sliding the stop down to 601 to lock in gains---
surf
surf
Quote from Pekelo:
So I go away for 2 days, and Surf has just came out of the TA closet???![]()
Quote from marketsurfer:
the publication of Hedge Fund Market Wizards,
Quote from Pekelo:
Thanks Surf for the info. After all, you can do other things than just entertainment.
On Amazon, the rating is going through the roof for this book. Supposedly the best of the series. I ordered it through my library system...
Best quote:
"Steve Clark:
Let me tell you the trouble with trading. There is no career in trading. You are only as good as your last trade, and that is it. You build nothing; you just trade. The day you stop trading, it's gone. So what you have spent doing for X hours every working day of your life has ended, and there is nothing left to show for it, except for money. You have to keep trading because you don't want to stop and look back. Because what have you done? You have built nothing. You have achieved nothing."
No he did not. He demonstrated that a carefully selected string of random entries was profitable when applying "good money management". Apply the same logic to a string of not so carefully selected random entries and see what you get.Quote from marketsurfer:
Van Tharp demonstrated that random entries combined with an oscillating instrument like CL and good money management will also result in profits.
Quote from tobbe:
To further comment on Van Tharp and the "random entries profitable through money management" system -
I actually had to go look it up again, I haven't opened TYWTFF for a decade. Unfortunately I can't find the newsletters, there might be more info in them. If memory serves, Tharp had access to a profitable system and they replaced the entry logic with "random entries". Using various MM rules they could "prove" the system was still profitable.
More specifically, the exits were certainly not random. So saying he demonstrated that a "random entry" system can be profitable using "money management" only, is wrong. He demonstrated that a profitable system remained profitable. Most likely curve fitting the data (just guessing here, but hey, he was trying to make a point in a book).
If you've done any systems testing you know entry/exit/profit/money management-logic are interrelated in mysterious ways and trying to optimize or test one part without affecting another is near impossible. It's like a game of whack-a-mole.
So finding a profitable random entry system for a limited time series is not really a problem. If you're writing a book and need to make a point, it's not an issue. Making it work across multiple timeframes and instruments is a completely different thing.