Quote from Now is Now:
Wouldn't it be useful, that since Trader666 is supposed to have erred in his backtesting for a specific period,June 2008, that Hershey/Spyder, or whoever, provide the correct results for the same period?...warts and all.
This will be done by a third party. Certainly anyone could do this and here we have a solution in effect which is being done. You, as a passive observer, just get to wait until then.
This will assist us all in recognising the variances and provide some insight as to where the confusion lies between the backtests in question.
This stuff you call back testing will be shown for what it isn't. I may sound harsh but what has been posted on June 2008 has no contributing value to anything. This specifically includes that it has no contributing value to the analysis, testing or clarifying anything about PVT.
From what you are saying you cannot understand this at all. That is just fine. It is not going to be possible, as you see, for any of the coding of trader666 to ever see the light of day. Coding will begin to appear and when it does it will be iteratively refined to afford potential users the opportunity to have something excellent to demonstrate and make use of what is appropriate for back testing a system according to the rules of parts and/or all of the system as a whole.
Right now we are just going through a sad and unfortunate interlude until all of the "work" so far done by trader666 is eradicated based upon its lack of quality and failures
At present, it looks to me like a game of smoke and mirrors and somebody is playing "silly buggars".
I believe that it will take some time here to upgrade the activities of ET. I have been making a strong and solid effort to support the learning of others for about 50 years. It is very common to have others making unfounded disparging remarks like those you are making towards me. I take such in stride because I know several things that are a consequence of being succesful in transferring these trading systems for such a long period. I alsoknow that by using a non inductive and non probabalistic approach. that the users have much less risk on their hands and they, therefore, have a greater chance of purposefully acquiring knowledge and skills as a consequence of putting in the work while gaining experience. One tangible outcome posted today was a turn of 50 contrcts that made the poster over 40,000 for that period of the day in that instrument alone. You characterize this as "a game of smoke and mirrors and somebody is playing "silly buggars"."
My suggestion to you is to get very interested in learning to do what this poster who offered the print does in PVT and SCT and, secondly, getting it staight that there is no scientific or logical way of proving anything cannot be done. the person who thinks he is proving something is simply showing that, so far, he is not proving anything at all.
