|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><HTML>
Please include me on your list. Thanks.
<BR>marton@xxxxxxxxxx
<BR>
<P><I>Rajesh wrote:</I>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><I>Hello,</I>
<P><I>Thanks to all. I bombarded my mentor with all your mails and clogged
his</I>
<BR><I>mailbox.Those of you who are interested in receiving direct
mail pls</I>
<BR><I>confirm this with me directly to demon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</I>
<BR><I>Lets avoid the me toos on the metastock list. If you have mailed
me</I>
<BR><I>during the last few days your name will be added to the list.</I>
<P><I>I will add you to the mailing list for updates. Will not be posting
any</I>
<BR><I>mail to the metastock list for the moment.</I>
<P><I>Rajesh</I></BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Dec 06 20:26:43 1998
Received: from listserv.equis.com (204.246.137.2)
by mail05.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.2) with SMTP id 12527
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:18:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA29844
for metastock-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:21:50 -0700
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA29841
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:21:48 -0700
Received: from smtp.email.msn.com ([207.68.143.177])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA00066
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:33:01 -0700 (MST)
Received: from user - 208.253.194.28 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:22:09 -0800
Message-ID: <001f01be2181$65ed4960$1cc2fdd0@xxxx>
From: "Jim Greening" <JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Building Blocks - Targets & Stops
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 1998 20:29:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01BE2157.162A60E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3155.0
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: c25802b0e240a954e69769118874ed5f
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Jim,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>
Yes, that's exactly what I'm shooting for, fairly tight stop protection while
still letting a strong stock run. I experimented with support and
resistance points, bull fear, and parabolic SAR for stops, but the standard
deviation trend channel made more sense to me. Of course tightening the
channel to a deviation of 1 will cause more false signals in that some stocks
will break the trend channel with a deviation of 1, while being contained in a
channel with a deviation of two. The thing we need to do there is not be
bashful about getting back into a stock we just got out of if it turns up and
breaks the last high. Also I feel better about having less of a chance in
hitting a higher target and not being taken out too often for a long position
since the overall market bias is up. I'm not as comfortable with that for
a short, but as long as I'm dealing with stocks in a down trend it should be
OK. Also breaks to the down side tend to be fast and sharp, so targets are
hit more often any way.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>JimG </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>-----Original Message-----</B><BR><B>From:
</B>Jim DeWilder <<A
href="mailto:jdewilder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>jdewilder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Sunday, December 06, 1998 11:44 AM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: Building
Blocks - Targets & Stops<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=""><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3>Jim,</FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=""><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT
size=3></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3>Actually, after fooling
around with it last night, I really like your new process. What was my
old bugaboo was when a stock decided to give up the ghost somewhere mid
channel. I would stand by the sidelines excepting it to bounce off the
bottom channel again. However, many times, it would tear right through
it and I would see my paper profits disappear and perhaps end up with a
loss. Why your new process does not totally eliminate the problem, it
significantly mitigates it. And most importantly, it walks that fine
line between protecting your paper profits with fairly tight stops while
still giving your stock enough room to run. In and sum, I like
it. I look forward to giving it a test drive.</FONT></FONT><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><FONT size=3>Jim</FONT></FONT><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2><B></B></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><B>From: </B>Jim Greening <<A
href="mailto:JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>JimGinVA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>To:
</B>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<<A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR><B>Date:
</B>Saturday, December 05, 1998 8:15 PM<BR><B>Subject: </B>Re: Building
Blocks - Targets & Stops<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Jim,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2> Thanks for the kind words! A quick
answer is that I've changed. You know I can't resist tweaking my
system <G>. I still like to look at charts on stocks I don't
have a position in with the deviation on the short term standard
deviation channel set at 2 when there isn't much data. Then after
there is a little more data with at least one reaction, I change the
deviation 1.8, 1.5, 1.3, or 1 whichever is smallest that still envelopes
all the data without intersecting any. However, over the last few
months I got to thinking that using the different extremes for my target
and stop might make more sense. I've now decided that it does and
I set the target and stop on a deviation of 2 and 1, respectively as I
described earlier today. For all my open positions I've now have
my charts set up with the short term up trend channels constructed
with a deviation of 1 even if data is intersected to give me a quick
picture of how close I am to my stops. Then a couple of times a
week I change the deviation to 2 to see if I should raise my
target. If I'm close to the target, I even check it
daily.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Do you think that makes sense
or do you like the old way better?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>JimG</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 solid 2px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Dec 06 20:26:50 1998
Received: from listserv.equis.com (204.246.137.2)
by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 1.0.2) with SMTP id 12052
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 21:49:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA30008
for metastock-outgoing; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:59:06 -0700
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA30005
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 18:59:03 -0700
Received: from m7.sprynet.com (m7.sprynet.com [165.121.1.64])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA00094
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 19:10:14 -0700 (MST)
Received: from mid-qbu-nqp-vty52.as.wcom.net (mid-qbu-nqp-vty52.as.wcom.net [209.154.71.52])
by m7.sprynet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA17730
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 6 Dec 1998 17:59:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: keiko.: mid-qbu-nqp-vty52.as.wcom.net [209.154.71.52] didn't use HELO protocol
Message-ID: <366B3535.327B0D8F@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 06 Dec 1998 20:53:59 -0500
From: Philip Schmitz <pschmi02@xxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Wanna "crack" a system??
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
References: <00e801be214e$fbf8b9e0$29c5fea9@xxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by listserv.equis.com id SAA30006
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by listserv.equis.com id SAB30008
X-Loop-Detect: 1
X-UIDL: 31cc2ba7f3a3632a7b797dd9e1d22f35
Thanks for the response Lionel. Upon reflection
it seems it might be a burdensome task to
undertake as a group, nor am I so very sure -
after further investigation - that I can crack it
on my own. But trying to plumb a sample of
supposedly successful trades will be instructive.
> If you are using publicly available information
> to develop a piece of software, there should be
> no legal problem with copyrights and patents.
No, just using the trades they posted. The other
modus would be unethical.
> There was a discussion here, about a year ago,
> about these alleged super
> dooper systems. The consensus was that most
> dont work at all or work
> poorly.
Wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps some profitable
setups can be identified by looking at these
system trades.
> Anyway, if you had developed a super system, why
> would you want to
> sell it for a few dollars?
Of course not. If I ever develop a super system -
or even just a marginally profitable one (the more
likely outcome, by far)- I will simply trade it.
Which always makes me wonder why other people
create such amazing systems and then sell them.
I'm sure it must be the milk of human kindness.
<g>
Philip
>
>
> Lionel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Schmitz <pschmi02@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Saturday, December 05, 1998 3:53 PM
> Subject: Wanna "crack" a system??
>
> A cyber-pal of mine recently told me he was
> contemplating buying a “proprietary” trading
> method (better known as a “black box”) called
> “SimpleX Position Trading System” and sold by a
> company called “Prime Line”
> http://www.prime-line.com/
>
> I checked out the website and discovered some
> interesting things. First of all, this
> “proprietary" system (with software and other
> services) will set you back $995. Secondly, it
> is
> described as combining certain elements in “a
> ridiculously simple way”. My conclusion? If it
>
> costs a $1,000 but its somehow ridiculously
> simple, maybe it would be simply ridiculous to
> part with a cool grand for something you can
> figure out yourself.
>
> At this point, I think you've either got the
> message, or you're losing interest. If you've
> lost interest, my sincere apologies for this
> long
> post: hit “delete”.
>
> But maybe you'd get a kick out of examining this
>
> system in greater detail - using only the
> materials posted publicly at the PrimeLine
> website. It could be instructive and
> profitable.
> We could thrash it out here on the list - the
> more
> years of combined experience we can harness the
> quicker we'll make progress - or perhaps there
> are
> better internet solutions available for a
> project
> of this kind.
>
> Believe me. After looking at some of the sample
>
> trades posted at the website, I don't think this
>
> is an insurmountable object.
>
> Whaddya think? Any potential legal issues here?
>
> Best regards,
> Philip
|