|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Rvalue, you are absolutely right - I am "thrashing" Super/Jim/ValLine,
and I strongly believe that I have not only a good reason, but a duty to
our usergroup to keep shady characters in check.
I find it difficult to stay idle by the sidelines when someone with a gift
of the gab and hidden agenda keeps pushing nothing more than snake-oil to
"newies" (as he's fond of calling them).
> Having multiple names is not a crime on the internet, particularly when
> you aren't selling software..
Well, Rv, you'd be surprised at finding out who is selling what. ;)
Caveat emptor.
jose '-)
http://www.metastocktools.com
--- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "rvalue1" <rvalue1@xxx> wrote:
>
> 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@> 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 --------------------~-->
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups. Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/kOt0.A/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/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/
|