|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Louis, firstly, I agree with brian_z's comments.
Secondly, the two systems can work, but each may work better in
different market conditions.
But if you are a fully mechanical trader operating one system you
cannot adapt to conditions and change your style of trading so that
you have a best system for teh current market. At least not without
effectively running two or more systems with some well tested rules
for which you use in which circumstances and consideration of whether
you are over optimizing your system to the back data. Otherwise you
simply risk defeating your system by making changes. If you are not
a mechanical trader then with experience you may be able to recognise
changes in the market and apply different systems to suit.
Most importantly, i fthis is not teaching you to suck eggs, try a
system that you are interested in and that you think suits you. Back
test it and test it trading, but make sure you understand potential
draw down and get to understand your real emotional response to
possible multiple sequential loses. No point having an apparently
good system but you cannot sleep at night or interrupt the system
every time you get uncomfortable. There is quite a good chapter or
two in Curtis Faith's "Way of the Turtle" that I found best discussed
this.
But back to brian_z's point, you cannot be successful by asking
others what they think will be the best system.
Cheers
mjp
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@xxx> wrote:
>
> Louis,
>
> As long as you understand I don't deal (intentionally) in the base
> human emotions (they have no value to me).
>
> My philosphical points were addressed 'To Whom It May Concern'.
>
> People are totally mistaken if they think there is no relevance to
> trading in my 'philosphical' post, however few are interested and I
> don't have the time to do the subject justice anyway.
>
> My 'easy' answer to you was c) none of the above, but, IMO the
> problem is that you don't have the experience to make the necessary
> distinctions for yourself (is it my fault that you are in such a
> hurry?). Also, it is not a good thing to 'lift' your trades from
> others. People trade best wnen they develop their own
systems/styles
> etc so that is why I gave you that answer - it is in your best
> interests. As well as that, good opinion on this subject abounds in
> the forum and the books you have purchased e.g. Howard has given
his
> opinion on the importance of people choosing their own Objective
> Function and the fact that his recommended approach sidelines
trading
> pyschology, so it is not as if the question went unanswered. (I
> understand that my esoteric answers are not to everyones taste,
> perhaps not yours, but there are plenty of other people prepared to
> give an opinion.
>
> However that is just my answer - there are another 7000+ people who
> can give you any answer they like.
>
> Cheers,
>
> brian_z
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Louis Préfontaine"
> <rockprog80@> wrote:
> >
> > Ok I was naive; I thought I could simply ask and get some easy
> answers which
> > would get me right on track to get new ideas on how to build a
> hourly
> > system...
> >
> > I'll stick around and try to get some piece of wisdom and maybe I
> will be
> > able to build something with those that will eventually allow me
to
> build
> > the system I want to build!
> >
> > Louis
> >
> >
> > 2008/3/21, brian_z111 <brian_z111@>:
> > >
> > > (Subjective) investigations into the 'human condition' have
been
> > > going on, in parallel with our search for objective truths, as
> long
> > > as humanity has been around.
> > >
> > > This body of information has been collected and preserved, by
the
> > > few, for the benefit of mankind (the many) and consitutes a
> SCIENCE
> > > to its guardians, adherents and students.
> > >
> > > From that body of WISDOM two principles can be extracted that
are
> > > relevant to your comments:
> > >
> > > holism is universally persistent (all things are made in the
> IMAGE of
> > > the creator)
> > >
> > > and,
> > >
> > > flowing from that, we derive the principle of CORRESPONDENCE
> > > (operating principles in one sphere, have their corresponding
> > > principle in another)...
> > >
> > > ...but that is going to far OT.
> > >
> > > Over to trading (OR how the above relates to trading):
> > >
> > > Over the long term the bias of the (stock) market is a function
of
> > > the earnings performance of the component companies.
> > >
> > > This is skewed by the behaviour of market participants, which
> > > introduces randomness to the markets.
> > >
> > > The shorter the timeframe the more dominant is 'randomness'
> (which of
> > > course is not true randomness).
> > >
> > > (If you are interested in the subject of organising principles
and
> > > holism Carl Jung's work on Psychological Archetypes is a
wonderful
> > > example of how the universal paradigms play out in the affairs
of
> > > wo/mankind).
> > >
> > > brian_z *:-)
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Ronald
> > > Davis" <xokie7@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I maintain the view that algorithms exist in nature, and that
> > > people who develop algorighms are only discovering another one
of
> > > nature's secrets.
> > > >
> > > > When my son first showed me Amibroker several years ago, I
> looked
> > > at charts with Stochastics, and RSI, and I became convinced that
> > > mother nature has algorithms that can find the central core of
> all of
> > > that volatility.
> > > >
> > > > I have yet to discover mother nature's algorighms, but my
> attempts
> > > have led me to some conclusions.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > > >
> > > > My results WERE BEST when I "AVERAGED THE LAST SEVERAL
HUNDRED
> DAYS
> > > OF ACTIVITY"
> > > >
> > > > and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this
average
> of
> > > hundreds of days.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > > >
> > > > My results WERE LESS GOOD when I "AVERAGED OF LAST 9 DAYS OF
> > > ACTIVITY"
> > > >
> > > > and watched the LAST 9 DAYS>of the performance of this
average
> of
> > > only 9 days.
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > -----
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps someone. Ron D
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------------------------
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Louis Préfontaine
> > > > To: amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:25 PM
> > > > Subject: [amibroker] Philosophical question
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi group,
> > > >
> > > > I just began reading Howard Bandy's book (even though I did
not
> > > finish Aronson's book yet...), and a somehow philosophical
> question
> > > came to my mind when he speaks about the market's inefficiency
and
> > > how we must take advantage of it. He talks both about moving
> > > averages and breakout, and I was wondering which one of the two
> > > techniques do you think is the more promising for such a system?
> > > >
> > > > I ask this because as far as subjective technical analysis is
> > > concerned, I am more used with breakout techniques. But the real
> > > inefficiency in breakout techniques comes from time, that is if
> one
> > > can act quickly enough to make a profit from the sudden change
in
> > > price. But from my experience it seems to be more difficult
with
> EOD
> > > or hourly data. And it is less profitable for someone (like me)
> who
> > > is using options, which tend to anticipate the change quicker
> than it
> > > really happens.
> > > >
> > > > Moving averages techniques, on the other side, seems a bit
> > > mystical to me, and maybe a bit too simple or too « easy ». I
> don't
> > > know much about them...
> > > >
> > > > But anyway, my question is: which one of those two techniques
do
> > > you prefer, or do you use both for entering a trade, or
shorting a
> > > trade? What can be a good way to trade for someone (like me) who
> > > wants to trade hourly data and can't always get the beginning
of a
> > > breakout?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Louis
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:amibroker-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:amibroker-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|