That's quite a retrospective. Where did you manage to find so much duct tape to string it all together? Just one thing, though. My much more modest offering of your choice tidbits was to bring out a specific theme. On the other hand, your attempt at quid pro quo is entirely disjointed and incoherent. I won't say it borders on the abstract, but I suspect it would have even given Jackson Pollock a touch of vertigo.
Your theme proved nothing, in spite of your constant amazement with your own abilities. Conversations with you are like talking to a potted plant. It is fazed neither by what others say or by its own inability to communicate. I make it a general rule not to, but you are now my first ignore. And I am quite sure you will follow on with at least one more clueless comment just to make sure you get the last word.
Thanks for responding to my post. For convenience I copied and pasted it below. In color, I added a couple of comments. Most people familiar with the financial industry do recognize the sub system that has provoked you. It has a great audience and many adherants. On the other hand, the academic community is still in a transition and is also quite fragmented. I observe this from a couple of vantage poiints. One is the usual progression academics make vis a vis grants and associated research. The sequence is: respondiing to RFP's, winning grants, participating in the scene by presentations, then being on panels, then moderating. At some point an academic switches sides and the sequence is: having a GSA contract, writing RFP's, doing reading for publication and for awarding grants, etc.. and writing books and compilations. There are many recognitions and official positions along the way. My conclusions are that you have not done vending nor participated academically either as a contributor nor as a judge. There is also the theme of making money through the use of results of research and study. Putting the acquisition of knowledge and skills through experience is also important as a pathway. What value is linguistics in all of this and how does a tested IQ fit into the picture? You may know as a consequence of your interests. An engineer commented upon his background and it's value for making money. Making money in trading and using TA to do it is a wonderful life experience. It is, perhaps, a unique niche in the infinite scheme of things. The comments I made were intended to be evocative so I could round out my view of you from information that you would supply to me. Thank you. In trading, it is my opinion that people are either on the outside or on the inside. Were we to look at a lot of people doing their various stuff, we would be able to see who was on the outside and who was on the inside. You do not read the P&L. It may be that several posters there are on the inside. Outsiders may not post there. Basically, a successful user of TA in trading, has a set of experiences that can be used to measure what, how, why and where others are located in the spectrum. Being able to construct the spectrum is a concern. My current viewpoint is that the vendors do not comprise the spectrum but occupy only part of it. More revealing, is the nature of academia thus far in the transition. Academia hasn't gotten off the ground as yet. Reading abstracts and then pasting them on a continuum will reveal to anyone why things are the way they are. So will the pasting of NSF RFP's on a continuum. The same can be done with Nobel prize award statements. Where does the answer lie for the TA performance spectrum? It is an iteresting thing to construct from the cold hard reality of how markets work and how the financial industry's rules and the government regulations function. It was a spectacular experience for me, personally, to have a half century of intimate contact with all these facets. My conclusions are that anyone can become very wealthy in a short time using a TA based system to make money. The spectrum of system is quite broad form break even to making the indexes to surpassing the indexes and all the way up to extracting what the market offers effectively, efficiently and optimally. There is no real IQ requirement and the EQ pans out quite normally. as a person goes from breakeven trading to optimal trading, there is a very very major shift in the realization of what a personhas to do to attainknowledge, skills and experience. Learning to learn is paramount and a primary concern is to immediately turn away from anything that is not appropriate. The reason for this admonition and required practice lies in how the mind works. The consequences are clear and, at some point irreversable. People simply deny themselves and unlimited opporunity because of their process of acquiring beliefs and conducting their behavior. A person has an opportunity to go all the way when he is beginning. Gradually, he collects and fits together integral ingredients to make a whole. It is a functioning optimal mechanism for continually extracting what is offered. Why do not people hold each ingredient up to the light and measure its worth, its shape and its size? You have explained how to not do it quite well. Many many ET'ers continue to explain how not to value and evaluate ingredients. There are piles of rubbish all over the place. This thread is a collection center and you own it. As a person begins to learn, he can collect only the jewels. He is at choice. There is no requirement to not make money right from the beginning. In the beginning there are no requirements at all. The field is a completely open playing field. It is the most beautiful trip in the world. From day one, it is very very clear that the money is offered continually. A simple comparison of what is offered to what a family needs, turns out to be in a ratio that is stellar. Way out beyond the moon and sun...just stellar. TA is the perfect bridge for anyone who wants to make as much money as they desire. See the color below. 07-23-07 08:10 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from jack hershey: Give Park and Irwin (2004) a read. They reviewed 92 studies. FROM THEIR ABSTRACT: Among a total of 92 modern studies, 58 studies found positive results regarding technical trading strategies, while 24 studies obtained negative results. Ten studies indicated mixed results. Despite the positive evidence on the profitability of technical trading strategies, it appears that most empirical studies are subject to various problems in their testing procedures, e.g., data snooping, ex post selection of trading rules or search technologies, and difficulties in estimation of risk and transaction costs. Future research must address these deficiencies in testing in order to provide conclusive evidence on the profitability of technical trading strategies. Jack, when studies DO find "positive results" the trading costs usually render them as not worth the effort. You have to read the lengthy list after "58 positive tests." Data snooping in particular renders most of these as considerably less profitable. This is a "too bad for you" and a great opportunity for me. I do not have any "deficiencies in testing" and I operate using a standard of how effectively I can extract from the offered capital. continued...
continuation.... Simply stated: I look at what is there and I look at what I collected using TA based manual and/or automated systems that work in any market on any fractal for any instrument. TA tooling is capable, for systems that I use, to allow me to extract what is available either manually or automatically. To attain a comprehensive system takes a scientific effort using the correct mathematics and guarding against any risk or uncertainty. stated in the terms of the papers above: I start with 5 degrees of freedom and I expand to 70 degrees of freedom. Then I steer and focus on a set at all times that tells me, with certainty, what is going on in the present. All data is binary so what is presented has only one alternative (and that is NOT presented). It appears that the standard of what the market offers it not commonly used to determine performance. It also appears that the scope and bounds of what has been reported out does not include where people who are maket monet at high money velocities are operating. I hyave a different test criteria than is used by others. this, criteria for me has precipitated results in a different realm than the one you are familiar with. ...As we review your trading record and posts, we see why you screwed up with TA. I never posted my trading record and I never said I screwed up with TA. This was unfair to you. We are keenly aware that you do not post anything related to trading and reporting out results of trading. We just wanted your statement on the record. A few of the deeply proven aspects of TA include: 1. Support and Resistance. 2. Price movement from S to R and R to S in trends. 3. Gap retracements. 4. Computerized trading. You didn't bother mentioning the reliable source to support this statement, Jack. There is a plethora of support for these facets. All of these things are taken into account by most high velocity money making TA trading systems. You ignored my prior post that introduced the results of Park and Irwin (2004). Why? was it fear, anxiety or anger with the fact that Park and Irwin totally refute you in spades? You have a major lack of appreciation for "refute in spades." Their list following the "58 positives" plus trading costs is basically what drives practical use of TA rules into oblivion, as I said above. I have been staying on your turf, mostly. TA provides a spectrum of results. For whatever reasons, focusing on marginal levels of trading using TA, turns out to be a poor use of time. A poor selection of TA rules, specious testing techniques and ignoring trading costs are all in the category of child's play. Even undet these circumstances TA gets a pass on the 92 studies. The point that can be made is to consider high quality TA systems that are very profitable and why they are so profitable. I feel that, in time, the academic community will settle down. when they do or when they are paid by someone to get to work, then things will start popping. So far, in 50 years, there has never been a wake up call. For me, I remember when the SEC was just getting up to speed using computers. One of their forays delt with "insider trading". I was not successful in the beginning, in part, because they were citing very successful "front running" traders with big accounts. Had they published their mistakes it would have made for excellent reading on how some high velocity money making is done. To have citations withdrawn was a very hard struggle since the opposing lawyers (SEC and major brokerage) neither could understand what the other was saying. The accomodation reached had to do, in part, with their failure to detect even better performance in the same accounts. One consequence of the matter was that the brokerage set up a TA department. My personal reward was that I could use their reasearch and data bank as a courtesy they extended and a lot of coat tail trading ensued. Their analysts also picked up several instruments as a consequence. The SEC got it's act together and stopped citing successful high velocity ront running traders. The SEC was looking for something wrong. They found something right. Academia hasn't reached this point as yet. Traders who do high velocity front running trading are used to being coat tailed. They look at academia and wonder how long it will be before the research criteria will even get into a research ball park with respect to the potential of the markets. How do you create so many lengthy threads and not understand university/institutional research??? Not to worry. You do not know who I am nor my academic credentials nor participation. My CV was longer than my age as a rule when I began administration. A wasted mind is a terrible thing. Get into some other kind of endeavor if it is possible. From the many reports of people who have arrived at an educated opinion of your own trading, you have it backward. I trade just fine. You seem to faile miserably the one time you put yourself to a monitored tracing contest. Cool, I have it backward. So did the SEC for a while; they found I was making money in an unheard of way that their computers said I was insider trading. I trade for families of adult handicapped offspring. I do not remember how many that now have lifetime trusts. The first was 1961 and there probably won't be a last in my lifetime. I ask people to learn and pass forward the PVT and SCT. I also ask that they contribute time and/or money to local problems. The fact that this has been going on for 50 years is a proof of success in using TA that is very solid and profound for me. All those poeple who have learned that what I support and recommend is no good simply have the consequences of their beliefs. Welcome to the crowd. Anyone can choose to not be wealthy. Learning correctly is not easy. It is work and requires using one's mind pruposefully. for an average person with an open mind and a strong desire to get past the knee of the curve, it is a six month process. After that, it is like riding a bicycle. If a person wants to be filthy rich and has real determination to keep everything; it just doesn't work at all. There is a reason.
Nasrudin was found by his neighbour looking in the street for something. "What are you looking for," asked the neighbour. "I'm looking for my key," said Nasrudin. "Where did you lose it?" "In my basement." "Then why are you looking for it here?" "The light is better here." === Don't worry if you don't get it, you will.
Depending on your source you can prove anything. http://www.autumngold.com/Statistics/RankingReport.php?sort_by=2&desc=1&for=1&type= On this site the 40 best performing CTA's do on average 18.16% YTD. So not 0.71%.
im not 100% certain, but i believe AG results are self reported, whereas the other info is audited results. correct me if im wrong. thanks, surf