|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Natasha,
I absolutely agree with you. We are making the same argument.
However, I think you misunderstand my use of 'complex'... 5 non correlated rules can be VERY complex if you are trying to work them out from the results of those rules only. Simple when you know them, but very complex working the other way because the possibilities are endless.
Also when I say 'complex' I mean from a coding point of view. It's a point I've made before, but I'll make it again... try and progam a piece of code to spot ALL head & shoulders patterns over various amounts historical data and you will be programming for a very very long time. Easy to spot by eye - simple - but very complex from a coding point of view.
--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Natasha ~~!!!" <ghostship.blackparrot@xxx> wrote:
>
> but what motivates the choice of action can be very complex... Try and
> unfold that decision making process only from the result and it could take
> you forever...
>
> hi siddartha,
>
> Regarding the above , I think you misunderstood .
> Stockmarket has only very few actions ,
> One is buy , next sell and finally stay away (no position ) .
> So it makes it very difficult to find a solution since there are very few
> alternatives .
> ..
> Using patterns or statistic indicators etc etc one or many in a
> strategy and then
> using postion size and playing something like blackjack in the stockmarket
> where
> you use the statistic indicator ,pattern etc etc as some basic strategy
> and then card counting for the position size where you roll your money
> at favourable odds and keep away at less than favourable odds is generally
> what most are expected to do to make good HUGE Money .
>
> .... My last so many years experince in stockmarkets after having tested
> ,backtested and traded many indicators ,patterns etc etc in strategies as
> mentioned in many books last so many years and i finally came to the
> conclusion that :
>
> NOTE : the word HUGE as you have written ,,
>
> huge money consistently can only be made by keeping it short and
> simple .
>
> Have a strategy and use different TACTICS to trade that strategy
> depending on market
> conditions .
>
> Most indicators dont work all the time but most strategies do along with
> the tactics .
>
> ............ Thats what i wanted to convey .
>
> Complicated strategies etc are well i feel not really effective .
>
> Trade stockmarkets using the BLACKJACK method .Basic strategy +
> Cardcounting to
> roll your money . ITS SAME AS strategy plus tactics .
>
> You must be knowing that blackjack is the only casino game that can be
> beaten
> consistently .
>
> On 6/6/09, sidhartha70 <sidhartha70@xxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes buy & sell Natasha... but what motivates the choice of action can be
> > very complex... Try and unfold that decision making process only from the
> > result and it could take you forever...
> >
> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com>, "Natasha
> > ~~!!!" <ghostship.blackparrot@> wrote:
> > >
> > > untangle a complex profitable strategy
> > >
> > > ~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > stockmarkets is so simple there are only two actions : buy and sell .
> > >
> > > same with strategy .
> > >
> > > NO HIGHLY PROFITABLE STRATEGY CAN BE COMPLEX .
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/6/09, sidhartha70 <sidhartha70@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have to say that I find this idea that brokers will work out your
> > > > strategy slightly fanciful.
> > > >
> > > > I agree & accept that if you are a consistent winner that brokerages
> > might
> > > > try to shadow your trades... that's great as far as I'm concerned
> > because
> > > > they simply add to your own alpha (by entering trades in the same
> > direction
> > > > after you) not erode it.
> > > >
> > > > However, the idea that brokers are smart enough to even begin to
> > untangle a
> > > > complex profitable strategy simply by looking at the trades is pure
> > > > imagination in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I talk as a trader who trades a defined system on a
> > discretionary
> > > > basis... including contingency plans for all my trades, chase plans for
> > late
> > > > entries... I often reverse a position if I'm wrong etc...etc...
> > > >
> > > > I would wager a bunch of smart people could look at my trades for a
> > very
> > > > long period of time and make little sense of them ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > "huanyanlu" <huanyan2000@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yiki, tashikani soodesu. You have made a valid point, as the profit
> > have
> > > > to be made somewhere and those accounts would be subject to scrutiny.
> > > > >
> > > > > Huanyan
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>, Yuki
> >
> > > > Taga <yukitaga@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huanyan,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Splitting the trading probably won't help you. If you could
> > identify
> > > > > > the weakest trades (the ones you would, perhaps, direct to
> > brokerage
> > > > > > B), you would eliminate them completely. So the results over time
> > of
> > > > > > split trades should approximate your overall results. And of course
> > > > > > if you shunt only the bad trades to broker B, then the results at
> > > > > > broker A are going to be even more spectacular. Brokerage A is then
> > > > > > going to have even more incentive to examine your play.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There would seem to be no way to disguise your play, because you
> > are
> > > > > > not a market specialist. ^_^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember, it's not the amount you win (splitting would affect this
> > > > > > number, but it's meaningless), but the consistency and the
> > > > > > methodology and the risk metrics, that will draw attention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One way to disguise the system itself would be to occasionally
> > throw
> > > > > > in the deliberate "anti-system" trade -- a throwaway trade made on
> > an
> > > > > > absolutely contrary-to-the-system basis. That might throw off a
> > > > > > search for your system. (Perversely, it might also win.) ^_^ But
> > > > > > unless you did it often enough to influence your real returns
> > (which
> > > > > > you would not do, because then your returns would be negatively
> > > > > > affected), then it would have no value in terms of stopping someone
> > > > > > from shadowing you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've never worried about brokers taking the other side of my
> > trades.
> > > > > > I'd end up owning the companies if they did that long enough. ^_^
> > > > > > But just as I assume that they look at good traders, I would assume
> > > > > > that they look at clueless traders (although clueless traders tend
> > to
> > > > > > run out of money, so they would be limited to looking at clueless
> > > > > > traders that seem to have a wellspring of money somewhere to
> > > > > > replenish their accounts). I wouldn't mind taking the other side of
> > > > > > any trade made by someone with a demonstrated capacity for being
> > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But I think the practices are almost impossible to stop. Brokers
> > are
> > > > > > often members of exchanges (if not always), and they routinely
> > > > > > generate data for the exchanges (margin long outstanding and margin
> > > > > > short, for example). So they have at least some valid reasons for
> > > > > > analyzing data.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And as I say, human beings, generally, are not going to pass up any
> > > > > > profit opportunities. If you are trading at *MY* firm, and you are
> > > > > > consistently making a pile of money, with risk metrics that I find
> > > > > > acceptable, I'm going to have a look at your action. A very close
> > > > > > look. Think of me as the camera behind the overhead mirror at
> > > > > > Caesar's Palace. ^_^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yuki
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saturday, June 6, 2009, 12:26:07 PM, you wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h> Interesting idea, Yuki.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h> Can someone verify if it is a common practice for brokers to
> > > > > > h> investigate the performance of its clients ( of courese
> > internally
> > > > > > h> and act in low profile ) and then try to figure out the
> > > > > > h> methodology of the successful clients ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h> If it is the truth, then is it advisable to split the trading
> > > > > > h> operation among accounts in different brokers ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h> Huanyan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > h> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <amibroker%40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Yuki Taga <yukitaga@> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> Why would it be discovered?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I would be inclined to believe that any system that is employed
> > for
> > > > > > >> any reasonably lengthy period of time will be discovered. I
> > think
> > > > > > >> this is particularly true now in the data processing age. Human
> > > > > > >> beings are, after all, human beings. And behind all the
> > machines,
> > > > > > >> there are human beings. You can't trade without exposing
> > yourself to
> > > > > > >> the machines (which "remember" all your trades forever) and,
> > very
> > > > > > >> importantly, to the people who have access to the machines, or
> > who
> > > > > > >> control the people with access.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I don't know where this might be illegal or legal, and I'm sure
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> in some places and maybe isn't in others, but if I was a ranking
> > > > > > >> officer in a brokerage firm, you can be absolutely sure that I
> > would
> > > > > > >> know exactly who my most profitable clients were over time --
> > using
> > > > a
> > > > > > >> basket of metrics to look for outstanding performance that fell
> > > > > > >> within allowable risk parameters. And you can also be sure that
> > I
> > > > > > >> would spend no small amount of time and effort trying to
> > ascertain
> > > > > > >> how any sustained profitability that was in the bounds of my
> > metrics
> > > > > > >> was being generated. I'd be running the data periodically. Need
> > I
> > > > > > >> say more?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If you are siphoning money out of the market on a consistent
> > basis,
> > > > > > >> and doing it better than almost anyone else (basis simple RoR,
> > > > better
> > > > > > >> risk-adjusted numbers, some the combination of the two, or
> > whatever
> > > > > > >> measures you happen to be looking for), it is going to be
> > noticed.
> > > > > > >> There is almost no way to get around this. Your identity can be
> > > > > > >> cloaked without too much trouble, but cloaking your play is much
> > > > more
> > > > > > >> difficult -- because you have to play. Conceivably, you could
> > break
> > > > > > >> your play up among several sets of machines, but if you are
> > > > > > >> successful enough I think your play is going to be detected.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If you are small potatoes, you have less of a problem I'm sure.
> > > > > > >> Almost no problem. But if you have a system good enough to
> > interest
> > > > > > >> someone else, you aren't going to remain small potatoes very
> > long.
> > > > > > >> And in the meantime, you are going to be putting up some trade
> > > > > > >> statistics that should attract someone's attention. Let me
> > change
> > > > > > >> that to *will* attract someone's attention.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It's called the smell of money. And one of humanity's most
> > powerful
> > > > > > >> olfactory capabilities is detecting that odor.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yuki
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Saturday, June 6, 2009, 10:32:32 AM, you wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> The statement, "they will be discovered and traded",
> > contains
> > > > two
> > > > > > >> KM> assumptions, which I find difficult to accept.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> First, addressed by Brian below, it will be discovered only
> > if
> > > > it is
> > > > > > >> KM> used to an extreme extent. The system may, for example, just
> > > > trade
> > > > > > >> KM> relatively small lots in large and universally held
> > equities.
> > > > One could
> > > > > > >> KM> possibly make millions from futures and forex without
> > effecting
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> KM> markets one iota. Why would it be discovered?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> Second, even if it were discovered and even became widely
> > > > publicized, it
> > > > > > >> KM> still might not be traded sufficiently by others to have any
> > > > effect on
> > > > > > >> KM> its success. The system might, for example, require
> > considerable
> > > >
> > > > > > >> KM> patience by the trader, so much so that only a very small
> > number
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> KM> traders would be willing to use it. Or it could be based on
> > some
> > > > theory
> > > > > > >> KM> that all but a few would reject, despite its effectiveness.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> It's believed by many, including yours truly, the the most
> > > > effective,
> > > > > > >> KM> low risk/reward, way to make money from the stock markets,
> > is to
> > > > write
> > > > > > >> KM> books and give lectures about how to make money in the stock
> > > > market.
> > > > > > >> KM> This system has been going on for years, is well known, and
> > so
> > > > far
> > > > > > >> KM> appears to be quite profitable. I doubt that it will ever
> > stop
> > > > working.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> -- Keith
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> KM> brian_z111 wrote:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> <snip> I find the statement that all trading systems stop
> > working
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> eventually to be too vague.<snip>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Howard has provided supportive arguments, to this theory, at
> > > > various
> > > > > > >> >> times, and we can not accuse Howard of being vague or
> > > > equivocating
> > > > > > >> >> when it comes to trading (I thank him for that).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> As I recall the basis of his view is:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - all systems will fail eventually
> > > > > > >> >> - they will be discovered and traded
> > > > > > >> >> - trading the edge erodes the edge
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> By 'erodes the edge' Howard means that if, for example, I am
> > > > trading a
> > > > > > >> >> system and buy, at the entry signal of 100.00,, and sell on
> > the
> > > > exit
> > > > > > >> >> signal of 103.00, I have made a profit of 3%.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> If a lot of people start trading the same system (same
> > market/
> > > > > > >> >> timeframe etc) then the second person in will have to buy at,
> > say
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> 100.01 and sell at 102.99 (because my action in
> > buying/selling
> > > > before
> > > > > > >> >> them moved the bid/ask (theoretically trader 2 ends up with a
> > > > profit
> > > > > > >> >> of 2.98% , calculated on a commission free basis and so on,
> > down
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> food chain).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> According to this theory, the efficiency of the trade has
> > been
> > > > > > >> >> diminished i.e. what was a 3% trade has been reduced to a <3%
> > > > trade(on
> > > > > > >> >> average) due to other traders piling in to the trade.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> My critique of that argument is:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - the reason why any trade (tick) is made (appears on the
> > tape)
> > > > is
> > > > > > >> >> unknown to us (except for our own trade)
> > > > > > >> >> - all ticks, other than those that are trading our system,
> > are
> > > > noise
> > > > > > >> >> (to us) and therefore random
> > > > > > >> >> - ticks associated with our trade, that are not placed by us,
> > > > will be
> > > > > > >> >> dispersed in time, (due to the various trading time delays
> > > > experienced
> > > > > > >> >> by individual traders).... so they will be interposed by
> > random
> > > > ticks
> > > > > > >> >> - in a pure market (no commissions and no manipulation of the
> > > > trades
> > > > > > >> >> by insiders) there is a 50/50 chance that my tick (if I take
> > the
> > > > > > >> >> market price) will be less than the midprice of the bid/ask
> > when
> > > > the
> > > > > > >> >> signal was generated at the exchange.
> > > > > > >> >> - my price could move away from the original midprice
> > > > substantially,
> > > > > > >> >> in a fast market, but no one can know the reason for the fast
> > > > trading
> > > > > > >> >> or attribute it to our system (my system only produces a buy
> > > > signal
> > > > > > >> >> once every 2-3 days on average - fast markets happen all of
> > the
> > > > time,
> > > > > > >> >> when I am not trading my system, and presumably slippage is
> > still
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> occurring, in other transactions, so the evidence is against
> > the
> > > > fact
> > > > > > >> >> that my system is the cause of slippage and fast markets).
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> The exception to that is if a 'player' with a big account,
> > > > relative to
> > > > > > >> >> the liquidity of the instrument, is also playing the same
> > system,
> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> the same time, in the same market/instrument/timeframe.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> So the question is:
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - to what extent are 'big players' trading a system, in a
> > highly
> > > > > > >> >> liquid instrument, with enough clout to move the market?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - IF big players are system trading what type of system would
> > > > they be
> > > > > > >> >> likely to play and what% of the total funds they are
> > controlling
> > > > are
> > > > > > >> >> they likely to risk on any single system?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - are they likely to play with large enough sums of money to
> > > > erode the
> > > > > > >> >> efficiency of the system they are trading?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> - IF they are playing a system, with large amounts of money,
> > is
> > > > it
> > > > > > >> >> likely that their system would involve entering all of that
> > money
> > > > at
> > > > > > >> >> the same time i.e. they would trade in such a way that they
> > would
> > > > make
> > > > > > >> >> an intraday splash OR are they more likely to trade
> > > > systematically
> > > > > > >> >> over longer timeframes (that might be a reason that intraday
> > > > sytems
> > > > > > >> >> don't get eroded as often as EOD systems ... if that claim,
> > made
> > > > by
> > > > > > >> >> some, is true).
> > > > > > >> >> - IF big players do trade in such a way that they are 'moving
> > the
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> market' do you think they would be so naive that they are
> > unaware
> > > > of
> > > > > > >> >> this and haven't factored that in to their strategy..... if
> > > > 'moving
> > > > > > >> >> the market' is negative to their strategy would they do that
> > > > ...if
> > > > > > >> >> 'moving the market' is positive to their strategy are they
> > more
> > > > likely
> > > > > > >> >> to implement that strategy in illiquid instruments/small
> > > > timeframes OR
> > > > > > >> >> the reverse?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> But all of that is just a nice theory.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> The best argument against any theory is evidence.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Some forum members have listed some example trading systems
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> >> been published for decades AND they are still going strong
> > AND
> > > > their
> > > > > > >> >> performance has not 'faded in and out'.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Anyone who wants to defend the 'trading the edge erodes the
> > edge'
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> argument now needs to prove that these systems were never
> > > > published
> > > > > > >> >> AND that after they were published they ceased to work.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> That won't be an easy task because Samantha's unequivocal
> > example
> > > > (a
> > > > > > >> >> 10 bar SMA on monthly data) is based on a trading idea (MA
> > > > crossovers)
> > > > > > >> >> that has been around forever (Tomasz even ships AB with a
> > example
> > > > code
> > > > > > >> >> in his formula folder and the manual) and there are published
> > > > studies
> > > > > > >> >> on the net (rigorous studies at that) that are relatively
> > > > current.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> However, the more imporanat question seems to be, if these
> > > > systems did
> > > > > > >> >> not fail, due to being published and/or traded, why didn't
> > they?
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<amibroker%40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
> > 40yahoogroups.com><mailto:
> > > > amibroker%40yahoogroups.com <amibroker%2540yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > > > >> >> "Leading Edge Systems" <rdcpa@> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > I am new to Amibroker and I have been using Howard's which
> > I
> > > > find to
> > > > > > >> >> be excellent, as a guide to learing AB.
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > I find the statement that all trading systems stop working
> > > > > > >> >> eventually to be too vague. First "stop working" is a
> > relative
> > > > term
> > > > > > >> >> and would have a different meaning for each of us. Also I
> > think
> > > > > > >> >> inefficiencies can come and go in cycles based on the
> > popularity
> > > > of a
> > > > > > >> >> particular type of trading. Once an inefficiency has been
> > traded
> > > > away
> > > > > > >> >> due to over-popularity, it probably will go out of fashion
> > and
> > > > then
> > > > > > >> >> become an inefficiency again some time in the future. All
> > this
> > > > depends
> > > > > > >> >> on the specifics of what we mean by "stop working" and "a
> > > > system".
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > Rich
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >> > --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<amibroker%40yahoogroups.com><amibroker%
> > 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > >> >> <mailto:amibroker%40yahoogroups.com<amibroker%2540yahoogroups.com>
> > <amibroker%2540yahoogroups.com>>,
> > > > "samu_trading" <samu_trading@>
> > > > > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > All,
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > In his really good book Quantitative Trading Systems,
> > Howard
> > > > > > >> >> states that all trading systems will stop working forever at
> > some
> > > >
> > > > > > >> >> point (because the inefficiency in the market they exploit
> > will
> > > > be
> > > > > > >> >> killed by everybody jumping on board).
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > On the other hand you have momentum / ROC based systems
> > > > working
> > > > > > >> >> forever now, same for trend following MA crossover systems
> > like
> > > > The
> > > > > > >> >> one propagated by Mebane Faber. Momentum and MA rossover
> > > > > > >> >> trendfollowing does seem to work "forever".
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Any comments from the gurus here?
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> > > Thanks, Samantha
> > > > > > >> >> > >
> > > > > > >> >> >
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Warm Regards;
> > > `````` Natasha !!!
> > > Capitalism is a law established by God. Its foundation is in the 9th
> > > Commandment,
> > > "Thou shalt not covet."
> > > "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage
> > > where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the
> > citizens
> > > may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> > > human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
> > >
> > > ââ?¬Å"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -
> > > when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from
> > > men who produce nothing â�" when you see money flowing to those who deal,
> > not
> > > in goods, but in favors â�" when you see that men get richer by graft and
> > pull
> > > than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect
> > them
> > > against you â�" when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty
> > becoming a
> > > self-sacrifice â�" you may know that your society is doomed.â� ~ 1957 Ayn
> > R. ~
> > > Atlas Shrugged
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Warm Regards;
> `````` Natasha !!!
> Capitalism is a law established by God. Its foundation is in the 9th
> Commandment,
> "Thou shalt not covet."
> "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage
> where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens
> may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of
> human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
>
> â??When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion -
> when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from
> men who produce nothing â?" when you see money flowing to those who deal, not
> in goods, but in favors â?" when you see that men get richer by graft and pull
> than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them
> against you â?" when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a
> self-sacrifice â?" you may know that your society is doomed.â?? ~ 1957 Ayn R. ~
> Atlas Shrugged
>
------------------------------------
**** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ ****
This group is for the discussion between users only.
This is *NOT* technical support channel.
TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to
SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at
http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/
(submissions sent via other channels won't be considered)
For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
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/
|