|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Dans un courrier daté du 06/12/98 19:07:34 Heure d7iver Pari34 Madrid,
tomdemark@xxxxxxxx a écrit :
> chris,
>
> thank you for info. i'm going to ask my programmers who are familiar
> with netscape how to toggle name and pseudonym so i can remain anonymous
> rather to purchase other e-mail adresses since i'm certain to screw that
> up too.
>
Please give up with this idea.
Changing your real name to a pseudo will change nothing to the problem , as
most of people will recognize you or try to do.
I guess that there will be more noise due to the Omega List Sherlock Holmes
than by doing nothing from now.
The best thing to do in life is to assume our own personality (known or
unknown, what's about the difference).
Once you are recognized for what you are on a list, people usually give you a
rest.
I have risked several exclusions from this list during the last three years
because I usually say what I think, and sometimes, it's not what was expected
my a relative majority, but dont care.
Unless proven wrong , I still have no problem with my mirror AND my
contribution to this list.
> the neural net, etc site seems to be way too complex for me but i will
> pass it on to my programmers.
>
You should be wise to pass them the web site address of our neurofuzzy logic
software:
As you claim to be a non programmer, you should be able to build winning
trading systems yourself in less that 1 hour with it.
It accepts any indicator, even with a TD prefix.
And I bet that it will beat most of what you may have already coded ( or what
your programmers may have coded in more than 1 week).
And you can download a free evaluation version ( this is my anti spam
strategy)
> thank you for your help.
> best regards,
> tom demark
>
> Chris Baker wrote:
>
>
> > Because of ongoing Spam and insults on the Omega list, Mark Brown has
> generously started a new e-mail list called "CodeList" to share code and
systems, mostly for
> TradeStation.
For spam, I agree.
For past insults, a few are able to give lessons here...We should carefully
avoid this topic here.
> > Mark Brown is an experienced trader who has started the CodeList on an
> invitation basis. > If interested Mark can be reached at
<markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> The code
> and systems are mainly extensions of existing techniques.
> >
> > As an example of how trading systems and indicators are becoming more
> advanced for the individual trader, many of us of anxiously waiting for the
completion and
> beta testing of a new Trading application called TradeLab,. TradeLab is
designed for
> user programs to be written in Visual Basic and will allow users to use
modules and functions
> drawn from digital signal processing, as well as genetic algorithms and
neural
> networks. Discussion on the TradeLab list thus far has centered around
Fourier Analysis,
> Wavelets, Filters, and Noise. Bob Brickey, the author, refers to
traditional indicators as
> gambler's indicators and promises much better for TradeLab users. The web
page for
> TradeLab is at > http://www.sciapp.com/
> >
The Gambler Indicator discussion has been initiated by Bob Brickey, and I
have built a special web page to reply to these arguments.
<A HREF="http://www.sirtrade.com/fuzproof.htm";>
http://www.sirtrade.com/fuzproof.htm</A>
For the moment, I have no answer.
Glaring proofs are given there in favour of Gambling Indicators with complex
interpretation.
You may check the web page for more information.
TradeLab will be a good product for good programmers that find limitations in
TS4.
Most of them are removed in T5, however TradeLab will have some interesting
features, and I always saw Tradelab as a complementary program to TS as well
as a standalone app.
Depends on the personality of the user.
But Tradelab without good ideas will not be better than TS with the same
state of mind.
I have spent most of my time to develop automated trading systems generators (
ie tools that programs sytems for you without having to write the logic).
I'm sure that most of the future of technical analysis is here and not only
in sophisticated programming software with sophisticated hand coding.
The discussion on Gambling indicators is sysmptomatic of a bad posting of the
problem.
As we use to say in France, we must not throw the baby with the bathtub water.
Gambling indicators work when you use the proper rules, that are necessary
complex rules.
The reason why they mainly fail is that the classical interpretation as yo
may see here or eve on Code List or in TS or in any trading software package
is because the rules are trivial.
100-200 lines of code if often a maximum for most of us.
After that we are somewhat confused in the analysis that we may translate into
programming code.
Our systems generates hundred or thousands of rules, even with three or five
indicators.
Impossible to code by hand.
Bad posting of a problem never bring good solutions.
Technical Analysis has been around for dozen of years with sounding
indicators.
The propoer rules are the missing or weak part.
This is where you may work with a chance of succes before giving up with
Technical analysis (aka Gambling Indicators).
Telling that simple rules do not work or may work by chance with simple
indicators is a trivial conclusion.
Sincerely,
-Pierre Orphelin
www.sirtrade.com
|