|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> I think there's a miss understanding I need to correct. I'm not
> trashing Jose.
No problem - I care little about personal attacks anyway.
What matters to me ultimately is truth, specially if it can help those of
us that are open to it, and those that don't have any hidden agendas.
> My point about testing indicators is really simple. In every test run
> by professional systems developers like Stridsman where I have seen
> the data, favorites like relative strength and stochastics have
> produced erratic, inconsistent results.
There is little point in harping about testing indicators to see if they
are profitable or not, because there are an infinite number of variables/
combinations/permutations involved in backtesting each one.
For example, let's take the Simple Moving Average:
1) Should we test it on a simple price/crossover strategy?
Cross(C,Mov(C,periods,S))
Well, if one wants to be safe and part of the crowd, and watch one's
capital slowly bleed to nothing, the answer is YES.
Changing periodicities, MA types, data arrays, will result in an
impossibly-large combination of permutations. No one lives long enough to
be able to backtest all of them.
2) Should we use it in a contrarian way then?
Cross(Mov(C,periods,S),C)
Yes, provided the fundamental strength of the market is known, and we are
prepared for the inevitable drawdowns that betting against the market
brings. Again, the myriad of permutations is akin to looking for a needle
in a haystack.
3) And what about the other infinite number of strategies using the SMA,
other than crossovers?
As one can see, "testing indicators for profitability" is a totally
meaningless concept - it couldn't be done objectively even if the whole
Human Genome Project team were assigned to it for the next 1000 years.
Throw in the fact that the markets are constantly evolving and dynamic,
and it soon becomes clear that making a career out of backtesting
indicators is a path to a meaningless existence.
> I didn't want to write my own DLLs.
Shure - as if Mr superfragalist had the option.
Playing around with some ancient mainframe back in college does not offer
one much in the way of programming skills. I'll bet my reputation that Mr
superfragalist couldn't put any meaningful MetaStock code together if his
life depended on it, much less put together a useful DLL.
> If Jose had something that helped me, I would use it.
Well, Jose did have something to help you, but not in the way you intended,
Mr superfragalist/valuelinetrader/Jim/Bob/John/Bill/William/Stan.
Cutting deals with Equis behind my back to sell my valuable software for
20% "royalties", and attempting to get a large kickback from Equis as the
middleman, is definitely not my idea of helping anyone.
There are words that come to mind whenever I stumble on Mr superfragalist's
insidious and vacuous posts, but etiquette prevents me from writing more.
Caveat emptor.
jose '-)
http://www.metastocktools.com
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, superfragalist <no_reply@xxx>
wrote:
>
> I think there's a miss understanding I need to correct. I'm not
> trashing Jose.
>
> I should have errased the heading RSC.
>
> The point I was making didn't involve the RSC. I was refering to all
> of the plug-ins and the lack of specific information that gives a
> buyer any way to evaluate what they are getting. It's not just a
> problem in MS. Every TA program has the same issues.
>
> The RMO is a good example. Right now there is only antidotal
> information on it. It's practically impossible to test, but it's
> touted as being a great performing system by Rahul Mohindar.
>
> There will be people who say it works great for them. And there will
> be others who say it doesn't. Both opinions are subjective. I like
> objective data.
>
> I've used parts of the RMO in a few systems I put together to see if
> any of it was useful. Mostly I used the Rainbow portion. I used it as
> an potential trade flag, and then used other criteria to determine if
> the signal was a good trade. In that form it work pretty good.
> However, a lot of other things would have worked just as well. (I
> substituted a few.)
>
> My point about testing indicators is really simple. In every test run
> by professional systems developers like Stridsman where I have seen
> the data, favorites like relative strength and stochastics have
> produced erratic, inconsistent results.
>
> I mentioned I had tested all kinds of momentum formulas and the
> results were marginal with the exception of a couple of things. I
> mentioned the slope of the price curve and the external relative
strength.
>
> Basically the reason I posted what I had seen in the tests was to give
> anyone interested in momentum indicators a direction they might want
> to look in to do their own tests.
>
> I really don't care what formulas someone uses to figure out the slope
> of the price curve or to calculate external relative strength. I use
> SpyGlass because it's the only method I've found for external relative
> strength that is easy, works consistently and is cheap. I didn't want
> to write my own DLLs.
>
> May be someone else can do a search and find another way to do the
> same thing in MS with another tool. If there is something else, I
> would like to know. I will probably buy it and test it. (For those who
> care, I don't use Fire.)
>
> Using Relative Strength Comparatives has been around a long time.
> There are many ways to get the RSC results. I've heard using RSC
> works. It seems logical, but I haven't seen anything but antidotal
> evidence.
>
> In my own trading I used a variety of sources for the relative
> strength calculations. I used my own formulas, and I subscribed to
> vendors who provided the rankings. It worked so, so for me. It didn't
> provide the consistency I was looking for. However, I certainly didn't
> try all of the ways to use RSC values. I'm sure there are 1000s of
> other trading methods that can be used with the RSC rankings.
>
> I'm always looking for ways to improve what I do. If Jose had
> something that helped me, I would use it. No quesiton. I would base
> what I was willing to pay on how much it helped me. How would I know
> if it helped me. First I would test it, and if the test results were
> good according to my criteria, I would incorporate into my trading and
> then see what happened in real time.
>
> To me, it doesn't matter about the skills of the tool provider. It
> doesn't matter about the cost. It doesn't matter how much free stuff I
> get. It doesn't matter how much support the vendor provides. I care
> about the objective data on performance and how well it works in live
> trading.
>
> My point in the post was no one provides objective data. If they did
> it would either kill the sales of their product or give it a real boost.
>
> Rahul Mohindar appears on the financial news occasionally in India. If
> someone runs across him, they should ask about the test results from
> the RMO, since it is his system.
>
> Back in the late 1990's a lot of traders were commenting on all kinds
> of things that were making them big money. Then in 2000, they were
> posting about how the tools had failed them and they lost most of the
> the money they made in the 1990's.
>
> Consistency is really hard to achieve. Finding something that works
> sometimes isn't.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Scott and Sarah Gorman"
> <TradingFloor@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree! Although I'm in the background of the discussions, I read
> each one.
> > It's getting to a point that a great number of postings are not
> related to
> > learning and applying Metastock formulae. Also, trashing Jose is highly
> > inappropriate. Afterall, he's giving his time and expertise to the
> group.
> > We should all appreciate Jose's efforts and show him nothing but
> respect.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > (On the Trading Floor)
> >
> > "Don't let the market make a monkey out of you"
> >
> > Dr. Scott Gorman
> > 6340 NE 19th Avenue
> > Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
> > Tel: (954) 202-3536
> > Fax: (954) 337-0704
> > Cell: (954) 288-2020
> >
> > PLEASE NOTE: Any attachments to this message have been scanned by
> Norton
> > AntiVirus and have been found to be free from infection. Virus
> definitions
> > are updated daily.
> >
> > IMPORTANT NOTE: This e-mail, including any attachments, is intended
> for the
> > use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain
> information that
> > is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this e-mail is not the
> > intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver
> it to
> > the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> > distribution or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
> If you
> > have received this e-mail message in error, please notify us
> immediately and
> > delete the related e-mail and any attachments.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 8:38 AM
> > To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: RSC-Price?
> >
> >
> >
> > This thread is getting too personal.
> >
> > Perhaps the participants could continue this via private emails.
> >
> > Lionel
> >
> > From: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>
> > [mailto:equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> > On Behalf Of Eduardo Gontan Pulgarin
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:25 AM
> > To: equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>
> >
> > Subject: Re: [EquisMetaStock Group] Re: RSC-Price?
> >
> > No, I cannot tell in % or otherwise; I have also got TradeSim: I sent
an
> > e-mail about a problem, and never received an answer; luckily I was
> able to
> > sort the matter out myself. They do offer a forum like this one,
though,
> > where you can get feedback from other users.
> > I have got AlphOmega; don't use it anymore, though, as I lost faith in
> > Elliott Wave, but I keep it as sometimes studying the code helps me
> getting
> > answers to my questions.
> > I still think that "Get lost" is the answer you deserve; there is a
> price
> > for a good/product, take it or leave it. I can live with that, why
can't
> > you?
> > As for seeing the goods on display, how do you know you are going to
> like
> > the taste of it? Not all beef taste the same, you see; some contains
> more
> > water due to type of the feed, or has been frozen; so to sell it, it
> must,
> > per force, be cheaper! Not all cows are fed on grassland!
> > There is a lot going on about add-ons, and there is a lot of
information
> > about them, too, as much by satisfied as by unsatisfied users - just
> search
> > for the posts, for Goodness sake, or ask about it, and people will
> reply.
> > So far I haven't seen a complain about Jose's products, while there is
> > plenty about others.
> > What incenses me is, who do you think you are to tell others how to
> price
> > their goods? Have you got any idea of the work involved? My (now
> retired)
> > father-in-law, along with my brother-in-law, own a sewing machine
shop,
> > selling sewing machines and, when possible, repairing them, to keep
> their
> > custom satisfied; occasionally they may make deals, but if somebody
came
> > into the shop telling them what you have posted earlier, the answer
> would be
> > a clear "get lost" - and so it should! Perhaps you might want to try
> all the
> > sewing machines on display, too? To make sure that they do some
> sewing, who
> > knows...
> > Speak your mind by all means, but then, don't get too upset by the
> answers
> > you'll receive when others do the same!
> > Eduardo.
> >
> > a a <swptec@ <mailto:swptec%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:swptec%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > Hi Eduardo,
> >
> > I was merely voicing my opinion, I don't think it merits a comment
> such as
> > "Get Lost".
> >
> > Your analogy of a butcher and supermarket is not correct. There you
> can see
> > beforehand the stuff you are buying. In any case the cost is low and
> you can
> > try both before settling down into a preference.
> >
> > With so many add ons available claiming to achieve all sorts of
> wonderful
> > things, one has to shoot "blind" i.e buy something first for $ 1000
> and then
> > try it and maybe lose some money trying it. So the the awards and the
> > relative cost become important.
> >
> > Maybe you could tell me what kind of money (in percentage terms per
> annum
> > and over how many years) you manage to make from URSC to help me
> make up my
> > mind. Also how many other add ons you have tried (and perhaps)
> abandoned and
> > how much money you lost trying them.
> >
> > You have the benefit of experience, I don't.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Eduardo Gontan Pulgarin <con051204@
> > <mailto:con051204%40yahoo.co.uk>
> > <mailto:con051204%40yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
> > What a strange post; so, if I went, say, to my butcher, and told him
> to set
> > his prices to what the supermarket charges, on the ground that his
> beef is
> > not an award winner, and that increase in sales will make up for the
> > diffference in price, what answer should I expect?
> > You have got a funny way of looking at life, mate; if you can't
> afford it,
> > then do as I have done for a long time - don't buy it!
> > When I bought Jose's URSC kit, I couldn't care less about how much
other
> > add-ons cost, or if it was an award winning one; I cannot speak for
> other
> > users, of course, but I would be surprised if they didn't feel like
> I do!
> > The kit does what it says it does; Jose's support is terrific -
> sometimes I
> > get an answer to my e-mail within minutes, I live in UK and Jose in
> > Thailand; that's the other side of the world, for you! Any coding
> query is
> > dealt with swiftly, at no charge; and I have seen some silly ones! No
> > matter, they are answered, and promptly!
> > Do you find this is the case with other add-ons suppliers?
> > People find Jose a dependable developper, and his products work; as a
> > result, I think that Jose is well entitled to charge what he sees
> fit, don't
> > you think?
> > I am not Jose, but quite frankly, if I was, I would tell you to get
> lost!
> >
> > Eduardo.
> >
> > a a <swptec@ <mailto:swptec%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:swptec%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > Hi Jose,
> >
> > URSC kit + MACDH kit will set a person back US $ 1040, more than the
> cost of
> > Metastock 10 EOD. A lot of people, myself included, simply cannot
> even think
> > of such an expensive add on. Kindly re-look your prices and bring
> them at
> > par with other add-ons. Increased sales will offset reduction in
> price. Let
> > us not forget that your stuff is not even a nominee in TASC awards, let
> > alone being an award winner.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Jose Silva <josesilva22@ <mailto:josesilva22%40yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:josesilva22%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
> > Eric, price for the URSC tool-kit is Eur 395.
> > See here for price in other currencies:
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/URSC.htm
> > <http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/URSC.htm>
> >
> > The URSC kit has many useful tools, but does not come with the
> Long/Short
> > SmartStop Initial/Trailing stop found in the Divergence kit:
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/MACDH/MACDHdiverg.htm
> > <http://www.metastocktools.com/MACDH/MACDHdiverg.htm>
> >
> > For risk-normalized backtesting tools found with the URSC kit, see
this
> > article on Trading System Evaluation/Development Tools:
> >
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/sysdev.htm
> > <http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/sysdev.htm>
> > http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/sysdev2.htm
> > <http://www.metastocktools.com/URSC/sysdev2.htm>
> >
> > jose '-)
> > http://www.metastocktools.com <http://www.metastocktools.com>
> >
> > --- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com> , "erc90" <erc90@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jose,
> > >
> > > What is the price? Are we able to set stop loss orders using the
URSC
> > > DDLs? I wish to back test using the explorer or the system tester.
> > >
> > > Eric
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Transfer from your equities account.
Receive up to $1,000 from GFT. Click here to learn more.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/aZttyC/X_xQAA/cosFAA/BefplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/equismetastock/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:equismetastock-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
mailto:equismetastock-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
equismetastock-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|