BWolinsky Trading

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from MandelbrotSet:

You can't play around with volume relationships like that.

This is amatuer hour, right? :confused:
More...

Mandy, think about who you are talking to. A BS in Financial Economics with a minor in mathematics that nearly minored in Computer Science. You really think I don't know what I'm talking about? We're not in Kansas anymore, at least you aren't, I'm about two miles away from Kansas. When I got a look at the Cash Cow Supposedly Certified by Jack Hershey himself, they didn't realize that that was all I needed to take 20 minutes of my time to transpose in WL, as I've written in TS and NT with no problems.

For whatever reason, I suspect this 20000 .SPX contracts came from some random optimization process from SpyderTrader. I don't know if Jack's just denying there's a TS version of Cash Cow or did not know what he was certifying, but I doubt the latter.
 
First verifiable trade in SDS

At 10:15 AM today bought SDS at $58.67

I don't anticipate posting these calls in real time like this, but happened to be at my computer when the signal came.
 
Quote from bwolinsky:

I'm going to respond to this because I know you're an older aged man.

TS is tradestation and refers to easy language code, a C++ derivative. WL is Wealth Lab Perl in V4, and .NET in V5, pro or developer depending on where you live. Fidelity offers a unique dataset in .SPX native only to Fidelity Wealth Lab Pro V.5. This is probably where you're getting confused. I trade SDS and SSO <i>BASED</i> on .SPX indicators. I learned this writing PTQQS, Pairs Trading QID QLD Scalper after years of working with trading systems. At the end of the day, your logic gates are just if then else statements, and you cling to this cryptic method of presenting your trades with weird charts with straight lines.

It makes zero sense to me for you to say TS is unfamiliar to you, because Scottd's version <i>WAS</i> written in easy language code.

Jack, if you're serious about 3rd party verification, rather than this cryptic language you can send me whatever program you have, and I'll verify it. I've done this for two people before, and they haven't turned me down, so don't be the first.

If I were to discover your claims are true, just imagine how good that would be for you. If it's true, your cult wins, and if not, nothing's changed. I'm just one more person willing to give you a shot.

I'm sure Fidelity had a great time talking to you, Jack.

Anyway. I'm a disinterested 3rd party here. As 3rd party as it gets, and took a Cash Cow ATS from Scottd and converted it from Tradestation easy language code into Wealth Lab code.

I've looked at iterative refinement and do not see anything but multi-alias posts of daily charts with non-sensical lines with no predictive value.

All we really need is the program. The Ergodic Oscillator from the other pariah has not been traded or verified succesfully either, and he gets the same invitation.

For you, though, I don't see any technical way you can trade off the shelf out of excel unless paper trading. You do not appear to speak about FIX protocol ever in your statements, therefore there's no way you're trading with real money out of VBA or Excel or any other non-functional platform.

So what do you say, Jack? PM me, and we'll get the verification started.

I suspect, though, that you'll go on with more of the same. My version of Cash Cow was found to be profitable in WL5. Take the WL script translator to the WL4 code, do a little optimization and you get the results in this thread.

I know SpyderTrader wrote your scripts, so you can continue to work with him, or work with me. It doesn't look like Spyder ever made real time calls, which does call into question why you're so concerned with Cash Cow being in this thread.
More...

Thank you for your response.

I do not see any common ground. since we work on six levels of logic (components>> subassemblies>>assemblies>> final assemblies>> and the integration of two levels of final assemblies to get an execution logic for the basic core. From that core there are three shells which serve to more or less go to faster fractals for reversal trading on what we call intermediate and expert level as a measure of increasing cash velocity.

As you you have shown clearly, you are not in the market much if ever. This is not a negative comment. The cash cow, in contrast and on another fractal and in another market is in the market all of the time. The logic keeps us on the right side and does not jump fractals. Several profit segments are taken a day and, if necessary, brief trades are taken to make corrections if the market changes sides.

I am an amateur and you are a vendor. This difference means we serve different missions. For me, my interest is informing others as an educational endeavor. It is possible that some successful traders do not share my views. Almost without exception however, they appreciate how our methods both succeed at the common goal of making money.

It would not be a good use of our time to fix your commercial trading strategist products since we are all amateurs and wish to not step over the line and have reporting requirements that professionals are required to do.

I would simply say, however, that building an ATS is much more involved than that which you present. This is not a negative statement.

The logic sheets are flow charts of the ATS; the Excel is a flow of the logic on the sheets where columns are added for function, Keys and calculations. Function means purpose of the row and keys means the "why" the row helps to relate and calculations involve things like algebra, geometry, and simple arithematic in some cases. we use stts tosimulate caculus derivatives in that column. The Excel, thus, is a programmer communications tool. To convert the logic flow to Excel usually three people participate . A projection screen is used and 45 minute digital audio files accompny he building of the Excel.

The three or so principal theories used are from Carnap, Keynes, and Bayes and the frequentist crowd.

The products that come form the Excel involve many engines and many purposes. fidelity is not interested in having such be integrated with its product. This development is from a system I used 30 years ago manually and it is where I became familiar with not having to have price to trade.

I hope the above better explains why we have little or no common ground.

Again thank you for your response and I am sorry the data I presented had little value.
 
All right, well, first trade was closed at 59.14 on SDS, and this is verifiable.

Some key problems were slippage. WL's price was entered at 58.6 and exited at 59.15. Real price was 58.67 and exit at 59.14 for slippage of .08 on the trade.
 
Currently holding SDS in Cash Cow from BWolinsky at 60.94. Will see what earnings season brings. This trade was entered at 3:30 today following the stochastic 14,1,3 cross below 50 but quickly reversed in the last half hour.

No trade in PTQQS though oversold we are currently in a wash sale environment, so tax considerations do take precedence over any trades. It's not just tax consideration, but that after taking two losses in a row substantially improved results rather than continuing to enter into trades.
 
Quote from bwolinsky:

Currently holding SDS in Cash Cow from BWolinsky at 60.94. Will see what earnings season brings. This trade was entered at 3:30 today following the stochastic 14,1,3 cross below 50 but quickly reversed in the last half hour.

No trade in PTQQS though oversold we are currently in a wash sale environment, so tax considerations do take precedence over any trades. It's not just tax consideration, but that after taking two losses in a row substantially improved results rather than continuing to enter into trades.
More...

For those who use indicators to trade, it is NOT a good idea to use 50% as a signal on a STOCH tuned to "overbought" and "oversold"signals.

From a trading strategist point of view, it is necesary to use any indicator as the designer intended. For the cash cow the indicators were "tuned" for trading from two trading strategy viewpoints each for each of the four indicators.

Obviously there is a "mix up" that occurred when the OP, as a trading strategist, chose to rearrange the stuff that he did. Trader666 did the same thing in his backtesting and it destroyed any trading possibilities.

One of the two trading viewpoints is "signals". Obviously most trading strategies orient to making money and signals play a small role in that process. Indicators, on the other hand, primarily, deal with the making money part of trading strategies.

the Cash cow's primary trading strategy is to make money. The KEYS to making money deal with thre things:

1. Being in the market. You have to not be sidelined if you are using a trading strategy to make money. So an AM entry on open is required. Correspondingly, at the end of the day you exit. These are the functions, respectively of Entry and Exit. They have no other functions that are used in the cash cow.

2. You have to keep on the right side of the market. The bulk of a trading strategy as developed by an expert trading strategist is to keep the trader on the right side of the market. There is no doubt that this occurs on two levels: the P, V relationship handles all. secondly if constrained by anything (like a challenge) then this is done with the tools of the trade. The cash cow uses four indicators of hwich price is NOT included.

Obviously there is a by product of staying on the right side of the market: profit segments are taken in a very timely manner at all times.

3. Operate at the capacity of the market at all times. The market has a nominal capacity value determine by carrying capacity tests. The trading strategist deals with variations of the capacity by measures and by strategies. Volume is the KEY and patial fills are the strategic means. Partial fills have two salient characterisitcs: size and frequency as determined by separation of fills strategies.

None of the above are being done by the OP. And he has "mixed up" the functions of the indicators and their providing of information for logical operation of an ATS. Also he doe not get the use and purpose of Sidelining, Entry and Exit in trading.
 
Oh please... I used your original "catch up with tomorrow's paper today" document as the basis for my backtest. Maybe you should re-read it. On page 8 it says to buy the 0 to 7 turn of the "P,V relation." I used Spydertrader's code for the scoring so don't say I didn't do it right. And there are no conditions or filters saying which stocks to buy, so I tested it on 1000 S&P stocks over a five year period.

I've also told you many, many times before why I used time exits instead of the 4 to 3 transitions called for in your paper. And the reason is, your "model" is so BROKEN that the transitions from 4 to 3 are VASTLY outnumbered by the 0 to 7 transitions... enough to make the average trade last for YEARS. So I exiting 5 days later (which worked better than 1,2,3, or 4 days). Time exits are a legitimate way to test entries. You can pretend they're not.

Bottom line: Your "p,v relation" model as described in that paper is BROKEN.

Quote from jack hershey:

Obviously there is a "mix up" that occurred when the OP, as a trading strategist, chose to rearrange the stuff that he did. Trader666 did the same thing in his backtesting and it destroyed any trading possibilities.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

Oh please... I used your original "catch up with tomorrow's paper today" document as the basis for my backtest. Maybe you should re-read it. On page 8 it says to buy the 0 to 7 turn of the "P,V relation." I used Spydertrader's code for the scoring so don't say I didn't do it right. And there are no conditions or filters saying which stocks to buy, so I tested it on 1000 S&P stocks over a five year period.

I've also told you many, many times before why I used time exits instead of the 4 to 3 transitions called for in your paper. And the reason is, your "model" is so BROKEN that the transitions from 4 to 3 are VASTLY outnumbered by the 0 to 7 transitions... enough to make the average trade last for YEARS. So I exiting 5 days later (which worked better than 1,2,3, or 4 days). Time exits are a legitimate way to test entries. You can pretend they're not but that will only make you look even more ignorant.

Bottom line: Your "p,v relation" model as described in that paper is BROKEN.
More...

Lovely translation of a paper.

It is hard to believe that price cycles are not completed. I guess you feel you proved that price cycles do not complete for years after you entered long and price never peaks as it continues upward. I can understand people not wanting that result.

Attached is my usual one pager for you to backtest. The high Beta Universe for using it is well known and written up and appears on the videos you have of me speaking.

You haven't reported your back testing results on this one pager which was the basis of the order of magnitude increase in capital in the document you have entitled "Putting the Pieces Together" (which explains the attached one pager in detail).

I don't care if you report the results. Others may wish to see if you, finally, can do a defined backtest properly.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

Quote from Trader666:

Too bad it doesn't. In ScottD's last post on ET (March, 2009) he said Cashcow 1.2, which had been certified by YOU (Jack Hershey), was not consistently profitable.

I asked ScottD for an update in May and still haven't heard back.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2438060#post2438060
More...

Version 1.3.5 is under review now. It is the last version of the Cash Cow basic core. Three shells will follow: Basic supreme, Intermediate and Expert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top