|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.3013.2600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nobody had this problem?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nobody at Equis can give me a
solution?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Help!!!!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Every time I open MSK pro 7.0, I have an error
message saying with a title "Microsoft Outlook": "Either there is no default
mail client or the current mail client cannot fulfill the messaging request.
Please run Microsoft Outlook and set it as the default mail client".
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have Microsoft Office 2000 in my computer(Windows
98 SE) but I don't use Outlook. I use Outlook Express and it is set as my
default email program. If Outlook Express is not my default email program, I
cannot have my emails from Hotmail.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Please, if somebody has solved this small problem,
I should be happy to know how I can open MSK without this error
message.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you very much.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jean-Paul Duchesne</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Apr 25 14:05:03 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 JAA14740
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:51:45 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA22895
for metastock-outgoing; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:45:48 -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 JAA22892
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:45:44 -0600
Received: from smtp.pandora.be (hercules.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.33])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA14701
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:58:40 -0600 (MDT)
Received: (qmail 21129 invoked from network); 25 Apr 2000 15:42:19 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO MICKEY) ([212.123.4.206]) (envelope-sender <Michel.Amelinckx@xxxxxxxxxx>)
by hercules.telenet-ops.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 25 Apr 2000 15:42:19 -0000
From: "Michel Amelinckx" <Michel.Amelinckx@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Money Management Stops
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:35:13 +0200
Message-ID: <000801bfaecb$d9e28b40$ce047bd4@xxxxxx>
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 CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <NBBBKFMIMHJOLMGOIJGNKEPPEHAA.grt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
This is most interesting Guy, and you must have spent hours and hours and
hours looking at charts. And I guess this is still the best although most
time consuming way to do it. I never tried this approach by giving
different weightings to the different indicators like you described, it is
most interesting. Although I know Omnitrader uses such a approach with
their adaptive reasoning. You use different indicators, do you take in to
account that a lot of indicators are correlated to each other (like MACD and
Momentum) ? And thus don't include correlated indicators ? What about
using a good indicator and using the same one but different time periods ?
Although you mention that you work with variables, so does it mean you
system is adaptive then ?
Greetings
Mickey
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Guy Tann
> Sent: woensdag 19 april 2000 8:14
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Money Management Stops
>
>
> Larry Williams? I remember him. I went to one of his
> seminars about 25
> years ago and found it interesting.
>
> But back to our methodologies. We have never optimized any
> of our systems
> using any mechanical tools. The technique we used was to
> develop individual
> systems and see whether they worked or not. I'm sure we would have
> optimized them if optimizing tools had been available then,
> but since our
> indicators were all developed manually, you could only do so
> much testing
> before your eyeballs dropped from their sockets. :) You have
> to remember
> that I was only recently able to get our indicators working
> in MS 6.5.2.
> since MS didn't support variables. Some of the system still
> runs under DOS
> in Clipper (the Intermediate trend signals which I haven't
> had time to move
> into MS). Since mechanical optimization was not an option
> coupled with our
> feeling that too much backtesting and optimization has never
> improved any
> system, we have developed our own approach.
>
> When developing new indicators (or mini systems or whatever
> you would like
> to call them), is to test them against multiple commodities
> to see how they
> perform. We feel that a system should work with multiple
> futures. When we
> are able to work with multiple commodities, we then add it to
> our 'mix' and
> run more tests. We do this in two ways. We first add it to
> our current
> mix with a weight of 1 and reduce one of our other
> indicator's weight by 1.
> Then we run several more tests playing with the weights, but
> this is done
> manually, not using any optimization tool (trial and error method).
>
> Again, this relates to our feeling that you need to have
> hands on in order
> to discover these relationships. Depending upon the new indicators
> sensitivity we may increase it's weight and reduce or delete
> others. We may
> just throw it away and start over. Again, we have developed
> thousands and
> thousands of indicators over the last 50 years and currently
> use a mixture
> of 6. This has been done via trial and error.
>
> The last changes made to our weighting factors was maybe 5 to
> 10 years ago,
> but our indicators have remained the same for the last 15
> years. What has
> changed are our trading rules, or how we interpret our
> signals. Our last
> change in 1999 added our intermediate buy or sell signal to
> our SP39 rule
> set. The key is that we are constantly evaluating our
> trading rules to stay
> up with a constantly changing market. I maintain several
> different rule
> sets and store results in Excel tables. This way, I
> constantly monitor
> different trading rules to see which one works best. My dad,
> spends 8 to 10
> hours a day working on new indicators which my brother and I
> then add to our
> mix and test.
>
> So far this has worked for us. We operate a completely
> mechanical system
> that is quite successful. We have just added another dimension to our
> trading by trading stocks based upon our futures signals.
> The last S&P
> futures trade is about breakeven, thank goodness. Meanwhile
> the stocks are
> up almost 30% in 3 days.
>
>
>
> Guy
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of Michel Amelinckx
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:19 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Money Management Stops
>
> Your last part is very interesting Guy. Of course having
> consecutive losses
> can always be a sign that your system stops functioning. But
> if we have a
> GOOD system and you tested and back tested it thoroughly over
> many different
> market types and it is NOT OVEROPTIMIZED, shouldn't we
> believe in our system
> and stick with it ? I guess you with all your experience can
> know. If you
> have a GOOD system 70% prof. (tested & backtested well) and
> it shows 2 or
> more consecutive losses (which RARELY HAPPENS on such a
> system) what is
> mostly the outcome of the next trade in real live ? Is it
> mostly a losing
> trade and thus system stops working, means I'm completely
> wrong and so is
> LARRY WILLIAMS. Or is it mostly a winning trade, there is always the
> probability that it can be a losing trade but then next trade
> has higher
> probability. Of course to take this to your advantage you
> need to work with
> stops other ways those trades take you out in no time.
>
> Al I was thinking is if you have a good thoroughly backtested
> system and it
> is deviating through a consecutive loss, isn't there a way to
> take advantage
> from in order for the system to come back to its mean ? Kevin don't be
> taking old cows out of the river now. I said that the
> roulette example was
> WRONG. I guess you guys never read books from LARRY WILLIAMS,
> which SUPPOSE
> to be a very profitable trader who proved it already many
> times. Or is he a
> gambler as you said because he uses it to its advantage.
>
> Greetings
> Mickey
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Guy Tann
> > Sent: dinsdag 18 april 2000 3:45
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: Money Management Stops
> >
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> > I'm not sure whether I agree with any of the gambling
> > analogies when used
> > for comparison to trading the markets. My primary reason for
> > this is that
> > in gambling (roulette and craps are examples) your
> analogies are 100%
> > correct, IMHO. When compared to blackjack, there are some
> > variances based
> > upon the play of players before and after you that impact the
> > deck and the
> > play.
> >
> > When compared to trading the market, I don't think these
> analogies are
> > applicable at all. Again, that's just my opinion.
> >
> > I'll agree that it's possible to have 1,000 events go against
> > you in a row
> > and then have 1,000 go for you in a row. However, if in
> testing this
> > system, you ever decided to trade it, you would be broke in
> > no time at all.
> >
> > If on the other hand, you develop a system that is capable of
> > 80% profitable
> > trades, proper testing would give you some idea as to the
> > distribution of
> > these losing events.
> >
> > In our case, even when we develop a new weighting schema, we
> > back test the
> > system for 6 months, 5 years and 18 years. While we're
> > primarily interested
> > in the last 3 years, we also need to see how the system would
> > have done in
> > the real world over a longer period of time. Rather than
> > manufacturer a
> > random list of numbers going back many years, we just use the actual
> > market's performance over that longer period. In our case,
> > again, large
> > losses are exceedingly rare, thank goodness. Repetitive
> > losses are also
> > very rare. On average, for the past 15 years, we average no
> > more than 6 or
> > 7 losses a year while still maintaining our minimum
> > profitability ratio of
> > over 70%.
> >
> > If in back testing, we ever encounter repetitive losses of
> > the type you
> > describe, even while still maintaining good profitability, we
> > would never,
> > ever trade it. In all of our back testing, we take
> > repetitive losses into
> > consideration as well as the system's profitability. A
> > system that wipes
> > you out without giving you the opportunity to make a "come
> > back" is hardly a
> > system.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Guy
> > Fax (630) 604-1589
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> > Behalf Of Kevin243@xxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, April 17, 2000 4:53 PM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: Money Management Stops
> >
> > The answer is no.
> >
> > It is completely possible to have a 1000 events go against
> > you in a row and
> > then have another 1000 go for you in a row.
> >
> > The point is that you could be wiped out before the reversion
> > back to the
> > mean.
> >
> > What you are describing is like doubling your bet each time you lose
> > figuring
> > eventually, you will win. Not true. You will eventually
> > find a streak that
> > breaks your bank first. Play long enough, and you will
> > eventually lose
> > everything. The house is counting out that. The house has
> a positive
> > expectancy, you the gambler does not.
> >
> > Kevin Campbell
> >
> > In a message dated 4/17/00 7:43:39 AM Central Daylight Time,
> > Michel.Amelinckx@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > > Thanks for helping me out here. I guess my explanation
> was not very
> > > understandable. And the example of the roulette table was
> > even worse
> > > actually it was WRONG because of course you still have the
> > 0, so this was
> > > WRONG.
> > > What I just tried to say, like described here below is if
> > you have a
> > system
> > > with 70% prob. (of course these statistics are as good as
> > you test them)
> > and
> > > your system shows 4 or more LOSES IN A ROW. And because of
> > this it is
> > > deviating from your mean and thus the prob. of the next
> trade being
> > correct
> > > is higher. (There is of course a change that your system
> > stops working at
> > > that point)
> > > Is this incorrect ?
> > >
> > > Greetings
> > >
> > > Mickey
> > > B
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|