Predicting is ***Unavoidable***

Discussion in 'Strategy Building' started by aeliodon, Mar 5, 2007.

  1. cnms2

    cnms2

    T...666,

    I'm sure you have a brain, and that you're convinced you're right, but so did these people too: quotes.

    "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" Sammuel Clemmens (Mark Twain)

    Obviously this can apply to both sides of any argument, but in this case your fervor to prove Jack wrong is a clear clue.

    Cheers!
     
    #391     Mar 19, 2007
  2. Let's look a little closer at your post...
    Yes please note how the "A Team" Approach used ADDITIONAL conditions that Jack, the documents original author, recommended in several of his subsequent posts.

    SO for redundancy...

    You are absolutely correct mon ami. What we do have is several posts, like this one, BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR might I add, that describes what types of portfolios to use. You have fabulously demonstrated what types of portfolios don't work! So, for anyone starting down the trail, it is good for them, to learn from what you did, and begin where you left off by using recommend portfolios as opposed to T6 like portfolios which gave him results like...

    https://www.elitetrader.com/et/attachments/the-turd-jpg.30579/

    By using the portfolios constructed from recommended conditions that were found in subsequent posts, you get an EQ curve that looks more like this...

    https://www.elitetrader.com/et/attachments/6monthbacktest-jpg.39201/

    Ultimately, it is up to the trader as to whether they prefer a negative EQ curve over a positive EQ curve. I always assumed most traders preferred positive EQ curves. It is hard to find an instance where a negative EQ curve is preferred. But so has been the path of T6...

    To the bank, or not to the bank! That is the question... The choice is the trader's. If the trader prefers T6's EQ curve, do as he has done. If the trader does not prefer T6's EQ curve, begin where he left off or jump to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATION.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2019
    #392     Mar 19, 2007
  3. "Sammuel Clemmens?" LOL! You'd do well to heed your own advice (that you lifted from Samuel Clemens)

    But then again, you boys are experts at making fools of yourselves...
     
    #393     Mar 19, 2007
  4. cnms2

    cnms2

    This proved the way your brain works: you're superficial and rigid, you see the form but don't see the content. You picked only the "mm"s, and you were content with yourself. You're a loser.
     
    #394     Mar 19, 2007
  5. Let me get this straight: you're so incredibly ignorant that you can't spell "Samuel" or "Clemens" and I'm a loser? You're such a fool that you're one of Jack's bootlicking toadies and I'm a loser?
     
    #395     Mar 19, 2007
  6. I hate to break it to you but a backtest with only 111 trades of a system with as many ADDITIONAL conditions as you've added (see link below that YOU gave me) is WORTHLESS.
    http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=593276&#post593276
     
    #396     Mar 19, 2007
  7. Tums

    Tums

    T666:

    I am curious to find out: How much is Jack paying you to make all these posts ?
     
    #397     Mar 19, 2007
  8. cnms2

    cnms2

    Yep.
     
    #398     Mar 19, 2007
  9. Well at least you admit that you're an ignorant, bootlicking toady!
     
    #399     Mar 19, 2007
  10. cnms2

    cnms2

    So this is the way your logic works ...
    You ask if you're a loser, I reply "yep", and you conclude ...
    I've touched a cord: you new it ...
     
    #400     Mar 19, 2007