|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
This is really a very simple subject ...
Those that can Trade ...
Those that can't sell a variety of systems, news letters, market
sites etc etc.
If you think about it why would anyone sell a system that had any
probability of success for $300 ?
What's a winning systems really worth ? ... Well if one had $1 mm and
a system that could make 20% per year on relatively small draw downs
even in enviornments like the last year or so then it's worth a hell
of a lot more than $300, isn't it ?
The reality is good systems aren't sold, nor are they advertised nor
for the most part are they even discussed openly.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "brian_z111" <brian_z111@xxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, this is a very real problem in trading.
>
> The 'industry' already has nearly 100 years of history and
thousands
> of 'traders, many of whom have been armed with computers for a
least
> a decade, and are highly skilled analysts to boot, have been
pouring
> over the same data.
>
> As I said before, our field of endeavour is actually very small, if
> we confine our discussion to stock trading (exotic instruments and
IT
> advances have added some refinements but the basics remain the
same).
>
> To emphasise the point .... the trading universe is a very small
> pool, and a relatively unimportant one at that .... IMO many of us
> take it, and our role as traders, far too seriously.
>
> Trading ideas and specific expressions of those ideas have filtered
> out from books, private conversations and trading material (free or
> sold) onto the internet where we all absorb this info without
knowing
> where it originated.
>
> Generally I find it a bit rich when a new crop comes along,
> reassembles the info a little and claims it as original/copyright
> material.
>
> I also find it a bit rich when they become uncomfortable about the
> fact that after they have sold their 'secret' it leaks out onto the
> net and then they want to claim privilige and scare off the readers.
>
> Anyone who wants to keep a secret should start with keeping it
> themselves.
>
>
>
> This is a very real issue.
>
> To provide an example.
>
> 4-5 years ago I purchase a 'trading system' from a USA mentor for
> approx USD$300-400.
>
> The gentleman had an impressive an upstanding resume.
>
> The site was well presented and credible and the support was
> excellent.
>
> The 'system' claimed a performance record of around ProfitFactor =
2
> and to be universal i.e. it worked in any timeframe and any market.
>
> I signed a confidentiallity clause and purchased the 'system'.
>
> At their website they maintained a trading log for the system with
a
> 12 month history (on the SPY I think).
>
> At the time I was using MetaStock ..... within a week or two I had
> backtested the system in MS and found I couldn't see anyway to get
> the system to perform as they claimed it did.
>
> Furthermore, when I tallied the trades recorded in their own log,
it
> didn't add up to PF 2 either ....more like 1.4. which I now
> understand to be a typical statistical abherration of break even
> systems.
>
> I duly sent them a friendly and helpful email, assuming I was
> misunderstanding something.
>
> After a few days of silence the trading log came down from the site
> and a new system hit the headlines about two weeks later.
>
> On top of that, part of the system involved manual calculation and
> entry of some 'envelope' settings.
>
> I played around with the system in MS and luckily came across a way
> to automate, via simple code, the envelopes.
>
> I was going to 'give' the code to the guy but when I emailed him
> about it to open the discussion there was another silence followed
by
> a reply email congratulating me on my fine effort and claiming
> that "they already had an automated algorithm for the envelopes, in
> beta and that it would soon be released".
>
> I spent many hours pouring over that 'system' and I still don't
> believe it is a particularly profitable system.
>
> Furthermore it is not original but only a rehash of scores of other
> systems based on a few core trading principles.
>
>
> The moral of the story:
>
> - I purchased a system and signed a 'copyright' agreement when I
was
> somewhat naive from a trading point of view
> - the ethics of the situation don't compel me to honour the
agreement
> - legally I am obliged (just in case ... murky waters as Bill says)
> - I would like to post the system on this site but I might am
> restricted
>
> In fact, on account of the agreement, the trading 'mentor' owns a
> hackneyed, recycled system and has it locked up for years.
>
> He who publishes first and longest wins!
>
> IMO this is not a good outcome for the trading community.
>
> brian_z
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Michel Guibert <michelg14@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If I follow all the copyright , I can't do anything , everybody
has
> done everything before me.
> > Many formulas were published in many books or review and you
think
> there is copyright on them ???
> > Personnaly when they are published in a review I consider them in
> the public domain.
> >
> > MG
> >
> >
> >
> > To: amibroker@: ohneclue@: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:05:28 -
> 0800Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: COPYRIGHT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Whenever you write something, you own the copyright to it such --
> even these posts are the IP of the individual poster and they own
the
> copyright to the contents. Yahoo does not own it, the group owner
> does not own it and in the Yahoo TOS, this is so stated.
> >
> > In another group that suffers from overt estrogen overloaded, 1
> person wrote a guide, lifted whole posts of other members and put
> them in her guide (without credit or permission) that she sold and
> was called on it. The person who was charging for the information
> had to refund money and revise her guide to be strictly and
> exclusively her own words. That is an example of copyright
violation.
> >
> > I use and quote George C Lane and his application of the
stochastic
> formula all the time and it is NOT a violation of copyright because
> the settings are mine that I have played around with, I give credit
> where I have learned something from someone else such as David
> Elliott about stochastics settings, etc., and don't lift entire
> paragraphs or words in the same series as their works. These are
not
> copyright violations. These come under the fair and free use
concept.
> >
> > If I am discussing something from a trading book or manual that
is
> copyrighted and put it into my own words even though it is not my
> original idea, that is not a violation of copyright.
> >
> > If I write a book or prepare a PP presentation and pass the work
> off as my own when it is based on someone else's work and the
charts
> are THEIRS I lifted entirely, word for word or exactly the same
> indicator settings, other than my own stochastic settings I've
> developed, and sell it, that is a violation of copyright.
> >
> > The two elements are: passing stuff off as your own when you
> copied it from someone else and selling it as your own idea.
> >
> > Judith
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Barry Scarborough <razzbarry@>To: amibroker@: Friday,
> December 19, 2008 10:32:28 PMSubject: [amibroker] Re: COPYRIGHT
> >
> > No. It appears there is a lot of confusion on copyright laws. A
> good discussion is at http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Copyrights. OF
> course this isn't official but it is an easier read than the law
> books. People like Wilder published his works so others could
benefit
> from his discoveries. What the copyright laws do is prevent someone
> from copying his work and selling it. But the intellectual property
> he disclosed is for our use. Why else would he publish it?Barry---
In
> amibroker@xxxxxxxxx ps.com, "binjobingo" <binjobingo@ ...> wrote:>>
> Does referring to Wilder's Relative strength Indicator,or Lane's>
> Stochastics, or Chande's Vidya & so on lead to copyright violation?
>
> > Say one reads An Author's book & am not able to write AFL for
the>
> Indicators & so ask the forum members to write it for me Is it>
> copyright violation?> > If one give a link to the Website say some
> other website which> explains the parameters & use of the
> said "indicator" but the website> may not be owned by the Author
> himself does it lead to copyright> violation ?> > If it is so I
think
> all the forums would close down & nobody would> discuss their
trading
> strategy since trading strategies use some> Indicator by some
author.>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Drag n' drop?Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live? Photos.
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/photos.aspx
> >
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
*********************
TO GET TECHNICAL 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/
|