|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Marshall,
I'm in group 1, I suppose. I have a good grasp of programming and
trading rule development, and recently came to AmiBroker (and the
Yahoo groups) to learn how to use this product to validate methods
(back-test, optimize, etc). I'm considering automated trading, to
remove the occasional discipline problems I have with taking all my
setups, and exiting according to all my exit rules. I'd be glad to
join a group 4 (non-freeloading research), though each of us may have
very specific issues. Note that the AmiBroker-ts group discusses
trading system development, but is a much less active group than this
one. If some folks would like to continue this discussion there, or
in a new group, I'd be glad to discuss AmiBroker trading issues and
research areas of mutual interest.
BTW, my current trading consists of intraday Russell 2000 emini
(Globex, ER2).
- Bill
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "M. Smith" <ink@xxx> wrote:
>
> Herman, I have been trading for over 35 years. I have met many a
trader who says indicators are the only way and I have met as many who
say you are nuts to waste your time on them because of the randomness
of the markets. Now, Those who use indicators and do relatively well
are statistically in the minority. That is usually because even with
a good system, they can not consistently use it. They alter their
trading rules during the day. Personally, I have been with the
Amibroker group for a long time. They have all been as helpful as
possible. What I have noted about the group over the years is that it
can be divided into groups. Group 1 has the programming language
capability and good sense about trading rules. They put together their
systems and really do not share their work. Personal choice. The 2nd
group is a group who has a great mind for sequential formula
development which assimilates the rules on paper,but does not have the
programming skills. They seek advice from simple to complex issues of
language. #rd, is the group who want everyone else to work out the
bugs and then write out the formula and tell them when it is ready to
use. That is strictly the way I read the group. I would love to see
the great minds of the group work as a team and see what is there to
assemble into a winning formula for the group to try and produce data
for testing. It is called research. Then everyone has a stake in the
development process and is not freeloading on the ph.d's and other
brains. I would love to see it run as a separate group and have a
large number of participants. That is only my feelings and would like
as much feed back as humanly possible. Limited feedback means no
takers and an interest level in work is nil. "Sey la vie". Marshall
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Herman
> To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 11:40 AM
> Subject: RE: [amibroker] Very profitable DOW system
>
>
>
> Group efforts have failed consistently. People are ready and
willing to help with programming and technical issues but when it
comes to sharing serious ideas on trading systems it simply doesn't
happen. Dimitri might have been an exception by sharing many excellent
ideas however his systems were always long term, such systems are not
easily jeopardized by over-trading. Many of his systems can be found
in the library, I haven't tried any lately so it is hard to say
whether any would still be working... most systems have a definitive
lifetime. There are many private groups that share internally and
appear (not sure) to do reasonably well.
>
> Perhaps there simply aren't many good mechanical systems around.
Personally I believe that the most successful traders are successful
because they use good judgement and money management, not because they
have a good mechanical system. I also think that a trending market and
lots of good luck are critical ingredients for many traders. Also,
adequate money for a portfolio or a stomach for 13% DDs may be
required to succeed - I wonder how many are in such a position?
>
> best regards,
>
> herman
>
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "kevinoversby" <kevinoversby@>
wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Randy!
> >
> > Your post just set off the lightbulb - that timing issue completely
> > explains the outperformance.
> >
> > Herman - your question is academic now unfortunately but I think the
> > answer would be that the results do not change much.
> >
> > There is some work I have been doing on tradeable instruments
such as
> > DIA using the individual components (based on Dimitri's work). This
> > in turn was inspired by the results obtained by www.dowtrader.net
> > using a similar approach. Do you think there would be any
interest in
> > collaborating on such an EOD system on this board?
> >
> > Kevin
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.2/613 - Release Date: 1/1/2007 2:50 PM
|