Thanks for the reply.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
Quote from hank rollins:
if you decrease the number of future markets you tested, does it effect the end result ?
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.
![]()
Quote from hank rollins:
do you concur with michael covel's defintion of trend trading put forth in this book "trend following" ?
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.
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

) -- 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