|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>mark claims to have worked for tudor and no one there has ever heard of
>him either. do you want to believe them? what have they contributed to
>the profession.why don't they tell the truth and why aren't your guns
>directed toward them. i have never done anything which would cause you
>to disbelieve me.
tom, i never said i worked for tudor! i said that if you worked for tudor
like you claimed you would have surely asked me if i was the same mark brown
that worked for tutor. i am consultant for the largest (if not then the
second largest) hedge fund in the state of Texas which has managed money for
tudor, other market wizards and hundreds of other extremely wealth
individuals who's net worth is well over 100 million dollars each. prior to
that i was a paid trader for the same firm and elected to go out on my own,
i am still a consultant for the firm that i left and am constantly requested
to help them. i developed and traded systems for this firm until only
recently and they still use models that i developed for which i am
compensated. before this i was head of research and system development for
a broker who was certainly the largest commissioned broker in the world for
smith barney when he left to start his own broker dealer a year ago (if you
want to know now who i worked for just check that out). he is the same
manager that is a principle of the hedge fund i refereed to earlier and
certainly puts ALL so called market wizards to shame with a phenomenal track
record among the best in this industry. for years i have been a contract
consultant for various BIG traders mopping up behind guys like you. there
is not a single place i have gone that didn't laugh at the mention of your
name!
>surprised. you have no compassion or trust in anyone. i observed the way
>you manhandled someone a couple of weeks ago who was grieving the loss a
>loved one.
the revenge of the cold stiff Mungo or Binky, this shows that you are not
being truthful tom because this reference to the mono affair would suggest
you have been on the list longer than you have claimed.
>once again don't speculate. get facts.
i would urge you to do the same tom, get your facts strait! while your at
it ask larry williams how come he doesn't register with the nfa and make
those claims? i would like to see you testify on his behalf before the
cftc and state the same claims that you made earlier! a unregistered
person can claim anything and get away with it and you and the omega world
bunch days are numbered.
ps tom i pulled out some old post from the archives and thought you would
want to see how your name has come up in past conversations when someone was
considering your work's value.
mb <a trademark of Mark Brown
>tom demark
Of course! I assume everyone has this problem, despite Omega's professed
ignorance. Here's my experience/analysis, and how I've learned to
live with it. From what I saw of a TS 4.0 demo, the problem is there too.
Indicators/paintbars/etc seem to color correctly; select a red plot,
and it plots red. Trendlines/horizontal lines, however, have
an inverse relationship to their color selection. Mercifully, the
error pattern seems to be consistent and bi-directional, so I can
work around the problem by simply considering color selection to be
a two-step process:
1: select the color I want; see some completely different color
2: select the color I was given in step 1; see the desired color
It's just another of those endearing traits of Omega. Who can expect
them to give us one-step color selection when they're so busy making
the immortal words of Tom deMark available to us?
jimo@xxxxxxxxxx
===========================================================
Fellow Traders,
The thread about DeMark's Sequential brings up a more interesting point,
I believe. That being the value, or validity, of published trading
methodologies - either for money or for free.
On the one hand, you read about the famous trader who said, "I could print
my
system in the Wall Street Journal and people still wouldn't follow it" or
something to that affect. I quess these people believe that disclosing
a successful trading methodology doesn't hurt its performance.
The other camp believes the opposite. If something really works well
and it is disclosed it will soon stop working because of its disclosure.
Personally, I'm in the latter camp. If you've got something that really
works (I would say consistant 25% annual return with with 12.5% max
drawdown is very, very good. You can get rich moderately quickly with
this) I believe that public disclosure would ruin it. I suspect there
is some type of fundamental arbitrage relationship between each possible
investment. Every investment competes with every other investment. The
25%/12.5% performance example is a real outlier and if publicly know,
some type of arbitrage would bring it back to the mean.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Scott
Issaquah, WA
===================================================
[Missing Duh Mark]
>The code for sequential appeared in this list before hand. I do not
>mean to question the great(?) DeMark, but I could not even bring
>myself to copy the sequntial indicator.
>Jack Weinberg
>weinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jack, I read your apparant disbelief of the greatness of the
illustrious DeMark. I once was a believer, I read his book, studied
it, worshipped it, absorbed it, slept with it (well, maybe not) and
so on. I then purchased his $2000.00 Video set, hoping it would shed
light on some of his revelations. I spent a hell of a long time
studying it and wondering if it was just me or does a lot of this
really suck.
EXAMPLE:
After forcing his innocent computer tech guy to search for 5 minutes on
camera just to find an example of Sequential that actually worked, he goes
through and when it doesn't work after all says to his tech guy " ya, slide
the curser to the right a little there, you got it! Okay, moving on...." I
wonder if I place and order with my broker whether I could call him and ask
him to cancel/ replace and slide my entry over a little?
In Video #5 he looks at the camera and says "Of course I lied in the book,
you think I am going to give everything away? No one ever helped me why
should I help you?"
(later on someone unmentioned covers for him saying it was the editors
fault, they cut the book, ya that's it! And when he said he lied, he meant
it to motivate you to find your own truth, ya right, um...whatever...)
In spite of it being the most unprofessional thing I have EVER seen in terms
of production: not following what it says it will cover, missing and
deleting topics, it actually gets worse.
One is subjected to an ego that dwarfs the stage, reminded me a lot of Leona
Helmsley. "Well, enough about ME, why don't you talk about ME for a while?"
I sent it back and was so pissed off I called M______ _________ from the
company that produced this video and told him how pissed I was, what a joke
it was, and what a bunch of liars they were. (In the intro, this gentleman
is just rapt and wrapped in the ecstacy of DeMark Discipleship)
His response was that I should really meet Mr. DeMark because all of my
points are just misunderstandings (all 74 errors,74, 74 yes, 74 were just
misunderstandings?)
He suggested that I go to a DeMark Seminar to REALLY understand. IMHO, I
think I would have to be lobotomized to understand.
OKAY: If we take the point that DeMarks ideas are just stream of
consciousness ramblings then much of my argument seems invalid. If we are
inspired to try to make sense out of something resembling his ideas than
even better. But to worship a man who no one has the audacity to question
out of respect or fear, count me out.
Other than the above I like his stuff fine.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Peace and Big Money,
===============================================
For your effort you are being awarded a lifetime supply of Crayola
DeMarkers! You can use them to physically write on your computer screen,
allowing you to augment and embellish any current data, indicator, system or
whatever you might be looking at! And when your trading results don't turn
out the way you thought, it's simple, erase your DeMarkings and start over!!
Peace and Big Money through going the extra mile,
=================================================
I just read the SC 4.0 ad in Business Investors Daily and I can't believe my
eyes. Can you beleive that they have audio/visual built in so that Larry
Williams and Tom DeMark come up and give you commentary on what is currently
going on in your chart? But as usual, the things we SC users really need
never seem to get updated or added. More fluff and more memory required.
It looks like Bill Cruz has his own agenda and to hell with the users.
Best Regards,
Craig
Amen to that. I wonder how much Omega paid Larry and Tom for their expert
prerecorded chart analysis?
Scott
Issaquah, WA
================================================
>Several versions exist. You might try Rick Saidenberg's (914-769-5164) off
>road version or Stuart Okorofsky's (914-658-9706) authorized version. The
>difference is probably significant since Tom Demark has explained that the
>rules were not fully disclosed in his book.
>
>Best Regards,
>William Brower
>Inside Edge Systems
>Publisher of TS Express
>The TradeStation Users Journal
>Free Sample Available (Send Mail Address)
>
>Internet: 1000mileman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Tel: 203-454-2754
>Fax: 203-221-9195
Also, it is worthy to note that on his VERY EXPENSIVE video set, DeMark
explains that he "didn't feel like disclosing the REAL sequential in the
book because he worked so long to discover it, why should he give it away in
a book?" To obfuscate further, his Sequential on the videos is subjective
and as he explains he is really just changing the rulles over and over and
over. I spent 4 months on this and my conclusion is that the concept of
Sequential is valid but one is infinitly better off approaching this idea
from the candlestick standpoint in Nison's BEYOND CANDLESTICKS.
Peace and Big Money,
================================================
I know this isn't a "yes - no" question, but is Tom DeMark's
Sequential system worth working with? Has anyone had any direct
experience?
DeMark has an article in the June issue of Futures, which promises
great things for users of his Sequential system, when it is applied
in short timeframes. However, the description of the system in this
article could best be described as "imprecise". There is another
description in Schwager's book on Futures technical analysis - this
differs a bit from the one in the June Futures magazine (in
Schwager's defense, he DOES advise readers to get DeMark's $50 book,
and use that as the reference).
I have programmed the Sequential rules into EasyLanguage, as best as
I can understand them. I'm sure I am not implementting something exactly
as DeMark had conceived of it. The results are interesting, but not
as spectacular as implied in the June Futures article.
So, in summary, two questions:
- Has anyone on this list ever had the level of results suggested in
DeMark's June article? Ie, that it works spectacularly when applied
in short term time horizons?
- In general, how do Okorofsky's and Saidenberg's implemations of
Sequential differ? (I guess I should just phone those guys, and ask
them!). Sounds as if Saidenberg has extended it.
Sequential has me intrigued, but then, there are so many systems out
there that promise great things, and deliver .... well, something
less.
Thanks All
===============================================
I just finished reading a study by Lars Kestner of Link Financial called
"Comparison of Popular Trading Systems" in which he gives TS testing
results, system code, performance charts, etc from testing 29 popular
systems from such authors as Bernstein, Chande/Kroll, DeMark, Jensen,
Krutsinger, and Wilder. Most of the systems look abysmal, which agrees with
my testing of almost all these systems (and more) over the years. The best
systems presented are the simple channel breakout and dual moving average
crossover ones that Donchian developed in the 1960s. The study can be had
from Link Financial, 11655 Highland Road, Baton Rouge, LA 70810.
Fred C. Dobbs
"Adverse Events Occur"
===============================================
Excuse me butting in but would you consider Demark's Sequential as described
in
mag articles as an Elliott wave technique.
It struck me as being such. The first wave and second is ignored. The second
wave is coded. The fourth wave is left largely undefined and the fifth is
coded.
Was impressed with Demark's solution to the perceived quantitisation of
an Elliott Wave "ending". He skips the irrelevant parts and codes only what
is necessary.
Can't say I am impressed with his other stuff, the code he has given in
Future's never matches what the charts values.
|