. If the method had ANY merit, the equity curve wouldn't be this bad! You Hershey apologists are so predictable... whenever anyone shows how poorly Jack's "methods" perform, you always throw in additional requirements that didn't exist when the method was originally proposed.