|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi Pal,
Couple of questions re. Larry if you don't mind...
1. Have you ever been taught by him, via books or seminars?
2. If yes, have you made significant profits from the things he
taught?
I've certainly read/heard about him, but at the same time, have never
heard affirmative answers to both of these questions on other
discussion forums on the net. Its entirely possible that people
who've actually made money are not bothering to spell it out, but I'm
curious to know what the source of your belief in him as one of the
greatest traders is (other than his trading competition results and
the million dollar challenge, etc.)
BTW, I have no bias about him either way. I've never interacted with
him nor been significantly influenced by his teachings so far, and so
have no opinion either way.
Jitu
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "palsanand" <palsanand@xxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Many recent contributions suggest using discipline, commitment,
> trading skills, etc., rather than 100% mechanical systems. I think
> this will cause more losers than winners.
>
> The reason computer trading systems exist is to capture good ideas
> and determine the best way to apply them. Basically, any idea one
> uses can be automated and tested. Various filters and stops can
often
> improve a system's 10-yr performance even after it's released.
> Otherwise, one may lose their skill or luck in selecting trades.
>
> In Jack Schwager books (The Market Wizards and the The New Market
> Wizards), the author writes about Ed Seykota, who multiplied his
> clients accounts by 2500 times (250,000%) in about 10 years. Then
> there's Michael Marcus, who parlayed a $30,000 initial stake into
$80
> Million. Another famous trader not included in Jack Schwager's
books
> is Larry Williams, who won a national trading competition in 1987
by
> multiplying $10,000 into over $1,000,000 in 1 year. Each of these
> traders says they use mechanical systems, some almost exclusively.
>
> Most traders are very reluctant to reveal real-time trading income
> particulars including myself for obvious reasons...
>
> Regards,
>
> Pal
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > LOL ... Okay, if you say so ... Let me know when any of you guys
> who
> > believe this START trading mechanical systems with REAL money,
I'll
> > be very interested in your real time results.
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jayson" <jcasavant@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Fred,
> > > I think market behavior does change because the market itself
has
> > changed.
> > > 10 years ago your broker told you "Buy GE, put it under the
> > mattress, you
> > > will make money". If you took his advice and bought it on
Monday
> > only to
> > > watch it fall all week then called him up he would tell you "We
> are
> > in this
> > > for the long haul, relax" ...... and you probably did,
especially
> > since your
> > > trade probably cost you over $100 round trip. 10 years ago a
one
> > year or 6
> > > month hold was considered "Short Term" today that is no longer
> the
> > case.
> > > With online brokerage accounts you can now buy and sell that
same
> > chunk of
> > > stock for $10 per side. Your broker isn't selling the stock de
> > jour, instead
> > > you are picking it your self. You have access to hundreds of
> > websites,
> > > dozens of data providers and have computer power on your desk
> that
> > could
> > > have launched a rocket a half a generation ago. And more
> > importantly so do
> > > millions of other "Small investors". Day traders didn't even
> exist.
> > This
> > > isn't your fathers market, IMO to back test data from 10 or 20
> > years ago
> > > and think that optimizing on that data to trade today holds
> little
> > value.
> > > The markets turn on a dime and there is a whole new breed of
more
> > nimble
> > > traders taking part in the action. The dynamics and psychology
of
> > the market
> > > is completely different. It is no longer ruled by the few.
Watch
> the
> > > buy/sells go through and you see trade after trade of 100-200
or
> > 500 shares.
> > > This is not Dean Whiter placing trades but Joe and Jill six
pack.
> 5
> > years
> > > ago I used to always wait until the first have hour of trading
> had
> > passed
> > > before placing a trade to avoid the built up demand already in
> the
> > pipe. Now
> > > if I wait more than 10 minutes the train is out of the station.
> > Perhaps it
> > > is just a forest/trees scenario but I think there are
fundamental
> > > differences in the way the markets react today versus the
recent
> > past......
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jayson
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Fred [mailto:fctonetti@x...]
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 5:38 PM
> > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Objective functions (was RE: [amibroker] Re:
> Optimization -
> > - again)
> > >
> > >
> > > There are a lot of questions and provacative statements in your
> > post,
> > > only one of which from my perspective needs an answer/response.
> > >
> > > Market behavior will continually change after that ...
> > >
> > > Change ? from what ? into what ? I guess this is the part I
don't
> > > follow. To me there is nothing new in market behavior now that
> > > didn't exist last month, last year, last decade, last century,
but
> > > clearly those that take a short sighted view of history and the
> > > market action that made up that history will clearly never see
it.
> > > It's a forest and trees thing ...
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Dave Merrill" <dmerrill@xxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I'm not trying to be argumentative, honest (:-)... I'm more
> than a
> > > little
> > > > sick of saying the same thing over and over, but I j u s t
d
> o
> > > n ' t g
> > > > e t i t .
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I fail to see the huge difference in principle between equity
> > > feedback and
> > > > backtesting.
> > > >
> > > > let's start by assuming that backtesting performance of a
system
> > > and its
> > > > parameters over some period of past data tells you something
> about
> > > its
> > > > future performance. it's not a perfect predictor, but it's
the
> > best
> > > evidence
> > > > we have. does this seem like a reasonable starting point? what
> > > alternative
> > > > is there?
> > > >
> > > > if that's true, why is it better to do it only once? what
> > > justification is
> > > > there for picking one examination period over another? clearly
> > > market
> > > > behavior will change continually after that. don't we need a
> way
> > of
> > > working
> > > > that looks at what's been happening and evolves our response?
> > > >
> > > > sounds like we examine performance up to some point and
adjust,
> > > trade with
> > > > the best-choice system and parameters for a while, then
examine
> > and
> > > adjust
> > > > again later. make sense? what alternative is there?
> > > >
> > > > so then, how often do we re-examine performance history? to
put
> it
> > > > differently, how long do we ignore any changes in market
> dynamics
> > > that may
> > > > or may not have occurred? why would intermittently refusing
to
> > look
> > > and
> > > > respond improve system performance or reliability?
> > > >
> > > > if that needs to be done, why not have the system itself do
it,
> as
> > > part of
> > > > its inherent operation? why is it better for us as an outside
> > agent
> > > to
> > > > periodically run some separate tests, reach into the
internals
> of
> > > the
> > > > system, and change stuff?
> > > >
> > > > or should we just continue with the system and parameters we
> > choose
> > > at the
> > > > beginning? are they somehow more valid than what we'd choose
> > later,
> > > using
> > > > the same backtesting methods, but on a different date range
of
> > data?
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I realize that even if it seems to make sense logically, this
> all
> > a
> > > complete
> > > > crock if no systems put together like this even backtest well,
> > > never mind
> > > > forward testing.
> > > >
> > > > but every time I think about abandoning this line of
research,
> it
> > > seems like
> > > > the first thing I'd want to do with a new system would be
(let
> me
> > > guess),
> > > > test and possibly adjust it using data up to some date, then
run
> > > with it for
> > > > a while after that and see if equity growth is good. if it
is,
> I'd
> > > want to
> > > > lather, rinse and repeat with other in and out of sample
data,
> to
> > > make sure
> > > > that wasn't coincidence.
> > > >
> > > > sounds way too familiar to be a completely different animal.
> > > >
> > > > dave
> > > > From: Fred [mailto:fctonetti@x...]
> > > >
> > > > That IS what I was trying to say. I suspect because equity
> feed
> > > back
> > > > is like looking in a rear view mirror, great for letting us
> know
> > > > where we were and how we could have adjusted the past to
make
> it
> > > > better, but that's about it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > ADVERTISEMENT
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
> > > Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > (Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
> > > --------------------------------------------
> > > Check group FAQ at:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Tq9otC/XP.FAA/3jkFAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|