|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Continuing.....(I had to go and change a light bulb).
My hypothesis that primary indicators (price, vol, OI) are more
accurate and have less lag than secondary or tertiary indicators that
are derived from them is informal and tentative at this stage.
As far as I can tell it is original as I haven't seen any published
commentary use those definitions.
It's probably just a poor man's version of principles that are well
known in various academic disciplines.
It's there to be proven wrong.
Thanks for the two exceptions you provided.
I have made a note of them and will do a study on them at some stage.
Re % wins and randomness:
No wins/no losses is relative to %won/%lost.
If we standardise to binomial terms 63% wins is very good if we are
considering a coin toss (win value = loss value).
Brian *:-)
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "sursod" <sursod@xxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
> I enjoy your posts of ideas.
> I agree with you regarding derivative indicators although I use
> Stochastics (SRSI) and Bollinger Band of RSI, both derivative of
> derivative of price. Personally I do not rate any TA indicator as
> better than 35-65% accurate and often randomness decides when. It
is
> more important to know the indicator we use so we understand when
it
> might fail then to chase newer and fancier indicators thinking
> computation sophistication equates the holy grail.
>
> I value Pardo's book on systems design very much but ultimately we
> have to make our own rules and write our own script, there is no
> holy bible and no absolute truth except the inconvenient truth at
> the bottom line of the trading account.
> Sursod
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian.z123" <brian.z123@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Bill,
> >
> >
> > I'm pleased you read the reply as I hadn't seen you around for a
> > couple of days and thought you might have disappeared.
> >
> > Trialling (it's not in my dictionary either - I haven't been to
> > school for a while) = = trial and error (paper trading or virtual
> > trading where you visualise the outcomes of your systems in your
> > minds eye or imagination).
> >
> > I base this approach on my theory of success (template) = = theory
> > (reading?)followed by practice (backtesting?) followed by
> application
> > (trading or virtual trading) and then back to the drawing board
to
> > fix up your mistakes - the path to success is perpetual
> application
> > of the above cycle (continuous improvement in business terms).
> >
> > I discussed *The Success Template* in more detail in a previous
> topic
> > on Trading Psychology.
> > It was of minority interest only and some forum members didn't
> like
> > it at all so it may not be to your taste either.
> >
> > Trading bank = = trading capital = = the amount of money you have
> to
> > trade with.
> > Depending on your definition of ruin i.e all of your capital is
> gone
> > or 50% of your capital is gone, once you trade to ruin it is game
> > over until you can put together another stash (by the way ruin
> isn't
> > in my trading goals).
> >
> > I understand your point on AccDis.
> >
> > I am a liberal and free thinker.
> > As far as I am concerned feel free to speculate and use examples
> etc
> > in discussions.
> > There is no pressure on from me to be correct.
> > It is only a discussion.
> >
> > If you are going to write a book etc it is a different matter.
> >
> > Brian*:-)
> >
> > P.S
> >
> > I am not a training guru so feel free not to believe anything you
> > can't verify for yourself.
> > When in doubt put it in the holding pen.
> > If it doesn't stack up throw it in the rubbish bin.
> >
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Bill Halliday <halliday_mo@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Brianzee123,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your response. I appreciate them very much.
> > >
> > >
> > > Am I on the right track?
> > >
> > > Definitely.
> > > It's a long way to the top though.
> > >
> > > Unquestionably true!
> > >
> > > Suggest improvements to your approach?
> > >
> > > Keep doing what you are doing (reading, thinking,
questioning,
> > > discussing, trialling; you are in good company with AmiBroker).
> > > It will be interesting to see what you can do in a few years if
> you
> > > are still around.
> > >
> > > I will read, think, and question. Discussing my findings in
> this
> > > forum is the way I plan to verify/focus my approach.
> > > Trialling isn't in my dictionary, what is it?
> > >
> > > Suggest improvements to your system development?
> > >
> > > I would say to think carefully about the criteria you use to
> > evaluate
> > > your systems (there is discussion in Pardo about this-I will
> read
> > it) and to
> > > understand the principles of money management thoroughly (there
> are
> > > 1000's of systems but you only have one trading bank).
> > >
> > > I'm not faminiar with the term: trading bank, what is it?
> > >
> > > My initial reason for starting the document was to learn what
> a
> > > system was composed of and how to put one into practice.
> > > It's a start!
> > >
> > > Soon I'll be up to the place where I can set realistic goals
> for
> > a system.
> > > As you point out, the Accumulation/Distribution System wasn't
> > intended
> > > to be used as a system, but was only used for the purpose of
> > learning
> > > to think/write/plan etc. in "Systems".
> > >
> > > Thank you for reviewing my approach and providing comments on
> it.
> > >
> > > I look forward to your comments on my next offering.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers
> from
> > real people who know.
> > >
> >
>
Content-Description: "AVG certification"
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.24/668 - Release Date: 2/4/2007 1:30 AM
|