|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
"--" <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Speaking of shit that doesn't work, the rina system's portfolio analysis
>sucks. Notice that the Sharpe ratio is negative in the report yet the equity
>curve is positive.
Hmmm.... Your negative Sharpe ratio is RINA'S responsibility?
Your system has a negative Sharpe ratio yet produces a perfectly smooth equity
curve graphically. I'd be interested in an experienced system developer's take
on that. I have trouble with that, but my experience with mechanical systems is
limited. The only mechanical system I developed and licensed to a hedge fund had
a sharpe ratio of 1.86 (RINA's system portfolio analysis did not suck), yet its
equity curve was not quite as pretty as yours. Not that I would doubt your 120%
annual return. Any system that is in harmony with EW should do that well, and it
appears that your system is an interpretation of Mandelbrot's adaptation of
EW's.
> I was a sucker for Elliot Waves, once.
> Have you ever considerd that 2 people can look at the
> same type of market data and arrived at 2 similar, yet different
> conclusions?
Yes, but that is not what I believe happened. Mandelbrot admits awareness of
Elliott's work. They are not arriving at different conclusions. I believe
Mandelbrot re-labeled and re-packaged Elliott waves. You seem to be
pre-occupied with who invented the term 'fractal' without having much concern
for its meaning.
> Have you ever considered that Elliot Waves are nothing more than byproducts /
> side
> effects of a naturally underlying market phenomena and not the Holy Grail?
I think you are making my point with that statement. That point is that Elliott
waves describe the structure of the markets.
> : 2) Done by Prechter (see attachments)
>
> Where's the beef?
Attachments were removed because of size limitation. Prechter's reply to the
1999 Scientific American article can be downloaded from
http://traders2traders.com/myfiles/brigitte/credit_missing.zip. The text file
references the following drawings:
http://traders2traders.com/myfiles/brigitte/figures.gif (Web links courtesy of
Colin West).
> I know Elliot waves. I know its subjectivity makes it fraught with danger in
> trading. If you know it, why not create a trading system out of it? After,
> the rules are simple, right? 5 waves up and 3 waves down? In the 5 waves
> up....
Ill-informed description, and EW's are not simple, they are c_o_m_p_l_e_x. You
cannot use EW Theory like directions on a box of macaroni and cheese. You need
to develop skills to apply the theory to analysis, and more skills to apply the
analysis to trading.
> If you're gonna throw in some Fibonacci numbers, you might as well as throw
> in some Gann angles
I do. I throw in Fibonacci numbers and Gann lines right and left.
>
> Well, I need you prove to me that Elliot waves work.
I don't need to prove anything. Traders who are in the markets to prove things
do not have a primary goal of making money and their judgement will be clouded
by excessive emotional baggage. Those who fail to understand that blame Elliott,
data vendors or RINA for their failure.
> Create a trading system out of it. If it can beat my interpretation of
> Mandelbrot's mapping function (atatched GIF files), I'll give creadence to
> it. Until then, to me, Elliot Waves are nothing more than a side effect/ by
> product/ waste product of a naturally occuring market phenomena Elliot/
> Precther/ Posner don't understand/ comprehend.
There is a public record of my trading performance. Earlier this year, I won a
national trading contest which had 11,500+ participants. My 30 day return was
241.98 %, using a non-mechanical Elliott Wave system. I have no incentive to
"convert" you to my trading style. I trade your emotions, which have a fractal
dimension. The same mental process which compels you to resort to profanity in a
trading dialog also compels you to buy when I sell and sell when I buy. I
appreciate your participation in the patterns I trade.
BAK
P.S: Please consider any question I may have asked as rhetorical. I have no
interest in a further dialog with you.
|
