|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Jitu,
Actually, the forum is relatively inactive.
It used to hum with fifty posts a day. Nowadays, it produces a half a
dozen (on an active day). There's some real meat in the
archives:
<A
href="">http://www.purebytes.com/archives/realtraders/
Take care,
Steve
<BLOCKQUOTE
>
----- Original Message -----
<DIV
>From:
jtelang
To: <A title=amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
href="">amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:24
AM
Subject: [amibroker] Steve K.:
realtraders group?
Steve,Is that forum still supposed to be active? I
see something called realtraders-2 on yahoo groups, but it's
empty.BTW, if anyone has recommendations for good
trading/system-development related groups to monitor, I'd love to know
about 'em.Thanks.Jitu--- In <A
href="">amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"CedarCreekTrading" <kernish@x...>
wrote:> Jitu,> > About four years ago, the
realtraders yahoo forum had a great thread on Larry Williams.
Realtraders is still around and worth monitoring. I don't know how
they archive their messages, but it might be worth trying to find
it. Lot's of traders had their own "Larry" stories. The thread
was quite humurous. Larry Williams sells seminars, books,
systems, and tutoring? People like John Henry, Paul Tudor Jones,
Richard Dennis, and many others, have traded billions. Does anyone
believe that Williams is a better trader than any of these CTA's? I
hope not. I'm sure Larry has helped someone, somewhere, ... at least
I hope so. Calling Larry Williams one of the most knowlegeable
trader of modern times is like saying Pamela Anderson is the greatest
actress of the last fifty years.> > Take care,> >
Steve> ----- Original Message ----- >
From: jtelang > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:13
PM> Subject: Objective functions (was RE: [amibroker] Re:
Optimization -- again)> > > 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@xxxx]> > > > 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@xxxx]> > > >
>> > > > > 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: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)>
> > >
--------------------------------------------> > >
> Check group FAQ at:> > > > <A
href="">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
>
ADVERTISEMENT>
>
> >
> Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx> Send
SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx>
-----------------------------------------> Post
AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (Web page: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)>
--------------------------------------------> Check group
FAQ at: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of Service.Send
BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSend SUGGESTIONS to
suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx-----------------------------------------Post
AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Web page: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)--------------------------------------------Check
group FAQ at: <A
href="">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <A
href="">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
|