Quote from NickelScalper:
Any system of trading must be capable of determining a sufficiently large (positive or negative) d, which is the difference between present price and a price to be marketable in the near future. The value of d is generated by the system in real time, and then the trader decides whether or not that d is of sufficient size to warrant a trade. If a system is incapable of generating a large enough d, or if it gives a wrong d too often, that system is bogus.
This variable d is also in the challenge question, which is repeated for purposes of reference:
What is a reliable method that can be applied to past price action to determine a usefully large positive or negative number d such that (p1-p0)>=d, where p0 is the current market price and p1 will be a marketable price in the near future?
I'm looking for an answer to be posted here in plain text form. The proof of the answer is also to be posted here, as real time trading calls that specify on what basis the proposed method is being invoked.
It's high time for someone to step up to the plate, swing and follow through.
My 2 cents:
Probably, basically you would never get the right answers you want (based on what I guess) by repeating the same (misleading) question above, it is simply because the question (and its assertions) itself is problematic.
First at all, you have established a model of a trading method, and you want others to follow your model without knowing the model by itself is questionable. And looks like you don't want anything deviated from the model by constantly tightening, rather than relaxing, the requirements of the model.
Second, a good model imo needs to consider both the market conditions and our corresponding actions. That means your model would be far too simple to simulate the reality of trading (whether profitable or or).
I think we may not like others' studies/ papers for many personal reasons, but learning something with an open mind about what others have (rightly or wrongly) done in order to improve our knowledge cannot be bad.
Third, even if it is only a component model of the whole model with a bigger picture. (That is not what you expect, it seems to me.) You then need to specify the scope and its delimiting clearly for discussion.
Forth, the model imo lacks some fundamental premises of trading for profits, and therefore it cannot be evaluated as a whole model. I guess this alone would be the most serious problem you need to think about to start again.
Fifth, ...
So on and so forth.
Perhaps you would need to review/ redesign/ refine the model in order to get better results in the future. There is no free lunch, Yet.
I'm only a newbie in trading, but I believe my experience learned and mistakes made so far would be good enough to present my views mentioned above for your consideration, whether to stick with the same model/ question/ assertions or not.
Good luck, always!
