|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>The only reason for tweaking would have to
be if the system is failing so it is the signals and only the signals
from the point that the system is finished, no adjustments.<
I see your point: if a system has made 100's of millions in an
audited real money track record, spanning 4 decades, it has "failed" since
it was "tweaked?"
BW
>From: "Prosper" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: "Don Roos" <rosewood@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Bill Wynne"
><tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <cwest@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
><omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Trading Systems
>Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 14:31:00 -0600
>
>
>Dang, but you’re not supposed to be proving my side of the issue. I
>simply stayed with the original statement that I made. Since you are
>challenging it, I get to make up the rules and definitions. I said can
>and will, I didn't say when. I never said that systems have no value,
>you said that, so we won’t address whether they may have value or not.
>I assure you that the time is very real. It has to work forever, or not.
>
>We have got to do some repair here since I gave into you and said that
>you were right, my new found faith in systems is starting to waver. We
>just can't have constant tweaking and have a true system, which is what
>the discretionary traders do. The only reason for tweaking would have to
>be if the system is failing so it is the signals and only the signals
>from the point that the system is finished, no adjustments.
>
>We are getting tired of this by now, so let’s just forget the proof and
>rules and go with the faith. Systems are good, you will make money, use
>them frequently.
>
>Prosper
>
>
>
> > Your position is untennable since you are saying a system is of no
>value if
>it does not last 10, 1000, or 10,000 yrs. Get real! A great system
>that
>lasts just 3 years can create enough capital to retire on as long as one
>does not pyramid or trade in a cowboy fashion. So if it starts to
>become
>less effective, *move on*. Your are not married to a system just like
>one
>should not be married to a stock. If you own a Honda, it takes you
>300,000
>miles, then dies or retires, does that mean it was not a great car?
>Systems
>are created by people and people as well as markets change. Good
>discretionary traders are continually adjusting their methods and making
>necessary changes to stay at the top of their work. If they don't,
>they
>become less effective, just like systems can. So a claim of infinite
>time
>being required for a material object or method is contrary to the laws
>of
>physics and thus a ludicrous position from which to argue. I'm sure you
>can
>come up with a better reason than that not to trade systems.
>
>
|