|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
> markbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Mark, you are misinformed. You are drawing conclusions from incorrect
information. Please read what I say below carefully before reacting, and I
think you will realize you are incorrect. As to whether you are able to then
admit you are incorrect, I won't hold my breath.
> Eac> First, I don't believe that Futures Truth has ever advertised catscan
or
> Eac> aberration. These systems are advertised by the vendors who sell the
> Eac> systems.
>
> what planet do you live on? reference futures truth top ten each
> month!
Futures Truth sells a publication where they independently rank (in the copy
in front of me) 118 trading systems. See below...
> Eac> But if you feel that accepting paid
> Eac> advertising from a vendor you review is unethical, you need to accuse
Futures
> Eac> and S&C of this also.
>
> YEA WELL...IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK
Let the readers of this mailing list take note. Mark Brown says that not only
Futures Truth, but Futures Magazine and S&C are also unethical. Readers,
please draw your own conclusions from this.
> WAKE UP FOOL!
>
> OH so now you admit YOUR IGNORANT? RIGHT?
The above are more quotes from Mark Brown :-) :-)
> Eac> It is my understanding that Futures Truth provides a paid service for
testing
> Eac> trading systems based upon the input and markets their customer
provides.
> Eac> Here, there is an ad on Page 2 of their publication for "Testing &
> Eac> Consulting". What customers of this service do with those test
results is not
> Eac> under their control.
>
> AGAIN i reference you to the top 10 trading systems which appears in THE
> MAGS each month. They are publishing those claims not the vendor!
Your statement here is critical to my point. You are showing that you simply
do not understand. See below...
> > If a vendor publishes lies, that is not the fault of Futures Truth. I am
not clear exactly what
> > your accusation is??
>
> and how old is your publication?
My publication? I have no publication. But I do have a copy of Futures
Truth's publication sitting in front of me. They have been publishing this
magazine for many years.
> i'm not talking about a publication
> man - i'm talking about the manual that comes with the friggin system
> dude! i know what i have and i have two of them which were purchased
> years apart and they are totally re optimized on a basket of just
> under 30 commodities. maybe your little trade show pamphlet has only 7
> commodities - gee vunder why?
Mark, your own words to me, copied here from above: "what planet do you
live on?". I must ask you, what planet you are living on? You are not aware
that the original business and still the main business of Futures Truth is
that they publish a magazine every other month? I am not talking about a
"little trade show pamphlet". You bash Futures Truth like this when you have
never even seen their main publication?
The story is that John Hill originally formed Futures Truth many years ago in
reaction to scams by trading system vendors. The goal was to publish truthful
and accurate performance results without the benefit of hindsight, so that
potential trading system purchasers would have a source of information other
than the vendor advertising. They have been successfully doing this for many
years, and they sell a publication, updated every other month, for $30, which
lists the test results. I have never heard any credible source claim their
published results are inaccurate, or that their published results are
reoptimized to gain the benefit of hindsight. Also, they are CTAs and are
therefore I assume subject to NFA audit.
At one time a long time ago, Futures Truth published in Club 3000 that the
business of selling these magazines for $30 wasn't covering the expenses of
producing the publication. They were considering shutting down. The other
choice was to offer additional products. That is when they started selling a
few systems, and paid advertising in their magazine.
I have no knowledge of the aberration manuals you mention above, but
obviously these manuals are sold by the company that sells aberration, not
Futures Truth. If the vendor is re optimizing I don't see how you feel that
makes Futures Truth dishonest (please read my entire response before jumping
on this statement). It isn't Futures Truth who is doing this, it is the
aberration vendor.
> Eac> I think if you study their publication, it is quite clear what
exactly they
> Eac> are publishing, and what additional products and services they offer.
It is
> Eac> completely honest, completely disclosed.
>
> BULLSHIT!
How can you say bullshit when it seems you have never even seen the
publication I am talking about? :-)
> Eac> Your bashing above is a gross
> Eac> misinterpretation. You misinterpretation sounds like you think they
are
> Eac> allowing vendors to change parameters to push systems into the Top 10
list.
>
> YES EXACTLY!!! PROVE ME WRONG MAN. BRING IT ON....
You have presented absolutely no evidence of your claim that they change
parameters to push systems into the Top 10 list. It seems you have never even
seen their publication, let alone studied how they produce the Top 10 list.
The Top 10 list comes from their magazine. If you get a copy of the magazine,
you can read about how they produce the Top 10 list.
In my last email, I quoted their clear statement in the magazine that "not
one number in our report has the benefit of hindsight". If what you instead
claim is correct, this statement on their part would be outright fraud. I do
not believe they are publishing fraud in their magazine. It would seem to be
a much more likely explanation that you don't know what you are talking about.
Let me speculate that you are saying is you have two aberration manuals which
contain copies of printouts of test results of Futures Truth testing, and
these two copies from two time periods show reoptimization? I have no idea,
but if this is what you are saying I believe you. It could be that the
aberration vendor hired Futures Truth to historically test a variation of the
system, then years later they hired Futures Truth to historically test a
different variation of the system, then published copies of these results in
his manuals. Futures Truth has no control over what a vendor does with their
test results. There is nothing saying Futures Truth is even aware that copies
of those test results are being used this way. What can Futures Truth do?
Question those who hire them how they plan to use the test results? Set
standards about how the test results can be used? Then what if violators
don't comply? Take violators to court to sue them if they don't like how
their test results are used? These are obviously not reasonable expectations.
Who would pay for the lawyers to sue the vendor misusing the test results?
Should they stop offering a testing service because some customers of the
testing service might misuse the results? That makes no sense either.
You object that Futures Truth is advertising aberration via their Top 10
rankings. I think you are DEAD WRONG on this one, Mark. It is exactly the
opposite. The only thing Futures Truth has control over is their own
magazine, and their own magazine shows test results for the systems they
track with a stable (but limited) set of markets and with the rules and
parameters which were in force at each past date in the test period. I
believe that the Futures Truth magazine is the only source for this objective
information. They are fulfilling their original mission of publishing
objective results. If you want to see how Aberration performed over the time
period since it has been sold to the public, with the parameters in effect at
each point during that time period, that information is available in their
magazine.
It isn't possible for John Hill to audit the advertising and manuals for
trading systems and take vendors to court to force them to comply to his
standards. So instead he does what he can do, which is to publish a magazine
with correct non hindsight results.
Maybe you think Futures Truth should drop tracking of a systems if they don't
like the way the vendor promotes the system? It is exactly the opposite. It
is most important to track results of unethical system vendors so that the
public has a source for non hindsight objective test results.
The Top 10 list is results of computer testing. Completely objective. If a
system tests high it end up in the Top 10 list. It is that simple. Very clear
and objective.
Everyone must choose their battles. For John Hill to attempt to battle
unethical system vendors in court strkes me as impossible for him or any
other individual. So, instead he chose to fight the battle he is able to
fight, which is to publish a magazine containing objective test results.
> Eac> That simply isn't true, unless what they say on page 1 of their
publication
> Eac> is outright fraud, which I find seriously hard to believe.
>
> WELL THANK YOU EXPERIENCED AOL USER THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE..
What does my choice of Internet Service Provider have to do with this
discussion? Grow up Mark. You are sounding like a 5 year old.
> AND JUST
> FOR YOUR INFO ALL THE BELOW STATEMENTS DIDN'T COME FROM ME THOUGH YOU
> CREDITED ME WITH THEM. NOT THAT I DISSAGREE WITH THEM AT ALL.
>
> >> tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >>
The very next line after your claim that I was crediting the statement to you
(as quoted above) said who wrote the statement.
Now Mark, don't get upset again. I am going to again copy in another email
from someone else who responded about this topic since there is no point in
cluttering the list who multiple messages on the same topic.
By the way, you can rant and rave at me all you want. Call me a fool again.
Call me ignorant again if it pleases you. But I am saying now that I expect
this will be my last message on this topic. I have already spend about as
much time on these emails as I care to.
Mark, I often don't agree with your posts, but I do have to admit your
sometimes outrageous comments help keep the discussion lively.
> tradewynne@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > >
> > > Other conflicts which concern me about Futures "Truth:"
> > >
> > > 1) Futures Truth principles are themselves system vendors under a
> >different
> > > corporation and to my knowledge have not disclosed this fact to their
> > > competitors whose systems they rate, nor at the Futures Truth site.
> >OTOH,
> > > their vendor site lets us know they've seen more systems than anyone
> >else
> > > and therefore are experts in system design.
> >
> >Nope. Fully disclosed. Let me quote again from Page 1 of their
publication:
> >
> >"CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Futures Truth Magazine does track systems that are
> >created and sold by Futures Truth Company."
>
> Where is this on their web site? Does it disclose they own another
separate
> corporation that sells systems?
I was quoting from a copy of their printed magazine. The entire quote is
above. I don't think Futures Truth actually own a separate corporation. There
is an ad in the magazine for a system by Stafford Trading Co and it says to
contact Lundy S. Hill, who is also a co-author of the new book, and I believe
is John Hill's son. Since they do disclose that they "track systems that are
created and sold by Futures Truth Company" that is an even stronger statement
than to say they "track systems who are sold by a corporation owned by the
son of someone associated with Futures Truth".
It seems that the wording of the disclosure could be expanded, but it doesn't
seem they are trying to hide this either. After all, there is full page ad in
the magazine saying to contact Lundy S. Hill about a system. It isn't much of
a stretch to realize Lundy S. Hill has the same last name as John Hill. It
certainly does not strike me that they are trying to hide this.
> >I'm not sure what your point is. You feel that they only accept
advertising
> >from trading system vendors they rate? Or is it that you feel accepting
> >advertising from people you rate is in general unethical? If so, Futures
> >and
> >S&C and all kinds of other trade publications are also unethical. There
> >wouldn't be any trade publication left.
>
> All I'm saying here is to consider the source. That goes for S&C too, and
> all those glowing TS2K reviews.
Sure, consider the source. I absolutely agree. This is good advice to all
consumers. I agree it is appropriate for consumers to question. What my email
was reacting to was the accusation that Futures Truth is lying, and I have
seen no evidence this is true. I can only express this as an opinion, but my
opinion is that Futures Truth's magazine is a credible publication.
Certainly, people should question, but they should question with knowledge of
the facts, not based upon Mark Brown's lack of understanding.
|