Jack Hershey's Drill number 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Drill number 1 it seems is only for something or other but is not intended for actually making money according to Grob. So no point in back testing or forward testing as far as I can tell.
 
Quote from Chicken Little:

Drill number 1 it seems is only for something or other but is not intended for actually making money according to Grob. So no point in back testing or forward testing as far as I can tell.
More...

don't worry about 1. It is way beyond your reasoning capability as a requirement to understand to make money.

be dumb and glib.
 
from Grob109
As you suggest this was only the beginning point to begin to show stages of iterative refinement. The thread beginner here and now is a very persistent person who has only dwelt on setting up the base line and he has been holding this focus for years so far. Lets say he gets it that a base line reference is valuable. If that be the case then he might want to look at how different trading improvements can be made. Would there be any value in his looking a a totally mechanical version of trading a futures index by using a leading index as a guide? This will be hard to answer because of how he is going about what he is doing.
More...


What good is a baseline that depletes your equity ?

You can't polish a turd.
You can chrome plate a turd and then polish it,
but its still a turd.
 
Quote from Grob109:

Your list is fucked up. You alone fucked it up. Your fucked up shit. He is just like you are with your fucking up making a list.You cannot explain to him his fuck ups nor can he explain to you how you keep fucking up.He cannot use SCT; you cannot use SCT. People who fuck up cannot use SCT.Chicken little is starting threads day by day and he fucks up too just like both of you do. He is fucking up like you fuck up and the backtester fucks up.You and chicken cannot talk to each other and explain each of your fuck ups to each other and neither of you can explain the the backtester why he is fucked up and fucking up. This is a post about people who fuck up as a life style preference. It is fucking up, instead. Unless you fuck it up.These are 100% fuck ups.You fucked up.He fucked up in several ways. The software for using what I do is posted in a thread closed by a moderator who helped the guys who continually fuck up to close the thread. This is a moderator fuck up.Chicken is still building a baseline except he is fucking up by not getting that done. So Gerry doesn't and he is fucking up by not having them. Except for all three people who are fucking up. They all fuck up when it comes to 2.gerry is fucking up. Get it straight as you read this, it is impossible to fuck up getting the direction of the market straight by doing subtraction. He did though and he posted his fucked up results.People who fuck up Type LMAO when they think of this possibility. they are doing two things: laughing and fucking up.Fuck no.
More...

So many bad words in one post! Why Jack, you naughty boy. You should be ashamed of yourself. If I were there I'd wash out your mouth with soap!

You claim the most recent attempts to backtest your methods are f'ed up. What about the guys from Harvard who came up with air after trying for over a year? Your stuff didn't test out in 1999 Jack Hershey's Method Doesn't Work, and here's how far they got more than a year later. Excerpt:

I don't understand why it's not possible to verify such a successful futures trading system if it is based on objective rules. My own attempts to automate the system have been frustrated at every turn by an enormous problem that is apparently only resolvable by gut instinct: when to let it ride. Jack gives instructions sometimes to get out at congestion, but other times this congestion may really just be a temporary jumble before the market continues its previous direction. Of course, if we move to a higher fractal, this jumble won't look so much like a jumble and we can ex post justify a decision not to sideline. But I cannot figure out an objective system for determining ex ante which fractal to make decisions on.

Eerily reminiscent of today if you ask me. But backtesting aside, why did nwbprop go down in flames even with all your personal coaching? Was he a f-up too?

And what about this trading contest where you returned -24%? Was that also f'ed up?

Hmmmmm. So many questions...
 
Quote from Chicken Little:

What good is a baseline that depletes your equity ?

You can't polish a turd.
You can chrome plate a turd and then polish it,
but its still a turd.
More...

People do not trade baselines.

Why do people not trade baselines?

Baselines are not for trading.

Baselines are a reference for setting up a system based upon improvements.

This base line on the 30 minute chart has several features that relate to trends, bar length and having a relationship between entries and exits.

The post you copied from the year 2000 was focussed on several market elements that were of interest to a diverse group of people who knew about how the markets work, knew about market variables and knew a lot of statisitcal tools.

So far you are thinking that the base line is a way to make money and so you are doing it once in a while.

Actually you didn't trade it using money in a real account at all.

And you do not get what was posted in the post you copied and put into ET along side some other comments taken from other times and places.

We were lucky to have jerry chime in with his list and to have a backtester chime in too.

Now you are doing the theme jeryy started with his SCT shit comment.

The base line is a turd.

you suggest two trader techniques to deal with the turd:

1. Chrome plating, and

2. Polishing.

I suggested three. Maybe you might think up another to stay even with me six years back.


The three were:

2. slope pairs of bars.
3. overlapped pairs slopes
4. retracement.


There is a chart that is used for 2 and 3. the 4. does not need a special chart.

2. Introduces channels as a concept. and the slope is used to project into the future a region in which the next bar will be forming if the slope of the trend continues.

3. Uses two interleaved charts that are both 30 minute charts but the 30 minute bars of one chart are offset 15 minutes from the other chart. One chart started at :20 after the hour and the other started at 35 after the hour. Both have 30 minutes bars. Here two slopes give two channels each offset by 15 minutes from the other.

For 2 the region of future price movement is simple and it provides a space that can be seen as favorable for continuing to make money. There is also a space defined outside of the space for making money. What gives when this is considered?

Gerry doesn't know. You are polishing turds. And the backtester is found to have been bullshittting about backtesting the parts of this yet one more time.

2. Serves to divided the future into two zones (think trading in the zone). This introduces a concept that I will call the one after the first three I gave jerry to think about. He is gone from this thread by now. The concept, 4, introduces "continuation" and "change". The space inside is where "continuation" occurs and the space outside is where "change" occurs.

You do not recognize these two elements as the two predications of the P, V relationship stated as Boolean algebra and not stated as probability and statisitcs of gaming. I do and so do a lot of others.

3. serves to narrow the space that is the continuation space and to broaden the space that is the change space.

By now all of this is much turdier for you and more SCT shitty of jerry. for me it is a better situation from the baseline and when I compare performance of each of 2 and 3 they make more money than the baseline.

Why? Because the rules have changed for the better and now there are no (zero) arbitrary rules.

You don't get this and by now there are more individual parts to backtest that also fail individually and none of this is on jerry's list either.

So I have three people still fucking up and fucking up more in different ways.

4. says retraces. It is about movement in the space. Di you ever wonder where FTT comes from? No you didn't. you are polishing chrome plated turds instead.
 
Quote from Grob109:

... fucked ....fucked ...
.. shit... shit..fucked. shit...
...fucking ...
... fuck ...fucking ...
... fuck ...
... fucks ... fucking ... fuck ...
...fuck ...... fucked ... fucking ...fuck...
...fucking ......fuck ...
... 100% fuck ...... fucked ......fucked ...... fuck ...fuck up.
... fucking ...... fucking ... fuck ... fucking ...fuck ... fucked ... fuck ... fucking up... rat's ass ... Fuck no.
More...

for those who don't have the time to go through the details i filtered out what is the substance of this rather long post of somebody who obviously is one of the most valuable contributors to these boards as he proved once again here.

as you can see - this is pretty much information for one single post - but reading it several times you may find the red line.

Quote from Grob109:

...I require people to put out every ounce of their potential...
More...

the above seems to be the kernel of his potential.

****************************
what we have here is definitely a well balanced person who is for sure stable enough to trade the financial futures day by day. a person who is open minded and can bear some criticism from time to time. a person who doesn't hesitate to show his real ego occasionally
 
Quote from Trader666:

So many bad words in one post! Why Jack, you naughty boy. You should be ashamed of yourself. If I were there I'd wash out your mouth with soap!

I really enjoyed writing what you are commenting upon and, most of all, anticipating what the range of responses would be and from whom they would come. I am not too dissappointed in the range but the quality was kind of below par. the gennreral drift was to focus on leaving what , to you is a dirty word, from me only in the abstract and to say something rather humourous about my character one way or another. You should try to do better but do not give up

You claim the most recent attempts to backtest your methods are f'ed up.

I am reporting to you and others that the approach that is being used is not acceptable for anyone who wants to get results. They are doing backtesting strategies that serve their design purposes and the designs that they come up with do get a result that they want to get and it has no meaning and no value simply because the strategy is deeply flawed. I made a simple pass on how to begin to find out how to backtest the potential of the market. Below, you can see the Harvard comment which presents another and opposite result that is a direct consequence of using an excellent backtesting strategy.

What about the guys from Harvard who came up with air after trying for over a year? Your stuff didn't test out in 1999 Jack Hershey's Method Doesn't Work, and here's how far they got more than a year later. Excerpt:

I don't understand why it's not possible to verify such a successful futures trading system if it is based on objective rules. My own attempts to automate the system have been frustrated at every turn by an enormous problem that is apparently only resolvable by gut instinct: when to let it ride. Jack gives instructions sometimes to get out at congestion, but other times this congestion may really just be a temporary jumble before the market continues its previous direction. Of course, if we move to a higher fractal, this jumble won't look so much like a jumble and we can ex post justify a decision not to sideline. But I cannot figure out an objective system for determining ex ante which fractal to make decisions on.

This comment is air for you as you say. for the writer and for me and for many others who were participating it was a very important turn of events and it was a very cogent evaluation. Many many people have read it and come down where you continue to find yourself. chicken little has no concept of what the comment means and hippopotomous has avoided commenting directly and sticking with his strategies of backtesting that only shows that, at this level of consideration, things work when two changes are made. you probably did not follow his comments of the two items that made the baseline have a positive result for him.

His two changes, the improvements from 2, 3, and 4 all get us to the place sighted above.

This is a high quality stepping stone. The reason is why it is of high quality is that it is completely responsive to the construct it is evaluating.

People who do not work on anything may not approeciate what it is like to work on an opportunity and to go through the process of dealing successfully with what is put on the table.

Probably around the second or thrid form, students get into a level of learning where they no longer are required to regurigtate. I caused a neat and humourous regurgitation here by the local scribes; it was fuck focused and predictible to a "T". I needed to move the conversation beyond and past this type of contributor and this kind of thinking.


You are now the level of conversation that points out a failure of a type of person, use the second form as a scholastic reference.

You also regurgitate but in the manner of a person who is an observer and not a person who is working scholastically. you think that what you are researching, posting and commenting upon is air. I could characterize your performance as __________. It is, of course, and it is moreso taking a pass (not participating) on doing what is required after the second form.

After the second form students are required to do more that repeat the facts back to their instructors.

The Harvard comment illustrates what is required. The requirement is to "process" the facts. This does two things: creates new information and changes the problem at hand.

Creating new information and changing existing problems to different problems are both classic and exciting key ways in which social and scientific progress is made. Check this out by regarding for a moment the vast array of prizes that are awarded in the present global scene.

What additional kinds of considerations are there to further enhance the setting and work? You are an air expert. I am talking about thinking outside the balloon.

Obviously if this work and effort went five more levels to get to SCT trading. There is more and it falls into an assortment of categories. Three things were done: new information was created; the problems were changed and solved; and the tools that were available and needed were assembled and put to use successfully.

None of this falls into the chrome plated turd or the air categories.

What was neat was to take the statement above and go through the process of capitalizing on each and every opportunity for making forward process that is embodied in the substantive content under each of the many facets represented. So that was what was done.

Eerily reminiscent of today if you ask me.

Not really. Today, you are still in second form land. With the exception that anyone who wants my responses has to do better than the turkeys who fucked up.

But backtesting aside, why did nwbprop go down in flames even with all your personal coaching? Was he a f-up too?

nwbprop didn't fuck up. He made a series of requests of me and I was responsive to his requests. The thread was closed at his option as the OP.

And what about this trading contest where you returned -24%? Was that also f'ed up?

I did not participate continually as was required of me. So by default, I did hold those positions for a long time that continued to the end of the contest.

Hmmmmm. So many questions...
More...
 
I guess I was attracted to the "Deadwood" comment. Jack may not remember but the last time someone (I) commented this way, Chicken Little decided to initiate a denial of service attack on this site. Apparently if you say the wrong thing to this poster he has a special way of bringing the conversation to a halt. It is his version of an internet "temper tantrum".

Strangely enough my current method seems to be similar to Jack's. I hesitate to say this because until recently I have not thought of it in these terms. I follow a "decision tree" that is similar to the one I read here. However I base my decisions on the status of price on several fractals. Oddly I get a much different result than has been suggested (-24%) here. If there is a "turd" here "Chicken Parts" that funny smell is probably coming from your part of the world.

Look out folks, the sky is falling!

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top