Beau, you have too many free parameters in your model for the number of trades. The ergodic alone has five tunable parameters. Your system is essentially under-determined. Your multi-year results are dominated by one single monster trade. Run a five year backtest on 10 minute bars (or the closest match in the professor's constant volume bars) with a reasonable stop (say 1% of contract value) and report back to us. And why, if you are such a genius, can't you manage a readable screengrab? Hit alt-prtscrn, paste into MS Paint from the clipboard, and save as *.jpg.
Timed bars aren't what my system is for, and as far as that there are 5 and only 5, but not too many because they work on everything, so I'm not concerned about that. Genetic Optimization means it is artificially intelligent, so as far as that goes if you want to use Artificial Intelligence in your trading you know who to talk to. I know Sentinel doesn't have that problem, but here is a link to a market call discussion I posted my pairs chart in. QID and QLD have drawn down more than 90% since the backtest's inception, so don't ever make the it won't beat buy and hold argument on me ever. The pictures that were posted were first a desktop print screen then I decided to post out of Multicharts the image of the chart, so you shouldn't have any problems reading that or this one, but office picture manager does what I need it to do. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3377291post3377291
Oh, whatever, my markets aren't interested in perpetuating transactionalism under the guise of liquidity. We are interested in providing liquidity but not the way it's done today which leaves market makers and specialists exposed at all hours whenever the market is open. I have a plan for my first two IPO's in addition to 3 of my own, so I have road shows and a lot of investment banking to do and that could take up to 5-10 years before it happens. It is my plan to first offer these investments through a private closed-end fund that I just founded, and that'll be the vehicle similarly traded like ETF's but not stupidly allocated in an index where companies rising in price get a larger allocation when that is completely counterintuitive. Furthermore, instead of exposing yourself to companies rising in price we would rather take profits in those securities and allocate more to instruments falling in price by attempting to significantly outperform markets that's simply not possible with ETF's but maybe in mutual funds with much better investment menus, lists, and opportunities that aren't available right now.
Now less informed people might conclude that the above means that - bwolinsky doesn't go long the mkt, the mkt goes short bwolinsky However, that would be wrong. The mkt can't go short bwolinsky, 'cause bwolinsky knows topology and other stuff. So the correct bwolinsky fact is actually as follows: - when bwolinsky goes long the mkt, the mkt knows better and just stops itself out right away.
- All options owned by bwolinsky are in-the-money - bwolinsky doesn't post margin to any exchanges; the exchanges post margin to bwolinsky - Whenever bwolinsky buys call/put flies, the mkt pays him for the privilege
It's like saying the former NYSE Executive Dick Grasso doesn't know what a stock is. I'm on to his innuendo and insinuation. Well, maybe that's not it, it may be more like saying Dick Grasso doesn't know how their trading platform really works, because it's a bit further than not knowing what a stock is, but has more to do with what you do with stocks after you buy/write them, and how you cover your margin in that platform.
Someone once said... Or like so many others this thread in the options forum is another example of taking risks that you don't need to take. Why worry about these? It's not like if you hedged them out you'll make more money. In fact, you'll probably make less...