Jack Hershey methods

Quote from makosgu:

You are absolutely correct mon ami. What we do have is several posts, like this one, BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR might I add, that describes what types of portfolios to use. You have fabulously demonstrated what types of portfolios don't work! So, for anyone starting down the trail, it is good for them, to learn from what you did, and begin where you left off by using recommend portfolios as opposed to T6 like portfolios which gave him results like...
More...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1403283#post1403283
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote from makosgu:

EXACTLY! So that was your first mistake in assuming what you chose would be sufficient. That's why he had many posts like this one here. It talks about what those conditions are! You can see how they are none of the conditions that you tested.

Mistake #2. The document speaks nothing of edges! There are ZERO occurances of "0 to 7 shift" being an edge.

Mistake #3. See Mistake #1 which gives an example of where the author of the original document specifies conditions.

Mistake #4. See Mistake #3.

MON AMI! The facts on how you screwed it up. Only the facts according to T6.

FACT. You did not construct a portfolio that was specified by the author of the original document.
FACT. You chose portfolios that were never specified in the original document.
FACT. All of your backtest results were negative.

MON AMI! There are many documents which have been amended from the original. Even the document you claim is an original is in fact NOT an original. Take for example, the US CONSTITUTION. It has been amended numerous times. The amendments are typically improvements on the original document. One of those amendments to the constitution gave me the right to vote. According to the original US CONSTITUTION, I would not have the right to vote.

Why anyone would choose to stick their head in the sand and ignore that which they could do to get favorable results is beyond most everyone. Many have reasoned that at this point, you can never show any agreement with any aspect of that document simply because you would then be hypocritical. However, you have revealed how remote your logic is (ie. not choosing to use CONDITIONS that would yield a positive EQ curve). So it goes! However, you have done a SUPERB job of clarifying all of your flaws and how it is that you got your results. Had you never responded, you wouldn't have exposed your reasoning flaws. But, you have, and it has many uses that credit what you have not done and how two backtests using the same document and code can arrive at different results; one that is desired as opposed to one that is not desired...

HAHA... For others, AHA... :cool:
More...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1402231#post1402231
 
Wow, how lame. Actually, the "gotcha" is on you and the other Hershey bootlickers because "Things like qualified universe, 5x+ 20%+ cycling, etc." were NOT part of the original document (Tomorrow's Paper Today) which heralds the P,V relation as if it's the greatest market discovery ever. In that document (attached), Hershey simply recommended buying the turn from 0 to 7 (page 8). I explained this in the thread you took that quote from but you chose to leave that part out... the rest of your posts are just as lame and I won't point out all of MAK'S ERRORS yet again. You people will do anything LOL...
Quote from romanus:

Quote from makosgu:

You know what the gotcha is right? We were trying to fix your backtest because your universe was not VALID by your own definition of what it means to be valid.

"Things like qualified universe, 5x+ 20%+ cycling, etc.". Two things you admitted to have not incorporated. In other words, your data set was unqualified (ie. not valid). You verified that it does not work on an unvalidated universe. As a result and by your own definition, you have discredited your own backtest. If a car has no gas, how are you going to expect the car to get you to point B. This is the problem we had tried to fix in your backtest (ie. get valid favorable non-fantastical results). Qualified names have juice (ie. gas). Thats what gets your EQ curve from Negative to Positive...
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1377571#post1377571
More...
 

Attachments

Quote from OddTrader:

Why do you think JH methods not working?

What are your opinions or experiences, good and bad?

Please give us the newbies your positive and constructive criticisms. Thanks!
More...

Hi Guys

I would like to remind you the above objective of this thread.

Whoever trying to promote or introduce JH methods in this thread would indicate much the lack of confidence in the methods.

Please let the people on the other side speak first regarding their experiences and problems! Thanks!
 
Quote from romanus:

Assimilation of counterintuitive information into existing knowledge structure is hampered by persisting intuitive notions. There is no cure for minimally counterintuitive cognitive template.
More...

Are you really trading actively using any JH methods (perhaps with variations)? Which one(s)? SCT (if not, why not?)? What are the time-frames?

Please advise and thanks!
 
This is actually very simple.

The garbage that romanus is posting is great because it shows conclusively how Hershey's followers use misinformation to do damage control when one of his "methods" is exposed as worthless. Actually, this is more than one of Jack's "methods;" Jack claims that the "P,V relation" is at the heart of TA. Anyway... the kool-aid drinkers can't confront with facts so they make stuff up... just like their ridiculous profitibility claims that they never support with proof.

Here is Jack's original document, which I used as the basis for my backtest. Read it carefully. On page 8 it says to buy the 0 to 7 turn of the "P,V relation." There are no other conditions or filters saying which stocks to do this on or how to exit, so I tested it on 1000 S&P stocks over a five year period. I used a time exit so the results would depend on the 0 to 7 turn itself as much as possible, as opposed to the exit. Exiting 5 days later* produced the equity curve at this link. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/attachments/pv-equity-jpg.35609/
* 5 days worked better than 1,2,3, or 4 days.

As you can see, makosgu's lame arguments all center around misinformation and conditions NOT in the original document. Typical cult propaganda. LOL!
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top