You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Let me just balance this by saying there are many successful speculators/traders/investors that do not rely on a mechanical method. Yes, planning is integral to your success under any method, but the key is to discover a method that fits your personality.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

anyone find it strange that the chart shows no significant dip through Feb/Mar 03 despite the market diving to 2700?

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Correct Doc and thats what Ive done and it suits me.You asked for an opinion why shoot me down when I answer it from my point of veiw.I made it clear(I thought)thatyou can trade how you like.

Iam interested though-----Do you believe that you can be profitable without having a positive expectancy and NUMBERS that dont show Reward being greater than risk.If so Please explain as this would be very intesresting and valueable information!

Crashy,The trading of the method over the time you query is available for you to analyse.This is the very early days of the method and as such time hadent been working for us with those trades that were profitable.

Guess that in that time part of your question of Robustness has been answered!!!

tech

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

I don't believe I've shot anyone down...

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Tech/a

I think you misunderstood the question. I was not advocating gut feeling as a trading method. I agree that the numbers must be right.

I was just exploring the fact that a (bad ?) gut feeling might stop you from executing a trade even though your system/method and the numbers stack up.

This could occur if you had three good choices but only enough to trade one.

I personally would not ignore my gut feeling no matter how positive the system and numbers were.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

tech/a said:

Rich.

These graphs are constructed from closed trades as only when they are closed can the software record the results of the trade.
Win/Lose or Draw.

In reality we would only have a couple closing every few months with this long term method,and of a portfolio of 10 it would be fully invested in 99.9% of the time.So we would have open equity to follow as to how well we were travelling.

The chart below is one of the open profit week to week in the method as its being traded.Its equity curve(Join the tops of the bars) is much smoother than that of any closed trades equity curve of any long term method.

Click to expand...

Thanks Tech, makes a bit more sense now. Do you have a weekly bar chart of open profit for the period shown in the Equity curve (the last one you posted was for a later period)? Or did you only record closed trades early on. Or have I misunderstood how it works again (doh)! Thanks in advance.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

dutchie said:

Tech/a
This could occur if you had three good choices but only enough to trade one.

I personally would not ignore my gut feeling no matter how positive the system and numbers were.

Click to expand...

I see what you're saying now dutchie, interesting to know how to 'filter' out the worst of the 'good' choices/candidates, I'm assuming TechA can't trade all and that there are many candidates appearing at certain stages.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Dutchie.

Fair enough!
This does occure for myself and i guess to a degree when looking at the charts to make that final decision as to which trade of those alerted to take I have 2 discretionary filters.
(1)The Chart must either have clearly broken a downtrend an be in the throws of starting a new trend (Higher lows and higher highs).
And
(2)The Chart must not be in a long term range from say $1.30 to 1.65 over a number of years.

I guess when looking at charts there are some which impress more than others and as such could be seen as GUT feel.So I to use it I suppose.

Now before someone pipes up and yells "But then your not trading your system youve introduced a discretionary element".
Ive thought about that.Not all trades in the method have to be taken in fact I can and have tested if you DID take EVERY TRADE if the funds were available.The figures are rediculuous something like 35 million profit----money makes money!

Anyway Montecarlo picks random portfolios made up of those selected by the method so when we test 20000------20000 different portfolios are run over the specified timeframe.This then gives me confidence that no matter which portfolio I choose out of the possible 20000 I know the probable Maximum return and Minimum---chances are that Ill fall within the parameters.

tech

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

tech/a did you really say this? "The figures are rediculuous something like 35 million profit----money makes money!"

Now it's a $35 million dollar profit on a system that is unravelling before our very own eyes! There are doubts about the validity of the results from the Montecarlo method (flawed it has been stated), the introduction of discretionary selection and the acknowledgement that this has not been proven in a bear market. Have you noticed when tech/a answers a difficult question he doesn't answer with the facts, he is evasive.

If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck then .............

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Ok whatever!

Your posts are tedious the results are there week in week out,Im not here to prove or convince anyone about anything simply they can make up their own minds.

If you think its rubbish then treat it as so if it has value to you then enjoy.

Oh its a duck alright---very insightful.

If its got an open equity curve thats rised from day one 98K to now over 223K its probably---profitable.If starting capital was 35K and the rest margin then its probably ----Very profitable.

But hey its only a DUCK!

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

C'mon Tulip, he's got his system for all to see on another site which he has referred us to (and has offerred to send a copy of at no charge) he's not saying it's perfect but is prepared to answer constructive criticism of it. And we don't have to use TechTrader if we don't want to- no one said it's perfect. I don't understand it but I'm trying to as I may learn something from it and may be able to offer some comments once I get my head around it. Even if it is a duck it can be examined openly (to verify if it is indeed poultry or a profitable trading system). The quack comments are funny but it may just take things off track, so if you're saying he's evasive it only helps make things more so.

Again, I'm no expert on the system and TechTrader may be flawed but it's better to pinpoint the flaws than to call it a duck, especially when you have so many more constructive thoughts to offer. The recent debate around TechTrader has opened up some of the 'weakpoints', thanks partially to you, (eg selecting which candidates to go with- discretionary aspect as highlighted by DocJ) but that's only because we were constructive and raised valid issues. I don't have the math to see how $35m was made but needless to say that is just theoretical (as you need lots of money for that) and who knows if past results will yield the same in the future (We'll know in 10yrs).

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Fair comments Richkid, taken on board.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Hi Tulip,

Thanks mate for being reasonable and open enough to hear a few words from a newbie! Always dangerous on these boards now when things get heated, never know where the next one may come from.

Just one more point as far as systems evaluation goes- I've been reading Van Tharp's 'Trade your way to Financial Freedom', some of you here will be familiar with it. It talks of various biases at the start of the book, some of you who know more about systems may be able to apply that here. I know Tech would have been mindful of those pitfalls when he designed the system. It may be a better reference point for discussion. Van Tharp basically studied thousands of traders and distilled what he thought was the essence of their success and created a model around positive expectancy (that is what I understand so far). He also identified some flaws which he saw in unsuccessful traders. See the Van Tharp thread for more info https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=846.

In the end, whatever comes out of this thread it can only help make Techtrader better so hopefully techA will get something valuable out of it.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

tech/a 23 November 2004 "My apologies I will no longer be posting on this site."

I see you are still here. More dummy spits than a baby.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Yeh currently still here My interest is constantly renewed by the "Professionals"intimidation of newbies/and or those who arent in the financial profession.Particularly when directed at myself---Why are these guys so peeved at a thread on positive expectancy and my offer of credibility when asked by others?? I ask myself.

My disclosure of some truths about the simplicity of being profitable and infact the disclosure of a method that is profitable and can be monitored every week for its performance (you can sledge it as much as you like but for 2.5 yrs its STILL making $$$s last week $7k which is 20% in a week on initial capital).

Not only that but its fully disclosed and FREE to anyone who wishes to investigate it more.
Unlike the "Professional" version which will not be given away free.(I think your hoping that this will give a perception of better value!).

Youve tried all you can to discredit,cast doubt,antagonise and intimidate.
Your own exaggeration of what Ive said presented and offered has in your minds clouded the facts and what has been said and offered.

Youve proven beyond doubt to me atleast that your quick to discredit and intimidate but when challenged on personal inuendo and so called facts and Im talking about your personal attacks on myself,you have no basis.

You find it abhorant that anyone without financial training could possibly achieve financial self sufficiency,and to actually offer proof and talk about amounts can only be seen in your minds as chest beating.
Well Im here to tell you there are plenty of us.We are the people, people like you want as clients so we can put our hard earned in a managed fund that you recommend and you get the commision each year.We are also the people you want to be ---in the position if we choose to retire without government assistance.


Thats why you want to sell your way of making a quid and I give mine away-------I dont need the money you do!!

So yeh Ill stick around for a while just to make sure your guys dont hoodwink some of the posters here into thinking you have all the answers and that they are doomed without your assistance/knowledge.

While on the Professional thing.

Tulip what EXACTLY are your financial qualifications?
Crashy what EXACTLY are your financial qualifications?

Just interested.
tech

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

tech/a fair question. I'm not even remotely connected to anyone in the stock market industry. Never have been. I do not sell products or services that would, even with the seven degrees of seperation employed, get close to the stock market. Professionally I'm as far removed from the stock market as anyone could be.

Can't be clearer than that.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Seems your not one of the 2 people that Crashy is refering to.
Both must be Crashy.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Guys,

Let keep the topic the way it suppose to be. I am to learn and if you have somethings to shares then post them here. There is no point keep arguing the way it is. At the end of the day, there no benefit to anyone.

Worse of all, this forum become a fighting forum.

I hope you guys can understand.

Let shares what you got if you willing too.

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Agree..lets be "constructive" rather than "destructive"..........................

Tech/a, how about a summation of the Tips contained within the preceding post's from your perspective? It's been a long thread that has gained most forumites attention and responses from some knowledeable members..

my

Re: You can be in the 3% that make a consistant profit.

Have a look at this folks, appears to generate 'random' equity curves once you select your numbers- is that what it does? looks like anything below 3 (W/L) and 30% (win prob) is bad. Using more than one line helps (enter 3 or more in the field). Be patient while it loads properly, just hit the 'generate' button while you wait. It'll be good to discuss it in terms of this thread.

http://www.tradinglogically.com/equity_curves.htm