Odds Czar: Simple Biases in the Futures Markets 2007

Art's futures biases for Apr 26.

A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.

_____________________________________

Thanks to everyone who expressed condolences on the death of my partner. Like most traders, he was a rugged individualist and fun person to know. You respondents have me convinced we have pretty cool people checking out this thread.

For Thursday--the best bet according to the CzarCharts is the short side of the bond complex.
 

Attachments

Quote from ETUserisme:

Without going into a full blown Derridian deconstruction of your first post, therein you say "after all these posts" and ask if the method is "significantly" profitable. If you had read all of the posts and done your own research you would know the answer to your own question. And unless you so say how can any reader know what you consider "significant"? Again, you ask for the "purpose" if you had read all the posts, especially Mr. Collins' introductory posts then you would know of the "purpose."

"Seek and you will find."

Regards,

ETUser
More...

You are a troubled person if you are annoyed whether someone basically says, "after all these posts, whats the result?"

The frank problem is, with Elliot, Gann, Fib, and astrology/planetary cycle, and a hundred other trading beliefs, the fact is, it is the one question that SHOULD be asked.

Otherwise, what the heck is the point of anyone trading??? The biggest problem in Futures, is that many people believe in things, rather than statistically testing them. Try and get a realistic track record out of 75% of the advisories out there.

And am I doing something wrong by asking the poster whether the result is significantly profitable??? Is he posting because he thinks it doesn't work? Is there not something strange if he keeps posting if he knew it DOESN'T work?

Try to be less defensive and Freudian in your outlook.
 
"You are a troubled person if you are annoyed whether someone basically says, "after all these posts, whats the result?"

See? There you go again! Who said I was annoyed? :-)

Regards,

ETUser.
 
Gentlemen, (term is most definetly used loosely) let us not turn on of the few decent and informative threads here into a ... match.

rcanfiel, the point being if you had simply done some of your own research, i.e. reading most of the beginning post, where Art goes into detail about what he is doing here - you would have answers without needing the questions. Besides, what is stopping you from performing your own research, all the info is here look and see the results.

Make 'em pretty, Chris
 
Art's futures biases for Apr 27.

A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.

__________________________________

The bond complex signals have done an abrupt about-face. Expect an up move on Friday, particularly in the 30-year contract. This is dovetailing with a shift in the indexes from bullish to neutral, which may portend an overdue sell-off in those markets.
 

Attachments

Hi Art - just for the record I also read the thread regularly. Thanks for setting it up and staying so committed to it. Also, sorry to hear about your recent loss.

Out of interest, how often do you refresh your back-testing of these market biases? I have read your book which tested up to 2005 I think. Did you re-test for 2006 to check whether all the biases continue to hold / have not broken down?

Mike
 
hi rhino
(my nephew is named rhine after rhine sandberg and we call him rhino).
check the first few entries of this thread. i ran results of 2006 following the either or indicators. they were pretty impressive.
yes i do check at least at the end of each year.
 
Quote from ETUserisme:

"You are a troubled person if you are annoyed whether someone basically says, "after all these posts, whats the result?"

See? There you go again! Who said I was annoyed? :-)

Regards,

ETUser.
More...

Who said you were annoyed? The entire tone of the note was "how dare you ask a question." :-)

<i>"Without going into a full blown Derridian deconstruction of your first post"

'therein you say "after all these posts" and ask if the method is "significantly" profitable.'

"If you had read all of the posts and done your own research"

"And unless you so say how can any reader know what you consider "significant"? </i>

And secondly, why is it necessary for someone to jump through someone else's hoops to ask a question? I don't feel like tallying many month's of someone else's results when I can ask the source. And I certainly don't need a forum censor. :-)
 
What an interesting person you are. Here's a line from your post:

"You are a troubled person if you are annoyed whether someone basically says, "after all these posts, whats the result?"

See the word that you wrote "annoyed"? But I tell you what. I agree that you absolutely and completely correct in whatever you think and say. O.K. now?

regards,

ETUser
 
Art's futures biases for Apr 30.

A "1" means bullish bias. A "-1" means bearish bias. The total is the sum of biases. A positive sum will be long bias. A negative sum will be a short bias. A sum of zero will be a neutral bias.

_____________________________________________

For Monday, the bond complex is again flashing unanimous buy signals. The indexes are showing subtle cracks in the relentless wall of bullishness. I'm particularly drawn to the three negative less-frequent indicators in the second box of the S&Ps. You don't see that sort of lineup too often. Perhaps the two signal sets will dovetail in significant fashion.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top