|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Steve,
Perhaps I have to clarify further:
when I meant mechanical systems I meant mechanical systems not based
on "Contrary Opinion", which tend to become obsolete after a few
years...
I have never attended Larry's seminar nor do I ever plan to. In fact
I have never attended any seminars. I have watched some videos on
trading, read some good books and software user technical manuals,
which I feel is sufficient enough. I have said goodbye to Brokers,
Advisors and Gurus long time back...I just use one of Larry's
software modules... That's about it...
I really don't know how good Larry is in his trading. I know that he
has been trading before I was even born and he has won some
prestigious trading competitions and as a result he became famous...
I talked to Larry once, and he seemed to have some good ideas... I
do not follow any one traders methododology.. I have put together
several methods from several super-traders and have collected several
pre-optimized systems, including yours, to form a consensus, but my
primary trading system is a very simple one... It does turn losing
positions into profits... Is it the holy grail? I don't know..
Regards,
Pal
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Steve Karnish" <kernish@xxxx>
wrote:
> Pal,
>
> It might be an epiphany for some...but, contrary opinion (bullish
consensus) has been publicly published since the 60's. "Urban
legends" are prevalent throughout the trading world. One of the
silliest notions is: 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.
>
> Pure fiction. What exactly is sufficient users? Ten people on
this forum? Ten or twenty hedge funds? Janus and Investco or Janus,
Investco, Fidelity and twenty foreign banks? Egomaniacs might buy
into the this premise (maybe even seminar/system sellers...trying to
make you believe that the crap they are selliing is unique...like
contrary opinion). If Larry can convince you of this, Larry can
convince you of anything.
>
> Larry doesn't reveal all of his methods in his books either...
Maybe he will at one of his seminars,
>
> I bet if you plunk your money down...Larry will squeal like a pig
or bark like a dog. Don't worry, he'll be back in your town soon.
You'll get a chance to pay three grand (or more) to hear his pearls
of wisdom. There are people on this forum who know Larry socially
and professionally. Do you really want people to take his pants down
in public? If you insist on defining this marketing genius as
a "great trader", you will have to put up with people that have seen
the "dog and pony show" for the past 25 years. Some of it isn't very
pretty.
>
> Take care,
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: palsanand
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 9:07 PM
> Subject: Objective functions (was RE: [amibroker] Re:
Optimization -- again)
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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/
|