Independant assessment of Woodie's CCI

I agree re customization ... they're a framework ... although I think one should start with as much simplicity and if one went with watts and wanted support as little customization as possible.

Re NQuoos characteristics ... I don't agree but even if I did it wouldn't take away from the information he's collected or his generosity in maintaining a site where people can download it.
 
NQoos doesn't trade for a living, never has, but I don't believe he is what you described nor were his intentions malicious. However, it's difficult to help someone else when you don't what you're doing yourself.
 
NQoos and Watts

I went to http://www.trading-naked.com/efuturevision5.htm and took a look at the 9/30 setup. Prima facie the setup seems to be advocating mechanical trading.

I then went to http://www.efuturevision.com/ehomej.php3 and listened to the Audio/Video of 9/29/03 Class

It all seems to be very selective and based on hunch: "Mike" talks of not trading the crossovers in a choppy market etc etc.

As with Woodies CCI and Jack "Incomprehensible" Hershey's Chocolate Speedway method you are left with little to test or trade. Our Jack will say it works just great for him and our Mike will say the same: you didn't make a profit today? Tut tut - you clearly were not also following the gazillion other indicators I use in support and don't have my discretionary feel.

Its all smoke and mirrors with these sites and these people - no wonder no one seems to make any money.
 
I imagine plenty of folk make money, but they are as likely to pass their wisdom on to you as they are to the shoeshine boy.
 
I would imagine that very, very few of these people make money except those that run the arcades and prop shops, the trading platforms and the other ancillary service providers. And of course the plethora of phonies who sell courses and videos and tramp the lecture circuits.

It is known that there are some highly successful players who use purely mechanical techniques. It is known that there are some very successful players who trade on fundamentals. It is known that some trade successfully using a combination and their own discretion.

My real point is that it is very difficult to get a feel from websites such as those I quote above as to which are the sheep and which the goats. If you have intra day data and a good feel for slippage you can test the 9/34 method very easily - on the assumption that it is operated purely mechanically.

My bet is that its profile would be remarkably similar to a position trading system using daily data on the grounds that markets are fractal: long and steep drawdowns but probably profitable over the long run if your commission and slippage are small enough.

But Mike does not trade it that way - he uses discretion and many other indicators and timeframes as additional inputs for his decision making.

That is the problem with Woodies CCI, Trading Naked, Jack Hershey’s Chocolate Speedway and all the rest of the gang. If you can make head or tail of the jumbled posts and ill explained methods, if you can salvage enough hard facts to test the ideas mechanically you will at least be able to get an idea as to whether the basic ideas have merit.

What you will not be able to do is to test what they say they actually trade: the extras, the whims, the hunches as to when to pass on a trade, when to exit early and the many other areas of discretion.

You have no way of assessing that mode of trading. You have no way of learning it ( assuming that is your desire) other than giving it a go – preferably sitting alongside a trader with a long and successful track record of using such methods.
 
Quote from ananda:

I would imagine that very, very few of these people make money except those that run the arcades and prop shops, the trading platforms and the other ancillary service providers. And of course the plethora of phonies who sell courses and videos and tramp the lecture circuits.

It is known that there are some highly successful players who use purely mechanical techniques. It is known that there are some very successful players who trade on fundamentals. It is known that some trade successfully using a combination and their own discretion.

My real point is that it is very difficult to get a feel from websites such as those I quote above as to which are the sheep and which the goats. If you have intra day data and a good feel for slippage you can test the 9/34 method very easily - on the assumption that it is operated purely mechanically.

My bet is that its profile would be remarkably similar to a position trading system using daily data on the grounds that markets are fractal: long and steep drawdowns but probably profitable over the long run if your commission and slippage are small enough.

But Mike does not trade it that way - he uses discretion and many other indicators and timeframes as additional inputs for his decision making.

That is the problem with Woodies CCI, Trading Naked, Jack Hershey’s Chocolate Speedway and all the rest of the gang. If you can make head or tail of the jumbled posts and ill explained methods, if you can salvage enough hard facts to test the ideas mechanically you will at least be able to get an idea as to whether the basic ideas have merit.

What you will not be able to do is to test what they say they actually trade: the extras, the whims, the hunches as to when to pass on a trade, when to exit early and the many other areas of discretion.

You have no way of assessing that mode of trading. You have no way of learning it ( assuming that is your desire) other than giving it a go – preferably sitting alongside a trader with a long and successful track record of using such methods.
More...

I'm sorry but my hunch is no matter what you are given it wont work for you. First of all a lot of people make good money in the markets. A few make a lot and a very few make loads. The Watts method or Woodies or any number can work for you and help you be profitable if you work at it.

John Carter remarked once that amatuer traders become professional when "they stop looking for the next great indicator and start manging their risk on each trade" I think there is a lot of truth in that. The turtles all got the same system not all got it to work.

I have recently had a trial of a system where you get trades in real time straight to your screen for the YM, ER2,ES, NQ and Bonds. I have tracked very trade and almost all entries and exits were reasonable or you may have done better. At the end of the ten days every contract was positive the highest about $800 and the lowest about $450 this off one contract per index or bond. The average per day was +225 with 8 winning days and 2 losers.

The thing is I should want to get involved with ths thing but am hestitaing because they dnt reveal their logic. Also most people wouldnt follow the trades to the letter and would then probably blame the system people for selling them snake oil when in fact it was the persons own fault but it seems in this game personal responsiblity is as rare as profitable traders maybe there is a connection there somewhere.
 
"The thing is I should want to get involved with ths thing but am hestitaing because they dnt reveal their logic."

I fear I must be expressing myself very badly but in your statement above you have hit on the essence of what I was trying to say. Sites like those I mentioned do not "reveal their logic" in any way so as to be meaningful. You need long experience on the job - preferably with a mentor.

I do not say nobody makes money. I myself have traded for a living since 1992 and have lived rather well off it.

But my gut feeling is that the estimates out there that 95% fail to make a living out of trading are acccurate.

Anthony Garner
Buhrle Asset Management
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top