I'd check your data feed. I have the low of the day at 1261 - clearly lower (by over 3 points) and ten minutes after my exit. I use a 5 minute chart for the ES.
- Spydertrader
Jack Hershey PVT System Testing (moderated)
- Thread starter vikana
- Start date
- Status
I'd check your data feed. I have the low of the day at 1261 - clearly lower (by over 3 points) and ten minutes after my exit. I use a 5 minute chart for the ES.
- Spydertrader
Quote from MandelbrotSet:
Someone asked me to check these times ... they are authentic according to my data information and though they represent the high and the low of the move, realisticaly they most definitely could have been filled.
Now, I'm kinda busy homies, can you please concentrate on the trading!??#!
Thank you for responding to requests of others and providing a third party verification.
From what little I know of the method, I think the stocks being part of a screened universe is part of the method right from the beginning. Perhaps the paper that you had did not contain that information, but it is still part of the method. So- it seems you started from incomplete documentation. That's too bad for you, perhaps reason to get aggravated, but it still seems to make your backtest useless.
But please tell me that are not seriously claiming that JH and Spyder CREATED the screening and spent countless hours explaining it because of YOUR backtest??? Does that mean you actually think that the hundreds of people posting about the "final universe" , and developing and creating the code for it did this work because of YOU??? As far as I know, they dont even know you exist....
You are wrong again. I've attached the paper. It's a stand alone document that explores the price, volume relationship and describes a scoring methodology and a trading cycle based on those scores (see last page). NOWHERE does it say anything about applying it to a pre-screened universe of any kind. On the contrary, the paper implies that its methodology is as good as having tomorrow's paper (title is "Catch Up With Tomorrow's Paper Today"). So I tested it to see if that's true. I found it is not.
Quote from Vienna:
From what little I know of the method, I think the stocks being part of a screened universe is part of the method right from the beginning. Perhaps the paper that you had did not contain that information, but it is still part of the method. So- it seems you started from incomplete documentation. That's too bad for you, perhaps reason to get aggravated, but it still seems to make your backtest useless.
But please tell me that are not seriously claiming that JH and Spyder CREATED the screening and spent countless hours explaining it because of YOUR backtest??? Does that mean you actually think that the hundreds of people posting about the "final universe" , and developing and creating the code for it did this work because of YOU??? As far as I know, they dont even know you exist....
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 assist us all in recognising the variances and provide some insight as to where the confusion lies between the backtests in question.
At present, it looks to me like a game of smoke and mirrors and somebody is playing "silly buggars".
Actually, that's the subtitle. The title is "Catch Up With Tomorrow's Paper Today."
Not exactly... I was testing just part of the p,v relationship as described in that paper.... buying the "0 to 7 turn" So what?
Is your goal to throw up as much smoke as possible? Let's stay on topic please.
Not exactly... I was testing just part of the p,v relationship as described in that paper.... buying the "0 to 7 turn" So what?
Is your goal to throw up as much smoke as possible? Let's stay on topic please.
Everyone familiar with the method knows that a universe of stocks if needed for the system to work...Anyone serious about obtaining a good result would want to take the time to get accurate background data.
Now the question is was that done out of incompetence, or malice or both.....?
Based on a review of the comments posted I would guess both.
by the way Tums, when you point out some error of the presentation, it is labeled as "throwing up smoke". Apparently his "researcher" has never made an error. Absolute perfection at all times....
- Status