Hi Big Papa,
If it is not to much to ask, would you mind explaining #2. I do not
understand what is being discussed here. I sat in on the webinar but
did not understand what he was doing with this.
Thanks,
Ed
Big Papa wrote:
>
> Seems to me, by doing it Steve's way, he accomplishes two things:
>
> 1. Avoids curve fitting by reducing the dependance on look back
> periods.
>
> 2. Building a system that is more flexible and allows for
> variations, while trying to capture most of the moves. I was
> impressed the way he looked at the trigger levels, and found
> workable levels around 41, 42, 47, 48, etc, and decided to pick 45.
> I hadn't thought of looking at it that way before. By getting rid of
> some of the precision, it may actually be more robust and get you in
> and out of a trade more efficiently.
>
> A very well put together seminar, that I learned a lot from. I've
> watched it twice just to make sure I caught everything.
>
> Big
>
> -- In equismetastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:equismetastock%40yahoogroups.com>, pumrysh <no_reply@xxx>
wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Steve's Webinar was certainly enjoyable. Just wanted to see what
> > others thought about the way he optimized. Basically he was
> optimizing
> > triggers. Recently one of our member's questioned optimizing
> lookback
> > periods.
> >
> > My own view on optimization is that optimizing triggers is a
> better
> > way of using this feature.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Preston
> >
>
>