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.
Anti-Jack Trading
- Thread starter hypostomus
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Please excuse a personal observation (I DID post a trade confirmation, which is ONE more than all the rest of ET will do today, so you owe me an indulgence). I got tired of always being away from the computer when my audibles went off ("Boss! Come quick! ET is trading! Time to fade!"). So I moved down to my sun room adjacent to the kitchen (which is always where I am when the audibles scream). Closer to the champagne and the pitiful scraps of leftover food my wife brings me from her sumptuous fat-cat client feasts ("If you're not going to eat that, can I have it for my husband?").
Anyway, I am seated where I can watch the bird feeder, and I was thinking about its ritualistic peckering order. Bluejays and cardinals eat anytime they want. Rabbits next, then squirrels, then doves, then sparrows. Finally, when all these are done, the field mouse family comes out. They are very careful, because I take potshots at them and occasionally set my wife's house tiger on them (all four pounds of her, funny how the smallest females are the meanest, the wife is small, too). But I never forget that soaring above them on windy days is a pair or three of red-wing hawks (on still days the cheeky bastards actually perch in the TREE above the feeder, the lazy fucks).
Draw your own parallels to trading, if you will. Me, I'm a mouse. I eat fast!
Anyway, I am seated where I can watch the bird feeder, and I was thinking about its ritualistic peckering order. Bluejays and cardinals eat anytime they want. Rabbits next, then squirrels, then doves, then sparrows. Finally, when all these are done, the field mouse family comes out. They are very careful, because I take potshots at them and occasionally set my wife's house tiger on them (all four pounds of her, funny how the smallest females are the meanest, the wife is small, too). But I never forget that soaring above them on windy days is a pair or three of red-wing hawks (on still days the cheeky bastards actually perch in the TREE above the feeder, the lazy fucks).
Draw your own parallels to trading, if you will. Me, I'm a mouse. I eat fast!
Well....I may have to rethink a bit. The MO computers just threw 1300 NQ cars at the LO computers on a downward channel FTT. But good old VWAP choked it!
Quote from Choad:
Sir, I must take offense at your slandering of that noble fish.
It does woeful disservice to the genus.
Aah, is it you or is it me, I'm getting very confused with who is who in this thread.
I am a fan of the genus, Hypostumus though I prefer Ancistrus species as they don't damage the leaves as much as H. plecostumus.
Also, I prefer trading the way it says on the back of the KooLAid box.
DS
Attachments
Quote from hypostomus:
Well....I may have to rethink a bit. The MO computers just threw 1300 NQ cars at the LO computers on a downward channel FTT. But good old VWAP choked it!
If this is you, you might like to see what the KoolAid thing with no channels, ffts, dips or doodles can do at the glacial 300000 milisecond timeframe.
I must confess, I'm only paper trading it as of know but who knows maybe I'll start it.
DS
proud to be a "day trading societal leech"
Attachments
The point is to confuse you so you will think about the content. Is it false because an obvious idiot said it? True because a self-proclaimed genius said it? And yes, the Koolaid box is right.
I know nobody gives a shit, but the REAL afternoon channel in NQ ran right through the VWAP, after three tries.
Oh, the funny things you see watching the tape. Somebody just faded the upward BO of a downward NQ Jackel (that's a Jack channel for those of you not up on the latest lingo) with a 393 car short, hahahaha! Guess he don't like Jack, either!
Thanks for yourRED HERRINGoffer but your attempt to obfuscate the real issue is puny and laughable. You're trying to hide a very important point: that the highly acclaimed 0 to 7 shift of the "P,V Boolean relation" is a bunch of Ballyhoo. Adding new conditions now, in hindsight, won't negate or disprove that.Quote from Spydertrader:
Five year period? One thousand Stocks? You performed a wonderful test - except you didn't test the system on any stocks people trade, and you tested it on a time frame by which you insured failure. Why can I say this? Only two equities have remained in the Universe of Stocks I trade for 2 years, therefore, testing the same group of stocks (beyond those two) over a time period greater than two years creates invalid results. In that same two years, the 'List' has changed members each and every month with some stocks falling off the list and others finding themselves added to the list. The current list contains 40 equities. In addition, many of the stocks I trade don't even have a five year history.
Not only did Dougcs perform a proper test, but somebody else also posted a proper back test to Journal One. Both individuals obtained positive results.
To perform a proper back test on this method (and it can be done) you need to test the stocks that conform to all the parameters used to qualify the stock, and then you perform that test for that stock within that time frame in which it qualifies. Testing beyond the time a stock finds itself within a Universe of Stocks that were, are or will be traded provides meaningless results. Nobody is going to trade an unqualified stock. You repeat the process for every stock you wish to test.
How can I say this? Easy. If a stock doesn't qualify to make the list of potential tradeable stocks - five years ago, five months ago or five days ago - who cares, it would never have been traded. Proving that that same stock which never would have made the list, and therefore, never had the possibility of finding itself in a trade would have lost money proves nothing with respect to how the 'system' works or it doesn't.
An analogy to the scenario you have tested: "Hmmm these people 'claim' a system works against the Nasdaq 100 stocks, but that can't be! Look here! I have a backtest against the Dow30 and it shows how the system doesn't work!" Please, people aren't that stupid.
How confident am I of this? I'll make you an offer. I'll gladly walk you through the entire process in english of how the system works, so you can code a proper backtest, select the proper stocks to test, and insure you use the correct time frames for each qualified stock. In turn, you provide me the parameters (and code) you used, so that I can replicate your test in my own testing software. We can even include the market's recent downturn in the test data. If the tests do not come out profitable, I'll stop posting on this web site in any forum other than in my current Journal. I'll even post the results as a 'disclaimer' in my current Journal. No excuses. You perform the tests using the correct parameters, and we let the chips fall where they may.
Of course if the tests do turn out positive (and I have a sneaking suspicion they will), then I'll expect you to post an open letter to Jack and everyone else apologizing for the ass you made of yourself.
It's a simple offer - requiring a simple answer - yes or no. I'll even pick up the tab for the phone conversation to relay the information.
- Spydertrader
I was simply testing what's in "Catch Up with Tomorrowâs Paper Today" (attached). Jack has waxed so eloquently about the "P,V Boolean relation" and the "0 to 7" turn that one would think he's discovered relativity. So I measured the impact of the 0 to 7 shift IN ISOLATION. And I made that clear when I posted the first equity curve. So please spare us the red herrings.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115189#post1115189
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.