|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes::
>
> i just wonder how futures truth can justify the honesty when they
> allow systems like catscan and aberration to change parameters to
> curve fit the past - but yet they do not disclose this. i have in my
> possession proof that both of these models have undergone "EXTENSIVE"
> reprogramming and input changes to continually keep them profitable.
>
> example aberration - out of the just under 30 or so commodities that
> it trades well over 2/3 rds of the inputs have been changed over the
> years.
>
> example catscan - originally did not employ a trailing stop on any of
> its commodities that it trades yet, latter versions do have a curve
> fitted (specific to each market) trailing stop now.
>
> YET FUTURES TRUTH FAILED TO EVER MENTION ANY OF THESE CHANGES IN THEIR
> CONTINUAL ADVERTISING OF THESE SYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES!
Mark, I think you should try to gain a little more understanding of the
issues you discuss before making this kind of accusation.
First, I don't believe that Futures Truth has ever advertised catscan or
aberration. These systems are advertised by the vendors who sell the systems.
Futures Truth does publish performance numbers for the systems in their
publication along with 116 other systems. It could even be that Futures Truth
has published paid advertising for these systems in their publication (I
don't know one way or another). But if you feel that accepting paid
advertising from a vendor you review is unethical, you need to accuse Futures
and S&C of this also. All of these publications survive based upon the income
of paid advertising, and all of these publications are common in that they
also publish evaluations of the products they accept paid advertising from.
It could be what you say about aberration changing inputs to stay profitable
via curve fitting is true. I have not studied the advertising for these
systems. I have no idea one way or another. But I don't think it is relevant
to what you accuse Futures Truth of. Futures Truth cannot control the
advertising published by the aberration or catscan vendors.
It is my understanding that Futures Truth provides a paid service for testing
trading systems based upon the input and markets their customer provides.
Here, there is an ad on Page 2 of their publication for "Testing &
Consulting". What customers of this service do with those test results is not
under their control. It is the responsibility of the vendor publishing
advertising to be truthful in their advertising. If a vendor presents
hypothetical historical results as actual trading, they had better be
watching out because the CFTC has been taking these cases to court.
It is my understanding that Futures Truth's own publication does allow
changing inputs, but they will publish the performance up to the change using
the old inputs and the performance after the change using the new inputs. The
following in a quote from page 1 of their publication (which I have in front
of me):
"Futures Truth does not permit any "tweaking" of numbers in our report. Not
one number in our report has the benefit of hindsight, with the exception of
the detailed reports. The only numbers we show are after a vendor's most
recent modifications."
(The detailed reports are an additional cost product which are clearly
separate and distinct from the rankings in their publication. The above quote
is clearly divulging that the detailed reports can contain hindsight, so Mark
cannot claim they do not disclose this when it is in black and white on page
1.)
You talk about the 30 commodities aberration trades. This clearly points out
that you are NOT talking about the results in their publication because that
publication only ranks aberration on 7 markets. You must be talking about
something the vendor published? If a vendor publishes lies, that is not the
fault of Futures Truth. I am not clear exactly what your accusation is??
I think if you study their publication, it is quite clear what exactly they
are publishing, and what additional products and services they offer. It is
completely honest, completely disclosed. Your bashing above is a gross
misinterpretation. You misinterpretation sounds like you think they are
allowing vendors to change parameters to push systems into the Top 10 list.
That simply isn't true, unless what they say on page 1 of their publication
is outright fraud, which I find seriously hard to believe.
> tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Other conflicts which concern me about Futures "Truth:"
>
> 1) Futures Truth principles are themselves system vendors under a
different
> corporation and to my knowledge have not disclosed this fact to their
> competitors whose systems they rate, nor at the Futures Truth site. OTOH,
> their vendor site lets us know they've seen more systems than anyone else
> and therefore are experts in system design.
Nope. Fully disclosed. Let me quote again from Page 1 of their publication:
"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Futures Truth Magazine does track systems that are
created and sold by Futures Truth Company."
Isn't the real issue whether they rank their own systems by the same criteria
as outside systems? Is there any evidence that they rank their own systems
different? I doubt it.
> 2) They apparently now accept advertising from the people they "rate."
> Imagine if Consumer Reports accepted advertising from GM, but not Ford.
> Would you believe their car ratings?
I'm not sure what your point is. You feel that they only accept advertising
from trading system vendors they rate? Or is it that you feel accepting
advertising from people you rate is in general unethical? If so, Futures and
S&C and all kinds of other trade publications are also unethical. There
wouldn't be any trade publication left.
> This is not to say there is not value at their site, and who knows about
> their book, but keep your eyes wide open. As X-files say: "The truth is
out
> there," but you might not find it @ http://www.futurestruth.com
I have seen no evidence they have been untruthful about anything.
> nchrisc@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Issue 1 -- look up an article the authors wrote in futures mag a few years
> back entitled something to the effect of the "top 10 trading systems of all
> time"
Yes, they have a chapter on this in the new book also. I don't know what your
objection to this is.
> Issue 2 -- years back, seems like a lifetime ago, I approched Futures Truth
> about evalutating a system I was marketing, so that they might include it
in
> their publication. I provided them with the code, results, etc. I opted
> not to advertise in their publication. A year and a half later they had
> still "not gotten around to it." I am sure this was just a coincidence
> though. I might add that the program was very profitable during this time
> period. Just as well for me as I rapidly concluded that selling trading
> software was more trouble than it was worth.
The fact that their publication rates 118 systems and I see only a handful of
ads for system, proves that there are about 113 systems they rate who do not
advertise. There must be more to this story.
> Issue 3 --Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this will be the reaction
> to the book from those who have confidentially provided Futures Truth their
> trading systems over the years. Seems a difficult task for someone in
their
> business to divide knowledge into that coming from confidential sources and
> that from other sources. But I am sure they figured out a way to do it.
I have the book. The systems in the book are pretty general. I find it hard
to believe any vendor will contend these systems were stolen from them. By
the way, the systems are not presented as being holy grails. Only some
examples of system design.
> prosys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> Futures Truth should be rebranded: www.futures-lie.com
What have they lied about???
> 1) no extensive performance reporting
>From Page 2 of the publication:
"Detailed Reports: A complete trade-by-trade report, showing equity curves,
and all statistical information on any system that we track in our Master
Performance table. Includes over 10 years of data."
Maybe you object to having to pay extra, but I don't see what the lie is.
> 2) no forms for submitting new systems
I am sure you could email or call them if you have a system to submit. No
forms on the web site is a lie?
> 3) nasty responses to questions via e-mail
Can't comment on this. I have no idea.
> All in all, appears to be a very secretive and clandestine operation.
I don't see any factual basis for this claim.
The new book, "The Ultimate Trading Guide" is actually quite good. Sad if
people decide not to read it because of these accusations.
|