|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hi,
I have purchased his Batting 800 Money Tree module for the Navigator
for Windows from gfds.com in the year 2000. It has some Profitable
Day Trading Patterns which Larry has come up with. It also includes
a tool called the Target Shooter which is very useful when combined
with Gann 6 bar swing points in placing profit breakout target limits
and trend-change pullback limits on your order. He compares trading
game to a baseball game...
On Pg.-126 of his "The Definitive Guide to Futures Trading Volume
II," Larry discusses his Overnight Formula to determine whether to
liquidate positions at close on a day-trade or next day's open.. I
won't repeat this formula here..
Often you must operate on Contrary opinion, that is, against the
advice, opinion and stated beliefs of the Majority of the "experts".
The only reason prices move is because of an imbalance between buyers
and sellers. That's why "contrary opinion" works. If everyone
thinks a stock is going up, that is because they all hold long
positions on it. Since there are few buyers at the current price, it
takes very few sellers to drive it down.
I was fortunate that some years ago I obtained a copy of Larry's 1987
Robbins Monthly Commodity Statement Activity and Open Positions
reports detailing his contest results. Unfortunately, these reports
had essential information blocked out whether Larry had bought or
sold and the number of contracts traded. Lack of this data made
everything else useless. All that was available was the liquidation
date, the futures contract traded, and the results, i.e., the dollar
debit or credit.
Larry doesn't reveal all of his methods in his books either... Maybe
he will at one of his seminars, if he hasn't already made it public.
One of the problems with mechanical systems is that as soon as
traders discover a mechancial system, it would be destroyed when it
has sufficient users, because it would pretty soon be discounted by
the market. Larry knows this probably better than anybody else....
Regards,
Pal
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jtelang" <jtelang@xxxx> wrote:
> 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 ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/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/
|