You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Al Brooks Trading Best Pice Action
- Thread starter Ares
- Start date
[Marketsurfer:] I like to keep everything public, and will be happy o sign a NDA---as long as it doesnt preclude Me from sharing it with team members who are more skilled than I at testing.
Let's go through the logic of this transaction in which you're about to engage a final time, Bill.
In order for Goodboy to adjudicate on your system's effectiveness, he's going to have to outsource it to be tested. His words -- he's not observing real time entry/exit signals, which he could do himself. He says he's having the system <i>itself</i> tested, probably on historical data. There's no way to effectively test the system without clarifying the logic, and there's no way to protect against reverse engineering if you disclose the logic.
Now, let's say those analyzing the data deem it to have a decent sharpe/sortino/pf, and DD percentage. What have you gained? Assuming he even acknowledges its profitability, a feeling of vindicated pride. What have you given away? Basically free money to resell some or all of your IP.
Would he do something like that?
Remember, he took a PBS documentary and resold (possibly even dubbed and resold) it for an astronomical markup, claiming that it's up to the author to defend the copyright. It follows then that it'd be up to you to defend your own IP -- but how will you know if the logic itself now exists, abstractly, in the minds of some outsourced software engineer? With rewritten code it is no longer your IP.
Even when reselling a taxpayer-funded documentary, he quoted Ayn Rand and claimed he was a good capitalist. The irony may have escaped him entirely, but the incentive to profit off of others' work certainly did not.
I personally now think you're off your rocker and can't take you seriously -- not for the theories you espouse, but for your need for validation. Don't mean to offend, and last time I comment on this.
Let's go through the logic of this transaction in which you're about to engage a final time, Bill.
In order for Goodboy to adjudicate on your system's effectiveness, he's going to have to outsource it to be tested. His words -- he's not observing real time entry/exit signals, which he could do himself. He says he's having the system <i>itself</i> tested, probably on historical data. There's no way to effectively test the system without clarifying the logic, and there's no way to protect against reverse engineering if you disclose the logic.
Now, let's say those analyzing the data deem it to have a decent sharpe/sortino/pf, and DD percentage. What have you gained? Assuming he even acknowledges its profitability, a feeling of vindicated pride. What have you given away? Basically free money to resell some or all of your IP.
Would he do something like that?
Remember, he took a PBS documentary and resold (possibly even dubbed and resold) it for an astronomical markup, claiming that it's up to the author to defend the copyright. It follows then that it'd be up to you to defend your own IP -- but how will you know if the logic itself now exists, abstractly, in the minds of some outsourced software engineer? With rewritten code it is no longer your IP.
Even when reselling a taxpayer-funded documentary, he quoted Ayn Rand and claimed he was a good capitalist. The irony may have escaped him entirely, but the incentive to profit off of others' work certainly did not.
I personally now think you're off your rocker and can't take you seriously -- not for the theories you espouse, but for your need for validation. Don't mean to offend, and last time I comment on this.
Actually, the good prof won't even provide real time entry exit signals --- he seems to prefer the convoluted verification method rather than simply providing signals generated --- even in a journal. This speaks volumes of his true intentions to continue the myth via convolution.
I'll be happy to accept a series of signals as verification. No need for the histrionics and silliness. However, he has never provided anything outside of the near perfect record he has had on his website.
Surf
I'll be happy to accept a series of signals as verification. No need for the histrionics and silliness. However, he has never provided anything outside of the near perfect record he has had on his website.
Surf
Quote from marketsurfer:
Actually, the good prof won't even provide real time entry exit signals --- he seems to prefer the convoluted verification method rather than simply providing signals generated --- even in a journal. This speaks volumes of his true intentions to continue the myth via convolution.
You may indeed be right.
What he seeks to prove could just be achieved in a journal.
Quote from Samsara:
You may indeed be right.
What he seeks to prove could just be achieved in a journal.
The evidence speaks for itself. He has never done a journal other than a near perfect track record on his old site.
All that has ever been offered is this convoluted stuff designed to make him appear a market guru and crazy claims.
Quote from marketsurfer:
The evidence speaks for itself. He has never done a journal other than a near perfect track record on his old site.
All that has ever been offered is this convoluted stuff designed to make him appear a market guru and crazy claims.
Here's the thing: let's say he could put together a journal rt calls for a certain period of your choosing. Would <i>you</i> be satisfied (publicly) if he showed clear profitability, proper time stamps, and no deleting losses?
This would have the dual benefit of having his pride vindicated along with public accountability. Plus would remove all risk of losing control of his IP.
If you would agree to that, I can't imagine why he wouldn't also. Going any other route makes absolutely no sense.
Quote from marketsurfer:
Actually, the good prof won't even provide real time entry exit signals --- he seems to prefer the convoluted verification method rather than simply providing signals generated --- even in a journal. This speaks volumes of his true intentions to continue the myth via convolution.
I'll be happy to accept a series of signals as verification. No need for the histrionics and silliness. However, he has never provided anything outside of the near perfect record he has had on his website.
Surf
Sorry putz but the program you get provides real time signals. Remember, that is how you are going to test the program . . . REAL TIME!
Quote from Samsara:
Here's the thing: let's say he could put together a journal rt calls for a certain period of your choosing. Would <i>you</i> be satisfied (publicly) if he showed clear profitability, proper time stamps, and no deleting losses?
This would have the dual benefit of having his pride vindicated along with public accountability. Plus would remove all risk of losing control of his IP.
If you would agree to that, I can't imagine why he wouldn't also. Going any other route makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, absolutely that would be 100% acceptable to me. However, He has refused to do this ever since I first stumbled upon his near perfect track record several years ago.
Surf.
Quote from ProfLogic:
Sorry putz but the program you get provides real time signals. Remember, that is how you are going to test the program . . . REAL TIME!
Why send the program? The signals are all I need to verify your claims. All the program does is prove the subjective nature of the system--- otherwise signals would suffice.