Jack Hershey PVT System Testing (moderated)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from OddTrader:

As it seems certain relevant software has been developed, Would it be possible that a set of back-testing performance statistics (preferable based on EOD data of say any single major ETF, covering a reasonable period of time) can be available for inspection (as the same statistics should be reproduced by anyone else with any of the software that are designed to do the same trading method)? Thanks in advance!
More...

As long as everyone seems to enjoy wearing their 'setting the record straight' hats, this post clarify's much of the errors created by Trader666's coding efforts. In addition, within the post itself, links to backtests, forward tests, and live trades exist.

All of the content covered thus far in this thread has been reviewed and discussed ad infinitum and ad nauseum elsewhere on ET with the exact same result each and every time.

I see zero value to heading down the same tired old road under the flawed belief that "this time it's different."

While I applaud the efforts of the moderation staff, this process need not be so complicated. Start by learning to thoroughly and properly annotate a chart (drawing trendlines and formations) and follow the directions located here.

Whatever path you all decide to choose, I wish you success in your efforts.

Good trading to you all.

- Spydertrader
 
Quote from jack hershey:

There are zero , nada, stats on ETF's, sorry I was not clear.
More...

Thanks Jack. That simply implies a significance that ETFs would be potentially not suitable to trade with your methods. For Cornering purpose? :D
 
Quote from Spydertrader:

- Spydertrader
More...

The possibility is you just gave up a good opportunity to prove what you believe by simply producing/ providing requested/ required statistics!

Anyway, look forward to that later.
 
Quote from vikana:

I'd like to ask both Trader666 and Jack to leave the past behind. Trader666 *has* produced solid tests of some of Jacks work; and should be recognized as such.

When Trader666 is ready, and maybe when this project has been completed, I'd like to study his work. Contributions, such as Trader666s, are welcome, imo.
More...

Looks like your message should have been directed at the usual suspects and not at Jack considering he was invited to show up to your thread that you created.

Also, spydertrader appeared as expected when he notice you as a moderator didn't have the ability to moderate the usual suspects although I do give you credit for deleting a few profanity laced messasges in this thread so far.

However, can some one please post a code considering that's what this thread is all about...

Correct ???

Think about, there has been requests by the some here for Jack to be precise and post a simple code that can be backtested.

Further, you said Trader666 has tested Jack's method.

Yet, neither side has produced a code.

In fact, both sides keep refering to prior posts of yester-year.

Is this a big joke by both sides or you guys just prefer to argue and debate. :confused:

Those that say it doesn't work or has failed via their own interpretation of the method must have a code...correct. :confused:

Trader666, can you or Spydertrader help this thread at all via posting your codes ???

Thanks in advance.

Mark
 
Quote from Trader666:

Here are the 20 day results: The indices lost an average of 9.36% and the FU lost an average of 10.9%

The attached chart shows the individual gains and losses... again, the first three bars on the left are the Dow, SP500 and Nasdaq, and the remainder are the FU stocks.
More...

For simplicity, How about trading merely with QQQQ for one whole year in order to see the statistics? It doesn't matter how many total trades for the year. Much appreciated!
 
Quote from Trader666:

Stop trying to obfuscate the past and let's focus on analyzing PVT here, OK?
P.S. Spending a few minutes following your own links proves you're full of crap because they show you adding additional conditions that didn't exist and weren't part of what I was testing in the first place... which is buying the "0 to 7 turn" as described in Jack's paper "Catch Up With Tomorrow's Prices Today" using YOUR code for the scoring. Show me where in Jack's paper it says to only apply that to a "universe." You're just posting smoke and mirrors and hoping nobody actually reads all the links.
More...

Frankly, that should be a positive development, simply to accept the updates. As Jack has acknowledged Spyder's contributions.

Would you mind to incorporate any of the new updates for further testing (if the trading concept is wrong, the method derived from it would be never right! No matter how many updates added.)? Much appreciated again!
 
Actually, it's Jack and Spydertrader who keep taking this off topic to the past... not to mention that I said a few pages ago I'm perfectly willing to go over my backtest of buying the "0 to 7 turn" in a separate moderated thread with a fine tooth comb after we analyze PVT here. But I'll tell you right now that I did those tests carefully and honestly and a backtest of PVT in its entirety here won't negate them. That's just an Orwellian attempt to erase the past and it ain't gonna happen.
Quote from NihabaAshi:

Looks like your message should have been directed at the usual suspects and not at Jack considering he was invited to show up to your thread that you created.

Also, spyder showed as expected when he notice you as a moderator didn't have the ability to moderate the usual suspects although I do give you credit for deleting a few profanity laced messasges in this thread so far.

However, can some one please post a code considering that's what this thread is all about...

Correct ???

Think about, there has been requests by the some here for Jack to be precise and post a simple code that can be backtested.

Further, you said Trader666 has tested Jack's method.

Yet, neither side has produced a code.

Is this a big joke by both sides or you guys just prefer to argue and debate. :confused:

Those that say it doesn't work must have a code...right ???

Mark
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

Stop trying to obfuscate the past and let's focus on analyzing PVT here, OK?
More...

My god.
It seems that quite a few people here do NOT want to see clarifying information about PVT by Jack. One almost gets the feeling that they make huge efforts to stop Jack from showing clearly what the method consists of.

Why would that be? Perhaps because to some it is threatening, or because they had their own war going for so long that to now be proven wrong would be actually worse than to learn a profitable method? This is psychologically understandable, especially if you are some unhinged nutjob who posts 30 times per day over years regarding this subject.

But: WHO except T666 cares what results T666 backtested if the proponents of the method say it was not done correctly? Why would T666 even post his backtest? If I backtest a method and the inventor of the method tells me I got it wrong, I would listen and try to correct it or find out if he is wrong.
I understand that it seems to be very important to T666 to justify himself since he apparently spent a big amount of time on it, but I could not care less. This is not about T666 and his backtesting ability or lack of.

I would be interested to have Jack clarify exactly how the method works, and THEN see either the proponents of the method or T666 to backtest it to exacting standards. The moderators should make sure that happens and throw out all the posts that do not deal with this matter, including my own after reading it.:)
 
Quote from Trader666:

Actually, it's Jack and Spydertrader who keep taking this off topic to the past... not to mention that I said a few pages ago I'm perfectly willing to go over my backtest of buying the "0 to 7 turn" in a separate moderated thread with a fine tooth comb after we analyze PVT here. But I'll tell you right now that I did those tests carefully and honestly and a backtest of PVT in its entirety here won't negate them. That's just an Orwellian attempt to erase the past and it ain't gonna happen.
More...

Ok...thanks.

However, my question still remains...

Does anybody have any codes of anything that does with Jack's method that they can post for anyone that's neutral to test themselves for verification.

Any hands being raised ???

If so...please just post it and then go over your results because results (good or bad) without the code or without a in-depth explanation of one strategy will always cast a dark cloud over the heads of all those involved...

Although it's obvious you guys don't care so far via what's stated in this thread so far.

If I don't see a posted code in a few more pages of arguing and debating...

I can only assume that Jack's method is a rule based discretionary method.

Thus, only some parts of his method can be coded while other parts can not be coded.

Therefore, if such is true...there is no code that test the method 100% the way it is designed and is dependent upon the interpretation of those testing the method along with being dependent upon the programming skills of the coder to be accurate.

That could explain why some results have been dismissed, not taken seriously or debatable ???

Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top