I actually gave a never before published (to my knowledge) mechanical edge away in the Bar by Bar thread. The purpose was to help Swan Noir, and the argument was to show how commissions swamp out small net positive edges over time. Although, 1) You could increase position size if you can afford it, and swamp out the negative commission bias. 2) It gives you an idea of how a mechanical trader might think. If anyone were to run a standard 'test' for randomness on the raw data, it would qualify as random, yet the expectations results I showed had a non-random edge over the data points. The idea is that a set of data can be perfectly random from a statistical point of view, but it is possible to process it in such a way, that the overall expectation with large numbers is better than chance. Of course slippage and commissions can and will work against you if you are under-capitalized. Now that I described it as an edge, I guess everyone will run over to look (even though the original intent was to point out pitfalls). Unfortunately, most here want the fish, but don't want to learn how to fish. I've offered plenty of collaborative opportunities to discover things in the past, and yet, virtually no one wants to do any work to learn. Go figure. P.S. I'm not a fan of Bar by Bar, for the record (not that it matters much), but I respect the author for publishing a book.
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dBVzKSZNCQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_dBVzKSZNCQ&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
why do all of your threads have to do with failing , the impossible and cant be done? your entire post is complete bullshit just because you cannot do it does not mean that it cannot be done with the attitude you have about trading, i would stop now and give up---- it will save your sanity bec you will never make it in this business
+4 (as in GRANDSLAM) *** 'have no idea who this guy is (assuming FB123 is a guy ), but he's sitting here giving away the Keys to the Kingdom ... and they say that there is no more value on ET!
FB123 hit it on the money. trend to range, vice versa. if, then, else and sometimes an elseif. think overlapping straddles. net profit is all you care about.
I agree and this is clearly correct, but I don't know why people find this to be some sort of revelation. This stuff goes under the heading of seperating signal from noise, and what is signal to one, is noise to another. Let me give an example. Take a typical music CD. Say you gave it to someone who had never seen one or does not understand what it is. He may be able to somehow look at the data stored on it, run statistical tests, etc, and he will be completely dumbfounded by it and decide to use it as a freesbie. I come along, put the CD in a CD player, and wham, out comes music that has nearly 100% structure! The point is that 99% of trading is seperating signal from noise. When you finally have the market equivalent of the "CD player", markets no longer look random.