hey.. dont slop up this thread with your nonsense.
if you wanna post junk..go to "chit chat"
if you wanna post junk..go to "chit chat"
Something very simplistic
- Thread starter Quah
- Start date
- Status
Let's not go overboard either way please. It's funny how someone comes and posts a few days worth of results and suddenly it's the greatest thing for trading since real-time quotes. If you think this is the most valuable system ever developed, you need to expand your imagination a bit (like making more than 1 pt on each trade, lets say)
As referred to earlier by dbphoenix and others, Quah's system carries some lessons which cannot be underestimated by those seeking to improve their trading, 3 of the most important imo are:
1. Limitation of overtrading
2. Limiting duration of open risk in the market
3. The merit of limit orders
However, it's a shame that Quah prefers to shrug off analyzing anything further than the pure results (throwing in SAR's just to ameliorate those pesky -1.25's didn't take much thought, I imagine) and would rather leave it as some mysterious fibo-gimmick system than actually crystallize what the real worth is. To expect fibonacci numbers to be a factor (whether price levels or timing entries) for 1 pt es moves during the first 10 minutes after the bell -- well, let's just say Lewis Borsellino burping in the pit would probably carry greater weight
. Those most enamored of this system seem to not want to think too hard about the why's and wherefore's of how the market works and where profits come from, so one can't really expect them to analyze too deeply the very system they fawn over. Yet keeping this attitude of "who cares, as long as it works" just doesn't help one's development as a trader at all.
What's going to happen when the day comes Quah's system will have you long 3 contracts in the first ten minutes, with all 3 turning into losers whereupon you will need to SAR on all three trades and have those turn out to be losers as well? (which fortunately hasn't happened yet, but carries a very high probability). Will you quickly dismiss the system as eagerly as you adopted it, and just shrug and move on to the next great thing that crosses your path, without really learning what it was that could continue to help your trading no matter what method you eventually decide to settle upon? IMO, that would be a loss greater than any monetary haircut you will eventually come across jumping random bandwagons.
Quah, enough of this "let's not think about things so much and just let me post the results" attitude -- that is the one factor for which I am sure is NOT helping anyone's trading
illiquid,
what are you suggesting quah do? how can he learn what will help his trading no matter what method he decides to settle upon? i understand you have questions for quah, but how exactly do you want him to go about finding the answers?
This thread has attracted a lot of attention, controversy, and dissagreement. I think it is excellent that we have all found something that makes us think. There has definitely been a lot of work put into both forward and back testing in an effort to understand the nature of this system. I would like to however apologize to Quah for wrapping my critique with negativity. Reading over some other posts on this board I realized that nothing good comes from that type of hostility. I am sorry for any personal attacks on your work. I still have a number of issues with the system that I will try to address on my own. As I noted before I was very hesitant to release my last backtesting results as there were some problems with the coding and some fundamental problems backtesting a system like this. It was sloppy research at best but it was meant to be a start for those who want to look into this for themselves. I have identified some problems in my code that are skewing the results compared to those posted, mostly problems with stochastics being affected by the price gap in the morning. I will look into this on a forward and backtesting basis and post anything of interest. Lets keep it up and keep it civil.
By just simply sitting down and really analyzing what his system entails, how it affects one's trading habits, and what end results his system involves beyond the total profits which may or may not come . Going through this thread, you'll find that many others have already done just that, in trying to separate seed from chaff, and going a bit deeper than just attributing it all to some cute mathematical timing system.
The problem here is that one of Quah's objectives is to profit without much thinking or analysis, so he shrugs off any kind of reasoning which might actually help other traders be able to take away some clue that would help their own trading. If Quah feels that this is the ultimate system for him (which it very well might be), then it's true he has no further need to question anything. However, if instead he feels that he can improve upon this system, he will have to apply (god forbid) a bit of logic and causation to determine what exactly is making things tick, otherwise there is no other place to begin. To post a system and not care about attempts at improving that system makes me wonder exactly what his intentions are, which is really none of my business anyways, but my thoughts here are more directed towards those wanting to learn something from this system rather than Quah himself.
The whole business of trading seems to be figuring out exactly what works and what doesn't, and slowly paring away one's bad habits and misconceptions while working to improve what usually turns out to be just the opposite. It doesn't have to be what Quah seems to scorn most: sitting around and making theories on paper on why something should work or not; yet if one is to attempt this journey through the opposite road of trial-and-error and getting one's feet wet first-hand, why does that preclude attempts at figuring out what does or doesn't work from that starting point? My opinion is that this is the wrong thread for that, and that Quah had the right idea in just throwing out a system come what may, but instead of taking in critiques and opinions on how to further evolve that system as the results come forward, it seems that he had things settled in his mind since the first post (funny how first posts always turn out winners
)I was in the same boat as you in dismissing this system as completely random, well, bs, but it was upon further thought that the merits of the system became apparent to me; they just might not coincide with what Quah had in mind is all. I guess being too quick to dismiss a system as worthless is as bad as claiming it's the holy grail from day one. Opposite sides, same coin
âThis system is asinineâ....Yet it contains two critical components of any good trading system. It is 1) Crude and 2) Boring. Crude in design which allows the method the ability
to adapt and evolve while still maintaining its basic structure. Anything more and it becomes âOverlyâ curve fitted. Boring to trade as it is restrained by its rules. The end result being consistent repetitiveness leaving little for discretion.
âThe fib numbers and signal are meaninglessâ....Trading by appointment is the curve fitting
of a method to your mind as opposed to trading when you think the appointment should be which is the curve fitting of a method to the markets.
âWhat this looks like to me is a random overlay on the market instead of an attempt to actually find the best speculative risks for expected returnsâ... This ainât science, itâs discipline.
âPersonally I could likely never trade a system like this because it goes against my styleâ... Nor why would you want to? This method is part of someone elseâs âTrading Personality.â
The desire to replicate it would be similar to seeking to acquire the personality of another.
âThis entire concept seems like a joke to meâ... Here is how âMethodsâ weigh in: 10% Entry 40% Risk and Money Management 50% Trust and the Ability to Execute.
Good traders know they must have rules. Great traders know they must let their rules trade for them.
Ok a good place to begin. First off, why does a 1.25 move in the other direction increase the likelihood that an additional 1.25 move will occur and give you a b/e trade? Just because the previous trade was a loss? Why does having a losing trade allow you to increase your target profit for the next trade, which makes it even more likely to result in another loser? This implies that momentum in the opposite direction is higher when a supposed stoch signal fails -- yet wouldn't higher momentum make it very difficult to enter at limit for that SAR trade? Meaning that perhaps the only likely way you're gonna get filled is exactly when you don't want it: having that reversal momentum play out and you getting whacked when momentum starts going the opposite way.
The very fact that Quah chose 1.25 as the target for SAR's just belies a bit about his attitude towards this system: making it look as appealing as possible. Who doesn't want to make that last loser into b/e, and pretend nothing ever happened? There are times when SAR's make alot of sense (technical breakouts, news events that fail to materialize in the stock movement), but making up for recent losers in momentum trading the most volatile portion of the day isn't one of them, at least imo.
It's late, til tomorrow
They tell me that 90% of new traders washout - I think that;s probably true.
Do you ever read the posts from the poor souls trying to figure out how to survive in the market. Sad, aren't they. There is also a common thread. The poor souls come to the market and try to apply all of their experience and knowledge gained in whatever walk of life they came from.
They will spend countless hours debating the merits of a simple or weighted moving average. Or the precise settings for the MACD. On and on it goes. Trying to plug in just the right formula. Trying to estimate the effect some as yet to happen event will have on prices. intellectualizing the simple art of trading to death.
Pretty much what many of you are doing to quah's system/method.
They tell me that you don't have to be too smart to be a good trader. In fact they tell me that above average inelegance can actually be a detriment - that's probably true.
Many of you guys are falling over yourselves trying to impress the rest of us with your superior intellect in attempting to explain why this system/method is bogus.
Guys, the system/method is nothing more than a short-term trend following thing - period. That's all it is - and that's why quah is getting results with it, and is likely to continue to do so. As for the nay-sayers: What skin is it off your back? The only thing that will prevent the system from working in the future is if volatility dries up - and even then adjusting the profit target downward would probably breath new life into it.
So please stop trying to impress the rest of us with your superior intellect, and just let us poor "Keep it Simple" morons worship at the feet of quah. Hey, if you guys are right, we'll all implode in no time, and won't be around to bother you.
Do you ever read the posts from the poor souls trying to figure out how to survive in the market. Sad, aren't they. There is also a common thread. The poor souls come to the market and try to apply all of their experience and knowledge gained in whatever walk of life they came from.
They will spend countless hours debating the merits of a simple or weighted moving average. Or the precise settings for the MACD. On and on it goes. Trying to plug in just the right formula. Trying to estimate the effect some as yet to happen event will have on prices. intellectualizing the simple art of trading to death.
Pretty much what many of you are doing to quah's system/method.
They tell me that you don't have to be too smart to be a good trader. In fact they tell me that above average inelegance can actually be a detriment - that's probably true.
Many of you guys are falling over yourselves trying to impress the rest of us with your superior intellect in attempting to explain why this system/method is bogus.
Guys, the system/method is nothing more than a short-term trend following thing - period. That's all it is - and that's why quah is getting results with it, and is likely to continue to do so. As for the nay-sayers: What skin is it off your back? The only thing that will prevent the system from working in the future is if volatility dries up - and even then adjusting the profit target downward would probably breath new life into it.
So please stop trying to impress the rest of us with your superior intellect, and just let us poor "Keep it Simple" morons worship at the feet of quah. Hey, if you guys are right, we'll all implode in no time, and won't be around to bother you.
- Status