|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Mark-
I too am interested in what you have to say.
I completely agree with "confidence-level" of
your chosen system.
However, my only comment to the employee scenario
would be, yes, no one particular employee is perfect.
But, by definition humans are discretionary creatures.
Whereas, a system, is more robotic, or at least should
be in my opinion.
I suppose if your system is a neuralnet thats a
different story.. ;-)
in any case speak on...
-m
--- Charles Johnson <cmjohnsonxx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
>
> i think to be successful with any system you have to
> have a confidence
> level with it. know what it does, so that you can
> begin to suspect
> when it will make a killing and when it may get
> whacked. it's call the
> due effect (trade mark ;) it's what i have lived by.
> i did not invent
> the due effect i was taught it by someone, and it
> can be quantified. i
> think systems are like employees, you have to
> understand what they do
> well and what they don't and then take it at that.
> you will never get
> a perfect employee but that doesn't mean that they
> can't get the job
> done.
>
> ----------------
>
> Mark, can you go into this more? Sounds like you are
> talking about
> overlaying onto mechanical systems a discretionary
> trade/do not trade
> decision.
>
> When you say "it can be quantified," do you mean it
> can be systematized --
> i.e., you take a system and you add more rules to
> it?
>
>
|