Our 400,000 Trade Test Proves Using Stops Is Not Very Bright

[botpro]

Attack the idea backed by what? What you say? 100s of tests? Where?

You entire contribution to this site has been as cannon fodder. The ACD Method thread has 10x your views... and it's a legit thread.

You've presented nothing. A claim that you've backtested 400K trades, which is honestly trivial with today's systems. No, I think you've pulled that number out of your ass and hence you have provided no files to prove your point. Irrelevant if you had (provided files), but you have not.

I have no idea what your motivation is for this thread, but you have been shown repeatedly to ignore stops that EQUAL YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE. You once added "all-in" to your YM long, twice. Obviously not possible w/o adding funding, and then it ceases to be "all-in." You don't need any backtests to show that your conclusion is flawed. I personally don't use stops as my positions in vol are delimited.

What do you think is the root-cause of this jealousy? Your bankroll? Intellect?

First of all, stop using foul language like "ass" etc. It also violates the ET terms.

He has reported the result of his study and backed it up even with a research paper.
So, what more do you want? Do you think you have the right to demand for more?
Try this type of crank logic in the other Journals and people will show you the door as nearly nobody posts screenshots of their account to back their claims of made profits. Are their results real? Can one know that for sure?
So, what is it that you don't like? Because the content comes from Marketsurfer?

And, generally said: with options it very well makes sense to have big stops like 50% or so... And it also depends on the timeframe...

 

[dartmus]

It's a mathematical model, so I don't really need to see bars, or charts. I do put up a tick chart just for shits and giggles though

I understand the signal exists indpendent of anyone observing it on a chart but the bulk of price volume based signals are created using bar constraints. Whether it's time based bars or tick bars or volume based bars is a separate matter. There's still a smallest and largest constraint. A duration or interval over which the data is sampled.

If this isn't true and you want to elaborate it's a topic I'm interested in discussing.

 

[botpro]

Yes, normally you have to be SOMEbody before you can have a conflict of interest. That's what I wanted to avoid by taking a nickname "I am nobody", but it turned out wrong.

Nobody is perfect, man!
Not even nobody himself!

 

[profitlocker]

A duration or interval over which the data is sampled

Yes. Data values are extracted during specific times of the day, and then plugged into the automation platform via inputs. All based on statistical research

 

[marketsurfer]

I understand the signal exists indpendent of anyone observing it on a chart but the bulk of price volume based signals are created using bar constraints. Whether it's time based bars or tick bars or volume based bars is a separate matter. There's still a smallest and largest constraint. A duration or interval over which the data is sampled.

If this isn't true and you want to elaborate it's a topic I'm interested in discussing.

This is completely wrong--- no one actually uses "bar constraints" or "charts" when building computer trading models. Sure, discretionary traders use charts-- but they have nothing to do with stats based models.

 

[botpro]

Thanks, bot. That guy has had it in for
me for years. He sees me as some kind of a challenge or something and does whatever he can to knock me down personally.

Heck, he even wants to fight me. I made a joke about a "cage match" and it was taken seriously -- see the boxing thread in chit chat. Guy got a little too excited about kicking my butt in the ring.

Not sure what that's all about. Never even met the guy.

surf

Don't give such mob any chance, man.
Collect the evidence and then complain to the mods.

 

[profitlocker]

This is completely wrong--- no one actually uses "bar constraints" or "charts" when building computer trading models.

That's correct surf. A good computer model IMO doesn't bother with that stuff. I can however use discretion to decide what's get plugged into the computer model, but it damn well better show a large sample size of statistical advantage, or i'm just shooting in the dark. Call it an educated guess if you want, which nowadays amazingly, can also be done by a computer model. I can use discretion within my model during the day, and potentially outsmart it, but there is a fine line that can't be crossed, because the model is so polished, it's hard to get any shinier

 

[marketsurfer]

That's correct surf. I can however use discretion to decide what's get plugged into the computer model, but it damn well better show a large sample size of statistical advantage, or i'm just shooting in the dark. Call it an educated guess if you want, which nowadays amazingly, can also be done by a computer model

No doubt about it. Many of these "armchair elite traders" are blinded by their own "reality tunnel" of a price chart since all they read are 20 year old books etc.

These folks seem to still exist on the internet, but are extremely rare in real life.

surf

 

[destriero]

First of all, stop using foul language like "ass" etc. It also violates the ET terms.

He has reported the result of his study and backed it up even with a research paper.
So, what more do you want? Do you think you have the right to demand for more?
Try this type of crank logic in the other Journals and people will show you the door as nearly nobody posts screenshots of their account to back their claims of made profits. Are their results real? Can one know that for sure?
So, what is it that you don't like? Because the content comes from Marketsurfer?

And, generally said: with options it very well makes sense to have big stops like 50% or so... And it also depends on the timeframe...

He can post a link to the research paper yet cannot post any summary of the equity run from the backtest? So obviously there was no backtest performed by Durf; he simply read the conclusion from the paper.

You're a troll, nothing more. You know less about options than my 12yo. I have never intentionally risked 50% on an option position, so I have no idea how you arrived at that figure, or why you somehow think it's optimal. You thought that -gamma hedging was accretive. Nothing else needs to be stated concerning your knowledge and experience -- you simply have none.

I didn't ask for screenshots, just data. Durf was asked to provide a screenshot on his journal, and he finally acquiesced and we were shown a $93 risk-position from a retail dealer's platform.

Nobody adds to a 300-point index loser, twice. That kind of loss, exceeding 1000 points, demands more than offering a quote and stating that is where you bought. Obviously those positions never hit the tape. Nobody is trying to save the noobs from his trading -- it's insulting as a trader to witness such recklessness and stupidity when he implies that actual funds are at risk. He gloats over the winners and conveniently forgets the massive losses (CL, for example).

 

[marketsurfer]

He can post a link to the research paper yet cannot post any summary of the equity run from the backtest? So obviously there was no backtest performed by Durf; he simply read the conclusion from the paper.

You're a troll, nothing more. You know less about options than my 12yo. I have never intentionally risked 50% on an option position, so I have no idea how you arrived at that figure, or why you somehow think it's optimal. You thought that -gamma hedging was accretive. Nothing else needs to be stated concerning your knowledge and experience -- you simply have none.

I didn't ask for screenshots, just data. Durf was asked to provide a screenshot on his journal, and he finally acquiesced and we were shown a $93 risk-position from a retail dealer's platform.

Nobody adds to a 300-point index loser, twice. That kind of loss, exceeding 1000 points, demands more than offering a quote and stating that is where you bought. Obviously those positions never hit the tape. Nobody is trying to save the noobs from his trading -- it's insulting as a trader to witness such recklessness and stupidity when he implies that actual funds are at risk. He gloats over the winners and conveniently forgets the massive losses (CL, for example).

it's proprietary data and methodology. I can't share anything beyond the results.

surf