I would agree . . . except he'll be back soon to fight for ignorance for everyone. He's truly the "bad penny" of ET. He always comes back. The idiot can't help himself. He's been banned over 20 times previously . . . he's a turmoil addict. All would consider it "low rent" to defend a known liar, maligner, troublemaker and someone that can't quite seem to follow the rules on this site. In the real world miscreants aren't on my list of people I show empathy toward but if they are on your list, I hope you carry a big stick.
I have been employing systematic neutral strategies...diagonal spreads with future options on the SP500 and this year it has been going very well. However I am also a systematic trend follower for other markets and although it is hard in the long run trend following works. According to a famous trend follower: Most traders can only react to the short term and visible. People have difficulty carrying out trend following strategies simply because it requires a combination of belief and a capacity for the delayed gratification. To do that you need a lot of personal and intellectual stamina since you will lose and bleed daily for a long time except when some event takes place for which...you will get paid disproportionally well. You could take some of your capital for neutral trending strategies as long as you have a systematic approach. Mine is 75% systematic and 25% discretionary as I am still figuring things out. The good thing is that by selling options I went trough 2008 with minor losses. This strategy aim for small and consistent hits. Trend following aims for home runs. If I were you I would stick with your system and end of the day data. Remember that another problem with trend following is that the big majority of trend followers have a system, but then again almost no one had the discipline to follow it
The trouble is that some trend followers do not have an objective way to see consolidation, nor do they understand the sequences involved when a trend begins to end. "Making money ends most often by making money not continuing"-Jack Hershey. "We carry our own stumbling block around with us, we disguise it with a hat"-William Schamp
Substanative financially mathematical debates are rarely won by esoteric ideals related to the presentation of information, like objections to petty things such as format, that quickly detract from the main focus of the discussion and the context of the information, which likely may have been pre-empted by including any prejudices that pre-existed before the new information was even considered but after it was preliminarily rejected as what is presumably implied as economically engineered, financially scientific garbage output. But what can you tell someone that doesn't understand advanced econometrical inferences, basic statistics, and logical probabilities that ultimately yield what looks to be the most profitable multi-symbol, multi-parameter backtest ever published? Good job doing the hard quant trading math? Good job interpreting the logical natural price oscillations of the market? Good job verifying yet another 3rd party claim that realistically captured the explanation of the Vector Calculus algebraic model Mr. Schamp calls <i>Price Physics</i> that contained the warning, "This method is not for the novice investor." yet simpler than years of repetitive philosophical rants and mentally ill intrigue with the syntextual style, grammar, and bizarrely convoluted sentence structure of a 4 variable Markov Chain? Nice. Bill, why don't you throw all of the systems together collectively and post the accumulative combined equity curves. They look beautiful. No, not everybody can do it. No, it is unlikely if you even were given the indicator you could make it a black-box yourself without substantial learning curves that would likely dissuade the inexperienced financial novice from even pursuing Mr. Schamp's Ergodic Oscillator Price Sentinel program. Different for me, though. It's like you walk into the room and the typical Alpha male has already resolved to chisel away at perceived intellectual opposition. <i>How do I know how to program Artificially Intelligent Autotrading Bots? </i> <b>Because I'm a genius.</b> Say you did see the whole voluminous compilation, hours of consultation at $150 per hour for many years, do you really think the lay person can take indicator code of 500-800 C++ Easy Language Pages and transform it into strategies with results like mine? Unless they've studied large empirical datasets, or have programming experience, it is usually one of the two that prevents advancement in the areas of autotrading that aren't even accessible until you transcend the backtesting, optimization, parametrization required prior to taking investment action with the model. In my case, I have sufficient advanced knowledge for both. How'd I get it? Follow the Academic path: Independent Studying in Visual Basic and Basic in Junior year high school. Advanced C++ Programming II in next semester HS. Computer Sci Intro, Computer Organization, and Discrete Mathematics that I didn't really understand until I studied probability theory, and the second economics class of my career, maybe the most important, Game Theory. Econometrics, including a relationship of a model that would predict the probable earning potential of a working forty year old with a 35% R^2. Labor Econoimics with a model that used binary logit to predict whether a person, also on the same dataset in Econometrics but in STATA rather than SAS, would have more than 3 jobs after attaining their personally acceptable level of academic achievement, usually a Bachelor's. That model had a 65% best fit percentage, and predicted it very accurately. It also saved my college career from being stonewalled with impossibly large data collection requirements simply insurmountable to the averagely intelligent. Mathematical Modelling for Economics, including differential Equations, Probability Theory, Internships at two financial institutions, and years of trading in the equity markets. Put it all together and after a few years of professional experience, 2 Levels of the CFA Curriculum, the Bachelor of Science at Centre College enabled my financial science to prove empirically accurate according to any measure you'd like to use to determine success, but I would think many mostly prefer to use profit as the only benchmark that is actually relevant to any discussion of the merits of financial algorithms. If equity curves from Pre-Sentient logic yield the spectaculor results seen in the backtests, imagine what will happen when I train my AI HFT Computer to systematically elminate the inefficiencies created by uncompetitive, yet intellectual trading models designed to price perfectly, without regard, however, to future direction. Whether you start at age 18, 25, 26, 40, 50, 55, 57, or 60, it is likely obtaining the prerequisite knowledge to building a foundation for Financial Science, even if it may be for strictly, greedy personal self-interest, will nearly always certainly prove to be a quite lucrative investment decision in anybody's professional development. The essence of fraud is the presentation of inaccurate results that build unreasonable expectations for future profitability of projects that may overexaggerate the profitability of your models. With any fraudulent financial transaction there is always an element of deception that ultimately lead to the investor taking a financial risk that he considered a suitable use of funds to pursue growth in their capital management. In the case of completely fraudulent ponzi-schemes, obviously this should not have occured, and should, therefore, be subsequently prevented prior to the violation. As with the case of the excel, it is merely ineffectual if statistics outputted to the spreadsheet are neither debated nor discussed. I'm about to finish my bond trading optimizations, so I'll have 6 more symbols after Corn, Soybeans, Wheat, Soy Oil. They all look extremely profitable, but some more optimally risky than others. I was about to state I think anybody could take Mr. Schamp's systems, indcator code, and produce backtestable, black-box output like mine. However, it is not the case. It is likely my version variant of Bill's is a largely more risky but perhaps more profitable overnight swing system. I think the results are excellent, and it has been in the back of my mind that the ergodic oscillator really can predict tops, bottoms, and directional changes in trend very well, with remarkable results. <b>In the fact, the results were so remarkable I decided to take time at four in the morning to discuss them. Next year is going to be good.</b>
Wow, some one is actually quoting Jack Hershey. Does he even exist in any universe other than elite trader. Why would you quote a con artist and broke failure? The quote itself is just dumb, it's not even grammatically correct.
No clue, don't care really, I just know what the ideas put out by those two individuals has done for my trading.