|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I get the impression that Super is hardly trashing Jose; rather that
Jose is trashing Super. In any case Super has a right to his
opinions and if they don't track Jose's or heap superlatives on his
software - its not a valid reason to trash him.
I have used many add-ons; but do not own Jose's. I can say that I've
certainly bought some usless ones and Jose's would certainly be
much, much better, I am sure. But after buying MS10 and Ehler's add-
on, I am laying off buying more right now. I did pick up a very good
idea from the RMO - I have incorporated it into my own system. RMO
was of great value to me.
Also, I have learned a lot from Super's posts and suggestions -
probably the most - some were very basic concepts but for whatever
reasons, they had eluded me for a while. I don't thing Super
deserves trashing from Jose, so I hope Jose would get off it and
stick to Metastock posts and quality support he continues to provide
many. Providing positive opinions on add-ons that deserve it or
negative ones on those that don't is useful ... Having multiple
names is not a crime on the internet, particularly when you aren't
selling software..
As for strategies - I prefer hedged system trading, biased to long
or short side based on the trading systems I apply. On the day the
DJ dropped 416, my account went up - and its for reasons like that I
like to keep an open bias to up or down, based on stock behavior.
Last several months I have been working on an aggressive return
system using options and directional trading, tuning it and adding
position sizing methods to get much more from it. Manual walk
backtested results were unbelievable - which is why I am cautious
and don't fully believe it. But I am ready for real money testing -
and thats what I am doing - with my own money. Don't plan to toot my
horn or sell it. If it makes me a good money; I will be richer for
it.. and will keep it.
If you get me real upset, I might share a couple of well-known money
making services that totally bombed for me, not that anyone would
realize it from there constant ads and emails. But even that would
get them unnecessary attention I'd rather not give them.
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jose Silva"
<josesilva22@xxx> wrote:
>
> > 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@>
> 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/
|