|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ron Augustine wrote:
> The obvious question is begged by your assertion "But it can be done" --
>
> Can it? -- Will you provide verifiable, audited, proof? If so, is it based
> on back-testing or real-time trading?
Well, I've been trading since 1992 and I'm still here and I'm profitable.
I'd call that real time results. Will I provide an audited proof? To the
IRS if I have to. But not to just anyone - if you choose not to believe me
you can just as easily question the basis of my trades even if you I give
you a blow by blow account via audited statements.
As hans says ... I'm not selling a system. I don't care whether or not I'm
believed. But I claim it can be done but not necessarily by everyone. I
presume from your statement, you fall into the later group - we clearly have
different trading styles. (My statement is not intended to demeen you (you
may be a better trader than I) - it is just an observation of style).
Chris Norrie
> ----------------------------------------
> At 11:00 PM 3/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
> >>>maybe your comments will help some and prompt others who disagree to provide
> >proof that supports their argument...<<
> >
> >When it comes to probability, the only proof I know centers around the Law of
> >Large Numbers, but its too large to be useful here.
> >
> >How about this as food for thought....
> >
> >If, as is suggested, that the market's behavior one year has not much to do
> >with any other (or something like that) then it would follow that it should be
> >nearly impossible for a simple trading system, that makes about 1 trade/month
> >to be profitable over a 10-15 year period. But it can be done. Therefore,
> >something must be wrong with the premise.
> >
> >- Mark Jurik
|