|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Steve,
I pride myself with having an open mind and I have no real desire to prove
you wrong. I am actually hoping that your mechanical systems work and that
I may be able to learn from them.
I also realize this area is not cut and dried. You could have the best
system in the world and yet due to each individuals fear, greed, emotions or
beliefs they may not follow the signals as intended.
Send me the email addresses when you are ready. If you wish, I can send out
my inquiries using BCC so that the email addresses will remain confidential.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Karnish
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 3:47 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Steve Karnish Challenge
Rick,
I can assure you I will only pick folks that "follow" the system and not
people who try to "out-think" what I do. I really haven't met too many
people who haven't suggested that they can greatly improve on what I'm
doing...only to watch them "dash themselves on the trading rocks".
RP: "No doubt you can easily pick and choose among your list to give
yourself an advantage."
No doubt, or would you be interested in contacting individuals who took my
information and didn't follow the rules. To answer your questions:
1. I have always used a proprietary system. 10,000+ hours of hard work
shouldn't be "handed" out to formula whores and unscrupulous competitors.
They are reserved for folks that have invested real money...their reward is
real returns.
2. If you look a bit closer, you would soon discover that the accompanying
tally sheet accounts for trades back to 1/1/00. Many people have traded
these signals since before I made them public two years ago (many on this
and other lists can attest to the public postings).
3. Figure out the maximum drawdowns yourself. Each trade is posted, for
every stock, and why don't you calculate and report to the forum. Drawdowns
in a particular issue means little or nothing within the larger issue of
money management. I never commit more than 10% of spec. equity on any one
"play".
4. I don't reoptimize!!! I use exactly the same oscillator to trade wheat,
beans, silver, eminis, bonds, AMAT, KLAC, (etc., ad. nauseum). Can you
spell robust?
The important thing to keep in mind here is that a bunch of people who had
no consistent approach are now making money in arenas that they never could
extract a dime from. Hopefully, a number of these traders will allow you to
ask questions about how they appreciate equity, using my mechanical system.
I will contact a bunch of them and provide you with email contacts.
Rick, I hope you discover what I say to be the truth. I'm not one to
"troll" for customers and during the last five years, I have given most of
my work out to list members. As a CTA and Registered Investment Adviser, I
do have a fiduciary responsibility to my clients and I do save the latest
and greatest approaches to those I'm responsible for.
All I can hope for is that you admit that there are people who are making
money with a totally mechanical approach. Yes, there are "tons" of
unscrupulous vendors, brokers, and snake oil salesman out in the big world.
Who's to blame for their existence? I suggest that most people want the
"grail" and are too lazy to work for it. Enter the snake oil boyz. The
public is "EZ pickens".
Unlike many unscrupulous individuals, there's nothing to hide here (unless,
you feel that my formula is being dangled as a carrot). The broad and
ridiculously robust "default levels" that I use to trade equities has
resulted in over 675 trades in the fifty stocks that I track (since 1/1/01).
Of these, over 560+ have been profitable trades. The entire world has been
party to this information the day before the trade has taken place. 83% is
tough to argue with, but hey, I am not surprised by your skepticism.
The trading public is not the greatest collection of "minds" in amerika. I
dragged all the documentation, for the year 2000, with me to wheat seminars
in January. When "beaten over the head" with audited account statements,
many producers blatantly proclaimed, "Well, I still think it's too good to
be true, so, I will continue to lose money with my current broker, doing
what I've always done". I can't help losers. Attitude is a big part of the
overall "game".
You can't substitute honesty and hard work for any aspect of trading (or for
that matter, sports, all hail the Stanley Cup Champions: the Colorado
Avalanche). I'm not smarter, or a better formula writer, or
"anything"...but, I will work harder than you or anyone else to accomplish
a task. That's why I get a bit "sideways" when people ask me for my work;
I slow down to give them the critical pieces to the approach, and then they
come back and complain that they can not duplicate my signals exactly and
can I please "disclose" exactly what I do. Wow.
The 83% track record that is public displayed is a record that has been
compiled with broad sweeping "defaults". Great improvements to this record
can be achieved by "optimizing" trigger levels...but, that's where this
discussion started: over optimization. So, what you see at the site is not
how I handle managed or institutional money. You get what you pay for.
Since, absolutely nobody has ever had to pay a dime for this information, I
tend to bristle when people criticize my approach, my results, or any aspect
of this "free" contribution.
My contributions are mostly posted to attract open-minded traders that lead
to exchanging information about approaches to the markets. Thankfully, I
have met and correspond with a great bunch of folks who seldom surface
publicly on this or other forums. Other traders that are now "friends" are
quite visible and their contributions stand out in print.
I'll wade through bunches of criticism to cement another sound relationship
with a fellow trader. I'm beyond trying to convert folks to my way of
trading. I just want to occasionally tell people that they are full
of --it, if they get way off the "reality track". This attracts a certain
type of private response that results in collaborations that result in
better approaches.
Here's hoping that you report honestly and accurately what you find.
Mechanical, optimized approaches make the most sense for me. I try to prove
it everyday...publicly. To certain investors, my approach is the epiphany
that they have prayed for.
Take care,
Steve Karnish, CTA
Cedar Creek Trading
http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Parsons" <RickParsons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <kernish@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Steve Karnish Challenge
> Steve,
>
> I guess if I'm a cynic, it is because it is what I have experienced and
seen
> in the past. As I said on my email, I am open minded enough to realize
> anything is possible. So I accept your challenge.
>
> I will check with a dozen users if you provide me their email addresses.
I
> sincerely hope you and your users prove me wrong. If I am wrong, then I
> will be more than glad to apologize. I probably will even trade your
system
> and become your strongest supporter. And I will have learned a valuable
> lesson too!
>
> Of course we must all realize you have the advantage of picking the dozen
> names. No doubt you can easily pick and choose among your list to give
> yourself an advantage.
>
> I have been looking over your website and have a several questions:
> 1) Are the free stock picks chosen by using the free momentum oscillators
> listed on your website? Or do you use a proprietary system?
> 2) I see your charts showing buy and sell signals go back one year. For
> how long have you actually traded these systems using real money?
> 3) I notice many of your buy signals show large drawdowns before they
> recover and exit at a profit. Can you post the system statistics on each
> stock chart so we can see the maximum drawdowns?
> 4) How often do you re-optimize the momentum oscillators if at all?
>
> Thanks for taking the time to help me understand your methods.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Karnish
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 2:32 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: QQQ System Test Optimizations
>
>
> Rick,
>
> I seldom waste my time with cynics...but, which would you prefer: audited
> statements or a list of a dozen clients to contact?
>
> The problem is not developing something that works...the problem is
dealing
> with people, like yourself, who are so prejudiced and frustrated by their
> own inability to appreciate equity (they "transfer" these inadequacies to
> all traders, brokers, and vendors).
>
> You got it all wrong Rick: Optimized systems are the "holy grails" we all
> dreamed about. They just happen to be lethal weapons in the hands of the
> pompous, unskilled and skeptical.
>
> I dare you to call my clients. I will give you all the numbers if you
> report your findings and then apologize and admit that you are dead wrong.
> Blantant indictments are stupid and obtuse. Maybe if you could actually
> develop something that worked and then had the character to follow the
> rules, you'd feel differently about the subject. In the future, watch
what
> you say: the "thought police" WILL pull you over when you drive down that
> "dark road" you've chosen to cruise on.
>
> I've found that the largest critics of investment strategies often are the
> folks who fall into the traps that they criticize publicly. Moral: "Qui
non
> intellegit, aut taceat aut discat".
>
> Take care,
>
> Steve Karnish, CTA
> Cedar Creek Trading
> http://www.cedarcreektrading.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Parsons" <RickParsons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:54 AM
> Subject: RE: QQQ System Test Optimizations
>
>
> > Rudoff,
> > Let me ask you this: Have you or anyone ever found an optimized system
> that
> > has worked in every market over the course of years? (The Holy Grail)
How
> > many really manage to follow an optimized system over a long period of
> time
> > and ended up with a return that beats the market averages?
> >
> > I am sure there may be a few but I bet over 90% of all who have tried
have
> > given up their system at some point due to excessive drawdown, losses or
> > emotional second guessing.
> >
> > I often see advertisements in magazines or on the net for "optimized" or
> > "curve fitted" systems that supposedly give wonderful returns. Then I
> look
> > at the testimonials. Almost all testimonials are people who tried the
> > system and were one of the few lucky ones to make money in their first
few
> > trades. They then rave about the system. But I have never seen a
> > testimonial where a user says "I have been trading this system for 12
> months
> > (or more) and have consistently made money every single month for year
or
> > more.
> >
> > Often I will email the owners of the "system" and ask them if I can
> contact
> > some of their customers or if they have any chat rooms where the system
> is
> > discussed. Almost every time they will say "We cannot give out customer
> > names due to privacy concerns" and "We do not have a chat room". If
they
> > say this it is because they don't want you to know that there are a lot
of
> > unhappy customers out there. If the system was really that good, the
best
> > way a company can get more customers is to let current customers rave
> about
> > the product in a chat room. But you don't see that. At least I
haven't.
> >
> > Perhaps someday someone will develop a system that does give consistent
> > market average beating returns year after year. Perhaps one exists
right
> > now. I am open minded enough to know that anything is possible but I
will
> > need to be able to verify the system by contacting customers who have
> proven
> > it works over a long period of time.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of rudolf stricker
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:31 AM
> > To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: QQQ System Test Optimizations
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 13:03:28 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > >Optimization is a variant of curve fitting.
> >
> > This looks confusing to me...
> >
> > Optimization is a process to select systematically a "best" set of
> > values for a given parametric model to meet some given goals. So its
> > not a bad thing at all, and I cannot understand this "optimization
> > bashing" going on here.
> > Moreover, _any_ TA work uses optimization, e.g. selecting an indicator
> > from several available _is_ optimization.
> >
> > Most things criticized here in context with optimization do not deal
> > with optimization itself but rather with a "bad" parametric model
> > (e.g. robustness) or with an insufficient goal function (e.g. max
> > drawdown, number of loosing trades, etc).
> >
> > >Curve fitting has been used for
> > >a very long time to analyze data. One of the caveats of curve fitting
is
> > >that you don't use the fitted curve for conditions that are beyond the
> > range
> > >of data.
> >
> > Curve fitting is a fully accepted application area of general system
> > modeling (i.e. a combination of a parametric model, a goal function,
> > and an optimization procedure). And of coarse extrapolation can be a
> > dangerous thing, if the _parametric model_ does not cover e.g.
> > changes of the system behavior over time.
> >
> > So, we should not blame system optimization for everything done badly
> > during parametric model and/or goal function setup.
> >
> > mfg rudolf stricker
> > | Disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
> >
>
>
|