|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><html>
<font size=3>I agree.....i asked him for some of his plays and he told me
he had already deleted them...3 days later.....huh...<br>
<br>
<br>
At 09:47 AM 7/1/00 -0500, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"> <br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>Hi: </font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> I am missing the point of
these types of messages to the group. If you are going to post these
types of results from some seminar then why don't you give all everyone
on the Metastock list the same systems extended in the seminar. Perhaps
many members of the group have not had seminars in their area etc and
could not avail themselves of your services.</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> If there is a fee for these
systems then tell people you are charging for this,but don't just throw
it up there and let people flounder.</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> I just returned from a very
costly but worthwhile seminar where proprietary trading info was
given. The trader giving the seminar made us pay for this info and has
left it at that.</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> Either tell people
results,offer them the info or give them the option to pay for the
systems or don't bother. Just my opinion on this type of list to the
group. If I have missed posting of the systems I apologize,If
not...</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>Paula</font><font size=3><br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<b>From:</b> Steve Karnish
<br>
<b>To:</b> metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 30, 2000 5:19 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: EMINI BUY<br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>Guy,</font><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>Good luck next week. I'm off to Montana to enjoy some fresh water fishing, sailing, and boating. Lake Flathead is the largest body of freshwater west of the Mississippi...but, I mere "splash in the bucket" compared to what we are used to. When I return, I will tell you about the eight seminars I conducted. The emails continue to roll in...here's a teaser from this morning:</font><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>"On June 17, 2000 I attended the MetaStock training session and received a<br>
floppy disk with two of you trading systems on it. As well hearing you<br>
explain your trading system to the group. I have traded your system using<br>
your formulas in MetaStock and you Internet picks for the last seven trading<br>
days. The results have been great with a $14,536.42 profit from the stock<br>
market so far. "</font><font size=3><br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2>Happy 4th,</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2> </font><font size=3><br>
Steve Karnish<br>
Cedar Creek Trading<br>
http://www.cedarcreektrading.com<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<b>From:</b> Guy Tann <br>
<b>To:</b> metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 30, 2000 2:19 PM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: EMINI BUY<br>
<br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">Steve,<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">I hope you re right. We re long from 1467 and 1471, but that doesn t concern me as much as my equity positions. While I m not margined, I was still down 10% on these stocks (thanks ValueLine since our own picks did better than ValueLine s this time). I made back one third of my equity losses today. Only need two more days like today and I ll be more than happy. Those semi stocks finally came back a tad.<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080">We re running nine out of the last 10 trades correct, with the only loser being a 2 pointer on our May 9 buy, but that doesn t include the couple of big losses we had. Overall, we re 16 out of 19 going back to last October, but your system is substantially different than ours. We usually never add to our positions (I say usually because we ve been known to do it on the equity side). We simply initiate our positions when we originate our trade and wait for the next signal in order to reverse.<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#000080">Guy<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3 color="#000080">Paranoia...you only have to be right once to make it all worthwhile!<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="arial" size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [<b>On Behalf Of </b>Steve Karnish<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 30, 2000 8:26 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<br>
<b>Subject:</b> EMINI BUY<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>List,<br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Cedar Creek Trading has issued a "Slow MO" buying signal this morning (for the Sept. S&P) and filled opening orders in the 1456.5 - 1456.75 range. This approach is "used by and accounted for" in many trading accounts and is currently riding a nine trade winning streak. <br>
</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3> <br>
</font><br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Steve Karnish<br>
Cedar Creek Trading<br>
http://www.cedarcreektrading.com</font></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br>
<font face="Courier New, Courier">Happy trading...<br>
Jim....<br>
Atlanta, GA</font></html>
</x-html>From ???@??? Mon Jul 10 19:34:51 2000
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18196
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:21:37 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA22692
for metastock-outgoing; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:32:30 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA22689
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:32:27 -0600
Received: from basecamp1.netquest.net (netquest.net [204.140.219.1])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA24501
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:54:27 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from p400 (dsl0037.netquest.net [206.117.109.37]) by basecamp1.netquest.net (8.9.1/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA13066 for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:38:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Guy Tann" <grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Risk of ruin, amount per trade formula?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:36:51 -0700
Message-ID: <NBBBKFMIMHJOLMGOIJGNGEBIENAA.grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <027b01bfeab5$cea408a0$0a00a8c0@xxx>
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Mark,
I think I've succeeded in totally confusing you, plus you picked up that 3%
figure from someone else's post.
First, with regard to that 3% figure. That's a number proffered as a money
management tool for things like Vegas gambling, I believe. As I've said in
previous posts, I don't believe there's any applicability between what we do
and going to Vegas, so we totally ignore that 3% rule of thumb.
Now, I quantified my 33% figure saying that it was particular to futures and
even more directly related to our actual performance figures. Using our
historical record, we applied these numbers and came up with this number.
With regard to equities/options, we use a totally different technique.
First, we have separated our trading capital between our futures and equity
accounts. When looking at our (my brother and I have several separate
accounts) breakdown, approximately 28% of our capital is in futures with the
remainder in equities and options. Since we are just starting work on our
money management rules for options, we limit ourselves to no more than 33%
of our stock/option capital for trading options. On today's trade we're
running around 15%, but that's because we're still feeling our way here.
As I've said many times in the past, we are beginners when it comes to
equity and option trading. With over 45 years real experience trading
futures, we're more comfortable in that venue. Today's equity/option trade
is about 70% of capital (using no margin) and we do add to these positions
if opportunities arise. On a couple of occasions, we have invested almost
90% of available capital and margin, but those are rare instances, and
occurred when a trade went against us and we took the opportunity to
purchase additional positions.
All of our trading is tied to our S&P futures trading signals and just
piggybacks along for the ride. We invest more heavily in equity and option
trades since they're not as volatile as futures. A 10% move against you in
futures trading will wipeout your initial margin; a comparable move in
stocks is like a cost of doing business (in our mind anyway).
Additionally, since we trade options based upon our S&P futures signals, we
limit ourselves to OEX and SPX options.
I hope this helps clarify what we do. Our equity money management is still
in its infancy, but since we look at equities and options as conservative
investments :) we tend to run almost 100% invested and will use our margin
availability to increase positions if there's a knee jerk market move that
runs against us. This is predicated on our track record of being able to
predict market moves between two points in time.
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 Mark Thompson
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:29 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Risk of ruin, amount per trade formula?
So if I understand this correctly, translated to stocks if one risks a
maximum of 3% on each trade (using a hard stop) and trades 11 trades at a
time then the maximum exposure it 33%. Is this comparable?
Mark
> Mark,
>
> This is a futures thing. To minimize our risk of ruin, we only invest
> one-third or our capital (or less) when determining our initial margin or
> how many contracts we can afford to trade.
>
> For example, the initial margin required to trade an e-mini S&P future is
> $4,688. This means that we require cash (or bonds) of $14,064 in our
> account for every e-mini we trade. Once we get to sufficient size, we
scale
> up to full size S&P futures contracts, which are 5 times larger. When
> figuring out our positions, I, personally, always calculate on the basis
of
> e-mini contracts. Right now, my brother and I have the equivalent of 17
> contracts in play. When calculating the number of contracts to buy or
sell,
> we always round down to whole numbers. If our calculations say we can buy
> 6.9 contracts, we default to 6, rather than squeeze to get to 7.
>
> Guy
>
|