The Surf Report

marketsurfer · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:

3) LOL, Surf I already told you the minute you provide us with proof that these trades are real (and not paper-machie, which we all know they are anyway ... no way someone is going to go over $1,500 per contract in the hole ... except you and Victor ) I was buying the first drink for you and annaland man, and I still stand by that statement.

JJ

i don't feel the need to prove anything.

drawdowns are relative to account size/trade size-- it's unfortunate that this still alludes you. i hate the drawdown--but it's part of the speculative game.

sounds good, we'll meet at the "grand havana room" 666 fifth ave, one of these evenings, and i'll buy.

regards,

surf

JimmyJam · Nov 28, 2007

Speaking of annaland, were are you babe?

Did you understand my reply to your question, or do I need to go into further detail via PM?

I know Surf probably understands it, but being as obtuse as he is, he won't admit that it has any relevance to trading whatsoever, and it's pretty obvious that it flew right over Thunder Dog's head, so you're my last hope as a bastion of sanity on this thread.

Later,

JJ

marketsurfer · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:

Speaking of annaland, were are you babe?

Later,

JJ

annaland and i spent a great, relaxing morning outside of the city. she is doing well. your reply to the question is quite convoluted, perhaps you can rephrase it??

surf

JimmyJam · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from marketsurfer:

i don't feel the need to prove anything.

drawdowns are relative to account size/trade size-- it's unfortunate that this still alludes you. i hate the drawdown--but it's part of the game.

sounds good, we'll meet at the "grand havana room" 666 fifth ave, one of these evenings, and i'll buy.

regards,

surf

Dude, it doesn't allude me, it eludes me ... hey, it's not like I'm casting aspersions here.

Sounds good, we'll toast and hug it out.

All the best,

Jimmy J

marketsurfer · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:

Dude, it doesn't allude me, it eludes me ... hey, it's not like I'm casting aspersions here.

Sounds good, we'll toast and hug it out.

All the best,

Jimmy J

you got me, your right! how about rephrasing your answer to the question.

surf

Thunderdog · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:

...I guess you expect to have everything handed to you, huh?

No, but since I live in the real world, I admit to needing help with what appears to be the imaginary, notably the alleged record of your real time calls in the ES Journal thread.

(As an aside, do you think that anyone actually believes you? Not that you would care, of course, since I'm sure you have many imaginary friends who support you.)

Thunderdog · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:

... you're my last hope as a bastion of sanity on this thread.

Yes, I can only imagine your hardship, since there is at least one insane person wherever you are and wherever you go.

annaland · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from JimmyJam:
The basic performance bond increases as you increase contract size (hence the inverse relationship statement)...

Quote from JimmyJam:
The relationship between the risk management algorithm, number of contracts traded and performance bond is inverse, the relationship between the number of contracts traded and performance bond, though direct, is asymmetrical.

Quote from JimmyJam:
Speaking of annaland, were are you babe?

Did you understand my reply to your question, or do I need to go into further detail via PM? ...

No, still doesnât make sense. You said they were both increasing, yet called it an inverse relationship. I imagine you are either misusing the term inverse or meant to write decreasing for either bonds or contracts.

Furthermore, in your reply (#2 quote above), you stated 3 factors (algorithm, contracts and bond) and wrote that they are inversely related. That doesnât make sense. If you have 3 objects, they all canât be inversely related â 2 of them would be positively correlated.

Additionally, an asymmetric relationship can be either positively or negatively correlated. If itâs positively correlated and asymmetric that means both can increase, but by different magnitudes. If itâs a negative correlation, an asymmetric relationship can refer to either magnitude or inverse relationships.

Please elaborate or correct me. Thanks.

Thunderdog · Nov 28, 2007

Careful how you tread, Anna. Since JimmyJam lives in a world of his own construct and has no idea what you are talking about, he is liable to interpret your post as talking dirty. That could be problematic for you since, if you're not careful, there may well be a wrist corsage in your near future.

In any event, don't expect to much in the way of specifics from JimmyJam. He's more of a big-picture guy.

annaland · Nov 28, 2007

Quote from Thunderdog:

Careful how you tread, Anna. Since JimmyJam lives in a world of his own construct and has no idea what you are talking about, he is liable to interpret your post as talking dirty. That could be problematic for you since, if you're not careful, there may well be a wrist corsage in your near future.

In any event, don't expect to much in the way of specifics from JimmyJam. He's more of a big-picture guy.

That is precisely what has been missing from my life, wrist corsages and correlations as a form of foreplay. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Thunderdog; I am finally starting to feel complete.