|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Friday, June 01, 2001, 5:20:20 PM, delta88343@xxxxxxx wrote:
dac> It would be unfortunate in my opinion if many of the experienced traders on
dac> this list were to leave.
This might be affecting the quality of posts and/or topics already.
Some are referring to RT as the 'Mystic Traders List'. :-) There seems
to be a bias against 'science/system' traders.
dac> I understand some have been vexed by the knee jerk reaction of the moderator.
I am most vexed by the inconsistent approach. I find the snide
remarks, innuendo, and general 'slithery' behavior of other members
JUST as offensive, if not more so. Why are these people allowed to
keep up this behavior, while the 'cursers' are immediately removed?
dac> Certainly some of the actions taken have not been moderate.
I did not see any evidence of warnings. It might be a good idea to
first have a private warning, then a public warning, and then off. A
public warning would help to better define the bounds of the list.
However, this might expose, even more, a bias from the moderators.
dac> But it's the way these challenges are being expressed which some
dac> find objectionable.
That is sometimes true.
dac> I know first hand because many find Delta a bunch of hogwash. But
dac> even after I make a number of accurate projections, it's still
dac> hogwash.
I don't believe anyone said it was hogwash. There were some questions
regarding stats, though.
It is VERY important to not confuse the results of an overall trading
system (projections) from a simple stat calculation (some thing
predicts pivots). The former involves many things, the latter is
simpler and can be tested more easily.
dac> I don't recall who, or is it whom, but I was asked for some statistical
dac> correlation of the Delta points.
It might have been me, but others asked similar questions.
dac> I posted them showing I believe a 79% statistical correlation
dac> between the projected dates and actual turning points.
What you posted was a chart, not an analysis.
dac> I never received any feedback regarding my analysis which anyone
dac> could have verified that saved a chart I have posted?
I, and a few others, pointed out that to our eyes, it did NOT look as
you said it did. I, and at least one other poster, mentioned how
easily the eye can be fooled. I also gave a semi-numerical example of
how a day or two of 'slop' can produce very misleading results that
LOOK VERY GOOD but have terrible stats.
dac> But what ever happened to the response to mine?
I, and others, responded multiple times to your posts. Quite a while
ago, I did a numerical analysis (not charts) of delta 'turning points'
and found it to be no better than chance. I even wrote to WW about the
results. He did NOT dispute them, and had NO analyses that were
contrary. Since than, I have yet to see a numerical analysis of delta
that does better than chance. If you have one, please let me know. I
have been waiting several years for this. :-)
dac> Not by stating or implying that their methodology is BS, but
dac> simply though query, and done so appropriately.
My query is repeated above, and if not appropriate, tell me why.
dac> Don't belittle someone's efforts and then sit back with pompous
dac> arrogance (not that anyone is doing this) exuding the air that
dac> your system is better than theirs and you proved it in front of
dac> everyone.
Unfortunately, we have many who get into the 'my ???'s bigger'n yours'
comparison. It is more appropriate, IMHO, to examine ONE idea at a
time, without mixing it up with others, and get a better understanding
of that ONE idea by itself. This does NOT mean that it will not be
combined with others to trade. Let's keep ideas straight.
dac> I work with and manage about 200 adults....a term I use loosely.
dac> It never ceases to amaze me how many adults display the same
dac> type of behavior as does my 4 year old daughter.
Much Internet behavior seems to be even more immature and/or
ridiculous. :-)
dac> But many covet their trading systems as they covet their
dac> religion.
I believe it is useful do identify the 'religious' and 'science'
traders. Their 'world views' are VERY different.
dac> But let's accomplish that task through the process of query, and
dac> required proof.
What is 'proof' to the 'religious' camp is NOT 'proof' to the
'science' camp, and vice versa. It is important to recognize that.
dac> Can't we all play together?
Not very well, it would seem. :-)
ztrader
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|