|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mark,
There is no need to be angry about it.
I conceed that if you are making 125% a week, you are Barry Bonds in the big leagues of trading, and I am Eddie Calvin LaLouche mired with the Durham Bulls minor league team.
My point simply is slamming everyone for how their analysis and systems suck, and not offering a shred of code in assistance is not productive. You are smart enough to know that.
BTW, I did e-mail you privately and on the board about following along with your practical example weeks ago, but I never heard back.
Respectfully,
Gary
quanttrader714 <quanttrader714@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You seem to forget that I volunteered (twice) to lead anyoneinterested through the entire trading process, from robustnesscriteria and robust system development to actual real time, real $execution (putting my own money publicly on the line to show theconcepts work). Has anyone else made that offer? And instead oftaking me up on it, all I got was a bunch of sarcastic comments fromyou, Fred, Howard and Steve (among others) about "academics" and"robustness". Well, guess what? I'm *not* an academic. I'm atrader. And even though I'm in a research pause, the one trade Iclosed out last week *netted* me approximately 125% (on the trade notmy account). How did you do last week? Did you even trade last week?Give me more ignorant sarcasm, Gary, and I'll be sure to post my bestcode for
you.--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Gary A. Serkhoshian"<serkhoshian777@xxxx> wrote:>All the guys espousing these concepts of what is robust and what is a>good system have yet to post one shred of code for us to run to see>how they got to their conclusions. Worse yet, they are even less>generous with sharing a speck of a trading ideas via code. > >Until that happens, it is all just talk. At least Steve has the>juevos to throw a tradeable idea out here on the board. Remember the>saying, "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."> > Respectfully,> Gary> > CedarCreekTrading <kernish@xxxx> wrote:> Dave,> > then I do try it, report results that are less than stellar,> > For what period, 1929? 2000? 2001? Might as well pick a some yearsthat don't fall within two standard
deviations for volatility. Howhas this approach tested since the first day I posted it? I know DTtested it and wasn't impressed at the time of it's original posting. Being the great guy that he is...he offered a number of improvementsto it's structure. Too bad you didn't see the original post. Youcould of traded the StoRSI, on QQQ's,and posted a 26-3 track recordthis year.> > it's quite another to show some great-looking charts and stronglyimply that the single indicator shown is profitable in and of itself,> > Isn't and hasn't the QQQ/StoRSI been profitable since the day Ipublicly shared the indicator and system? Just because you tested iton a couple of years that had abnormal volatility doesn't really meanmuch. What's more important: your historic examination of twooutlying years, or the track record that has been created by thesystem since I supplied the
approach?> > I'd suggest you save your criticism about what works and whatdoesn't work until what works ... stops working. You are suggestingthat this approach sucks because you can't identify profits in somebacktesting. Really, give me a break. You keep backtesting for 2001and 2002 and I'll keep using this "general" (I no longer use the termrobust for anything)timing indicator to supplement my trading ideasand I will continue to "teach, talk, and trade". > > Please, you don't need my help. As I recall, you started thistread. Why pursue shit indicators that produce shit results? Move onto other approaches. There are plenty of people on this forum thatyou can learn a lot more from that a street urchin from Detroit. Idon't have any magic. What I have is nearly 14,000 hours of researhsince 1996. Of course, a part of that was spent testing
worthlessideas gleaned for books, seminars and forums.> > My Holy Grail is an eight-ounce styrofoam cup, with teeth marks andlipstick smears. It's nothing special. OK, I'm going to go back andcrawl into my hole.> > Oh, for those interested: I finally finished my new improvedwebpage. It's free ...as it has been since the beginning. Lot's ofindicators and very handsome pictures of me and my research partners.> > Take care,> > Steve> www.cedarcreektrading.com> > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave Merrill > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 4:59 AM> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Re: any karnish watchers out there? ForSteve> > > steve, not only do I assume you've done it, but when you
speak aboutit as you have, I assume we'll like what we see if we do it ourselves-- that's why you mentioned it. then I do try it, report results thatare less than stellar, and hear, "try this, try that".> > I don't mean to offend, or discourage teaching or the sharing ofideas, not at all. but it's one thing to suggest that an idea might beworth pursuing, in combination with a not-completely-specified set ofconfirming indicators, stops, entrails, etc.. it's quite another toshow some great-looking charts and strongly imply that the singleindicator shown is profitable in and of itself, or with confirmationfrom any old trend indicator you might have lying around.> > I know I need to do my own homework. I've been doing a great deal ofthat, don't mind, find it interesting even. I'm just mystified by thevibe that the actual numerical results I get from a system someoneelse suggested aren't that great
because of some problem with the wayI approach life in general, like some box I haven't thought my way outof (my favorite). it's not the first time this has happened, so steve,don't take my reaction personally.> > please don't misunderstand, I'm trying to learn, not put anyonedown, or their ideas. I very much appreciate the offerings fromeveryone here, especially the more experienced traders and systemdesigners. I hope people will continue to share their ideas, andcomment on what gets posted. > > I also appreciate everyone's putting up with my ignorance, myendless attempts to test and verify what gets said, and the periodicintrusions of my inner brat, like this one. maybe it falls under thecategory of failing to shut up if I don't have something nice to say,but surely there are others out there wondering the same thing and notsaying so out of deference to greater expertise. or maybe not.
maybeeveryone but me takes this ball and runs with it, all the way to thebank, while I just continually miss the obvious. either way, hopefullywe'll all learn something by talking about it, or at least I will.> > dave> I guess the point is that some, rightly or wrongly, assume you've > already done this. If that's the case what kind of results haveyou > gotten (CAR, MDD, UI) OOS ? Maybe I'm nuts but to me a Stochastic > RSI, whether it's coupled with a trend indicator or stops of a > variety of types etc. is well INSIDE the box.> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "CedarCreekTrading"<kernish@xxxx> > wrote:> > Dave,> > > > No problem....I'd suggest that you mix and match stops, trend > identifiers and triggers. I not suggesting that you over-optimize(a > rather tired and elusive topic on this forum), but, please think
> outside the box. The important point is: there are certainmomentum > oscillators that time you into trend retracements that are very > accurate. Pick one. > > > > Then, decide on some type of trend identification. Only take > trades in that direction. > > > > Then, conjure a stop strategy...to protect your position and > pocketbook.> > > > And finally, use something other than a momentum oscillator totime > you out. Momentum Oscillators will never capture a good move, > running in the direction of the trend, without leaving a lot > of "cheese" on the table.> > > > I think you can see that this is a bit different that just buying > and selling at the trigger levels. The StoRSI has, and willalways, > be a very decent timing device to position you into trend >
retracements. > > > > Take care,> > > > Steve> > 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 ofService. > > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT> > 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 ofService. > > > ---------------------------------> Do you Yahoo!?> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it nowSend BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxSend 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.
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
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.
|