Search results

I tested some systems with equities going back to the mid 90's. Guess what? They didn't do shit when I forward tested them. Did you forward test this? Also, don't forget, your application you were using was most likely giving you preferential fills on stops and limits ( if used ). FYI...

I don't know. You may be correct. This is where 'backtesting' becomes sketchy, IMO. I always use 1.5x tick size for slippage when using stops. I have never really backtested intraday equities ( only futures ) but I still use this (1.5x slippage ) for even ES. What platform do you use...

The only problem with using BS's is factoring in potential slippage in a backtest. As you probably know a half tick in slippage incorrectly accounted for either way can turn any system like this upside down.

Seems you are right Chi Sq Pdf x= 0 is .5 Can you actually explain what this means? Neither my teacher or book are helping.. I am probably missing something simple.

First question : Why is the peak of the distribution always just a bit before the actual dF? This can be seen here.. Second : Why when dF = 2 does the left side of the curve just go straight up the y axis and never find its way to 0? The teacher is totally puzzled in class and I...

Why is it not normally distributed ( may be dumb question )?

Nice call.

Is this not a 2 sample z-test?

How about drug testing elected representatives for a change?

Could you give some examples if you find the time?

Sp500 @ 408 with 0% interest rates? I really doubt it brother.

The discipline after years of leaking money like you are now. Not saying that I do. Maybe you should change your tactics a bit by using options etc. GL

Nice play.

probably. or was this obviously redundant?

I guess if the police feel so compelled. Everyone has tried weed? Doubtful. I am sure you are a great guy and all but seriously.. Abusing weed? Is that even possible? Well, maybe according to drugabuse.GOV it is. That link still has me laughing a bit, no offense. I guess I...

drugabuse.gov? lol - that's all I gotta say.

Dude, because if you haven't heard yet weed doesn't make you deaf, dumb and blind. That is establishment type talk there. Yeah, I may be in the minority but smoking weed is like chewing a piece of gum to me. The only other drugs I do are psychedelics.. you aren't going to see me nodding...

It is exactly how it was presented. The definition of sample size bias makes sense. But it wasn't presented like that - it was presented as if there was bias because some people just got more than others.

But that isn't the point. OK, great that is the definition. But it wasn't presented like that. Nor does it matter ( my only point this whole time ) who gets what. The argument in class was the sample size bias lies in the fact that some people got more than others. Which was obviously...

OK, but she said it was in reference to people HAVING MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE. I can see that definition, but I haven't looked it up personally. If that really is the definition I would agree. But it wasn't in the context on the question / classroom discussion.