Why would anyone post their strategy?

So how to explain then the results of the poll? My guess is that above ego, there is a free loader problem. No one wants to post on a site open to the world a successful strategy that took months to develop if it's uncertain that he/she would get the same benefit in return from the rest of the community.

The only way to get rid of the freeloader issue is if (1) the community was comprised of a very small, closed group of traders who all know each other, (2) all members dedicated significant time developing strategies, (3) all members agreed to share their systems openly with each other, and (4) all agreed not to let their proprietary ideas leave the group.

I'll bet that some of the more senior traders in this forum who have gained respect for each other have been in contact off-line to form informal groups as I've described above. I wouldn't blame them. It's like any other business.

 

As I read this thread I have noticed a few themes. (1) Sharing a fully developed system will create/not create a change in its future profitability. (2) Sharing ideas on Elite Trader is productive/counter-productive to the development of a system. (3) The motives for sharing ideas and/or systems on Elite Trader are altruistic/self-serving.

(1) A key aspect to whether or not a system’s effectiveness will be altered by the number of traders using that system is dependent upon the manner in which the system is applied. Firstly, a discretionary system (or non-mechanical) will have very little chance of being affected by wide-scale use. This should be self-evident, as its application will depend on the decisions of individuals acting alone – by itself a recipe for diversity. Secondly, a mechanical system’s sensitivity will depend on two factors a) the amount of capital being employed and b) the amount of capital which can be absorbed. Traderkay has pointed out, correctly I think, that in highly liquid markets the amount of capital required to disrupt a particular system would be immense. So much so that I would venture to say if 50% of Elite members applied 50% of their capital to this hypothetical system, the impact would be nominal. Mutual funds controlling millions and billions of dollars, far more than those at Elite (I can only assume this last statement to be true), and one can not necessarily know when these funds enter and exit the market. Historically speaking, some technical systems have degraded over the years as they have become public knowledge. MA crossovers come to mind. Such systems, as a result of their mass popularity, have also often brought their creators great notoriety. This seems to me a nice perk for those who believe they have in fact found the holy grail, and are otherwise unwilling to share. If you have built a great system, you should be able to do it again. And if this is the case, why not share and possibly be famous too?

(2) Here at Elite there a multitude of personalities and styles. As a result, the comments provided vary in their degree of usefulness. When constructive, the thoughts presented by traders here have proven useful in many ways, but I have yet to see them applied to the creation of a trading sytem from ‘scratch.’ If this could be accomplished it would be of benefit to its participants not only by way of the final product but as an education in the development of future systems. Additionally, should such a system be created, the participants in its creation would be the foundation of a group which could work together on future projects, which may or may not need to be posted at Elite Trader. In the end, whether such a project succeeds or fails, the mere effort put forth would likely prove worthwhile.

(3) Human motives are complex and to assert that any individual’s motives are either purely altruistic of self-serving would be an over-simplification. Certainly, the proposition of developing a system for trading at Elite which is open to all, is both. While it should be obvious that any participant would expect something in return for their efforts, it shall also be required that each participant be willing to give of themselves for the good of the whole. Without the willingness of the individual to give of themselves, the proposition of the sum being greater than its parts can never be tested. In other words, one must give before they can receive. As this may be disconcerting to some, it has been the moto and driving concept of Stone Kettle Soup not to give what one fears losing. Input, no matter how seemingly trite, is valuable, for it keeps what now is so tentatively balanced upon a wire from falling into the abyss of non-existence.

-rlb

 

rlb,

I'd agree with most of your points, except for the last. A little too much idealistic commune mumbo jumbo for me.

I think in the end the vast majority of ideas that are posted are brainstorms that haven't been refined or meaningfully tested. The posters are looking for any kind of critique, or ideally they're looking for any results from anyone who might have already tested it.

Not that there's anything wrong with it. I think using the forum as a brainstorming lab is extremely helpful in and of itself, but one would have to weed through a LOT of white noise to find any novel ideas, and one can't expect to find any tried and true systems served up on a silver platter.

Thanks again for everyone's comments! This thread's been very enlightening.

 

Who says you need novel ideas? It would be a change of pace to see traders using basic principles.

--Db

 

I tried to be a bit too literary with those last few sentences. A concise version is this: If you are afraid of giving something valuable away, try providing your undeveloped or slightly less than valuable ideas. If you see that it helps you, maybe then you'll feel comfortable giving more. I realize that this is pretty close to what already goes on here: the added element is organization.

What DBP says is right on, start basic and with an honest effort and see what happens.

And with that, I bid this thread a fair ado.

-rlb