Actually random the systems that have been tested with random entry out performed the market heavily. This is due to having cut losers while riding the winners and having a trend develop. It allowed for owning a bigger% of winning trades while owning a smaller % of losing trades. It heavily outperforms the market NIC I did want to address something on the Street Smarts post but it was off topic. You said what Sterling keeps repeating but isn't true. That my father doesn't trade. If that were true then I wouldn't have him on instant messenger giving me ideas. I wouldn't have seen him sitting behind a computer telling me what EBAY is doing. He wouldn't be telling me about a biotech that may have found the cure for AIDS (if it has watch that stock turn the entire world economy around really fast)He wouldn't have owned a BEAR fund that allowed him to be short twice the value of the NASDAQ for the last 7 months. He made a killing so far with that trade in his retirement account. The quote of him not trading was in Market Wizards over 12 years ago. A lot can happen in 12 years including deciding he can do very well trading. rtharp
Okay, this is for rtharp. I was wondering if you have ever tried a random entry in a volatile market like the S&P 500. Does daytrading with random entry actually produce profits? And if random entry actually works, how would you as a trader feel about just taking on a position with no analysis or signal?
tharp, I challenge you to back up with supported proof your assertions that totally random systems "out performs the market heavily". I can't wait to see it. Bucky Lee
I almost want to believe it...a number of years ago I remember watching a special on ABC news 20/20...in it they had a number of market gurus compete against a chimp...the chimp just threw darts at a wall street journal with stock symbols...random entry....guess who won
Bucky Lee It has been proven long time ago. My own experience: First 50-60 trades trading futures. 80% losers, 20% wins. I am absolutely sure, the way I was trading, my entries were much worse than random. I made $300 after commission. One trade covered all the non-sense I did.
Sorry Cesko, But proof needs something a bit more substantial than your say so or limited personal experience. Tharp made a bold assertion that I would like to see him back up with fact. However, I doubt he can come up with anything substantive.
Bucky Lee! Do not be sorry. I am glad there are people engaged in trading who have never heard about cutting losses, who have no clue you can make money even if the stock loses value. I don't mean this to be personal just explanation why I won't bother to prove anything. I know it's kind of cynical and arrogant post but it is honest. Right or wrong, I gave up long time ago to try to explain anything to anybody. Whatever you know it's yours, whatever I know it's mine.
Cesko, We are not talking here about cutting losses or shorting, etc.... Of course I know of these things. :eek: If you re-read the preceding posts maybe you can figure it out. Also, you sound like one of those "I just know it's so" kind of guys. PS I know that may sound cynical or arrogant, but it's the truth. PS PS Perhaps if you tried explaining in rational terms more would listen to you.
I think rtharp is right. In his dad's book, a certain market wizard "proved" random entry's effectiveness by backtesting a random system. It got good results. I'm going to find the book again or maybe somebody else can post the details. Point is, it works. And there's no need to back test it. Just play with it. Paper trade it and see what happens. That's what I'm going to do as soon as the market opens tomorrow.