|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
1. If it was a reliable "system" I would think you would have conceded that.
Since you are emphatic and so are others that it fails the litmus test of
back-testing it can not be called a reliable system.
2. There are others who claim that they make money with it by applying their
judgement in addition to the rules.
Now why does someone say something? Whats their motive? I couldn't care
less. Evidence available suggests to me it is a method which some can
implement succesfuly. Thats where the matter rests insofar as I am
concerned.
Regards
R
On 10/28/06, Fred <ftonetti@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Again ... I don't find what you say to be particularly startling in and
> of itself as it embodies discretionaty systems in general ... Not my
> cup of tea but that doesn't make them any less viable ... What I find
> odd is your statement coupled with a quote from a document written
> about Woodies methods that was apparently okayed by Woodie.
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Gerard Carey" <gerardncarey@xxx>
> wrote:
> >
> > Quite
> > G
> >
> > The inference - irrespective of who says what Woodie's is not a
> system
> > that can be executed mechanically but a method that requires human
> > input.
> >
> > R
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
>
> To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to
> SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
>
> For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
> http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
>
> For other support material please check also:
> http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.27/517 - Release Date: 11/3/2006
|