POLL for traders who trade the Jack Hershey method(s) in real time with real money

[Trader666]

Unfortunately for you, a backtest with only 111 trades of a system with as many ADDITIONAL conditions as you've added (see link below that YOU gave me) is WORTHLESS.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=593276&#post593276

Quote from makosgu:

You are absolutely correct mon ami. What we do have is several posts, like this one, BY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR might I add, that describes what types of portfolios to use. You have fabulously demonstrated what types of portfolios don't work! So, for anyone starting down the trail, it is good for them, to learn from what you did, and begin where you left off by using recommend portfolios as opposed to T6 like portfolios which gave him results like...

 

[nkhoi]

Quote from windwalker:

I've spent all night reading up on this and so far all I can see is that Jack Hersheys method has been backtested and failed, then a few live calls were tried and none of them worked either.
Seems like an academic exercise with no real relation to trading

arg..that hurt, you are reading the wrong material.

 

[JimmyJam]

Quote from windwalker:

It doesn't matter, he is all theory, great traders are born, not made, dusty books and theories don't cut it in the firing line, Jack doesn't have what it takes, maybe he came to trading late and thought he could attack it intellectually but you are either a carnivore or a plant eater.. you cant fake it with academia

LOL, tell it to the turtles.

Richard Dennis got his degree in Philosophy and created millions with his trading methodology.

Yeah, I suppose the great everything is born, not made ... nope, not to bright at all.

JJ

 

[JimmyJam]

Quote from windwalker:

Why does every wannabe trader haul the Turtles out as an example of how they will be able to make it?

And JJ, I read the entire thread and saw your trades

You sir are no turtle

Can you even compare apples with apples?

The issue was one an academic not being a trader, not of other traders becoming turtle traders ... speaking of which, I'm not trying to be one.
***
This thread is stuck on stupid, I have better things to do than banter with clowns.

Ciao,

Jimmy Jam

 

[makosgu]

Quote from Trader666:

Unfortunately for you, a backtest with only 111 trades of a system with as many ADDITIONAL conditions as you've added (see link below that YOU gave me) is WORTHLESS.

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=593276&#post593276

Mon ami, worthless is using a worthless portfolio that is in contrast to portfolio conditions recommended by the original author of your backtest code and of the document you keep linking to. The sample of 111 trades also matches a 2 year forward test extending back to 2005. This means, individuals are sitting on top of comparable returns for the last 2 years that is identical to the positive EQ curve backtest... One would think, that if a 2 year forward test matched the positive backtest result, that there is merit to the material. WE KNOW you like to play with virtual dollars. But folks are sitting on REAL dollars that support the backtested positive virtual dollars as long as one chooses to use the same portfolio conditions recommended by the author of the backtest code you adopted and as well of the original document...

 

[Tums]

Quote from windwalker: 03-19-07 10:58 PM

I've spent all night reading up on this and so far all I can see is that Jack Hersheys method has been backtested and failed, then a few live calls were tried and none of them worked either.
Seems like an academic exercise with no real relation to trading

Quote from windwalker:

SCT is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

You seem like a very decisive person.
That's a very decisive conclusion and decision by someone who has just started reading.


(that's a pretty smart new handle)

 

[Trader666]

Normally one does a forward test after the backtest... and the max DD of yours was in Jan 07. Anyway, how does that saying about bull markets go? Something like, in a bull market, even Jack Hershey might appear to know how to trade. But I still wouldn't believe it without proof. Which you guys have never been big on. Long on claims, short on proof. Just another day on ET!

Quote from makosgu:

The sample of 111 trades also matches a 2 year forward test extending back to 2005. This means, individuals are sitting on top of comparable returns for the last 2 years that is identical to the positive EQ curve backtest... One would think, that if a 2 year forward test matched the positive backtest result, that there is merit to the material.

 

[makosgu]

Quote from Trader666:

Normally one does a forward test after the backtest... and the max DD of yours was in Jan 07. Anyway, how does that saying about bull markets go? Something like, in a bull market, even Jack Hershey might appear to know how to trade. But I still wouldn't believe it without proof. Which you guys have never been big on. Long on claims, short on proof. Just another day on ET!

LOL... The forward test went both ways mon ami (ie. no bias). That means you go long on the 0->7 and short on the 3->4... Having conditions like high octane stocks do well regardless of the market type... Call it a "conditional edge" if you will that works in all market conditions.

 

[Thunderdog]

Well, this has been an interesting exercise if not exactly the best collective use of our time. I wanted to know how many people used the Hershey method(s) profitably for at least a reasonable, if short, period of time and the results appear to be in. While votes continue to come in, they do so in dribs and drabs and the proportions remain essentially unchanged. The survey question is certainly a valid one, however, arguments could readily be made contesting the accuracy and reliability of the responses for any number of legitimate reasons. And, as people are apt to do, both "sides" can claim victory for reasons of their own design, as per the old saw that numbers can be tortured until they say anything you want them to say. And that is quite apart from the question of the accuracy and reliability of the results -- a very pointed question.

And so, it would appear that we are no further ahead than when we started. But, hey, why should this thread be any different?

Interestingly, the ratio of "profitable" and "not profitable" responses has been remarkably consistent almost from the get-go. I have no explanation for this other than an unsubstantiated suspicion or two. No doubt, Fibonacci scholars will chime in with some meaningful interpretation of ageless universal laws of nature that most assuredly apply to our little exercise.

 

[Joe Doaks]

A grand achievement, if one ignores all the flaming! Thanks for starting it, I think.