T-REX Journal

balda · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from balda:

one day or one trade doesn't mean anything, you can have 10 consecutive loosing trades and still have good profitable system. Can you be disciplined enough to stay with it. That's what separates novice from Pro.

good trading.

This is same point I was trying to make in the begriming of this journal.

markc · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from T-REX:

Your basiing that off of only 4 data points!!!!
You can not base comparable analysis off of 4 data points.
You need atleast 100 data points to make an assumption toward probability and outcome not 4!!!

Actually, I believe 4 data points is fine. I don't have a degree in maths though. You told us 93%. My question is what are the odds of getting 3 losers in a row with a 93% hit rate.

If I were computing a 93% hit rate then of course one would need many data points to make it reliable. If my question isn't clear then maybe someone else can re-phrase it in a different way?

I think it has been answered anyway....

T-REX · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from balda:

This is same point I was trying to make in the begriming of this journal.

Your right. Im embarresd!! I didnt quite pick up on that until after the fact. Im a little slooooooow.

Gordon Gekko · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from T-REX:

Your basiing that off of only 4 data points!!!!
You can not base comparable analysis off of 4 data points.
You need atleast 100 data points to make an assumption toward probability and outcome not 4!!!

dude, although there is only a ~0.03% chance of you having 3 losers in a row, it COULD happen even if your method is profitable. so i'm not saying there is a 0% chance you know how to trade.

what i AM saying is that it certainly looks peculiar when your journal starts off with 3 losers and you claim 93% win rate. you've already said you broke a bunch of rules and your web site looks like an infomercial. add it all up and it's easy to doubt you REALLY have a 93% win rate.

markc · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from T-REX:

Now who's talking gibberish?

Why would I expose myself to public scrutiny if I were trying to sell you something? Wouldnt it make more sense to just post winning trades only & avoid losses?

Im only human so Im prone to mistakes. Im sure you have too that is why you dont post your trades?

Im not picking on you but you should know I dont need your money. My methodology is not for sale. as for my newsletter I would not sale it to you! No one on this site could benefit from it.
Not right now anyway.

One more thing. You shold prove yourself before you can sale anything. People who want to sale you something without allowing you to try it out has something to hide. I hide nothing!
Either I CAN PROVE IT! or I cant.
Simple as that. If you think your soooooo good then you should post ALL of your trades or shut up about it. I chose to post!

Gibbersih? No, it's called English.

My trades aren't in question here. I never said I was sooooo good, as you put it.

I asked what I thought was a simple question and somehow was unable to receive an answer from you.

T-REX · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from markc:

Gibbersih? No, it's called English.

My trades aren't in question here. I never said I was sooooo good, as you put it.

I asked what I thought was a simple question and somehow was unable to receive an answer from you.

I didnt mean to come off rude or argumentive. I was simply answering the question of trying to sell a newsletter. I dont mind questioning my trading that is what this journal is for. No offense taken.

please dont take offense to my reply.

T-REX · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

dude, although there is only a ~0.03% chance of you having 3 losers in a row, it COULD happen even if your method is profitable. so i'm not saying there is a 0% chance you know how to trade.

what i AM saying is that it certainly looks peculiar when your journal starts off with 3 losers and you claim 93% win rate. you've already said you broke a bunch of rules and your web site looks like an infomercial. add it all up and it's easy to doubt you REALLY have a 93% win rate.

Good point. I must admit. from the outside looking in I would probably have the same questions and probably wouldnt be so nice about it.

Gordon Gekko · Sep 8, 2003

T-REX,

although i've been hard on you, you seem like a good guy. i hope things works out for you.

T-REX · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from markc:

Actually, I believe 4 data points is fine. I don't have a degree in maths though. You told us 93%. My question is what are the odds of getting 3 losers in a row with a 93% hit rate.

If I were computing a 93% hit rate then of course one would need many data points to make it reliable. If my question isn't clear then maybe someone else can re-phrase it in a different way?

I think it has been answered anyway....

Don't worry, I dont have a Math degree either but you do make a valid point. I was just contradicting you.

Sometimes I dont play fair and my spelling SUCKS!!!

markc · Sep 8, 2003

Quote from T-REX:

I didnt mean to come off rude or argumentive. I was simply answering the question of trying to sell a newsletter. I dont mind questioning my trading that is what this journal is for. No offense taken.

please dont take offense to my reply.

No problem

Didn't want an argument. I'm not trying to be rude either. Best of luck.