objective testing, mr. dow, objective testing of your claims. you have the rules, you sell the seminars, you made the claims. you are cowering from objective testing by sprouting bravado and inane, meaningless challenges. why?? surfer
I trade exactly what you have stated without excel and statistics. Time . . . I'll say. I took me 10 years to develop how I trade. More time than 90% of most individuals in this forum devoted to any singular career or research path.
Oh, I have absolutely no problem with having how I trade "objectively" tested. I just want to humiliate you first. I don't know why you are so scared to trade side by side with me. I don't bite. I giggle a lot though. After I post the journal in February, I will be more than glad to have someone of your choosing sit with me so I can show them how I trade. I'm sure we could work out the particulars. What's it like be constantly confused by common sense and everyday happenings? The so called skills you obtained somewhere to report objectively somewhere became a train wreck.
OK, submit your system to murray , futures truth, or even collective2 ( not an ideal testing ground, but it will do in this case) but, you will not, will you? prefering to sling mud, make personal attacks, and generally make a buffoon of yourself. your logical trading system appears to be a subjective system, otherwise, you would have no issue with testing . LOL ! surfer
No Problem. I'll contact Murray for us to get together in March. After I post the statements in here. I'm really looking forward to it. You have no clue what the terms "objective" or "subjective "mean. And to remind you, the mud began in 2004 with your relentless mud slinging. It's just that you whine too much when the mud gets thrown back at you.
Eek... Predicting is NOT POSSIBLE. You realize that a prediction is like a forecast. Weathermen predict tommorrows forecast. I just look out the window at what's happening right now. When I look out the window and see that it is raining, I make the statement "It is raining". That statement can be verified that it is "ACCURATE" since anyone else can look out their window and see what is happening. When it rains, I head out with the appropriate equipment. When it's sunny, I head out with different equipment. When it's cold, I wear different equipment, etc... Here you make an interesting phrase which I had to pull out of context. Establishing "what the market won't do" is VERY POWERFUL. Why? Because you have then eliminated a possibility. In other words, you are monitoring a smaller set of possibilities. Somehow, you still miss the point that the precision of a market turn is IRRELEVANT. Again, the difference between reading and predicting is simple. The predicting thingy is curious about what is happening this evening, tommorrow, this weekend, etc... We all know that forecasters are prone to errors. How often did a forecast fail to be accurate? How many times did your eyes fail to accurately read what was happening outside right now. Well then, that should clue in traders that if they were just prepared for what's happening now, then their consistency would increase. Who cares what's happening tommorrow if what's happening now will be very different from tommorrow... MAK!
GEEZ you strike me as a moron. Of course you are making a prediction every time you put on a trade otherwise you are just reading what happened in the past.
Surf, like I said, you seem to be a nice guy and we have chatted over the years...so I don't like to do this but...it just calls for it. If you are willing to back up what you say, just trade against the Prof. The setup seems like a fair challenge to me, there is nothing "inane" about it. Stop evading and hiding behind the "objective testing" and all this garbage. The first and foremost test of a methodology is quite simple in my mind: can you consistently make more money with your system than the challenger or can't you? If you can. then maybe you are on to something... then the next question is: can anybody else do it using your way of looking at the market? (That takes care of the "subjective" part). If you can't, then it is COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS if you can statistically prove that trend following doesn't exist. (I don't care if you are Victor Niederhoffer. Hint: the testing itself is flawed because it does not define "trend" precisely enough). It becomes like the joke of the professor of philosophy who finds a 50 dollar bill on a path at the university campus and then explains to his students that there couldn't be a 50 dollar bill since if it were, probabilty would determine that it would have long ago been picked up by somebody... SO- ARE YOU TRADING IN THE CHALLENGE: a simple YES or NO will do? Anyway, Best regards,