|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
My oh my. As a trader here in Chicago, I do not use back testing because I
must take the other side of trades. I promote liquidity. You folks can back
test all you want. It is not for me. As for motive. Well, let's see. You got
me there. You guys are too sharp. I can't fool you can I. Well, here is the
motive, I am writing a book called Trading Chicago Style and I wanted to get
a handle on the attitudes and ideas of the public spec. I am happy to say,
that many of your and opinions will be included in my new book.
Since I get paid by the Merc as an instructor I have not done seminars in a
while. Though the last one I did was for Futures West. And the only thing
that was sold was by book by another vendor.Well, it is apparent that my
work is done here and on October 31 or in that vicinity I will be dropping
my name from this list. Those of you who wish to keep in touch can contact
me viaE mail of call me at 1-800-753-7085. Those of you who view me with
suspicion, I suggest you look at who you made some big hefty checks to in
the last few years. Guess what? Is wasn't me. No sir, there are other people
sharper than me out there that will promise rags to riches stories. So in
the immortal words of Richard Nixon," You won't have Neal to kick around
anymore."
-----Original Message-----
From: John Bond <convexity@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 4:27 PM
Subject: Re. The Emperor's New Clothes
>I must admit, I'm in agreement with Phil here. Personally, I
>find most of Neil W's posts tend to be exercises in
>self-promotion, cloaked as 'newbie help' (I'm referring to
>the 'continued portrayal as an expert' type of
>self-promotion).
>
>There seems to be this,
>white-coated-expert-therefore-anything-he-posts-must-not-be-
>questioned attitude going on. In fact, most of his comments
>on what he refers to as, "back testing" are lacking in any
>real information and are based mainly on his own personal
>opinion that historical prices can't be used to trade
>markets (this *is* what you mean, right?). If he thinks I've
>got the wrong end of the stick then will he please explain
>EXACTLY what he does means by "back testing" so that we may
>all gain something from his wisdom.
>
>The stuff that he has recently posted, and that Phil refers
>to, is mainly groundless opinions based on past occurrences
>of events - hedged in the usual way. What DOES N.W. sell?
>It's obviously not systems. It is probably seminars and
>lectures. Neil? Care to enlighten us?
>
>I'm not simply criticising him for the hell of it - although
>the righteous indignation that will predictably ensue will
>assume this. What I'm trying to do is even the balance a bit
>- something that anyone who wears 'expert's clothing' should
>expect. I'm also not claiming that NW doesn't have valuable
>knowledge to impart regarding trading. What I take issue
>with is the somewhat condescending manner in which he
>promotes himself (condescending in the sense that the
>assumption is most of us are too stupid to see through it).
>
>Lastly, here's a riddle. There is someone else here who
>plays a similar game. He allies himself with the good guys,
>makes a lot of fairly intelligent comments, passes on some
>good info. and then ever so quietly sells something (hint. A
>manual for $300 +). IMO this is the worst type of vendor.
>They legitimately attack unscrupulous vendors and thus gain
>dubious legitimacy. This is then followed by an offering
>their wares. In this case, the person quite rightly
>criticised the non-believers for asking the real traders for
>proof of their success. He then posted an unsolicited
>testimonial for his product - almost daring anyone to now
>ask HIM for proof that he is what he says he is, and that
>his product is indeed the valuable day trading resource that
>he has now so magnanimously bestowed upon us mere mortals.
>
>
>John Bond
>
>PS. I will not be participating further on this subject in
>order not to reduce the S/N ratio of the list - feel free to
>have the last word.........
>
>>
>>Then they make a prediction. The point in this case seems
>to be that it
>>could go up, but it might go down. Now that's another thing
>they can be
>>right on!
>
>
|