|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Hello Peter,
There are always a few on every list who take things out of context and then
distort even those items. I never made any claims about anything or made
any even remote solicitations - nor would I ever use a forum such as Omega
List, Realtraders, etc. in such a low-budget manner. I'll leave that to
others on this list. So please give it a break. It is this sort of
behavior that deters me from posting on these forums in any consistent
manner.
There has always been an ongoing argument of discretionary versus system
trading, and I am certain there always will be. IMHO, computers are great
tools but cannot replace humans, but a balance between technology and human
judgement is much more appropriate - at least that is what works for me. I
have a few entries/setups that I always look for each day and try to take
all that I see. From there it is my judgement of the current environment
that I use to manage each position. I am not always right, but I am right
much more than I am wrong.
And I couldn't disagree with you more that "reading the price action" cannot
be taught or learned. I was taught and I learned, so why can't anyone else?
There is nothing special about me or what I do each day that someone else
can't do as well or better.
You can trade your neuronets, AI, and/or any other system you like, and I
will keep on doing it the way that has worked for me and the way I was
taught. And that is to read the price action, take the trades, manage the
trades based upon the environment, and trade WITHOUT AN OPINION OR BIAS TO
MARKET DIRECTION. And hopefully we will BOTH profit.
See it...Believe it...Trade it
Have a nice weekend,
Bob
WWW.PRICE-RULES.COM
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Hoon <phoon@xxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, February 19, 2000 1:18 PM
Subject: RE[3]: Which holds promise
>I want to amplify on comments Mark Brown made in response to Bob Heisler's
>post. I feel Bob's comments could dangerously mislead new traders on this
>list, and lead to a lot of pain and damaged bank accounts.
>
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>BH> For one it's a lot more fun as I like making my own decisions. It
>BH> is also much more satisfying.
>
>MB>good for you.. Bob
>
>I spent a year paper trading a discretionary "system" with a known guru.
It
>was a completely disillusioning experience. The guru sent faxes claiming
to
>have made great trades, but I could never learn what cues from our common
>indicators he was "really" using to get off these great trades.
Questioning
>him was frustrating; he could never communicate clearly. In retrospect,
the
>claims in the faxes were fraudulent; the guru never got off the great
>trades he claimed, either. A conversation with another student who spent a
>year doing the same, revealed that she too was never able to grasp the
>guru's methods; he always came up with exceptions to his rules, that had
>never been previously discussed that he claimed explained his great
>decisions, and great trades. Don't repeat our frustrating experience.
>
>BH> Systems are also subject to drawdowns, and sometimes severe ones,
>BH> I am unwilling to accept those.
>
>MB>are you saying you have no drawdowns? I think that's what your implying
>MB>after reading below that you expect to never have a loosing day!
>
>With a carefully designed and back tested system, you will see that in the
>real world, drawdowns happen. The advantage with systematic trading is you
>can ascertain ahead of time their size, and be prepared for them when they
>come, and trade through them successfully. If you have spent 3 months
>trying to design a system for your time frame and market, and it has
>unacceptable drawdown, you know this ahead of time, and you haven't traded
>it and lost money! You've just lost some time. The danger with
>discretionary trading is that you will think "you're off your game", and
>quit trading because you ascribe the draw down to some failure of your own.
>Or you will continue a bad "discretionary" system and loose more money.
>And if you really don't know what you are doing (i.e., being a
discretionary
>trader), your drawdown could get really large.
>
>BH> If you can read the price action and execute there is no reason
>BH> to have a losing day (barring order entry errors).
>
>MB>GET REAL! what planet do you live on?
>
>A claim to some undefined power to be able to "read price charts" will
>never get to a set of clear rules, in code, that can be tested and refined,
>or possibly rejected. And the belief that one can magically pass this on
to
>students is equally ludicrous.
>
>Bob, can you imagine noting the relationship between breast tumor size and
>patient demographics by "price reading" the raw numbers we got from 15
>hospitals and hundreds of patients? We published the paper, and found the
>important relationships by studying Pearson product moment correlations
that
>came from statistical and computer analyses of our data!
>
>After two years of collaboration between an AI programmer, and the nation's
>leading human internal medicine diagnostician (they argued a lot during
>those years!), guess who the world's best internal medicine diagnostician
is
>now? It's an AI program at Carnegie Mellon called MYCIN. Before long,
>every MD will carry a laptop with MYCIN and its counterpart for all other
>branches of medicine with him/her to the patient's bedside. To avoid AI,
>will mean a lawsuit. Gary Fritz cited the AI research from the 70's and
80's
>that shows the revolutionary import of AI for almost all branches of
>knowledge. A classically coded EL system is an AI system too.
>
>NN - FL AI is here for trading now: Wardsystems.com and Sirtrade.com.
These
>packages along with classical programming code, can induce rules from data
>and indicators, and produce explicit, testable, refinable, tradeable
systems
>that can detect many non-obvious relationships that you can not see (much
>less verbalize) with your eye-brain hookup.
>
>AI that you develop through more traditional "linear" classical programming
>in EL, or in TW with VB and C++ may be equally good, or even superior.
>
>BH> And any system has to be based upon somebody's opinion. I have
>BH> already learned that my opinion s-cks and the market couldn't care
>BH> less about it, so I am unwilling to trade someone else's opinion
>BH> or my own. There is more than one way to trade successfully, so in
>BH> the end we just have to find what works for us.
>
>MB>Then Bob how is it that you are going to teach your students to trade
>MB>if each has to find their own way? Your web site makes for very
>MB>interesting reading.
>
>During my 25 years of teaching medical students to learn to become
>diagnosticians, and and in one case, to recognize the signs of overt
>psychosis from explicit
>diagnostic criteria (which they have in their hands on a sheet of paper),
>the ludicrous nature of Bob's statements should be apparent to all. How
can
>an effective teacher say: "my opinion s-cks" to his students? How can an
>effective teacher then turn and say: "you have to find your own way"? Can
>you imagine turning loose my green residents in a hospital of
>psychotic patients, and saying to them: "You each have to find your own
>way?" How many of my residents would emerge the next morning alive?
>
>Bob, it is the teacher's responsibility to make what he is teaching clear,
>applicable, productive and useful. If the students aren't learning, and
>can't apply what you teach, and what you teach is not explicit, then you
>should stop teaching, and most important, stop making claims about the
>efficacy of your "price reading" methods.
>
>The traders I have encountered who claim to be teachers of discretionary
>methods, such as your self, have never had any solid, lengthy, supervised
>training and
>experience teaching at the undergrad or grad level. They have never been
>graded by their Chair and by their students, and have never had to respond
>to feedback for ways to improve. Have you?
>
>All knowledgeable professional traders trade concrete, testable,
replicable,
>refinable (yet imperfect) coded systems. Read the list or book writings of
>Charlie Wright, Jake
>Bernstein, Mark Brown, Pierre Orphelin, Bob Fulks, Mark Jurik, Kent
Rollins,
>Chuck LeBeau, Gary Fritz, Clyde Lee, Perry Kaufman, Linda Raschke, Thomas
>Stridsman, Cynthia Kase, Murry Ruggiero, and yes, even Larry Williams, and
>many more. The
>big financial institutions spend millions to get to explicit code and/or AI
>systems to manage
>big money; do you think for a minute they will take chances with their
>client's money and give it to discretionary traders? Do you think Clinical
>Supervisors will take chances with the diagnostic ramblings of a Pediatric
>Intern and a five year old with a 105 degree fever, when a laptop with AI
is
>sitting on the table? Be serious!
>
>Charlie Wright makes the point that when you sit down in the morning to
>trade, your job is to execute your classically coded or NN FL AI system.
>You have enough problems with
>trade execution and hassles with your broker ahead of you for the day.
>You'll face fatigue and trading loosers. You
>should never have to worry about whether you should take a trade, what your
>charts mean, whether your guru sees the same thing you do, where you will
>exit, what size you will trade, whether the
>moment to call your broker has come.
>
>BH> Bob
>
>MB>Mark
>
>Peter
>
|