do you concur with michael covel's defintion of trend trading put forth in this book "trend following" ?
Thanks for the reply. 1. The proposed method needs to produce d, not p1. 2. Everyone knows p0. 3. The variable p1 is the exit price, which is determined by p0 plus or minus d. Any working system of directional trading has to produce a profitable d.
It could. Why don't you give me a couple markets to test it on. Trendfollowing works best when one diversifies across many markets, but we can try it on the markets you suggest. Why don't you give me years in which to test it over too. 1990 and foward for most markets. I can change the MA's too
Q Analysis of variance, t-test, confidence intervals, and other statistical techniques taught in the books, however interesting, are inappropriate because they provide no basis for prediction and becuase they bury the information contained in the order of production. Most if not all computer packages for analysis of data, as they are called, provide flagrant examples of inefficiency. --- W. Edwards Deming (Out of the Crisis) UQ
Couldn't say. Could you tell me what it is? I prefer to research and prove that things are or aren't on my own. I have never been one to put much weight on the opinions of others unless their research is solid, specific and objective based.
Well then, if long p1 = price when 50 day MA crosses below the 200 Day MA. If short p1 = price when 50 day moves above 200 day. d = what ever p1 - p0 is, or whatever d wants to equal. If you are using the counter trend system I outlined on p 64 d is almost always negative
cool, finally a serious response. thanks ! please run the test on the SP 500, corn, beans, and gold with a start date of feb 1998, end date feb 2005. keep the MA's the same. curve fitting is a common issue with the back testing scenerio. looking forward to the results.
I dunno, this thread is just messing with me noggin. Don't take this personally Nickel, but for someone who trades for 1 or 2 ticks on the Q's and then asks for theoretical validation from traders who made their money riding trends -- well, don't you see the irony in that? If I state that anyone who trades for 1 or 2 ticks is a sucker who's just feeding his broker and deluded into thinking there's some edge in trading "noise" (and I wouldn't, at least I wouldn't put it that way ) -- are you going to feel the need to justify yourself to me? How would you go about doing that, knowing that I could claim any trader's methods to be "temporarily successful" yet ultimately no better than random? Isn't claiming a trader's methods which have put food on the table and the kids through college "no better than random" the ultimate insult? Good for thread hits, in any case Sorry, maybe you guys got me to use my brain when I really don't feel like it right now, ignore my rants. I appreciate the need to thoroughly investigate one's edge and verify that it actually operates as the trader imagines it to -- the toughest questions usually engender the greatest hostility I suppose.