|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Thank you both. I'll check 'em out.
Jitu
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "advenosa@xxxx" <advenosa@xxxx>
wrote:
> Jitu:
>
> Try these 3 sites:
>
> http://www.traderclub.com (chuck lebeau's forum)
> http://www.mastermindforum.com/phorum/ (van tharp's forum)
> http://turtletradingsoftware.com/forum (curtis faith's forum)
>
> All are excellent.
>
> Al Venosa
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: CedarCreekTrading kernish@xxxx
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:45:46 -0600
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [amibroker] Steve K.: realtraders group?
>
>
> 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:
>
> http://www.purebytes.com/archives/realtraders/
>
> Take care,
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: jtelang
> To: 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 amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "CedarCreekTrading"
<kernish@xxxx>
> 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@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
> > 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.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs from home.
Over 14,500 titles. Free Shipping
& No Late Fees. Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mk9osC/hP.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/
|