[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re[4]: [RT] Re: SP foracast



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Hello Adrian,

Now we have 2 statements:

"Hurst may in fact be able to achieve 90% accuracy" (yours)

and

"[Hurst] Proven to be 90% accurate" (Greg's)

see  they  are different?

For example, I may in fact be able to make 10 billions a year. But,
regrettably, this is not "proven" :-)

Best regards,
 Alex                            mailto:alex_bell@xxxxxxx


Monday, June 3, 2002, 2:27:56 PM, you wrote:

AP> Alex, 

AP> Perhaps if I explain via an example you will understand, Its not
AP> complicated.
AP> Lets say I have a method that is capable of 100% accuracy as to
AP> forecasting a future price level. The problem is I don't know when or
AP> how long it will take to achieve.  It may go straight up to my level or
AP> it may hang around and do nothing for ages...or perhaps have a severe
AP> collapse first then achieve my objective.  ANYONE who has ever done
AP> system testing knows that as soon as you introduce rules to control risk
AP> your win% suffers as you simply cant wait or sit through those occasions
AP> where your forecast is 100% accurate but you lose your money before it
AP> gets there.  This is why Hurst may in fact be able to achieve 90%
AP> accuracy but whether that carries over to trading is another matter in
AP> real time.  

AP> Adrian

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alex Bell [mailto:alex_bell@xxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Monday, 3 June 2002 7:57 PM
>> To: Adrian Pitt
>> Subject: Re[2]: [RT] Re: SP foracast
>> 
>> 
>> Hello Adrian,
>> 
>> okay.  Just  let  us don't misuse words. To me (and I believe to other
>> traders)   "100%   mechanical"  obviously  means  "mechanical  trading
>> system".  I  hardly  take  seriously  statements  implying  
>> that "100% mechanical"  means  "not  a mechanical trading 
>> system". As for general principle,  I  don't see how it can 
>> be measured to be right 90% if not mechanically  i.e.  by 
>> some objective method. Also, I see no reason to think  about 
>> 60% winners in certain circumstances because no objective 
>> tests  were  shown. (letting alone that % winners itself 
>> means nothing in system testing)
>> 
>> Best regards,
>>  Alex                            mailto:alex_bell@xxxxxxx
>> 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Kwick Pick opens locked car doors,
front doors, drawers, briefcases,
padlocks, and more. On sale now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/ehaLqB/Fg5DAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/