Reply to Rcanfiel Everybody trades a system such as: 1. Buy all of Cramer's recommendations 2. Buy Trading systems but quit at the 1st drawdown 3. Trade markets based on CNBC news clips 4. Trade based on How good or bad one feels. 5. Warren Buffet approach 5. Trade systems based on the mathematics of the market using trading filters. These are all systems and yes, 80% of all traders lose for one reason or another no matter what system or approach they use. All a mechanical or systematic approach does is attempt to give you an edge. Many systems do that. The overriding factor for success is money management. The CTA business is a $50 billion plus business and most of them use a systematic or filtering approach. I have been looking at the mechanical approach for many years and I seldom see or develop a system that does not have flat or negative performance for 6-18 months. How many people with a $50,000 account can sit thru that period of time without switching to the newest or latest system? I do thank Rcanfiel for his comments. However, some of his comments are simply not true. John Hill
i believe J. Hill does develop systems---- in addition to his consumer reports type reviews--- and has written a book concerning such: http://www.futurestruth.com/StockTrendingProgram.pdf http://www.futurestruth.com/ http://www.amazon.com/Building-Winn...1398555?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184161735&sr=1-1 surf
Everybody trades a system such as: 1. Buy all of Cramer's recommendations 2. Buy Trading systems but quit at the 1st drawdown 3. Trade markets based on CNBC news clips 4. Trade based on How good or bad one feels. 5. Warren Buffet approach 5. Trade systems based on the mathematics of the market using trading filters. John: you forgot about my dart throwing appraoch.
It is a shame that this thread has been reduced to this. It started as a discussion of one of my systems as evaluated by a third party. It seems like me discussing Futures Truth as my independent third party source caused a lot of strong feelings on this thread. People felt that the problem with Future Truth was that systems which are ranked high often fail very quickly after receiving that ranking and people blamed Futures Truth for that. Some people said that Collective2 is better , because it used simulated trading results. Well, one thing which was not said about collective2 was that they charge for listing your system and if you sell signals they get a 30% cut. That fine, but to me that puts their status as a independent source it question. When you look at their list of systems it looks like the systems listed there work long term. This is because if your a system vender you will stop paying to list your system if it stops working or if it's in a drawdown. This causes bad system to disappears from the list and they are forgotten. If bad system disappear because the developer stops paying to list them, of course only good systems seem like they appear on the collective2 list. The commercial system industry needs third party verification to help customers decide what systems are worth purchasing. The point is to give the customers unbiased information. You might say that backtesting based evaluation is not as good as the autotrack type approach of collective2, because it uses better estimates for slippage and commissions. Well collective2 has problems because it is not a totally independent evaluation because they profit from sales of the systems signals. I am trying to just discuss the facts. I know someone who sells their systems on collective2 will attack me for what I said here,with something stupid. Let's try to keep these threads to constructive conversation and facts. It will be better for everyone involved.
on the contrary, collective2 charges nothing for potential subscribers to see a lot of superb statistics on a system. They don't have to take the publisher's word on it. FuturesTruth gives minimalist info that cannot be discerned unless you pay a price. And the success track record is not so hot. I would rank FT down the list compared to C2, TimerTrac, TimerDigest, and Hulberts. I would take C2 ten ways to Sunday over FuturesFuzzyTruth...
No one asked for you to "make it simple." Perhaps you would care to publish the wonderful results of the success you have trading his systems. Otherwise, I am not particularly interested in your rather contrived and uninformed opinion, in BBB style. I suspect you have no experience trading a FT listed system. I am speaking from considerable experiences of traders who have gone the FuturesTruth path and have lodged considerable complaints about their results. Your last post yesterday was 4 minutes after I posted and interfered with an edit I tried to make. Do you sit around in front of your computer, waiting for people to respond to your threads of interest?
Well , I think charging the people to buy the reports is more independent than charging the vendors. Just my view on this issue. They have to make money and charging for the reports is a good model. I guess you like infomercial better than consumer reports because consumer reports makes you pay for the reports.
Quote "Your last post yesterday was 4 minutes after I posted and interfered with an edit I tried to make. Do you sit around in front of your computer, waiting for people to respond to your threads of interest?" ---------------------------- Sir or Madam No ET member is able to interfere with your ability to edit YOUR posts, and frankly I have very little interest in your rambling unfocused commentary. In my opinion, this is just one example of your natural paranoia. If as I suspect you believe we are all trying to "get you", perhaps this would be the time to obtain the advice of a medical professional. Good luck with all of that... Steve
Who said "paranoia"? I said it is sad that you are able to post 4 minutes after I did, as if you sit around waiting for issues on ET to appear. You need to get a life. Adding in random words like "get you" is a just a boring deflection on your part. Regarding the edit, when someone responds to a poster, it apparently forces an in-process edit to create a new post instead. But I am not interested in how you will twist this psychologically.