|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT
color=#000080>
Bravo Jerry! I think it's a case of Forest for the Trees
syndrome. Also in America we are always looking for a bargain. Cheaper is
better. Well, cheaper is not always better. </FONT></EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#000080>The best firms are
in the business of providing the best service. But it is a business, and the
best sometimes costs a little more. You wouldn't walk into a Jaguar dealer
expecting them to supply you with their car at Hyundai prices and then storm off
indignantly when they </FONT></EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#000080>could not.
Or 'cleverly' proclaim that they were trying to cheat you and that you
know better.</FONT></EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#000080>Yes it amazes me
that some traders do not value it as an intrinsic part of their basic
cost</FONT></EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#000080>of doing business,
and that it is money well-spent.</FONT></EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM><FONT color=#000080> As George
Sorros once said," Pay peanuts...Expect Monkeys. -
D.B</FONT>. </EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM></EM></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=System size=4><STRONG><EM>
</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: <A
href="mailto:Jdonato98@xxxxxxx";>Jdonato98@xxxxxxx</A> <<A
href="mailto:Jdonato98@xxxxxxx";>Jdonato98@xxxxxxx</A>><BR>To: RealTraders
Discussion Group <<A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>Date:
Thursday, May 27, 1999 9:40 AM<BR>Subject: On-Line Trading &
Commissions<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>>It never ceases to amaze me, we as traders,
especially Future and options, <BR>>that we spend thousands of dollars on
books, magazines, day-trading <BR>>subscriptions, trading systems, software,
real time and delayed quotes, and a <BR>>host of other services to help us
find the "Magic Trade", but we won't spend <BR>>$20 to $30 to place
a trade directly with a broker.<BR>>Everyone is trying to get into the market
for $5 to $10 and then complain <BR>>about bad fills, delays in execution,
and a loss of money because of it.<BR>>Do you realize we are talking about
less than 1 tick on the bonds or crude <BR>>oil or any of the other
commodities?<BR>>A good broker with a reputable firm will save you more than
that and give you <BR>>your fill while you are on the phone and watch your
trades and stops. Plus he <BR>>will normally assist you with his own view of
the markets.<BR>><BR>>All the Best,<BR>>Jerry Donato
<BR>></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu May 27 15:32:11 1999
Received: from list.listserver.com (198.68.191.15)
by mail05.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.4) with SMTP is 2147426188
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:55:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id LAA16547;
Thu, 27 May 1999 11:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo11.mx.aol.com (imo11.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.1])
by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with ESMTP id LAA16427
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 27 May 1999 11:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from OatTrader@xxxxxxx (532)
by imo11.mx.aol.com (IMOv20) id 3XOWa03096
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 27 May 1999 14:47:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <e9bab996.247eed43@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:47:31 EDT
Reply-To: OatTrader@xxxxxxx
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: OatTrader@xxxxxxx
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FUTR: BET SIZE
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows sub 4
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.1 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: 0e5d3323e0e38743ec414dbb895e5ed4.08
RT's,
I developed a T-bond/D-Mark method several years ago, it does not trade
much due to a filter I call "One close against." If in a downtrend and
yesterday is an upclose, only now do I possible have a signal for tomorrow.
Upon backtesting and real time trading, "One close against" reduced my trades
in half, but only reduced my profits by 20%. The drawdown though went down
66%.
Using the information of backtesting, I tested how many times I would
have a string of losses (drawdown), upon viewing this, I discovered that I
seldom had three losses in a row. So I tested if I would add one more
contract when I had three contracts and the results were very favorable. Then
I tested that I would add one contract if I had two losses in a row and that
came out favorable, then if a third loss, I would add additional contract and
again, it did well. After a profit, I would drop down to one contract size.
The last test I am currently working on is if I had two or three losses
in a row and then get a profit, keep the same contract size for one more
trade and so far that has been very good so far.
I believe that one needs to backtest enough to know what the most string
of losses occur before one just adds contracts. I was trading a method in
1993, at one stage I lost 23 trades in a row, luckily I only lost $5400, but
had I added another contract after ten losses, I'd been wiped out.
Jim
|