|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Prosper,
>What about these guys logic
> makes it work?
One answer is in the book I posted a few days ago... The Ultimate Trading
Guide by John R. Hill, George Pruitt, and Lundy Hill.
Basically, an MA system can become profitable as soon as you add a way of
checking the overall trend in a more macro sense. This eliminates a lot of
the whipsaw trades, since it takes a period of time for the macro price to
"catch up" with the faster current trend, thus eliminating suspect counter
trend entries (not all, just enough to push the system to profitability).
When I applied the really simple concepts in the book to my MA systems, my
jaw nearly hit the floor.
And of course, there are plenty of counter-trend systems out there that are
combined with the trending systems to attempt to catch it "both ways".
Just passing along what I've learned so far.... I'm far from an expert...
;-)
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Prosper" <brente@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Clyde Lee" <clydelee@xxxxxxxxxx>; <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Trading Systems
> Clyde,
>
> This is the most interesting thing that I have read about systems for
> awhile. If you don't mind I'd like to ask you a few questions.
>
> You asked if he bothered to checkout the methods used. How would someone
> find out what the method these traders used?
>
> Every new trader has tried MA, it comes with the software, but they
> almost always show loses in back testing. >
> You didn't follow the MA route did you? If not why not? Is SM better?
>
> Thanks, if you have the time.
>
> Prosper
>
>
> >Did you bother to checkout the method these guys use and
> have used for almost 30 years.
>
> I have some of Dunn's first works and they (MA believe it or
> not) still work when you follow their logic.
>
> I can remember hours spent on a SDS Sigma 5 printing out
> charts which were "plotted" with a printer with closing prices
> and a couple of moving averages working.
>
> Very informative then (1970) and still is -- don't forget the value
> of moving averages.
>
>
|