|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ton,
Thanks for the kind words. I have another missive from the mount. For the
past year (seven years in a dogs life, or a really long time when you're 91
:) ), our dad has been working on some longer term, contrarian signals.
For short term trading, we haven't been able to beat our SP39/ggg-66r
signals, even trying to apply these new signals. It appears that he might
have stumbled into a pretty good one that we might be able to use with our
options trading.
Like we always say, even a blind squirrel can occasionally stumbles over an
acorn in the woods.
My brother has just finished his analysis and I completed one of my own (we
like to work separately to maintain some sort of checks and balances and to
minimize errors when too much wishful thinking enters the calculations. We
have to do these all manually, since we don't have these Intermediate Terms
Signals running in MS yet). We have completed our analysis going back 4
years. Preliminary results for our take on his two new signals are as
follows:
1997 8 out of 8 trades correct. Net Profit 286.85 points
1998 7 out of 13 trades profitable. Net profit 43.00 points
1999 10 out of 10 trades correct. Net profit 638.70 points
2000 6 out of 6 trades correct. Net profit, so far this year 474.80 points.
It appears that for years with long term moves up or down, this system isn't
the one to use, however when we're in fluctuating markets, it appears to be
extraordinary. I am working on the drawdowns right now, but our preliminary
results seem to favor using this system to trade options and keep our
existing system for trading the S&P futures. This is as we tested it using
some of our existing methodology. When the hermit on the mount tested it,
he came up with:
<<signal no 1 B-- S++ only 15 trades +14 -1
signal no 2 B-- b-- S++ s++ which comes 1st
27 trades +23 -4
this covers all trades 1996 to today>>
Now when our dad checks these out, he uses something we call Cum_C to
determine whether the trade is profitable or not. This Cum_C is an
accumulation of the delta C, thereby allowing us to ignore month changes
when calculating profitability.
One of the critical things here is that there can be extensive drawdowns,
and he has suggested opening up a $100,000 account and trading 1 large S&P
contract ($25k initial margin) and using a $10,000 stop. Again, we haven't
completed checking this out either, but he claims in his testing it
performed as follows:
<<Signal no 1 +1364 and -46 for net gain of 1318 spi pts @ 250 dollars / pt
$ 329000 gross profit. Current trade still open almost 100 pts (25000)
signal 2 27 trades +23 -4 est gross profit > 500000
Start with 100000 and assume margin per trd 25000 and use stop $10000
trading both would yield over $800000 or $200M per year>>
These are the latest missives from the mount. I haven't had a chance to
look at his code yet, so I'm not sure what he did. He has never been happy
with our 'ggg' confirmation signal that we're currently using as he feels it
doesn't make logical sense. In the meantime, we haven't been able to find
anything better even after 2+ years of work.
Now, to further muddy the waters, with this system, he has a sell signal for
Monday morning. Using our modifications to it, we also have a sell signal
for Monday. Since we're underwater with our options anyway, we might as
well buy some more puts. Thank Goodness we didn't load up on our original
trade.
Once we complete our testing, we'll probably set up that new account.
Now for our dilemma. That account might hold positions contrary to our open
positions in our other accounts. I'm not sure how this works. Even though
we would be trading two completely, independent systems, it's possible, at
times, where we might be opposite ourselves. We might have to go to a
different brokerage house to trade the new system just to be sure we won't
conflict with our other holdings. I'm going to have to check the rules on
this. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
Guy
Paranoia...you only have to be right once to make it all worthwhile!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of A.J. Maas
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 7:53 AM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Risk of Ruin
Guy,
Completely ignore what this whatever self-aclaimed-bs-artist produces.
Since this chappy joined the List late last year, have not seen one(1)
single positively
or contributing mail coming in from his end.
You have people using the List for commercial advertisements and activeties,
and
his no-news-under-the-sun empty mails are just self-promoting Spam-mails,
e.g.
promoting his name, his website or his under-developed software via the
List.
On the other hand, your info(+that of the Mount) is of quality and therefore
much welcomed.
>From your valuable mailings over the past years, have gotten to nominate
your signals
to be my BIAS system's benchmark, i.e. for its untradable "handicaped"
timing etc.
(the usual 6-7 day delay).
I am still further working on a more "timely" version, and that's where your
contraries' come
in handy for being its benchmark(see further the S&P mail this weekend).
Quality always come floating atop, and that's were your mails stick out
above avarage, and
will therefore -unfortunatly & most unnessecary- always catch the noise &
dust storms
from the same-always-sending-crap&spam-mailers.
It is always a pleasure to minimaly read your posts, let alone being
profitable (as well) !!!!
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Tann"
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: woensdag 12 juli 2000 6:16
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Risk of Ruin
> Hi Mark,
>
> We haven't seen any of your idiot comments for a while. Where have you
been
> hiding, under your rock? Or have you just been sending hate mail
privately
> to Steve?
>
> Tell me, just how does writing some POS language that doesn't do much more
----------snip--------
|