Looking for the Worst Automated Systems

[afelipe86]

Guess I'll start...

Just put in experts folder and use on the USDJPY on H1

 

[Random.Capital]

Quote from 4XQs:

But: If the system has a Profit Target then it's bound to get out somewhere - that would be your stop.

Not completely clear on what you're trying to say here - if it's related to the observation that virtually any point in time can provide a profitable entry for both long AND short positions - then I'm probably going to agree with you.

Heck of a different game, that, from intraday scalping!

EDIT: I really should mention that this thread absolutely cracks me up [/B]

It is is pretty funny!

 

[LeeD]

Quote from Nashequilibrium:

If only it was that simple, hedgefunds would be hiring the dumbest traders.

They don't. But they hire the dumbest risk managers... for the same reason.

 

[total_keops]

Quote from intradaybill:

So this is my conclusion from this very intersting thread:

Since a high percentage of traders lose, their combined startegy is a losing one. The inverse startegy of their combined startegy is the winning one.

Therefore, the winning startegy is based on doing the opposite of what the majority of traders is doing at any given time.

hmmm...

Dont underestimate comish and spreads.

 

[nitro]

Quote from Random.Capital:

I think folks forget sometimes that taking the "anti-trade" isn't just about taking a position in the opposite direction, it's about having the inverse stop as well. So if the losing system is taking a long with a relatively tight stop, the anti-trade is to go short with a monstrous stop.

It's not just an inverse position - it's an inverse style of trading.

not (A or B) = not A and not B
not (A and B) = not A or not B

Symbolic Logic - (DeMorgan's Laws)

 

[eminitrader007]

Quote from andrewbee:

Well, ......... This thing is a DOOZY!. This week particularly, it's lost thousands per contract. When this thing loses money, it does it with a style and flair quite unmatched in the trading world.

..........

Well then I've got a name for your system:

stock trad3r

 

[operator]

This would probably work best of a had a bunch of losing systems running at the same time.

 

[nitro]

Quote from operator:

This would probably work best of a had a bunch of losing systems running at the same time.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1364596&highlight=losing+system#post1364596

 

[intradaybill]

Quote from nitro:

not (A or B) = not A and not B
not (A and B) = not A or not B

Symbolic Logic - (DeMorgan's Laws)

Two - valued logic doesn't apply to fuzzy logic problems.

Liquidity at extreme exit points can kill the inverted system. For example, some losing trades that exited at the their stop price may not exit with a profit when reversed due to immediate price reversal when price hits the limit.

Actually, this is how market makers will fade the inverted system too.

 

[nitro]

Quote from intradaybill:

Two - valued logic doesn't apply to fuzzy logic problems.

This is incorrect, since clearly two-valued logics is a limiting case of Fuzzy (infinite valued) logics.

Liquidity at extreme exit points can kill the inverted system. For example, some losing trades that exited at the their stop price may not exit with a profit when reversed due to immediate price reversal when price hits the limit.

Too much hand waving, so I cannot follow what you mean.

Actually, this is how market makers will fade the inverted system too.

Markets don't fade anything. They are an amalgamation of people and systems all trying to optimize their own returns, at the expense of someone else.