|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<So you found the thread increasingly "academic"? Two comments.
First, don't leave out that I offered *twice* to lead people through
the entire process. Nothing academic about hands on application.
Second, we need to cut out the labeling around here. Nothing good
*ever* comes out of that. Just look at history.>
Mark,
One of the definitions of academic is "Theoretical or speculative
without a practical purpose or intention." And one of the definitions
of Theoretical is "Given to theorizing; speculative."
You offered to do two things: 1) Define robustness as you apply it to
systems trading, AND 2) Demonstrate how you apply robustness to real
live trading system development and application.
Even though you offered to demonstrate your approach, this did not
occur. Someone even suggested that you demonstrate why Steve's CMO5
system was not robust and possibly show how to make it robust. When
people present ideas without the supporting examples of
implementation, then I tend to clasify those ideas as academic.
Stating that a discussion is academic is not name calling.
<Finally, as for your comment "Thankfully, the "robustness" topic now
seems to have subsided" you're welcome, I'm really glad I took the
time to post it. >
Your motivation to spend your time on those posts were for YOUR own
reasons... not because you had any reason to think that I wanted to
read them. So don't get offended just because I had little interest in
spending my time reading someones ideas who failed to demonstrate
their application.
I mean(t) no malice, and I am sure that at some point in the future we
will benefit from each others posts.
Regards,
Phsst
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
<quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> Phsst, what board were you reading? I posted the 5 lite criteria
> based on repeated requests to do so. I was being challenged after I
> said one of Steve's systems wasn't robust by *my definition*. Not
> that it wasn't tradeable, just not robust as I define it.
>
> I procrastinated? You think I have nothing else to do than post here?
> In addition to the reasons I already posted, how about struggling
> with trying to make it simple and understandable to everyone, or just
> wondering how much I want to disclose in public, especially since it
> started out in a hostile environment.
>
> As for backing away from my offer after "much pontification", ROTFL!
> I offered *twice* and was *incredibly* disappointed that so few people
> wanted to take me up on it.
>
> So you found the thread increasingly "academic"? Two comments.
> First, don't leave out that I offered *twice* to lead people through
> the entire process. Nothing academic about hands on application.
> Second, we need to cut out the labeling around here. Nothing good
> *ever* comes out of that. Just look at history.
>
> Finally, as for your comment "Thankfully, the "robustness" topic now
> seems to have subsided" you're welcome, I'm really glad I took the
> time to post it.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Phsst" <phsst@xxxx> wrote:
> > <all I got was a bunch of sarcastic comments from
> > you, Fred, Howard and Steve (among others) about "academics" and
> > "robustness".>
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > I believe that you were the one who elevated the issue of
> "robustness".
> >
> > The majority of comments I remember were positive replies to your
> > offer, and yet after much pontification, you backed away from the
> > offer in the end. And while I may be mistaken, I don't remember any
> > substancial number of negative responses (I do remember Fred trying
> > diligently to get you to quit procrastinating on the subject, but I
> > did not percieve that he was being particularly sarcastic about it).
> >
> > But that's OK. Thankfully, the "robustness" topic now seems to have
> > subsided. While I was never a detractor on that subject, the further
> > the thread went, the more "academic" it did seem.
> >
> > I'm sure that there are many who would still like to see you make
> your
> > offer good.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phsst
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "quanttrader714"
> > <quanttrader714@xxxx> wrote:
> > > You seem to forget that I volunteered (twice) to lead anyone
> > > interested through the entire trading process, from robustness
> > > criteria and robust system development to actual real time, real $
> > > execution (putting my own money publicly on the line to show the
> > > concepts work). Has anyone else made that offer? And instead of
> > > taking me up on it, all I got was a bunch of sarcastic comments
> from
> > > you, Fred, Howard and Steve (among others) about "academics" and
> > > "robustness". Well, guess what? I'm *not* an academic. I'm a
> > > trader. And even though I'm in a research pause, the one trade I
> > > closed out last week *netted* me approximately 125% (on the trade
> not
> > > my 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
> best
> > > code 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
> years
> > > that don't fall within two standard deviations for volatility.
> How
> > > has this approach tested since the first day I posted it? I know
> DT
> > > tested 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
> improvements
> > > to it's structure. Too bad you didn't see the original post. You
> > > could of traded the StoRSI, on QQQ's,and posted a 26-3 track
> record
> > > this year.
> > > >
> > > > it's quite another to show some great-looking charts and
> strongly
> > > imply that the single indicator shown is profitable in and of
> itself,
> > > >
> > > > Isn't and hasn't the QQQ/StoRSI been profitable since the day I
> > > publicly shared the indicator and system? Just because you
> tested it
> > > on a couple of years that had abnormal volatility doesn't really
> mean
> > > much. What's more important: your historic examination of two
> > > outlying years, or the track record that has been created by the
> > > system since I supplied the approach?
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest you save your criticism about what works and what
> > > doesn't work until what works ... stops working. You are
> suggesting
> > > that this approach sucks because you can't identify profits in
> some
> > > backtesting. Really, give me a break. You keep backtesting for
> 2001
> > > and 2002 and I'll keep using this "general" (I no longer use the
> term
> > > robust for anything)timing indicator to supplement my trading
> ideas
> > > and I will continue to "teach, talk, and trade".
> > > >
> > > > Please, you don't need my help. As I recall, you started this
> > > tread. Why pursue shit indicators that produce shit results?
> Move on
> > > to other approaches. There are plenty of people on this forum
> that
> > > you can learn a lot more from that a street urchin from Detroit.
> I
> > > don't have any magic. What I have is nearly 14,000 hours of
> researh
> > > since 1996. Of course, a part of that was spent testing worthless
> > > ideas gleaned for books, seminars and forums.
> > > >
> > > > My Holy Grail is an eight-ounce styrofoam cup, with teeth marks
> and
> > > lipstick smears. It's nothing special. OK, I'm going to go back
> and
> > > crawl into my hole.
> > > >
> > > > Oh, for those interested: I finally finished my new improved
> > > webpage. It's free ...as it has been since the beginning. Lot's
> of
> > > indicators 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? For
> > > Steve
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > steve, not only do I assume you've done it, but when you speak
> about
> > > it 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
> that
> > > are less than stellar, and hear, "try this, try that".
> > > >
> > > > I don't mean to offend, or discourage teaching or the sharing of
> > > ideas, not at all. but it's one thing to suggest that an idea
> might be
> > > worth pursuing, in combination with a not-completely-specified
> set of
> > > confirming indicators, stops, entrails, etc.. it's quite another
> to
> > > show some great-looking charts and strongly imply that the single
> > > indicator shown is profitable in and of itself, or with
> confirmation
> > > from 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 of
> > > that, don't mind, find it interesting even. I'm just mystified by
> the
> > > vibe that the actual numerical results I get from a system someone
> > > else suggested aren't that great because of some problem with the
> way
> > > I approach life in general, like some box I haven't thought my
> way out
> > > of (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 anyone
> > > down, or their ideas. I very much appreciate the offerings from
> > > everyone here, especially the more experienced traders and system
> > > designers. I hope people will continue to share their ideas, and
> > > comment on what gets posted.
> > > >
> > > > I also appreciate everyone's putting up with my ignorance, my
> > > endless attempts to test and verify what gets said, and the
> periodic
> > > intrusions of my inner brat, like this one. maybe it falls under
> the
> > > category 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 not
> > > saying so out of deference to greater expertise. or maybe not.
> maybe
> > > everyone but me takes this ball and runs with it, all the way to
> the
> > > bank, while I just continually miss the obvious. either way,
> hopefully
> > > we'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 have
> > > you
> > > > 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 certain
> > > momentum
> > > > 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 to
> > > time
> > > > 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 will
> > > always,
> > > > 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: amiq
> uote@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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
> > > >
> > > > Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxx
> > > > Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxx
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiq
> uote@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 ---------------------~-->
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/
|