BWolinsky Trading

[bwolinsky]

Quote from jack hershey:

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.

It's your system, Jack, certified by you. Nothing's been modified from the original version except for some optimization in values and removing the sell on close.

There's no program that has surfaced drawing straight lines and predicting market movement out there, so I conclude that it doesn't exist. Scottd then, is in TS working on cash cow, but hasn't posted in over half a year now.

 

[jack hershey]

Quote from bwolinsky:

It's your system, Jack, certified by you. Nothing's been modified from the original version except for some optimization in values and removing the sell on close.

The 50% signal comes from the STOCH (5, 2, 3); The STOCH (14, 1, 3) has two signals, neither of which is 50%. We do not advocate sell on close; we use a cover signal.

There's no program that has surfaced drawing straight lines and predicting market movement out there, so I conclude that it doesn't exist.

the cash cow does not predict in any way in any form whatsoever. The same is true for the pool extraction paradigm and its applications: PVT, SCT and SSR.

Scottd then, is in TS working on cash cow, but hasn't posted in over half a year now.

We do not work in TS. That means no coding is being done or was done in TS. Trader666 and others have soured Scott's desire to post in ET. There is no desire on our part to have vendors cop the work being done and foist it off on others. I'm sure that from the posted charts, which we do not do anymore, everyone figured out the platform coding being used with few exceptions (you are one of the exceptions).

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from bwolinsky:

It's your system, Jack, certified by you. Nothing's been modified from the original version except for some optimization in values and removing the sell on close.

There's no program that has surfaced drawing straight lines and predicting market movement out there, so I conclude that it doesn't exist. Scottd then, is in TS working on cash cow, but hasn't posted in over half a year now.

The only certification this ATS has is that it's going to be a Certified Failure ...

ScottD doesn't dare show his face on ET again ... he got taken in by Jack and he's too embarrassed for everyone to know it.

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from Trader666:

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

When you realize the whole system is predicated on failure, and jack hershey uses his tautology to attempt to pretend otherwise, it's one of the absolute funniest "trading jokes" I've ever seen.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from MandelbrotSet:

When you realize the whole system is predicated on failure, and jack hershey uses his tautology to attempt to pretend otherwise, it's one of the absolute funniest "trading jokes" I've ever seen.

I'm not so sure if it's going to be a certified failure, but the Cash Cow in Scottd's system was pretty clear about what constituted a buy and a sell or sell short and cover, and it was all based on the Stoch 14,1,3.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Jack's system in WL5 has the following returns at 199% of equity since 9/1/2008:
All Trades
Starting Capital $10,000.00
Ending Capital $49,788.29
Net Profit $39,788.29
Net Profit % 397.88%
Annualized Gain % 853.52%
Exposure 27.25%
Total Commission ($544.00)
Return on Cash $0.00
Margin Interest Paid $0.00
Dividends Received $0.00

Number of Trades 34
Average Profit $1,170.24
Average Profit % 2.65%
Average Bars Held 19.41

Winning Trades 26
Win Rate 76.47%
Gross Profit $52,616.98
Average Profit $2,023.73
Average Profit % 4.36%
Average Bars Held 19.38
Max Consecutive Winners 8

Losing Trades 8
Loss Rate 23.53%
Gross Loss ($12,828.69)
Average Loss ($1,603.59)
Average Loss % -2.92%
Average Bars Held 19.5
Max Consecutive Losses 1

Maximum Drawdown ($8,522.46)
Maximum Drawdown Date 11/21/2008
Maximum Drawdown % -35.95%
Maximum Drawdown % Date 11/21/2008

Wealth-Lab Score 2,006.43
Sharpe Ratio 2.91
Profit Factor 4.1
Recovery Factor 4.67
Payoff Ratio 1.49


I want to see more trades out of it to guage risk, as well as reward. Right now I don't have enough data to safely say anything about it. The PDF below has my results of Cash Cow from BWolinsky.

So, I guess it will be a split thread. I will log the SDS and SSO trades of Cash Cow here, as well as the real big money trades.

It now looks something like this

All Trades
Starting Capital $10,000.00
Ending Capital $49,519.54
Net Profit $39,519.54
Net Profit % 395.20%
Annualized Gain % 558.57% APR is quite volatile for periods less than 1 year.
Exposure 22.83%
Total Commission ($584.00)
Return on Cash $0.00
Margin Interest Paid $0.00
Dividends Received $0.00

Number of Trades 37
Average Profit $1,068.10
Average Profit % 2.43%
Average Bars Held 19.11

Winning Trades 28
Win Rate 75.68%
Gross Profit $54,166.31
Average Profit $1,934.51
Average Profit % 4.11%
Average Bars Held 18.68
Max Consecutive Winners 8

Losing Trades 9
Loss Rate 24.32%
Gross Loss ($14,646.77)
Average Loss ($1,627.42)
Average Loss % -2.80%
Average Bars Held 20.44
Max Consecutive Losses 1

Maximum Drawdown ($8,522.46)
Maximum Drawdown Date 11/21/2008
Maximum Drawdown % -35.95%
Maximum Drawdown % Date 11/21/2008

Wealth-Lab Score 1,566.83
Sharpe Ratio 2.46 The Sharpe has crossed into a believable range. 2.5 is about the max for any decent long term profitable system
Profit Factor 3.7 Profit Factor slipped from 4.1
Recovery Factor 4.64
Payoff Ratio 1.47

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from jack hershey:

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.

Jack, please interpret the signals DU and FRV. I can see some as a percentage of the 65 day volume average, but it's not obvious from this table what DU or FRV is measuring.

Also, there's nothing Scottd is doing that in any way relates to this document.

After looking at it, it appears you are saying the market is controlled by volume, which I would say has no real basis....I'd have to backtest it.

 

[Trader666]

You're kidding, right? Backtesting this would be like checking yet another dog turd on the ground to see of it's somehow chunky peanut butter shaped like a dog turd. And then of course you'd claim the backtest was flawed when it's really your "method" that's broken. Like your "p,v relation."

So instead why don't you tell us why you failed to turn $10,000 into $1 million in 100 days and post updates on ET as you promised your former IBD group you would? You can't blame your failure to do that on backtests.

Quote from jack hershey:

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.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from Trader666:

You're kidding, right? Backtesting this would be like checking yet another dog turd on the ground to see of it's somehow chunky peanut butter shaped like a dog turd. And then of course you'd claim the backtest was flawed when it's really your "method" that's broken. Like your "p,v relation."

So instead why don't you tell us why you failed to turn $10,000 into $1 million in 100 days and post updates on ET as you promised your former IBD group you would? You can't blame your failure to do that on backtests.

T, please try a different tact with Jack in my thread. There's literally 100's of threads with the same posts of you asking that question. Please try to be original in this one. You can let Jack cling to his delusions that 10k to 1 mil in 100 days is possible, but I've tried to show a more realistic version based on the certified cash cow.

There might be something to only testing volume, and I'm not sure how you ever backtested the v5 of hershey equities method without the studies to go along with it. If you have the studies then I'd be interested in seeing them, otherwise it's not possible to backtest that chartscript properly.

 

[MandelbrotSet]

Quote from Trader666:

You're kidding, right? Backtesting this would be like checking yet another dog turd on the ground to see of it's somehow chunky peanut butter shaped like a dog turd. And then of course you'd claim the backtest was flawed when it's really your "method" that's broken. Like your "p,v relation."

Truly ROTFLMAOOOO!

Apperently is isn't too obvious to anyone but us?

"High Five!"

Quote from Trader666:

So instead why don't you tell us why you failed to turn $10,000 into $1 million in 100 days and post updates on ET as you promised your former IBD group you would? You can't blame your failure to do that on backtests.

No, but it can be blamed on a fundamentally unsound trading methodology. :eek: