|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Alex,
What on earth are you going on about....of course my statements are
different. Are you totally insane. Its been over 10 years since I read
Hurt's book. I wouldn't have a clue whether he had proven his ideas to
90% accuracy...I was trying to make an overall point, but it seems to
have gone totally beyond your one dimensional thinking. I'll leave it
there. I'm sure most others on this list understood my point.
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Bell [mailto:alex_bell@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, 3 June 2002 8:54 PM
> To: Adrian Pitt
> Subject: Re[4]: [RT] Re: SP foracast
>
>
> 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. Lets say I have a method that is capable of 100%
> AP> accuracy as to forecasting a future price level. The problem is I
> AP> don't know when or how long it will take to achieve. It may go
> AP> straight up to my level or it may hang around and do nothing for
> AP> ages...or perhaps have a severe collapse first then achieve my
> AP> objective. ANYONE who has ever done system testing knows that as
> AP> soon as you introduce rules to control risk your win%
> suffers as you
> AP> simply cant wait or sit through those occasions where
> your forecast
> AP> is 100% accurate but you lose your money before it gets
> there. This
> AP> is why Hurst may in fact be able to achieve 90% accuracy
> but whether
> AP> that carries over to trading is another matter in 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/
>
>
------------------------ 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/
|