|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I understood your original comments about funding the account ...
With regards to where to take it, I don't think it matters. Why
don't you quickly make your points regarding #1 - #9 so whatever
group is going to participate can get a feel for where you are going
relatively quickly and pick and choose from what's there. At that
juncture all will have a better idea of whether or not they want to
continue to participate and to what degree etc. I probably don't fit
as for the most part I don't trade stocks any more, but I'll follow
along for now. I'll reserve judgement on the rest until some future
point in the process.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
<quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> Appreciate your comments. On the sequencing of the whole thing,
> definitely, go through 1-9, agree on standards and in fact, probably
> don't fund an account until maybe step 4. But my original proposal
> was that *I* fund it, which would simplify decision making through
the
> golden rule, lol (he who has the gold rules). But even then the
goal
> would be to achieve consensus and if not, justify decisions, I think
> the group would be owed that at least. Now if several folks want to
> fund a group account, I'm happy to be an indian in the process but
it
> complicates things as you've noted. Back to the sequencing, I'm
> still wondering if there's enough interest and if so, where we
should
> do this. Glad you're interested, BTW!
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Fred" <fctonetti@xxxx> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > This is a long and in some regards rather ambitious plan to
> undertake
> > as a group. Don't take that as an objection, it's not. I would
> > however suggest that if I/you/we are going to proceed in some
> fashion
> > that before the group pushes on to funding an account or
publishing
> > the results that the group ...
> >
> > - Gets through your #1 - #9
> > - Sees if it can agree on which criteria to use (this will be
> tougher
> > than most think, and I'll do MY best to defer to others. Having
> > worked in small groups to develop profitable systems in the past I
> am
> > of the opinion that it is tough enough to get more than two or
> three
> > people to agree what yardstick to use to decide how to measure
how
> > good some particular system is let alone how robust it is)
> > See who's left that can and is willing to contribute something
that
> > meets the criteria.
> >
> > For myself I have no particular interest in setting up an account
> to
> > actually trade whatever the group comes up with nor have I any
> > particular interest in publication, but again that's just my own
> > slant.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
> > <quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> > > We all know this is a great group. If we put our heads together
> in
> > a
> > > cooperative manner, I believe we can accomplish anything within
> > > reason, to include trading profitably. Especially if the
systems
> > are
> > > robust. A few posts have mentioned brokerage statements and
> > frankly,
> > > that is the bottom line. So how about...
> > >
> > > 1) We cover the 9 robustness criteria and come to a *group*
> > > consensus on which to use and what parameters for a *group*
> > robustness
> > > standard (I think it was DT who first suggested a group
> baseline).
> > >
> > > 2) We have a *group* competition to develop simple systems that
> > trade
> > > often and meet the criteria.
> > >
> > > 3) We prepare a *group* trading plan to trade one or more of
those
> > > systems.
> > >
> > > 4) We iron out the bugs in simulated trading.
> > >
> > > 5) If *everyone* puts their best effort into this *and* I buy
> into
> > the
> > > final products of 1-4, I will fund a small account (but large
> enough
> > > to adequately trade what we come up with) and trade it according
> to
> > > the plan, publicly on the board, *and post the results and
> > > statements*. Of course, I'd have veto power over taking any/all
> > > trades but would justify (e.g., earnings coming out, I'm sick or
> > > drunk, etc.).
> > >
> > > 6) The *group* writes up its successful experiment in S&C
keeping
> > all
> > > names out except Amibroker which is, afterall, what brought us
> > > together in the first place and what would make this possible
> > (unless
> > > Tomasz objects).
> > >
> > > There are a lot of "ifs" here but is this a good idea and if so,
> > > should we use this board, amibroker-ts, a new amibroker board or
> > > other? Obviously this would be a long term project. Who's
> > > interested and willing to see it through?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Mark
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Rent DVDs Online - Over 14,500 titles.
No Late Fees & Free Shipping.
Try Netflix for FREE!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/xlw.sC/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/
|