|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Glen,
Nothing wrong with keeping an open mind on trading ideas. That's one of
reasons I've stayed on this list despite my limited use of MetaStock. But
the Doc's claims are mathematically ridiculous. Just a few quick punches on
calculator will make it obvious that a few more months like that and the Doc
wouldn't be able to hide behind his anonymity. He'd be on the cover of
Forbes.
Think about it. Every $1 he started with was worth $312 after only 2 months
of trading! As one who's spent his professional trading life building
trading and money management systems based on sound math I find his posts
lacking integrity. If he wants to prove himself, then let him provide the
security symbols, the number of times he traded each one, and his gearage. I
can do the math from there, no broker statements required. If he is
truthful, we'll have all the info we need to evaluate his claim and decide
for ourselves. And if he's lies, it will be easy to expose him. I haven't
wasted my time visiting his web site simply because if I had something as
profitable as this to sell, I couldn't bill anyone's credit card because
it's price would exceed their credit limit. At least it would mine :-(
The trading biz is full of false prophets and outright charlatans. Most of
their claims are based on bad math. As an example, I'm listening right now
to Mr.. Manic-Depressive, aka Ralph Acampora, tout the Dow tripling in 12
years. Sounds fantastic and incredibly bullish, but a quick calculation
shows a yearly return of ONLY about 9.5%! That's less than the 11%+
historical average!
Trading is not for the mathematically impaired. If high school algebra was
tough, you need to find another way to make money.
cheers,
Rick
PS. Sorry for being harsh, but this is NOT a nice business.
-----Original Message-----
From: Glen Wallace <gcwallace@xxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: S&P 500 (was AOL, CSCO, & WMT)
>Bravo, Lino. Let's not blast someone simply because they are proud of
their
>apparently high returns and achievements. Instead, let's see if we can
>learn from them and improve our own work. If they are willing to share, I
>will always listen and keep an open mind.
>
>On the other hand, if I may be so bold, bravado simply for the sake of
>stoking one's own ego (and this is *not* directed at Doc) has no place
here.
>
>Challenging a person's claims is valid, but let's leave the flaming to
AOL's
>chatrooms, OK? I wouldn't want people to hold back their ideas for fear of
>being roasted.
|