trend following delusion shattered

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from ProfLogic:

I agree. Why is it that people that don't Trend Trade think that Trend Traders "PREDICT" the Market action. It is further proof they have no clue what we do.


do you concur with michael covel's defintion of trend trading put forth in this book "trend following" ?
 
Quote from 5yrtrader:

I am not able to predict the future so I am not able to come up with p1. I don't know of any person that is able to predict the future so I find your challenge perplexing. Maybe I should ask my magic eight ball
Thanks for the reply.

1. The proposed method needs to produce d, not p1.
2. Everyone knows p0.
3. The variable p1 is the exit price, which is determined by p0 plus or minus d.

Any working system of directional trading has to produce a profitable d.
 
Quote from hank rollins:

if you decrease the number of future markets you tested, does it effect the end result ?

It could. Why don't you give me a couple markets to test it on. Trendfollowing works best when one diversifies across many markets, but we can try it on the markets you suggest. Why don't you give me years in which to test it over too. 1990 and foward for most markets. I can change the MA's too
 
Quote from OddTrader:

Please notice the key word "Standard". Better try something different. Your analyses and results/ conclusions would be quite "Normal" (read "Common").

Probably only the best mathematical statisticians would know and understand well how to choose the right tools and correct statistical concepts when they do this kind of tests.

No wonder why they, particularly from some good places, are so short of supply (and paid very well) in the markets.
:confused:

Q
Analysis of variance, t-test, confidence intervals, and other statistical techniques taught in the books, however interesting, are inappropriate because they provide no basis for prediction and becuase they bury the information contained in the order of production. Most if not all computer packages for analysis of data, as they are called, provide flagrant examples of inefficiency.

--- W. Edwards Deming (Out of the Crisis)
UQ
:confused:
 
Quote from hank rollins:

do you concur with michael covel's defintion of trend trading put forth in this book "trend following" ?

Couldn't say. Could you tell me what it is? I prefer to research and prove that things are or aren't on my own. I have never been one to put much weight on the opinions of others unless their research is solid, specific and objective based.
 
Quote from NickelScalper:

Thanks for the reply.

1. The proposed method needs to produce d, not p1.
2. Everyone knows p0.
3. The variable p1 is the exit price, which is determined by p0 plus or minus d.

Any working system of directional trading has to produce a profitable d.

Well then, if long p1 = price when 50 day MA crosses below the 200 Day MA. If short p1 = price when 50 day moves above 200 day. d = what ever p1 - p0 is, or whatever d wants to equal.

If you are using the counter trend system I outlined on p 64 d is almost always negative
 
Quote from 5yrtrader:

It could. Why don't you give me a couple markets to test it on. Trendfollowing works best when one diversifies across many markets, but we can try it on the markets you suggest. Why don't you give me years in which to test it over too. 1990 and foward for most markets. I can change the MA's too


cool, finally a serious response. thanks !

please run the test on the SP 500, corn, beans, and gold with a start date of feb 1998, end date feb 2005. keep the MA's the same.

curve fitting is a common issue with the back testing scenerio.

looking forward to the results.
 
I dunno, this thread is just messing with me noggin. :D

Don't take this personally Nickel, but for someone who trades for 1 or 2 ticks on the Q's and then asks for theoretical validation from traders who made their money riding trends -- well, don't you see the irony in that? If I state that anyone who trades for 1 or 2 ticks is a sucker who's just feeding his broker and deluded into thinking there's some edge in trading "noise" (and I wouldn't, at least I wouldn't put it that way :) ) -- are you going to feel the need to justify yourself to me? How would you go about doing that, knowing that I could claim any trader's methods to be "temporarily successful" yet ultimately no better than random? Isn't claiming a trader's methods which have put food on the table and the kids through college "no better than random" the ultimate insult? Good for thread hits, in any case :)

Sorry, maybe you guys got me to use my brain when I really don't feel like it right now, ignore my rants. I appreciate the need to thoroughly investigate one's edge and verify that it actually operates as the trader imagines it to -- the toughest questions usually engender the greatest hostility I suppose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top