|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I'd have to agree with your first paragraph, and add that it's not worth the
energy to defend yourself in this case. I've read and attempted to respond to
just enough of this person's threads to conclude that most of the time he
doesn't make sense anyway, but that he's got access to some strange and
wonderful mind altering drugs that--had I been 20 yrs younger--would have
requested his source for many weeks ago.
My only question upon reading of your extensive resume is: how does a guy
survive that much education with such a personality still in tacked?
Now let's all let this thread die the death it justly deserves. And I presume
I'm not alone in confessing that I've been deleting this guy's messages for some
time now--the content being intellectually light-in-the-loafers.
By the way, did you ever finish that Edwards &Magee book? <g>.
Scheier
Steve Karnish wrote:
> Ton,
>
> Although this is not a pleasant task, I feel compelled to defend myself
> against your relentless attacks (which are untrue and certainly unbecoming).
> For anyone not interested in this defense, please delete this post now. I'm
> not interested in boring the public...just trying to set the record straight
> against a vicious and false attack. Just a quick review (boy, this sure
> sucks when I have to defend my background to a lying, accusatory attacker):
>
> I started my career in 1975, as a commodity broker, with Merrill Lynch.
> Within a year, I was invited join the MLFPS trading group in Manhattan, at
> One Liberty Plaza, and manage 5 million at the Merrill home office. That
> was a few years after I started reading Edwards and Magee, a book, I
> believe you were introduced to in 1998 (remember, I suggested that maybe you
> read it). In 1978, while working for Paine Webber, I developed my first
> oscillator system and submitted every trade to New York for two years in
> order to gain approval to trade managed, discretionary accounts. By 1980, I
> owned and controlled thirteen "seats" on the short-lived New Orleans
> Commodity Exchange (specializing in rice and "sunshine state" soybean
> contracts). Then in 1984, I was appointed Executive Vice President of First
> Financial Futures. I trained, taught, and had responsibility for 60+
> brokers, designed the firm's commodity fund, chose John Henry as the CTA
> (when John had less than a million under management).
>
> During the '80s, I consulted to Tim Mathers, in Glenwood Springs, Colorado,
> when he was starting Commodity Quote Graphics. He needed insight on what a
> technician might need to trade with a satellite feed. I suggested a number
> of indicators and arranged for him to talk to Welles Wilder. During 1981, I
> spent a week with Welles, in Houston, TX, while he was filming an
> instruction video, based on his first book. The CQG experience led to
> numerous consulting jobs in the data feed industry. During this period, I
> also published a fax service for trading OEX options. The service provided
> classic Black-Scholes fair valuations and was complemented with a daily
> two-paragraph technical overview of the S&P 500.
>
> In the late 80's, I took a couple of firms public. The most successful is
> an Oklahoma City pharmaceutical firm: Physician's Dispensing Rx (PDRXE.OB).
> I retired in 1990. Although 1990 to 1994 was an interesting time, filled
> with many fun stories of La Costa, Palo Alto, Vancouver, and beyond...I'll
> spare you and cut to my additional education. I completed my undergraduate
> degree (at the age of 49) in 1996 and then pursued my MBA at a PAC 10
> school. This allowed me to argue with award-winning graduate economic
> professors about randow walk and mechanical trading systems versus economic
> "theory. I also added some knowledge I was lacking in advanced math and
> statistics.
>
> In 1997, I decided to get back into the business (I live two miles from my
> closest neighbor and I don't necessarily have a lot of job opportunities in
> this area). Six months ago, I decided to share some of what I do on a free
> website. At the site, publicly posted for everyone to see, I explain and
> give credit to every technician I have "borrowed" from: John Bollinger,
> Edwin Sedgewick Coppock, Tushar Chande, William Blau, Chick Goslin, Stanley
> Kroll and Welles Wilder. I've always maintained that I have done nothing
> but substitute numbers in their formulae and developed sensible, mechanical
> trading systems. By the way, Mr. Dutch Master (dude), I've never alluded to
> or claimed, mentioned or written that I'm a CMT. So please, take your tired
> argument about those initials and peddle that psycho-babble on another
> forum. As far as "ethics" go, I don't know what goes down in Europa, but
> "ethics testing" is mandatory every two years in Amerika.
>
> System testing? I've submitted my rules and formulas to Futures Truth and
> the public will soon be able to follow my track record by an independent
> service.
>
> Just wanted to set the record straight. You're not being honest or fair. I
> have many national firms as partners (including Equis) and many list
> contributors are my clients. All of them know me as honest, fair and
> hard-working. I don't "dig" your libelous attacks. As Jerry West, my
> American Thought and Language professor (Michigan State University-1965)
> once said:
>
> "The farther a monkey crawls up a tree, the more of his ass you can see".
>
> Keep on climbin' Ton,
>
> Steve Karnish
> Cedar Creek Trading
> http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: A.J. Maas <anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Wheaties
>
> > I have always made my homework upfront. That's practical and makes common
> sence.
> > Neither do I rely on strangers, to handle my affairs. And if f.e. I have
> an injury, something
> > that I am not able to fix myself, I will then go to a (qualified) doctor
> (most certainly for an
> > operation) not to a medicineman. In this working the markets is the same,
> you are operating
> > on them to gain and you are the one in/holding the control(s).
> >
> > That doctor too can be a stranger, but at least I know that he/she has had
> years and years
> > of studying to go through for getting good and proper qualifications and
> later the most of all
> > required experience. Then too, they have had to go for years into
> apprentice-training to later
> > perhaps become practioners of their own and that then is only allowed in
> large work
> > environments (eg like hospitals etc.).
> > When fully qualified and carrying enough experience in their luggage, and
> having set out
> > a carreer build on this "a solid practicioners records", they(doctors)
> will then perhaps qualify
> > for the tests that are held among the many other practioners(doctors) that
> are in that same
> > position, for getting a license for their own
> practice-under-qualified-supervision.
> > Succesfully going through this period, will then have that doctor finaly
> quantifiable and
> > qualifiable for starting out his own practise.
> > Come close, I would expect all of this above to take up 15-20 years:
> > - thouroughly studying a minimum of 10 years
> > - succesfully finishing the apprenticeship at least 2-5 years
> > - getting the work-experience and building of solid records in a
> protective supervisory
> > environment another 5-10 years
> >
> > Since going public with his cybercause co. last year, means that he or his
> co. is no exception
> > to the rule that you can judge a man (or co) by its cover, eg what can be
> generally be seen as
> > either solid craftmanship or porkupine pies.
> > Duplicating a few formulas and then screaming out loud how that co. had
> invented/arranged them,
> > and also not showing a YOY track-record for them, eg I haven't tested them
> for years, let alone
> > that he or his firm was capable to test these formula's thouroughly, sure
> has had my eyes opened
> > to the salesman that goes behind the commercials, and most certainly not
> the Technician that should.
> >
> > The fact that his co. is also a qualified CMT certainly does not
> automaticaly qualify that co. to
> > be a Technician or Technical, perhaps at the most to be
> good-learners-who-have-read-a-few-
> > books-on-TA and that haven't had enough trade experience in what was being
> thaught.
> > CMT is a not direct publicaly nor officialy reqocknised profession either
> (eg its course is based
> > on an "evening school" like a private course, with examinations controled
> and held by a private
> > institution, the MTA - the Market Technician Assosation. These are thus
> not state reqocknised
> > exams or official professional occupations, oppose to the above mentioned
> doctor-exams.
> > It therefore cannot even qualify for being of a drivers-license level.
> >
> > CMT is also a low level course, if you purchase a few basic TA books you
> will be at their same level.
> > For example, there is no scholing in basic economics, eg on how companies
> operate or on
> > how companies have to report, eg what to report and to whom. Also what is
> being thaught there, is
> > not been thouroughly tested, eg most is been copied straight out of some
> publicaly available TA books,
> > of which origin one can very well have their doubts or that who knows who
> wrote them.
> > Training in Professional Market ethiques and ethiqettes aren't included
> either and neither are the
> > common Business regulations, that are a minimum requirement in many
> 'regulated' countries.
> > And not to forget, copied straight from the basic TA books and now we also
> know that they contain
> > a lot of jabberish, therefore it is just a simple TA course.
> > The course can also be succesfully aclomphised in over a year (!!!). What
> on experience?.
> >
> > Now looking back at my school days, only my economic upbringing schooldays
> took me alone
> > a minimum of some 10 years, and after that I still did not know "a bl....y
> thing".
> > Eg., I had to learn the too many unthaught theories in practice, in real
> life itself, eg on the workfloor
> > in real companies asan aprentice, and the biggest shock for me was that I
> had to forget all the stuff
> > that I had learned at school, since that either the school theories didn't
> make any sense at all, or were
> > plain impractical to use or were just plain old hat stuff that had worked
> in some of the previous centuries.
> > So speaking to a CMT is not the same as speaking to a market profesional.
> >
> > Too, one can make a good salesman, that can also perhaps trade & operate
> well in the markets,
> > especialy when working in his own environment, but to publicly qualify one
> as a good market
> > professional......then one has to have at least a very good and long year
> relationship with his bookkeeper,
> > eg with his accountant, since that long years of excellent track-records
> is what you use to judge the
> > cover by, eg here the public salesman and his methods(products) by (or
> that public sales co. on).
> > And be honoust, what is the only thing that a salesman is after????
> Nothing wrong with it, but you are
> > the one also holding the last strings + controls(unless you permissioned a
> co. or someone to act on your
> > behalve).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ton Maas
> > ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
> > Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jeff Ledermann" <j.ledermann@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: vrijdag 5 mei 2000 21:14
> > Subject: RE: Wheaties
> >
> >
> > > Walter,
> > >
> > > Hey - I always trade against the funds - it's when I'm trading against
> Steve
> > > that I get worried <g> (and yes, I'm short July Wheat).
> > >
> > > Nevertheless I think you are making a point that has worried me about
> > > Steve's published signals for some time. I do hope Steve rises to the
> bait
> > > and tells us some more about how he does it.
> > >
> > > Now take Cybercast T-Bond trades for instance Feb-May which were more
> > > or less breakeven. No big deal or was it ---
> > > (I'll assume entry at open for this, but it doesn't make that much
> difference)
> > > 23rd Feb Short @ 95.31
> > > 20th Mar Short @ 96.25
> > > 3rd Apr Short @ 97.81
> > > by 7th/8th Apr highs we were 130pts against that first short
> ($4000/contract)
> > > Reversed on 28th April @ 96.31
> > >
> > > Now that's what I call volatility and I would have thought quite unusual
> for a CTA.
> > > As far as I can tell, Steve's system works on the principle of a very
> high ratio of
> > > wins to losses but consequently weathers very large drawdowns. Risk is
> to a
> > > certain extent limited by diversification but I do wonder how he avoids
> running
> > > out of money and yet still return reasonable NAVs.
> > >
> > > Come on Steve, how do you actually do it. We know it isn't the laser
> guided
> > > accuracy of the Cybercast signals that keeps you afloat. Don't expect
> you to
> > > give away any dark secrets but an outline of your money management
> methods
> > > would be really helpful to some of us I'm sure. I guess the key
> question is, do
> > > you really truly hand on your heart not use stops? And if so, how do
> you
> > > calculate your risk of ruin?
> > > Oats will go to "zero" one day... (but very probably not next week).
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Jeff.
> > -----------------------snip------------------
> >
> >
|