If MR is a sponsor, then he should say so clearly. There are too many charlatans pumping their stuff here. It is the responsiblity of the poster to declare his credentials, not depending on readers to know that having a signature line makes you so.
In the old days I frequently ripped into a lot of vendors on these boards. I don't like people who make fantastic claims that are unsubstantiated like Jack Hershey. But when a vendor is willing to educate for free at the same time selling software or a system - what more do you want a vendor to do. When a guy like murray comes on here and divulges as much as he has about systems development (although obviously not everything) why give the guy such a hard time. I have purchased nothing from him ever. I spoke to him on the phone in the late 90s when I considered combining his cycle work with the floor traders pivots. I probably should have paid him to help me develop some systems but I was not comfortable with excel at the time. I would bet I could do some very interesting stuff with his cycle code and my favorite entries. We all know the einstein crack was over the top, I think he sort of said it was not really his choice. I think it would be a shame to chase a good vendor like him off et.
You are correct, a marketing company which I was under contract with , did a mailing using it which they released without giving me final approval. It was early in my career and everyone back then remembered it and it did not have the negative effects of today. It was a different time then.
Let's me discuss a few issues about trading systems and third party verification. First I really don't understand the problems with Future Truth. Everyone is saying that after a system is listed high in Future Truth it stop working. Well I think that deals with the nature of many systems. In some markets like the S&P500 unless the system is adaptive it will have a shelf life of of one to three years. The question is what happens after that. If the system just breaks even and then a few years later start working again then fine. This happened to systems based which were based on intermarket relationship between the S&P500 with bonds for example. If your trading systems which are static and not dynamic in some way , then you need to realize this and trade them while they are working and then stop trading them when you see shifts within the systems footprint. Another issue about systems which are adaptive and dynamic is long term performance historically will not be as stellar as more fixed system, because of the shifting nature of the system being adaptive. This was the case for my standard simple adaptive channel breakout which Future Truth did a story on based on my original system published in 1996. They showed it was profitable all this time, not amazing but consistant. The problem is consistant does not sell. If vendors started to just do what right and sell good system even if it takes years for people to see they are good because they make money after release this industry would be better off. I looked at Collective2, First most systems are have not been tracked for a long period of time. Many systems in Future Truth have been tracked for 10 year or more. Second you pay to have your system listed in Collective2, This to me smells like conflict of interest, how would you feel about consumers report if they charge the vendor for articles about given product ?. In terms of rip off artists who charge big money for system. I have always tried to be fair. I sold this bonus pack for $399.00 with four systems and I am getting a hard time like I am trying to get $3000.00 for it. At the price I am selling it for , I don't think you could even have these systems programmed for this price with the rules written in an article. I see nothing wrong with buying trading systems as long as they are disclosed and based on strong concepts and using them as a starting point to build your own systems if you don't want to trade them as is. The question is what is your time worth. When I build a new trading system , the complete process can take 3 or 4 months of work. If your time is worth let's say even $50.00 a hour , then you could have $25,000 in time in developing one system. You can see buying 2-3 fully disclosed ones for $1000.00 each and using that at a starting point could be more cost effective. The SuperTurtle is a adaptive systems and I believe will long term continue to work. That does not mean it will not have any flat periods. Flat periods and drawdowns which occur after periods of profitability is the nature of the game. Even my trend harmony system which is adaptive to market condition by uses previous swings point and the range between them to set buy and sell order is more adaptive than 90% of the system on the market. A new generation of systems need to have parameters fold out of the market or, adaptive to the market either using cycle or statistical analysis. This next generation of systems will have a better shelf life than previous generations. This is where my current research is headed, and as you can see an area I have researched for almost a dozens years. It's where you should head if you want to develop your own systems.
This is an incredibly valid question. Instead of charging a few hundred bucks and getting torn apart here trying to peddle the product, setup a CTA and take a percentage of all the gains! ! ! That is a no brainer if this is in fact as good as being advertised. Great question bjl!
Its a silly question because the answer is so damn obvious. What is interesting is the way that IQ's have dropped so dramatically around here. Public money demands performance. If you have a track record that is good part of the time and crap part of the time, no one is going to trust you with their money. Contrary to the prior comment(s), consistency IS what (smart) people want in terms of performance, both with systems, and with investments. Finally the issue of "adaptive" systems is just so much bullshit. Several years ago I pointed out that commercially available systems were never going to make money in the long term, simply because the developers themselves DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY ARE DOING. ONE MORE TIME...MARKETS CYCLE BETWEEN STATIONARY BEHAVIOR AND RANDOM BEHAVIOR. Sharp people (employed by the top institutions know this and they have developed modular systems that are able to measure the changes, standing aside or changing/modifying strategy during these times. Its expensive and very difficult to do, and clearly none of the current crop of commercial developers have the skills. The idea that you are going to pay one of these guys for a system that consistently makes money in all market conditions is just laughable..Keep on dreaming...there is only one way to get there and that is to run multiple systems and on a portfolio of markets. Diversification is the only way to handle it currently and most of you folks don't have the money or the skills to pull it off. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I aint Santa Claus and this aint the Tastee Freeze..Wake up. Steve
You know most of you folks spew a lot of hot air. Mr. Ruggierio has decent systems. He likes to sell them. He probably likes to work with other traders, helping them to become successful. To ask why he doesn't want to be a CTA is ridiculous, and probably none of your business. This board tends to through anyone to the lions without asking even one intelligent question. Probably because they are losing traders themselves. I don't trade his systems as I have my own, but it would be refreshing if posters would show some respect for people who pursue their passions in their own way.
As much as I agree with your philosophy regarding this topic, the peddler in question does indeed pay to advertise his wares here on ET. As much as I despise charlatans, this particular seller was within his the right to post here. With all due respect, if that offends you, take it up with the headmaster. That being said , anything he posts here is indeed fair game for rebuttal. st
Your ASSinine ASSumption notwithstanding, fleecing the unsuspecting is fine with you, as long as it is done with "passion." Thanks for clearing that up! st