|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I hate to disagree with you. I use a system that works very well. If you were
to test each individual part, each would fail to produce a positive result over
a period of time. There would be false entries, bad objectives and late
exits. When you put all the pieces together you have a system with an
extraordinary degree of accuracy. Yet taken apart, no one part will stand
alone, give a positive result, or make you any money. When putting a system
together you have to know what each part adds to the system and why it is
there. It is a case of balance not a specific degree of accuracy for each
part. Ira
ztrader wrote:
> On Friday, June 01, 2001, 9:58:38 PM, Ira Tunik wrote:
>
> IT> I have read this post and find that there is much to be said in its
> IT> favor. There is no system that will withstand scrutiny. There is no
> IT> set of numbers, correct calls, or bottom line exposures that will prove
> IT> you right.
>
> I'm not sure what 'right' is, but there are system traders who can
> produce numerical results that others can duplicate. Some of these do
> better than 'chance' (not to start another discussion of what 'chance'
> means). :-)
>
> IT> The problem is not with the system, it is with the party executing
> IT> the system.
>
> This is always true, but it has nothing to do with the 'stats' of a
> SINGLE component of a system. It is important to distinguish analysis
> of a single component from an overall trading system. Many people
> don't do this. When asked for stats on a single idea, they respond
> with predictions for an overall trading system - two completely
> different animals.
>
> IT> If someone believes that the action of the planets can influence
> IT> the market, he/she will find justification in it.
>
> If it is a simple calculation, it can be tested as a separate idea,
> not part of an overall system.
>
> IT> I am sure that Norman uses something other then pure astro to
> IT> enter and exit his trades. He may say that certain action of the
> IT> planets will impact Beans, wheat or hogs, but I am betting that
> IT> there is something else that will trigger his entry or exit from
> IT> the trade.
>
> True, even by his own admission. However, this still leaves open the
> possibility to test the individual components of an overall system,
> one at a time.
>
> At this point, though, it is important to distinguish 'world views'.
> Some will say 'I believe that' because it sounds plausible. Others
> will say 'show me the stats'. What is 'proof' to one camp is NOT
> 'proof' to others. This difference seems to cause much strife.
>
> IT> Asking for an explanation is fine, bad mouthing is just a tool of
> IT> those with closed minds.
>
> Perhaps. It might also be a matter of language style, 'upbringing',
> and ???. I have seen good examples of people who are VERY open minded
> but terribly crude.
>
> IT> Calling the party who put it forth a fraud or charlatan is wrong,
> IT> I believe.
>
> I believe there are some genuine charlatans, that do deserve to be
> called a fraud. This business has a lot. :-)
>
> IT> You expose someone with facts, not accusations.
>
> What is a 'fact' to a 'religious' trader is NOT a 'fact' to a
> 'science' trader.
>
> It is MUCH easier to be a pure 'religious' trader - one simply has to
> say "I believe it, therefore it is". The 'science' trader must go
> through a lot of hard work to verify it through technical means before
> it becomes a 'fact'.
>
> 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/
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/
|