Acrary is a genius!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Alan,

I'm a relatively young, trader-to-be that's trying to save the time you suggest might be possible based on your latest revelations. If you can find a minute, I would really appreciate some answers to the following:

1) Do you trade the trend and countertrend/chop models at the same time or do you use a classification model to determine when each is appropriate? Some of your posts seem to indicate you do both at the same time and the performance of both smooth the equity curve. Earlier (but recent) posts of yours suggest that you focus on the benefits of trading both trend and countertrend systems to smooth the equity curve and help compound. I suppose I'm simply tripped up as to whether these methods are always active since you've stated that your current "edgeless" approach requires no form of prediction. Would you be so kind as to elaborate a bit on this?

2) Sounds like you've ultimately determined that classification is easier and nearly as effective as edge-trading. This statement alone leads me to believe that there you are using a model to determine which methodologies are more appropriate for a given time. Any hints as to how you determine classification?

3) I'm a bit confused by the edge versus non-edge thing. My assumption is that edgeless trading simply suggests trading observable patterns in price that may work for periods but all in all may be no better than random in the long run? Whereas edge trading insinuates trading some objective character of the market, usually found behind price. Is this a correct differentiation?

4) How can I piece this all togther? My current interpretation is that you are now currently:

a) Not relying on something behind the scenes that moves price as you did before, but price itself which is easier to come by
b) Using some form of prediction model to determine the trendiness or lack thereof for a particular market, then deciding which edgeless price model to use at that time for a period
c) Trading trend, countertrend, or chop models on what Doron or some other system determines for you in terms of market classification. Is this way off base?
d) Or, do all models trade at once and classification is used for something else?

Thank you very much for your time,

D

Quote from acrary:

As a precursor to building Doron, I had to find a way to characterize market activity. All markets are two dimensional (time and price). Of the two, only time is constant. I built some software to look at price action within a fixed period of time (1 day, 2 days, etc.). I expected to not find recurring themes (since I thought most maket action was random). What I found was a fixed number of behaviors that repeated themselves often. I could run a trendfollowing system in a market, find the poor performing periods and look at the classification system to find what would have worked best during the same time period. In a short period of time I was able to build a small number of systems that did almost as well as edge-based systems. The only thing necessary was to check the markets for changes to the basic themes (a much easier approach than checking for edge deterioration). In the end I felt pretty dumb looking for edges when the classification was so obvious. Anyway maybe it'll save someone else several years of looking in the wrong places.
More...
 
Quote from joe123:

Hi alan hi alan

let me kiss your ass alan


HE WON'T HELP YOU IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY, got a brain man

this is internet and YOU ARE HIS COMPETITION :mad:
More...

This is true on ET but there is useful, intelligent idea fermentation elsewhere on the Internet.

I for one can state that adding edge or complexity has the reverse effect from others and results in an increase of 10 to 18% in Win/Loss ratio in gross dollars in Forex.
 
so acrary says there are times when the market is non random at times and someone else (who may be marketsurfer - says how is the truck driving business.

I can not believe how religious random market guys are. These are generally the guys who think they are scientists but they are not really because they are far to opinionated.

Frankly I do not care what the random guys say - because my trading and the trading over dozens of people in llc proved otherwise. It is no longer as easy as it was.... but I know the market is far from random.
 
Quote from joe123:

Hi alan hi alan

let me kiss your ass alan


HE WON'T HELP YOU IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY, got a brain man

this is internet and YOU ARE HIS COMPETITION :mad:
More...

Are you just jealous?

:p
 
Quote from Jerry030:

Could you add some kind of statistic or metric of measurement to this?
Terms like "almost as well" can have many meanings to many people.

In contrast, a statement like "using X method my metrics were (Sharpe ratio, max. average drawdown, Win/Loss ratio in gross dollars) , when I switched to Y method and I saw there was only a 3% decline in W/L ratio, I concluded that method Y was better because the extra complexity didn’t make a significant difference in performance".

Thanks in advance for any information you can give to turn the relative into the specific.

Jerry
More...


Jerry, you are asking the wrong questions. W/L ratio is meaningful when you look at a single system, not the system of systems. Furthermore, it's not directly related to consistency. I believe acrary tries to keep yearly return to max drawdown ratio at least 10:1.

The most interesting thing here is that non-edge systems can be consistently profitable, that it is all doable using market character based systems (though I might be wrong here).
 
Quote from Indrionas:

Jerry, you are asking the wrong questions. W/L ratio is meaningful when you look at a single system, not the system of systems. Furthermore, it's not directly related to consistency. I believe acrary tries to keep yearly return to max drawdown ratio at least 10:1.

The most interesting thing here is that non-edge systems can be consistently profitable, that it is all doable using market character based systems (though I might be wrong here).
More...

Statistics are like ice cream flavors...goodness dependent on the taste of the trader, so 10/1 is a fine flavor. This gives some objectivity to the discussion...thanks.
 
Quote from New2thegame:

Hi Alan,

I'm a relatively young, trader-to-be that's trying to save the time you suggest might be possible based on your latest revelations. If you can find a minute, I would really appreciate some answers to the following:

1) Do you trade the trend and countertrend/chop models at the same time or do you use a classification model to determine when each is appropriate?

You are granting yourself that this is market movement. Add to that the idea that movement can be observed on differing time durations(fractals). By looking at this collection, it is being suggested to you that there ARE fractal relationships. (See mandelbrot.)

Some of your posts seem to indicate you do both at the same time

You may conclude they are concurrent. The term nested applies for objective rational reasons.

and the performance of both smooth the equity curve.

Smooth is not only applicable. Nor does a staight line form on a semilog graph.

Earlier (but recent) posts of yours suggest that you focus on the benefits of trading both trend and countertrend systems to smooth the equity curve and help compound. I suppose I'm simply tripped up as to whether these methods are always active since you've stated that your current "edgeless" approach requires no form of prediction. Would you be so kind as to elaborate a bit on this?

Prediction disappears from consideration at the point you recognize that there is one characterization that has been provided to you. You have been told that what is going on is continuous. You have been told it is opbservable. You have been told that what happens happens on differing fractals.

You may conclude that you are looking at faster fractal patterns that are building blocks of slower fractals. To speed up your learning and first observations, as requested, numbers do apply. The fractal to fractal ratio is THREE.

2) Sounds like you've ultimately determined that classification is easier and nearly as effective as edge-trading.

Imagine you have names for each classification. Imagine you see that the same thing is happening on three tractals at different rates of formation according to the fractal.

If there are three pattern components and you chose to surround your trading fractal with a slower and a faster fractal, how many combinations are there for three things taken three at a time?

Do you think you could make a matrix that had three rows and that number of columns required to list the combinations up to the point they repeat?

Do you think you could arrange for the entries to appear from left to right according to how time passes?

Would you like to see a real time chart of this as it is happening this morning? No, I know you wouldn't, because is is not probabiliistic nor predicitve to your mind. (once I posted this sequence for Traderzones, but it wasn't for the day I posted; it was for the next day. This is NOT prediciting, it is just using what you have been told is what is going on by acrary)

This statement alone leads me to believe that there you are using a model to determine which methodologies are more appropriate for a given time. Any hints as to how you determine classification?

There is only one possible classification. This is determined by two things: the market has granularity and fractals must be nested. It MUST be determined as Acrary determined it: by deduction using logic. (See Carnap and Keynes). This is the opposite of what you do and how you presently think. You use induction, prediction and probabilities (see example articulated by jerry030 recently (in an indicator thread) who uses these three instead of what acrary uses)

3) I'm a bit confused by the edge versus non-edge thing. My assumption is that edgeless trading simply suggests trading observable patterns in price that may work for periods but all in all may be no better than random in the long run?

Since you use stats and that kind of data processing, you will keep trying to "mine" relationships. Lets say you could think about what a pattern or classification is instead, all based on the representations of the market. That is a big step for you. Granularity dictates finite math. This will continue to escape you. Don't worry about it. Since you cannot use the applicable math, you do not get results as are being used by acrary. Relook at using the word "confusion"; the better word is "no overlap" or "mutually exclusive". What and how you do things has no connection to what acrary has discovered is very productive and operational and has totally different R/R than you can believe or understand. See jerry030, talontrading and ganngalt type people's comments. Two differnent worlds and belief systems.

Whereas edge trading insinuates trading some objective character of the market, usually found behind price. Is this a correct differentiation?

For your belief system, yes. And further, as enquired about, the performance is low and small and almost not statistically significant. Lots of "edges" fade in and out over time, you will find. You operate in a non robust mentality and constructs. It is in fact not real differentiation. Differentiation is a systemic concept. Edges etc are not systemic in any sense.

4) How can I piece this all togther? My current interpretation is that you are now currently:

putting the pieces together is a great idea.

a) Not relying on something behind the scenes that moves price as you did before, but price itself which is easier to come by

It is possible instead to use market variables.

b) Using some form of prediction model to determine the trendiness or lack thereof for a particular market, then deciding which edgeless price model to use at that time for a period

you are serially oriented and edgeless trading is done using parallel , in the present only, orders of events that are integrally related fractal by fractal. Intrgrally means is a fixed ratio. foixed ratio means with respect to pattern finite elements.

c) Trading trend, countertrend, or chop models on what Doron or some other system determines for you in terms of market classification. Is this way off base?

Markets do not have anomalies nor noise. What is left is nine cases that are possible at the granularity of the markets. Cases, it turns out, go from one to another (in shape, movement and relationships) in an orderly, non reversable passage over time. This molecular aspect allows for fractal relationships. From a logical reasoning process only one relationship emerges as a consequence of one universal conclusion (or principle): TRENDS OVERLAP. There is zero possiblilty that trends do not over lap.

For example, your mental state and development includes chop. This is just a statement of incomplete analysis. Think about your questions for example. They do not come up for peoiple who are conversant with the knowledge associated with the way markets operate. The ways markets operate is known. It is not prima facia, however. If a person can only reason with one set of filters, then that prson is denied an opportunity to have the knowledge of how markets operate.

Here you have been exposed, by acrary, to something your filters to not allow to be considered. You are now at choice. You get the consequences of your choices.

d) Or, do all models trade at once and classification is used for something else?

Do not use this limited viewpoint. You have been informed of the heirarchical nature of non edge modelling. The heirachy is integral and the opposite of your orientation. There is a singular classification and it is used on each fractal and the the fractal to fractal relationship is also integral. Agian integral means fixed and known and of haighest highest utility. What is being spoken of is orders of magnitude more robust than you have ever considered or worked with. It is way out there and super effective and efficient.

Thank you very much for your time,

D
More...

For you this is, in all probability, a passing event. It is not believable and there is no way you can coonect the observable market's continuing off to any means of operational extraction.

If you can reflect on just looking at what is going on in markets and compare it to the range of numbers used in the list of measures jerry030 posted; you see what the market does does not fit into the normal (normal meaning how jerry et al operate) range of these measures. the measures that are conventional used and their proferred values for comparison do not quantify the performa of what acrary is speaking of.

He spoke of 200% a year by a applying 1.75% of capital. We who use non edge continuous and parrallel nested fractal and their singular pattern, accually put money in the markets up to or at the capacity of the markets. We also compound it.

This is a narrow response limied to the context you established from an interpretation. Shooting the messenger is commonly done with a response such as mine. I did not post the patterns and how the patterns are integral fractal to fractal since that is not in the ball park for you.

Acrary is not speakingabout using the conventional financial industry's orientation to take signals from the market's operation. Your screens probably cannot be used to opbtine the signals presently.
 
Quote from Indrionas:

Jerry, you are asking the wrong questions. W/L ratio is meaningful when you look at a single system, not the system of systems. Furthermore, it's not directly related to consistency. I believe acrary tries to keep yearly return to max drawdown ratio at least 10:1.

The most interesting thing here is that non-edge systems can be consistently profitable, that it is all doable using market character based systems (though I might be wrong here).
More...

OK, but something like 10:1 doesn't tell much about system impact on capital. It’s very easy to develop a system or group of systems that trade in that way but if they only trade once every 1000 bars they will have limited impact on the wealth of the trader.

A much more useful metric is total account capital doubling time as this takes into account commission, slippage, reserve capital beyond margin, wins losses and everything else.
 
Jack,

I don't want to deride this thread, but I suppose I need to play it as it lays; in this thread.

I'm new to this realm, relatively speaking so I haven't come to many conclusions as your words seem to suggest. While it doesn't seem unreasonable that the market is composed of fractals, I have no current basis (other than your word) to take this and their relationships as truth. That said, I've never heard acrary mention fractals so I'm not immediately convinced he and you are on the same page. Maybe he will clarify? If you both, or anyone else on ET that's profitable are trading the one universal truth you refer to, it is very clear that you communicate it via extremely different means. I suppose what I'm saying is: While I have no doubt that acrary has discovered some powerful things, I have no reason at the moment to believe they are those same things you live by.

While I'm new enough, and perhaps naive enough to consider a great many things at this point in the game, your posts always seem to imply, albeit indirectly, that there is only one way that the market operates. Assuming you are correct in this assertion, is it safe to assume that anyone not using your methods can't be profitable consistently? If they can, how do they manage this by way of these simple truths you speak of escaping them? Is it that they are using said universal truths without even realizing it? I'll consider it a possibility for discussion's sake.

It's your interpretation that acrary concurrently trades his models so perhaps you can opine as to why he has the need for a classification of general market theme model?

What market variables are you referring to use in place of an edge or price?

You've stated in the past that there is no reason to hide anything in the markets since you've never seen anything useful by your standard get gamed by too many knowing of or operating it. If that is so, how about a nice step by step post explaining a bit of clearly written theory followed by color-by-numbers examples of what it is that you do precisely? If it's real and it works, then this should be easily demonstrable, correct? Would you be willing to do this? I can connect dots with clear instructions. If you choose to insinuate that this will remain above my head, please at least say so in clear enough terms that I can properly defend myself.

What belief system is it that you are so convinced that I have? We've gone back and forth about the whole conventional wisdom thing. If I were entrenched in CW as you assert then I wouldn't be trying to be a trader. I would "know better" and realize it wasn't worth the effort. I believe some of my early harsh comments in my first thread left a strong impression. CW is all I knew to come in with, but I intend to leave here making money whether that's any consequence of ET or not. If you, acrary or anyone here shows me something worthy of consideration, I will take it seriously. You demonstrate something that clearly works and is axiomatic and there is nothing left to fight. Show me, show us all. For those who may think to remind me, I know that no one owes me anything. All I can do is ask. I am asking....

You spend a great deal of time telling others what they are doing incorrectly and perhaps more time stating what others could be doing correctly, but not in a way that allows them to correct their mistakes. You may not intend to (I'll provide benefit of doubt) but your posts often reek of elitism. You either believe we can't learn(ridiculous), don't want us to learn (intended obfuscation, after all, some would say we are your competition. I know, not you though), or are just flexing your presumed intellect in poorly chosen prose for your own edification on this site. If you choose to speak in code, you must expect others to question you, your intent, or your goods. Once more, show me something I can act on 5 minutes from now, and I may just surprise you.

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top