|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ----------------------
SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered
SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future.
SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
SPAM:
SPAM: Content analysis details: (5.60 hits, 5 required)
SPAM: NO_REAL_NAME (1.3 points) From: does not include a real name
SPAM: COMMENT (0.8 points) Found a Comment header
SPAM: TO_BE_REMOVED_REPLY (0.4 points) BODY: Says: "to be removed, reply via email" or similar
SPAM: SALE (0.2 points) BODY: Stuff on Sale
SPAM: FREE_TRIAL (0.1 points) BODY: Free Trial
SPAM: BALANCE_FOR_LONG_20K (-0.7 points) BODY: Message text is over 20K in size
SPAM: BALANCE_FOR_LONG_40K (-0.1 points) BODY: Message text is over 40K in size
SPAM: SPAM_PHRASE_03_05 (1.1 points) BODY: Spam phrases score is 03 to 05 (medium)
SPAM: [score: 3]
SPAM: QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT (-0.8 points) BODY: Contains what looks like a quoted email text
SPAM: MAILTO_WITH_SUBJ (0.4 points) URI: Includes a link to send a mail with a subject
SPAM: FORGED_JUNO_RCVD (2.4 points) 'From' juno.com does not match 'Received' headers
SPAM: AWL (0.5 points) AWL: Auto-whitelist adjustment
SPAM:
SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results ---------------------
Hey guys,
Some great discussions! Let me add my 2c.
After being priviledged to watching some very good equity (day)traders
trade, several that are so good that they rarely have a losing day, one
that I know of that has not had a losing day in nearly 2 years! I've come
to realize that they are so fundamentally sound when it comes to the
little things, like discipline, risk/reward, properly routing their
orders, reading the spreads, prints and bid/offers while using almost no
indicators other than a plain 5 minute S&P chart, and maybe a moving
average, that good traders, I think, are truly those that simply do the
ordinary things extraordinarily well. Which brings me to a quote by Chris
Evert of the tennis fame...
"Champions are people who doesn't necessarily do the extraordinary things
but do the ordinary things extraordinarily well."
Although, I have to agree with Brad's point that you really cannot learn
by just watching these traders, simply because the things that they
instinctvely know, the subtle things, are just too numerous that even
they really can't explain why 2 trades that seemingly is identical to me
are different in their eyes. However, they see the difference and they
react to it and anticipate their next move even before the next print or
spread or offer. I am simply amazed by what these traders can do using
just an plain ordinary 5 minute chart of the stock and S&P and a
TOS/L2/Open book. No fancy indicators, no fancy software just solid
fundamentals and a machine like discipline.
Just my 2c,
Gus
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:51:13 -0000
> From: "jawjahtek" <jawjahtek@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> teclogeo,
>
> My apologies if the Mark Twain quote came across as a complete
> dismissal of statistics or statisticians. I had meant the comment in
>
> the same way as I believe Twain wrote it (with humor, irony, and a
> recognition that it will sometimes be true). And I am one of the
> real
> people that uses statistics in his every day work.
>
> I agree that the whole discussion of Stationarity has gone to far
> (and I was the nut case that started it, shame on me). The point I
> was trying to make is that academically it can be shown that trading
>
> models that rely on filters (moving averages, transforms, etc.) are
>
> not the holy grail of trading and that academically the holy grail
> cannot exist. Since this applies to trading with adaptive indicators
>
> offered here, I thought it was appropriate for this message board.
>
> However, superfragilist put it best:
>
> "Adaptive tools, in general, do test out a bit better than non-
> adaptive tools. However, in reality I'm not sure they're going to
> beat a couple of moving averages in live trading. I use several
> adaptive tools and feel comfortable with them and the concepts
> behind
> them."
>
> If you can confidently trade with adaptive indicators and you
> believe
> that you will get slightly better performance, then you will be a
> better trader. Confidence in the execution of your trades is far
> more
> important than any improvement you may (or may not) get from using
> an
> adaptive indicator or a standard (classic) indicator.
>
> Again, this is the difference between developing indicators and
> trading. I am simply stating my belief that a trading holy grail not
>
> only doesn't exist, it can't exist. This does NOT affect my trading.
>
> A good trader accepts indicators and systems that are "good enough".
>
> A good trader accepts that some things may have to be assumed as
> irrelavent to the trade (then hope like hell that the assumption
> doesn't come back and bite the trader in the pocket book).
>
>
> jawjahtek
>
>
> PS: John Ehlers would not agree with my thoughts. He describes his
> job as "finding theoretically sound principles" that can be
> implemented in trading. If it is not theoretically sound, he
> considers it a failure. Classic example of a developer that will
> never be a good trader.
>
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxx>
> wrote:
> > Brad,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you're right about the stationarity stuff. Anyway, I
> didn't
> want to
> > hold up geostatistics as particularly having any direct relevance
> to
> > trading. It has its detractors in any case, who hold it to be the
>
> greatest
> > work of evil since Mein Kampf (miners can also be rather
> fanatical
> > sometimes!). I just wanted to point out that statistics is not
> just
> > practiced by politicians and beardy-weirdy university types. Real
>
> people can
> > use it too.!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 22:16:44 -0000
> From: "jawjahtek" <jawjahtek@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: John Ehlers
>
> When I met Ehlers 8 years ago, he said he has a Masters degree in
> Electrical Engineering. I do not remember him claiming to have an
> earned Ph.D. And his day job was not developing trading indicators
> or
> systems. He was still working as a EE. It would be interesting to
> know if he has made enough money off his software, books, etc. to
> quit his day job. Brad, if nothing else it would be a
> good "indicator" (no joke intended) of how much money can actually
> be
> made in this development business. Ehlers had already written two
> books, had been putting out revised versions of his MESA software
> every 2 years (that was his explicit business plan, revise his
> software every 2 years); and he was still working his day job as a
> EE
> after quite a few years of work on MESA.
>
>
> jawjahtek
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bradulrich33"
> <bradulrich@xxxx> wrote:
> > League Rules specifically prohibit me from entering Dr. Ehlers
> into
> > your pissing contest. You must get approval directly from him.
> I
> > think you can contact him through his site:
> >
> > www.mesasoftware.com
> >
> > Let us know who wins.... :)
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "superfragalist"
> > <jackolso@xxxx> wrote:
> > > I thought John Ehlers completed some course work toward his
> doctorate
> > > but didn't finish his diseration or all of the classes. Is "Dr."
>
> the
> > > correct designation?
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:44:45 +0100
> From: "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> Yeah, well I do have a tendency to ramble a bit when I get going.
>
>
>
> People taking the message the wrong way is one of the problems with
> using
> quotes. For instance, I recently wanted to use a bit of Oscar Wilde
> myself
> (on another thread) and quote that "a cynic is the man who knows the
> price
> of everything and the value of nothing".thank God I didn't do that,
> eh?
> Imagine the trouble it would have landed me in!!
>
>
>
> I agree with most of what you say, especially about the
> "confidence", but
> would just add that a "good trader" (as you put it) is never
> complacent. A
> holy grail may not exist, but that doesn't mean that he/she
> shouldn't still
> look for one! I'm sure it doesn't matter who you are, your trading
> strategy
> can always be improved. That's why I like Ehler's stuff - I
> understand it, I
> agree with the principles and I think that I might benefit from
> those "few
> extra bars" that were talked about. The same goes for adaptive
> indicators.even if they only test out a "bit" better, then I'm up
> for it.
> Providing they don't over-complicate or compromise the rest of the
> strategy.
>
>
>
> Ehler is into finding "theoretically sound principles". Well thank
> God
> someone is!!! I despise reading books authored by people who only
> have a
> tentative grasp on the theory behind what they are trying to convey.
> All too
> often people/traders mouth off about what "works".justifying this on
> nothing
> but their own experience and a few trading records. Well, OK, so Joe
> Blogs
> made this new fancy strategy or indicator work. But WHY did it work?
> Does he
> know? Will the success continue? Under what conditions does it work
> best (or
> not at all)?
>
>
>
> I would much rather take a bunch of theory from someone who can
> explain it
> well enough so that I understand it.and then worry about the
> practical
> implementation of the said theory myself. I want nothing more from
> Ehler
> than to come up with a few neat ideas which make theoretical sense.
> I'm
> grown up and experienced enough in trading myself (and I'm sure I'm
> not
> alone here!) to determine whether or not I can make the theory work
> in real
> life. In the meantime, I thank the author for bringing the
> possibility of a
> "new way" to my attention. I really do not care if he/she can trade
> or not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of jawjahtek
> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 10:51 PM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] Re: Stationarity and Real World
> application of
> statistics
>
>
>
> teclogeo,
>
> My apologies if the Mark Twain quote came across as a complete
> dismissal of statistics or statisticians. I had meant the comment in
>
> the same way as I believe Twain wrote it (with humor, irony, and a
> recognition that it will sometimes be true). And I am one of the
> real
> people that uses statistics in his every day work.
>
> I agree that the whole discussion of Stationarity has gone to far
> (and I was the nut case that started it, shame on me). The point I
> was trying to make is that academically it can be shown that trading
>
> models that rely on filters (moving averages, transforms, etc.) are
>
> not the holy grail of trading and that academically the holy grail
> cannot exist. Since this applies to trading with adaptive indicators
>
> offered here, I thought it was appropriate for this message board.
>
> However, superfragilist put it best:
>
> "Adaptive tools, in general, do test out a bit better than non-
> adaptive tools. However, in reality I'm not sure they're going to
> beat a couple of moving averages in live trading. I use several
> adaptive tools and feel comfortable with them and the concepts
> behind
> them."
>
> If you can confidently trade with adaptive indicators and you
> believe
> that you will get slightly better performance, then you will be a
> better trader. Confidence in the execution of your trades is far
> more
> important than any improvement you may (or may not) get from using
> an
> adaptive indicator or a standard (classic) indicator.
>
> Again, this is the difference between developing indicators and
> trading. I am simply stating my belief that a trading holy grail not
>
> only doesn't exist, it can't exist. This does NOT affect my trading.
>
> A good trader accepts indicators and systems that are "good enough".
>
> A good trader accepts that some things may have to be assumed as
> irrelavent to the trade (then hope like hell that the assumption
> doesn't come back and bite the trader in the pocket book).
>
>
> jawjahtek
>
>
> PS: John Ehlers would not agree with my thoughts. He describes his
> job as "finding theoretically sound principles" that can be
> implemented in trading. If it is not theoretically sound, he
> considers it a failure. Classic example of a developer that will
> never be a good trader.
>
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxx>
> wrote:
> > Brad,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you're right about the stationarity stuff. Anyway, I
> didn't
> want to
> > hold up geostatistics as particularly having any direct relevance
> to
> > trading. It has its detractors in any case, who hold it to be the
>
> greatest
> > work of evil since Mein Kampf (miners can also be rather
> fanatical
> > sometimes!). I just wanted to point out that statistics is not
> just
> > practiced by politicians and beardy-weirdy university types. Real
>
> people can
> > use it too.!
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "Metastockusers
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:28:50 -0000
> From: "bradulrich33" <bradulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> ramble...don't worry about it, we may just figure it all out
> here...what's a few extra K in my inbox anyway, bits are cheap.....
>
> Yeah, I am personally not a trader at all. I am just a developer.
> I
> am trying to wrap my head around it all and start from the best
> point.
> To me, this starts with indicators. In fact, I think the questions
> of
> math surrounding position sizing and everything past indicators has
> been "solved" (or at least settled into a few distinct camps)...So
> my
> study turn to indicators. The classic ones just make no sense to
> me.
> The things have to be "smarter" than that. The answer has to be
> in
> some sort of "adaptive" sense. But adaptive how?
>
> The degrees to which an indicator as simple as an average or
> smoother
> can be "adaptive" or dynamic, is quite enormous. It starts with
> the
> period over which the average is calculated (i.e.-bars) and the
> "shape" of the filter. (Box for SMA, Triangle for WMA, and up to
> advanced designs like Laguerre, etc.).
>
> Then to be truely adaptive, the period and the shape should change
> depending on some input (shorter periods in noisy environments, and
> shorter periods when shorter cyles exist are the two most common).
> The tools used to measure these cycles and volatility can then be
> adaptive themselves, and so on...
>
> We have some examples we will be posting very soon where we use a
> signal-to-noise ratio (which is kind of a measure of volatility) as
> a
> variable input to some of Ehlers functions. We then use these as
> inputs to other Ehlers' functions, as well as some ASI functions,
> and
> the result is some indicators that show some adavantages over
> Ehlers'
> stuff directly from his books.
>
> The end result is Ehlers' indicators with one more input made
> adaptive.
>
> The end result as a whole is a system that always looks at an input
> and asks, "what effects this?" and tries to make a logical and
> mathematically sound conclusion. However, we know that regardless
> of
> all of this theory, you throw it out the window if it doesn't look
> good...In general, I think this is the way better indicators are
> made.
> In the end, the more sound they are, the more you can build upon
> them because you can't extend logic on top of bad-logic...that
> doesn't
> work.
>
> I think people that use metastock are somewhat limited NOT by their
> understanding of the math, but by a limiting language that
> encourages
> the use of static tools...which is why we built these products;
> because we could not accomplish what we desired with Metastock code
> alone (and when we could it was slow and hard to maintain).
> Instead
> of do it all hard coded in dlls, we decided to expose some lower
> level
> tools that would leave some flexibility to do new things...
>
> p.s. - You guys appear to be right about Dr. (as I like to call
> him)
> Ehlers'. We will see about changing our references...How does John
> Ehlers Esquire sound? Also, the man is getting up there in age and
> he
> is still working...several jobs....some people just like to work...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:46:07 -0000
> From: "bradulrich33" <bradulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> That is right on teclogeo...I wrote this last one before you wrote
> yours...you do a better job of saying it...I can't agree with you
> more.
>
> and the part where you mention..."over-complicate or compromise my
> the
> rest of my strategy" is exactly what I have found Metastock to
> do...
>
> Please let me know if you know of any "theoretically sound" ideas
> that
> you think should be easy-to-use in Metastock, but that are not..
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 05:36:51 -0000
> From: "bradulrich33" <bradulrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Coaches and Athletes
>
> I always liked this analogy, I actually heard it first in relation
> to
> basketball...I think it applies to alot of things...
>
> Ehlers is essentially a great coach.
> He might not be a great player.
>
> You can't learn what great players do from listing or watching them.
> Not because they won't tell you, because they can't explain it.
>
> So how do you learn to be better than Michael Jordan? You don't
> watch
> his videos; you go out and practice fundamentals. Fundamentals are
> characteristics that ALL great players have, not just one. At the
> point you have got down the fundamentals, you still don't copy
> Jordan's style, cause each great has their own style, you develop
> your
> own style.
>
> Great coaches aren't always great players, and vice versa. Coaches
> teach fundamentals, and often focus on one specific fundamental.
> Mel
> Stoddamire is a pitching coach. Ehlers is an indicator coach.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 08:22:07 +0100
> From: "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Coaches and Athletes
>
> It’s déjà vu all over again!...There was another long and rambling
> discussion about this on the equismetastock site quite recently.
>
>
>
> Seems like we agree with eachother on that one too.
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of bradulrich33
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 6:37 AM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] Coaches and Athletes
>
>
>
> I always liked this analogy, I actually heard it first in relation
> to
> basketball...I think it applies to alot of things...
>
> Ehlers is essentially a great coach.
> He might not be a great player.
>
> You can't learn what great players do from listing or watching
> them.
> Not because they won't tell you, because they can't explain it.
>
> So how do you learn to be better than Michael Jordan? You don't
> watch
> his videos; you go out and practice fundamentals. Fundamentals are
> characteristics that ALL great players have, not just one. At the
> point you have got down the fundamentals, you still don't copy
> Jordan's style, cause each great has their own style, you develop
> your
> own style.
>
> Great coaches aren't always great players, and vice versa. Coaches
> teach fundamentals, and often focus on one specific fundamental.
> Mel
> Stoddamire is a pitching coach. Ehlers is an indicator coach.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "Metastockusers
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 09:48:56 +0100
> From: "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Ideas, ideas...
>
> Should be easy to do in MS, but is not.?
>
>
>
> Well the big one that immediately springs to mind is J.M. Hurst. The
> man who
> originally made cycles, envelopes and the simple moving average make
> sense
> (to me at least). Trouble is that his techniques involve "centering"
> the
> moving average so that it fits the data correctly. That means you
> have to
> forward reference, which means that there is no data at the right
> hand side
> of the chart for 0.5 the periodicity (0.5 * the cycle). Sound
> familiar? His
> method involves just extrapolating the cycle forward to the right
> hand edge
> "by eye" and then making the usual assumptions for the future data.
> Which,
> despite all the modern technology ("The Profit Magic." was written
> in 1970)
> still seems to work!
>
>
>
> It's amazing how much clearer a chart can become when you overlay a
> simple
> fixed-width (or maybe adaptive??) envelope around a *centred*
> moving
> average.and get the periodicity right so you filter out the noise of
> the
> lower-order cycles. It's even clearer when you have two sets of
> envelopes.one for the longer-term and one for a more 'intermediate'
> cyclic
> periodicity (what Hurst would call the "trading cycle"). Strange
> that.how a
> model invented in 1970 is still very relevant today. I wonder if
> that has
> anything to do with the fact that it actually makes theoretical
> sense?
>
>
>
> That's not to say though that his methods can't be improved upon
> with our
> fancy new computers. Personally I would think there is some kind of
> way
> forward in using Hurst for the longer cycles (big picture) and Ehler
> for the
> shorter ones (entry timing). Adaptive techniques could only help. At
> the
> moment I use pretty much Hurst 'out of the box' plus a
> support/resistance
> analysis. The actual entries are a different matter though.I mainly
> use
> bog-standard S/R breakouts (trendlines, pivot levels etc) following
> signals
> from my own divergence indicators. Which is another area where
> adaptive
> techniques can be applied...
>
>
>
> So, lots of ideas.
>
>
>
> But where's the time Brad, where's the time???!!
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of bradulrich33
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 5:46 AM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] Re: Stationarity and Real World
> application of
> ics
>
>
>
> That is right on teclogeo...I wrote this last one before you wrote
> yours...you do a better job of saying it...I can't agree with you
> more.
>
> and the part where you mention..."over-complicate or compromise my
> the
> rest of my strategy" is exactly what I have found Metastock to
> do...
>
> Please let me know if you know of any "theoretically sound" ideas
> that
> you think should be easy-to-use in Metastock, but that are not..
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
>
> Business
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+finance+course&w1=Business+
fin
>
ance+course&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Busi
nes
>
s+finance+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=167
&.s
> ig=AKoSJ5cmQomiaGZL59i5Bw> finance course
>
> Small
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Small+business+finance&w1=Business+f
ina
>
nce+course&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Busin
ess
>
+finance+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=167&
.si
> g=mrFl-lEOyuCYa9AKsJ6s7Q> business finance
>
> Business
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+finance+schools&w1=Business
+fi
>
nance+course&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Bus
ine
>
ss+finance+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=16
7&.
> sig=i9l1pi4jVIMrycNyXX9H2g> finance schools
>
>
> Business
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+finance+online&w1=Business+
fin
>
ance+course&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Busi
nes
>
s+finance+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=167
&.s
> ig=HWgAlc-NSxUMzkO-tMVYvQ> finance online
>
> Business
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+finance+class&w1=Business+f
ina
>
nce+course&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Busin
ess
>
+finance+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=167&
.si
> g=BO78t2ClJOc9WU2w3A6bWQ> finance class
>
> Business
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Business+finances&w1=Business+financ
e+c
>
ourse&w2=Small+business+finance&w3=Business+finance+schools&w4=Business+f
ina
>
nce+online&w5=Business+finance+class&w6=Business+finances&c=6&s=167&.sig=
hR-
> IETE8qkwvL65sIzb5BA> finances
>
>
>
> _____
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
>
> * Visit your group "Metastockusers
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers> " on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 11:23:32 +0100
> From: Kevin <kevin_barry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> Teclogio,
>
> A very interesting tangent indeed. However, I must disagree with
> your
> analogy. As far as mining is concerned, surely the 'unknown
> quantity' of
> ore that you are attempting to estimate will remain static for years
> to
> come regardless. However, future prices are dynamic and can, and
> will, be
> moved by an act of terrorism, a chance remark by the Fed, an
> interest rate
> change, etc., etc., etc. I can't see that the 'dirt' that you've
> previously
> taken out of the ground and modelled any which way is going to help
> you much.
>
> Uh-O, I see a run of Engineers v. Traders gags coming on.........
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
> At 12:21 02/07/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
> > >Engineers agree with Mark Twain: there are lies, damn lies, and
> then
> > there is statistics
> >
> >
> >
> >Err&sorry, but that is a slightly misplaced quote. Yes, Mark Twain
> said it
> >and yes it can be true when statistics are deliberately used to
> mislead
> >people as in the way politicians regularly use them. But
> engineers&? I
> >know you are one, but I would like to venture a bit of personal
> experience
> >that may persuade you and others interested in how statistics are
> >regularly applied in a Real World application that you may not have
>
> >considered before now. Perhaps that may then help you shed a more
> >favourable light on the way stats are applied in the world of
> trading.
> >
> >
> >
> >In my previous life I was a geologist working for a large mining
> company.
> >My claim to fame in that area is that I was on the (small) team
> that was
> >responsible for one of the more significant gold discoveries of
> recent
> >years (for those interested, the Geita deposit in Tanzania&now
> belonging
> >to Anglogold-Ashanti). So, the point here is that I have some
> experience
> >in using statistical modelling&namely in the practical application
> of
> >geostatistics .
> >
> >
> >
> >Geostats is nothing fancy&it s just the name given by geologists to
> the
> >practice of determining the size and internal grade distribution of
> an ore
> >body using statistical methods. Basically one has a limited data set
> of
> >samples from drill holes and uses that to come up with a 3-D model
> of the
> >ore body and the distribution of metal within that body&and then to
> put
> >levels of statistical confidence in that model. Those levels of
> confidence
> >determine (usually within industrial standards) how much more, if
> any,
> >drilling is required to satisfy the *mining engineers* that what
> you have
> >is not just a mineral deposit but an ore body (the former is just
> metal in
> >the ground, whereas the latter can actually be mined
> economically).
> >
> >
> >
> >Mining engineers know that this is only a model. They know that it
> is not
> >100% fact (as the only way to determine that is to actually mine
> the
> >thing). They know the statistical confidence levels and therefore
> they
> >know that there are likely to be some errors in the model. This
> means that
> >when the miners actually come to take the gold out of the ground
> there
> >will be less in some places and (more pleasantly) more in others.
> And yet,
> >look at what happens&capital flows, mines get built, people get
> employed,
> >dirt gets shifted, metal comes out of the ground. And all that
> hangs on a
> >few statistical inferences made by a bunch of Neanderthal
> geologists. Not
> >bad, eh?
> >
> >
> >
> >So there is no question of lying . To do so would involve not only
> gross
> >professional negligence on behalf of the geologist, but it would
> mean that
> >everything that else that normally follows would fall apart&usually
> long
> >after all the capital has been spent and the people have been
> employed,
> >i.e. when it s far too late. Also, in the case of deliberate scams
> like
> >Bre-X, the use of geostatistical lies can affect the whole
> industry.
> >
> >
> >
> >Now, with all that said, you might be surprised to find that the
> principle
> >of stationarity is relaxed almost to the point of irrelevance in
> >geostatistics. Nature is a wonderful thing, but it rarely conforms
> to
> >simple mathematical models and so, skipping over the jargon, we
> basically
> >find that we have to make some pretty sizeable assumptions and
> >generalisations when coming up with the models. Are we lying when
> we bend
> >the rules so? I don t think so&we are not agreeing with Mark Twain
> at all.
> >He was implying, I think, that statistics are determined and then
> >manipulated for an ulterior motive. That is different from honestly
>
> >recognising, discussing and then trying to work around the
> limitations of
> >the practice&
> >
> >
> >
> >All this has direct implications to the world of trading. I ve
> already
> >gone on too much so I ll only say now that you can draw two direct
>
> >parallels between geostats and trading stats (Tradstats??!!). One
> is that
> >there is a known quantity&the drill hole data is dirt already taken
> out of
> >the ground and analysed - this compares with the historical data
> set in
> >trading. The second is that there is an unknown quantity that you
> want to
> >estimate, or model&the very sizeable un-mined bits of the deposit
> between
> >the drill holes(!) and the future data in trading. The only problem
> I can
> >think of there is to do with continuity. The drill hole data is not
>
> >spatially continuous in 3D, whereas the time-series trading data
> is. Oh
> >well, that s not relevant&what I m trying to say is that you should
> not
> >confuse statistical modelling with any sort of holy grail .
> Perfection
> >does not exist when dealing with models, as any experienced mining
>
> >engineer will tell you&but that doesn t mean in any way that a good
> model
> >will not help in getting the job done. And engineering is, after
> all,
> >about getting the job done.
> >
> >
> >
> >Hope that s helped open your mind a bit?!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
> >From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of jawjahtek
> >Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:07 PM
> >To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [Metastockusers] Re: New Adaptive Tools for Metastock
> >
> >
> >
> >Random question and comment:
> >
> >1. Superfragalist, have you tried CSI data (assuming you use EOD
> data)?
> >There is no such thing as a good data provider, but at least CSI
> is
> >honest and up front about continually cleaning their data AND
> telling
> >users what errors were made. If you use intraday data, I can see
> how
> >you have been hosed. The only option that I have seen is to match
> the
> >professional set ups: use multiple intraday suppliers.
> >
> >2. While I wish the developers of the new adaptive tools all of
> the
> >luck in the world, I don't believe that ANY application of
> >Communications (Signal) theory can be successfully applied to price
> >data. In academic terms, these theories require Stationarity. In
> >layman's terms, this means that the theories require a constant
> range
> >of frequencies (cycle) and phases (time lag). Unfortunately,
> historical
> >price data tells us nothing about the future prices' frequency and
> >phase.
> >
> >Statistician's definition of Stationarity: a statistical name for
> >expressing degrees of invariance in the properties of random
> functions;
> >it refers to the statistical model, and not to the data. Most
> commonly
> >used to indicate invariance in the mean and variance, but also in
> the
> >variance of first differences.
> >
> >I am an Electrical Engineer. Although EEs use the concept of
> >Stationarity, its meaning is slighly different in engineering.
> >Engineers agree with Mark Twain: there are lies, damn lies, and
> then
> >there is statistics.
> >
> >I will try the free trial, but I already know that the holy grail
> does
> >not (and cannot) exist.
> >
> >
> >jawjahtek
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "superfragalist"
> <jackolso@xxxx>
> >wrote:
> > > Well, I've got all those IVs hung off my wallet also. Reuters at
> least
> > > cleans their data, which esignal doesn't do. In fact, esignal
> can't
> > > even adjust for splits.
> > >
> > > I didn't know netflix had DVDs on trading. I've just been
> trading DVDs
> > > with them.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ><?---- LSpots keywords ?><?---- HM ADS ?> <?---- LSpots keywords ?>
> <?----
> >HM ADS ?>
> >
> >----------
> >YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > * Visit your group
> > "<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers>Metastockusers" on
> the web.
> > *
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > *
> >
>
<mailto:Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=Unsubscribe>Me
t
>
> > astockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > *
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >
> >
> >
> >----------
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 13:18:34 +0100
> From: "teclogeo" <teclogeo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> Kevin,
>
> Yes!! …you're exactly right. The actual reason I said in a
> subsequent post
> to Brad that “I didn’t want to hold up geostatistics as particularly
> having
> any direct relevance to trading” was precisely for that one. A
> mineral
> deposit is a *static* stochastic system, whereas trading involves a
> *dynamic* stochastic one.
>
> It's really a case of "interpolation" (filling in the gaps for
> something
> that already exists, when you only have some of the data) versus
> "extrapolation" (looking into the future to predict something that
> doesn't
> yet exist).
>
> By the way, I shouldn't have used the term geostatistics. I was
> talking
> classical stats, whereas "geostats" usually refers to the
> application of the
> Kriging interpolation process (which, rather thankfully for all of
> us, I
> didn't get into). For more info, and a healthy bit of skeptic
> realism, check
> out:
>
> www.geostatscam.com/index.htm
>
> It was a complete tangent really... but made for a different reason
> than to
> provide an "analogy". I shouldn't really have tried to draw any
> parallels at
> all like I did in the first post - that bit was beside the point. I
> just
> (mistakenly, it turns out) thought that jawjahtek was dismissing
> stats out
> of hand and wanted to provide some food for thought that it does
> have some
> real world application. Classical stats (and geostats) can be, and
> is, used
> as a foundation to build mines. That's all...
>
> If it's a relevant analogy you're after then perhaps the mineral
> processing
> plant is a better one. The random variable is still the grade of the
> ore
> (which has been mined and stockpiled ready to feed the plant), but
> the
> system is dynamic as there is a time-series variable involved, i.e.
> there is
> a mean grade of ore on the stockpile but variation in the grade
> (hopefully
> about the mean!) over time as that ore is fed into the plant. Again
> stats
> are used to help the engineers predict what is coming...
>
> Blimey, now I come to think of it...have I cracked it? All this time
> and all
> I needed to do was 'phone a friend'?! I'll keep you posted!!
>
> And don't worry... for every engineer vs. trader gag you can think
> of I can
> tell you three geologist vs. engineer ones!
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 11:24 AM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Metastockusers] Stationarity and Real World
> application of
> statistics
>
> Teclogio,
>
> A very interesting tangent indeed. However, I must disagree with
> your
> analogy. As far as mining is concerned, surely the 'unknown
> quantity' of ore
> that you are attempting to estimate will remain static for years to
> come
> regardless. However, future prices are dynamic and can, and will, be
> moved
> by an act of terrorism, a chance remark by the Fed, an interest rate
> change,
> etc., etc., etc. I can't see that the 'dirt' that you've previously
> taken
> out of the ground and modelled any which way is going to help you
> much.
>
> Uh-O, I see a run of Engineers v. Traders gags coming on.........
>
> Regards,
> Kevin
>
> At 12:21 02/07/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
>
> >Engineers agree with Mark Twain: there are lies, damn lies, and
> then there
> is statistics
>
>
>
> Err&sorry, but that is a slightly misplaced quote. Yes, Mark Twain
> said it
> and yes it can be true when statistics are deliberately used to
> mislead
> people as in the way politicians regularly use them. But engineers&?
> I know
> you are one, but I would like to venture a bit of personal
> experience that
> may persuade you and others interested in how statistics are
> regularly
> applied in a Real World application that you may not have considered
> before
> now. Perhaps that may then help you shed a more favourable light on
> the way
> stats are applied in the world of trading.
>
>
>
> In my previous life I was a geologist working for a large mining
> company. My
> claim to fame in that area is that I was on the (small) team that
> was
> responsible for one of the more significant gold discoveries of
> recent years
> (for those interested, the Geita deposit in Tanzania&now belonging
> to
> Anglogold-Ashanti). So, the point here is that I have some
> experience in
> using statistical modelling&namely in the practical application of
> geostatistics .
>
>
>
> Geostats is nothing fancy&it s just the name given by geologists to
> the
> practice of determining the size and internal grade distribution of
> an ore
> body using statistical methods. Basically one has a limited data set
> of
> samples from drill holes and uses that to come up with a 3-D model
> of the
> ore body and the distribution of metal within that body&and then to
> put
> levels of statistical confidence in that model. Those levels of
> confidence
> determine (usually within industrial standards) how much more, if
> any,
> drilling is required to satisfy the *mining engineers* that what you
> have is
> not just a mineral deposit but an ore body (the former is just metal
> in the
> ground, whereas the latter can actually be mined economically).
>
>
>
> Mining engineers know that this is only a model. They know that it
> is not
> 100% fact (as the only way to determine that is to actually mine the
> thing).
> They know the statistical confidence levels and therefore they know
> that
> there are likely to be some errors in the model. This means that
> when the
> miners actually come to take the gold out of the ground there will
> be less
> in some places and (more pleasantly) more in others. And yet, look
> at what
> happens&capital flows, mines get built, people get employed, dirt
> gets
> shifted, metal comes out of the ground. And all that hangs on a few
> statistical inferences made by a bunch of Neanderthal geologists.
> Not bad,
> eh?
>
>
>
> So there is no question of lying . To do so would involve not only
> gross
> professional negligence on behalf of the geologist, but it would
> mean that
> everything that else that normally follows would fall apart&usually
> long
> after all the capital has been spent and the people have been
> employed, i.e.
> when it s far too late. Also, in the case of deliberate scams like
> Bre-X,
> the use of geostatistical lies can affect the whole industry.
>
>
>
> Now, with all that said, you might be surprised to find that the
> principle
> of stationarity is relaxed almost to the point of irrelevance in
> geostatistics. Nature is a wonderful thing, but it rarely conforms
> to simple
> mathematical models and so, skipping over the jargon, we basically
> find that
> we have to make some pretty sizeable assumptions and generalisations
> when
> coming up with the models. Are we lying when we bend the rules so? I
> don t
> think so&we are not agreeing with Mark Twain at all. He was
> implying, I
> think, that statistics are determined and then manipulated for an
> ulterior
> motive. That is different from honestly recognising, discussing and
> then
> trying to work around the limitations of the practice&
>
>
>
> All this has direct implications to the world of trading. I ve
> already gone
> on too much so I ll only say now that you can draw two direct
> parallels
> between geostats and trading stats (Tradstats??!!). One is that
> there is a
> known quantity&the drill hole data is dirt already taken out of the
> ground
> and analysed - this compares with the historical data set in
> trading. The
> second is that there is an unknown quantity that you want to
> estimate, or
> model&the very sizeable un-mined bits of the deposit between the
> drill
> holes(!) and the future data in trading. The only problem I can
> think of
> there is to do with continuity. The drill hole data is not
> spatially
> continuous in 3D, whereas the time-series trading data is. Oh well,
> that s
> not relevant&what I m trying to say is that you should not confuse
> statistical modelling with any sort of holy grail . Perfection does
> not
> exist when dealing with models, as any experienced mining engineer
> will tell
> you&but that doesn t mean in any way that a good model will not help
> in
> getting the job done. And engineering is, after all, about getting
> the job
> done.
>
>
>
> Hope that s helped open your mind a bit?!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of jawjahtek
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 11:07 PM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] Re: New Adaptive Tools for Metastock
>
>
>
> Random question and comment:
>
> 1. Superfragalist, have you tried CSI data (assuming you use EOD
> data)?
> There is no such thing as a good data provider, but at least CSI is
> honest and up front about continually cleaning their data AND
> telling
> users what errors were made. If you use intraday data, I can see how
>
> you have been hosed. The only option that I have seen is to match
> the
> professional set ups: use multiple intraday suppliers.
>
> 2. While I wish the developers of the new adaptive tools all of the
>
> luck in the world, I don't believe that ANY application of
> Communications (Signal) theory can be successfully applied to price
>
> data. In academic terms, these theories require Stationarity. In
> layman's terms, this means that the theories require a constant
> range
> of frequencies (cycle) and phases (time lag). Unfortunately,
> historical
> price data tells us nothing about the future prices' frequency and
> phase.
>
> Statistician's definition of Stationarity: a statistical name for
> expressing degrees of invariance in the properties of random
> functions;
> it refers to the statistical model, and not to the data. Most
> commonly
> used to indicate invariance in the mean and variance, but also in
> the
> variance of first differences.
>
> I am an Electrical Engineer. Although EEs use the concept of
> Stationarity, its meaning is slighly different in engineering.
> Engineers agree with Mark Twain: there are lies, damn lies, and then
>
> there is statistics.
>
> I will try the free trial, but I already know that the holy grail
> does
> not (and cannot) exist.
>
>
> jawjahtek
>
>
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "superfragalist"
> <jackolso@xxxx>
> wrote:
> > Well, I've got all those IVs hung off my wallet also. Reuters at
> least
> > cleans their data, which esignal doesn't do. In fact, esignal
> can't
> > even adjust for splits.
> >
> > I didn't know netflix had DVDs on trading. I've just been trading
> DVDs
> > with them.
> >
>
>
>
>
> <?---- LSpots keywords ?><?---- HM ADS ?> <?---- LSpots keywords ?>
> <?----
> HM ADS ?>
> ________________________________________
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> • Visit your group "Metastockusers" on the web.
> •
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> • Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> •
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
> ________________________________________
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Business finance course
> Small business finance
> Business finance schools
> Business finance online
> Business finance class
> Business finances
>
> ________________________________________
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> • Visit your group "Metastockusers" on the web.
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
> ________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
> voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 18:13:25 -0000
> From: "P Umrysh" <pumrysh@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Stationarity and Real World application of statistics
>
> Brad,
>
> Thanks for both your honesty and sincerity! I agree with alot of
> your
> assessment. Metastock is a limiting lanquage and why a lot of the
> work of someone like Roy Larsen is so important. For me an adaptive
>
> moving average is about all that I need. I can work around almost
> anything else with just that one simple indicator.
>
> My problem with the indicators you had offered was the price,
> especially when you consider that I already had one. That being said
>
> though, I would be happy to see an adaptive indicator offered on the
>
> market for a reasonable cost.
>
>
> Preston
>
>
>
> --- In Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bradulrich33"
> <bradulrich@xxxx> wrote:
> > ramble...don't worry about it, we may just figure it all out
> > here...what's a few extra K in my inbox anyway, bits are
> cheap.....
> >
> > Yeah, I am personally not a trader at all. I am just a developer.
>
> I
> > am trying to wrap my head around it all and start from the best
> point.
> > To me, this starts with indicators. In fact, I think the
> questions
> of
> > math surrounding position sizing and everything past indicators
> has
> > been "solved" (or at least settled into a few distinct camps)...So
>
> my
> > study turn to indicators. The classic ones just make no sense to
>
> me.
> > The things have to be "smarter" than that. The answer has to be
> in
> > some sort of "adaptive" sense. But adaptive how?
> >
> > The degrees to which an indicator as simple as an average or
> smoother
> > can be "adaptive" or dynamic, is quite enormous. It starts with
> the
> > period over which the average is calculated (i.e.-bars) and the
> > "shape" of the filter. (Box for SMA, Triangle for WMA, and up to
> > advanced designs like Laguerre, etc.).
> >
> > Then to be truely adaptive, the period and the shape should
> change
> > depending on some input (shorter periods in noisy environments,
> and
> > shorter periods when shorter cyles exist are the two most common).
>
> > The tools used to measure these cycles and volatility can then be
> > adaptive themselves, and so on...
> >
> > We have some examples we will be posting very soon where we use a
> > signal-to-noise ratio (which is kind of a measure of volatility)
> as
> a
> > variable input to some of Ehlers functions. We then use these as
> > inputs to other Ehlers' functions, as well as some ASI functions,
>
> and
> > the result is some indicators that show some adavantages over
> Ehlers'
> > stuff directly from his books.
> >
> > The end result is Ehlers' indicators with one more input made
> adaptive.
> >
> > The end result as a whole is a system that always looks at an
> input
> > and asks, "what effects this?" and tries to make a logical and
> > mathematically sound conclusion. However, we know that regardless
>
> of
> > all of this theory, you throw it out the window if it doesn't
> look
> > good...In general, I think this is the way better indicators are
> made.
> > In the end, the more sound they are, the more you can build
> upon
> > them because you can't extend logic on top of bad-logic...that
> doesn't
> > work.
> >
> > I think people that use metastock are somewhat limited NOT by
> their
> > understanding of the math, but by a limiting language that
> encourages
> > the use of static tools...which is why we built these products;
> > because we could not accomplish what we desired with Metastock
> code
> > alone (and when we could it was slow and hard to maintain).
> Instead
> > of do it all hard coded in dlls, we decided to expose some lower
> level
> > tools that would leave some flexibility to do new things...
> >
> > p.s. - You guys appear to be right about Dr. (as I like to call
> him)
> > Ehlers'. We will see about changing our references...How does
> John
> > Ehlers Esquire sound? Also, the man is getting up there in age
> and
> he
> > is still working...several jobs....some people just like to
> work...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2005 14:21:19 -0400
> From: "Andrew Tomlinson" <andrew_tomlinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: The DML - metastock tools
>
>
> Brad
>
> Your honest and constructive response is admirable.
>
> Good luck with your endeavor.
>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of bradulrich33
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 1:29 PM
> To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Metastockusers] The DML - metastock tools
>
>
> Well, it's a good thing I like eggs, because there is plenty of it
> to eat on
> my face. I hope you don't take offense to my comments Jose, but you
> have to
> admit it is tough to find ANY information on those anywhere on the
> web.
> Believe me, if I already knew of those, (and I wish I had) I would
> not have
> made the comment. Kudos for seeing the need for these indicators.
>
> Also, I would like to thank everyone that offered some useful
> (although
> sometimes harsh) critisizm on the products, particularly the
> pricing
> structure. In fact, due to the recent ermegence of a certain
> competitor in
> the market for adaptive indicators, as well as your responses, we
> have
> decided to CHANGE OUR PRICING MODEL. We are currently re-evaluating
> it, but
> for now, we have temporarily taken down our prices and ordering
> system.
>
> Thus, for a limited time, our products will be FREE, just keep
> downloading
> the trial as often as you would like.
>
> I can't say specifics yet, but both ASI's and ADSI's
> lease price will
> be reduced significantly, and it will also be OFFERED FOR SALE, as
> opposed
> to lease.
>
> I will try to reply to the posts regarding the previous technical
> questions
> shortly..
>
> And again, thanks for the great feedback, and keep it coming, you
> may also
> want to email me personally if you have any information, but don't
> see it as
> relavent enough for discussion on this board. I know how some
> people are
> about their board topics...
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brad Ulrich
> The DML, LLC
> www.thedml.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 20:16:22 -0000
> From: "metastkuser" <andysmith_999@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Using Condors/Butterflies in a Sideways markets
>
> There are a few experienced traders on this board am I'm curious if
> anyone uses option spreads when the market is rangebound/sideways
> (instead of trading long stocks or not trading at all).
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Try Online Currency Trading with GFT. Free 50K Demo. Trade
24 Hours. Commission-Free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DldnlA/9M2KAA/U1CZAA/zMEolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Metastockusers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|