Search results

Let's look at the winrate. If we express the winrate as a number between 0 (always loses) and 1 (always wins), I propose the value of the ATS should be proportional to winrate/(1 - winrate). Feedback welcome.

Hi, Occam I have to disagree. It's possible for a trader to be cash poor and strategy rich. More to the point, just because an ATS works, that doesn't make it the Holy Grail. It may have an unacceptably large drawdown, or an unacceptably low winrate. What I'm trying to get at is a way of...

To start things off, I propose we adopt the Surf Criterion. Marketsurfer is on record as stating that he would not trust the edge of any trading system based on fewer than 1000 trades. That sounds as good a place as any to start, unless somebody has a good reason to use a different minimum...

My question is, how does one go about objectively putting a price tag on an ATS? Yes, I'm aware of the old adages that sellers should charge as much as they can get and buyers should pay as little as they can. Screw that. I'm looking for objective criteria to start with as a pricing basis...

OK now you're pretending like you don't know the difference between discretionary trading and mechanical trading. I can't comment on discretionary trading. If it works for somebody, more power to them. And academics typically don't try to test discretionary trading; I doubt they did so in...

No, what he is saying is: Academics consider a MA crossover with 200 different parameter sets to be 200 rules, whereas actual traders consider that to be one rule with 200 different parameter sets. They didn't test 5000 actually distinctive rules. Not that it matters. We already know...

+1 They can't test what they don't know. And what they don't know is where the TA that works resides. Seriously, surf, how many times do you have to be told this? :confused:

Just maybe they'll pick somebody who doesn't have ties to Adolph Hitler. :D

Think about it: the last time a pope resigned, the father of Christopher Columbus hadn't been born yet. :eek:

:eek: First time in 600 years! "Lack of strength", my ass. More likely lack of a place to hide from covering up massive pedophilia by pervert priests.

OK stop. Knock the anti-TA crowd all you want but when you start calling EOD traders "investors", that's going too far. :mad:

Wrong. Dead wrong. It's thatknid of thinking which makes most traders fail at using TA: not being able to separate the good stuff from the garbage.

IOW she uses MA crossovers and RSI. ROTFLMAO!!

It is about TA (mostly), yes?

There is no logic. The guy is a gambler. He's looking for action, "juice", whatever. Real traders just don't do crazy shit like averaging down.

It's "shoo", not "shoe". :p

Eckhardt addressed this issue when somebody asked him how to weight their indicators. Paraphrasing his advice: if the indicator is worth consulting, weight it equally with the others, otherwise get rid of it.

Maybe because he went out of his way to imply that he had something to do with the turtles. http://www.turtletrader.com/ I guess the failure part comes from the fact that he doesn't make his money trading.

He really is a charlatan. The proof of his scam is right on his website. One of the links in his $3K trend following course is labeled "Performance". This is supposed to be the evidence that Covel's course is worth taking. What you quickly discover is that not one of the tf "masters" took...

So given your name, is your focus on hft or will your advice apply to traders at a slower pace (e.g., one-minute timeframe) as well? And what exactly is wrong with C++? Thanks.