Sadly, JimmyJam, like his name, is so dumb that he doesn't understand the meaning of either "quote" or "blurb." That makes his inability to understand and his fawning worship of Jack more understandable.
EXACTLY! So that was your first mistake in assuming what you chose would be sufficient. That's why he had many posts like this one here. It talks about what those conditions are! You can see how they are none of the conditions that you tested. Mistake #2. The document speaks nothing of edges! There are ZERO occurances of "0 to 7 shift" being an edge. Mistake #3. See Mistake #1 which gives an example of where the author of the original document specifies conditions. Mistake #4. See Mistake #3. MON AMI! The facts on how you screwed it up. Only the facts according to T6. FACT. You did not construct a portfolio that was specified by the author of the original document. FACT. You chose portfolios that were never specified in the original document. FACT. All of your backtest results were negative. MON AMI! There are many documents which have been amended from the original. Even the document you claim is an original is in fact NOT an original. Take for example, the US CONSTITUTION. It has been amended numerous times. The amendments are typically improvements on the original document. One of those amendments to the constitution gave me the right to vote. According to the original US CONSTITUTION, I would not have the right to vote. Why anyone would choose to stick their head in the sand and ignore that which they could do to get favorable results is beyond most everyone. Many have reasoned that at this point, you can never show any agreement with any aspect of that document simply because you would then be hypocritical. However, you have revealed how remote your logic is (ie. not choosing to use CONDITIONS that would yield a positive EQ curve). So it goes! However, you have done a SUPERB job of clarifying all of your flaws and how it is that you got your results. Had you never responded, you wouldn't have exposed your reasoning flaws. But, you have, and it has many uses that credit what you have not done and how two backtests using the same document and code can arrive at different results; one that is desired as opposed to one that is not desired... HAHA... For others, AHA...
Jack named his document "Catch Up with Tomorrow's Paper Today" and advocates buying the "0 to 7 shift" of the "P,V relation." Doesn't that imply there should be an edge in doing so? I guess not when backtesting shows it's worthless and you're forced to resort to doublespeak to defend your master, Jack. Jack did NOT say anything in the original document about which stocks to trade this on, so I tested it mostly on random baskets of listed U.S. stocks and then the S&P stocks which is reasonable. What you guys did, which was to add a boatload of additional conditions AFTER THE FACT, is overfitting and is NOT reasonable. THANK YOU FOR TOTALLY EXPOSING YOURSELF AS A DESPERATE, ILLOGICAL HERSHEY APOLOGIST. ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN WHO READS THIS POST OF MINE: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1401833#post1401833 AND THEN YOUR TWISTED, PATHETIC "REBUTTAL" WILL SEE THIS WITH CRYSTAL CLARITY: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1402231#post1402231
We are just getting the facts straight! You chose a portfolio of your own choosing and not one that was recommended by the author of the original document. You have done a SUPERB job of adding your own conditions that were not recommended as opposed to the conditions that the author recommended. If your cars says "UNLEADED GASOLINE" only, do you use DIESEL??? You are well aware of GIGO. There is a reason that a car specifies which type of gas to use and it is so that the user of the vehicle doesn't screw it up by using the wrong input. If you post about how you used the wrong type of fuel and then hoot and holler about how you never got to point B, it ends up looking nonsensical when all you have to do is use the right fuel. VERY SIMPLE FIX! It might even be TOO SIMPLE! Dare I say, SPM simple! He also did not say to use "random baskets of listed U.S. stocks and then the S&P stocks". As for the conditions that get results that are opposite your results, you seam to miss the part where it has been stated over and over AGAIN THAT THESE WERE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR RECOMMENDED. It is bitter sweet mon ami! Very bitter, very sweet. So like Beyonce's phrase "to the left, to the left", according to the polls, a few us are taking things "to the bank, to the bank".... HMMMM!
T28, will you give me permission to improve SPM??? ... Stop being lazy and use the search feature. Everyone else does!
It's all here for anyone with a brain to see: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1401833#post1401833 Is this your propaganda model BTW? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie