|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
At 02:32 AM 10/24/01 +0200, Igor wrote:
>Herman,
>
>In all the windows of the indicatorbuilder or expertadvisor or systemtester
>where i placed the formulas in...i DON'T have to scroll one bit to see the
>compleet formulas...is that simpel enough...making them even more simpel
>would be...leaving those windows blanc..and that means that i would have to
>go back to the trowing-darts-technique..witch costet me in the past lots of
>money...
>Again most of the people see it to complicated...with other words...they
>don't see the forest anymore because the trees are blokking there vieuw
>Greetings igor
Good stuff! But remember: you have been around awhile, I don't think we can
call you a "newby" :-)) I bet we, the newbies, could learn a few tricks
from you.
Have a great day!
Herman.
Ps. Your header looks Dutch :-) Hoe gaat het er mee?
>
>
>
>-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>Van: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]Namens Herman van den Bergen
>Verzonden: woensdag 24 oktober 2001 0:33
>Aan: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Onderwerp: Re: Newbes, mechanical systems, expectancy, etc.
>
>
>One more time on mechanical systems :-)
>
>I think many will agree with me that for a newby the last year was a bad
>time to start trading, especially with imperfect trading systems. I am in
>the newby category and made several false starts that cost me money. My
>advice: be patient, don't jump in untill the time is right, wait for a few
>good signals and have an exit strategy when you enter. Starting a system is
>the most difficult time because your are trading with your hard earned
>money or savings, not with profits.
>
>Be cautious when optimizing your system, Steve has been suggesting to keep
>it simple, and I agree completely. If your system doesn't work without
>optimization it probably never will. If your system doesn't work, go visit
>the archives, some helpful traders have given away some real good starter
>ideas and even formulae!
>
>Some people argue that backtesting is useless, backtesting with heavy
>optimizing: yes, I consider that useless. But if you test a "basic" system
>over a ten year history and it produces an almost straight equity line
>(allow for some drawdowns!) and gives you half-a-million% or more return
>over that period, heh, I wouldn't throw out the formulae. If you really are
>disgusted with it: send it to me :-)))
>
>If you write a system that randomly generates trades within a certain
>duration, say 2-9 days, and you run a few thousand tests, you'll easily
>find one that makes 500%+ ann. profit. Same if you pick days of weeks, or
>whatever other randomizing method. The point is that if you overlay a
>thousand random trading histories on a price start there will alway be one
>that looks good. And then to think that at times we think that the MS limit
>of 32000 optimizations is not enough :-(
>
>Finally, when your perfect mechanical system gets overly complicated (I sin
>too) remember that all your formulae use the same basic data: OHLC. What
>does that mean? Well, I think that if you had a formula that was two pages
>long and you would use a super computer that could simplify the algebra,
>remove all redundant components and sub formulae etc., it would probably
>come up with something only a few lines long. Think about it...
>
>Happy trading,
>Herman.
>
>
>
>
>
|