|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Many years ago when I was writing the Traders Tips for TASC, I wrote an indicator that allowed you to adjust the sensitivity of an Xaverage based on percent instead of by bars. I even named it starting with my initials 'MWD'. To my surprise when I was at a clients house who had purchased Bullseye he showed me the code and I was amazed that the function name wasn't changed. Yes a published indicator was being sold. Now to be fair this was a publically available function and the author put his own interpretation into the code. Now I may have a personal problem with this but anyone could have done it. Now if this is not the current formula used for Bullseye then the indicators have been changed. So if this is the case past performance doesnt mean crap if the formulas have been upgraded or changed or optimized or etc. The name of the indicator should be changed as well. It seems that Bullseye by the authors own admission has "evolved". Is performance based on the new vers!
ion only or based on each version reflecting code changes? My guess is, it is not and therefore results are probably overinflated based on hindsight. No more needs to be said.
If anyone has the new Bullseye check to see if there is a function called MWDXAverage? If so, then the bullseye principle has not changed since at least mid '96. I'am not out to get anyone or make judgement. Value is in the eye of the beholder and anyone has the right to sell their ideas( or others) to anyone who is willing to buy them. I dont remember the issue of TASC but i'am sure it could be found easily. If anyone is interested I made a function called MWDXaverage that was published in TASC in 95 or 96 and seems to be part of at least one version of Bullseye.
Thank you
Miles William Dunbar
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Cox [SMTP:cayenne@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:49 PM
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: JIM COX Realtime Trading
At 08:47 PM 4/15/98 -0700, you wrote:
>At 09:40 PM 4/15/98, Jim Cox wrote:
>> (OK, one
>>of the original (circa 1994) indicators was based on a truncated RSI, it
>>was only a small part of Bullseye.
>
>That was the point I was making. That the original Bullseye was just a
>slightly modified RSI and I'm so glad to see you now admit that.
>
Blah Blah Blah>
What I said, was part of the the original Bullseye, circa 1994, was based
on a truncated RSI. Only part of it. It changed since then.
OK? The rest of the methodology has nothing to do with Welles Wilder or
whomever!!
That's the point!
Sign on to #Chipper tomorrow and find out whether Bullseye speaks the
truth, or not. Realtime.
If somewhat frustrated traders like yourself feel a real need to pound
Bullseye, fine. I am only offering this deal to prove the veracity and
truth of Bullsseye. Its my reputation. If you and that dickhead Mark Brown
want to flame me, fine.
I take pride in my work. I am willing, and do put my trading on line
everyday. Anybody who wants to, can sign on #chipper on the IRC and see,
realtime, what Bullseye does.
Really am sick of all this crap. I was not trying to promote Bullseye.
Just trying to protect my reputation.
I am so glad you have appointed yourself the sheriff of the Omega List.
Realtime. Real profits. Bullseye.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Michael Paauwe
>mpaauwe@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
|