RE: Trading Recipes VS Behold Position Sizing

[Paul Altman <paulha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Darryl:

>Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 11:40:56 -0500
>From: Darryl Tremelling <SystemDevel@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Trading Recipes VS Behold Position Sizing
>
>A thorough analysis of the way Trading Recipes and Behold! each handle 
>money management (position sizing) calculations has been completed. The 
>analysis and the results are detailed in a document that can be retrieved 
>from http://www.geocities.com/systemdevel/ (left side, first entry under 
>'Documents and Links'). The document describes a simple test that can be 
>completed by any user of either product to verify the conclusions.
>
>In short, the document clearly describes erroneous position sizing 
>calculations performed by Behold!, that are performed correctly by Trading 
>Recipes.

Are you the author?  I just got the article from the traders2traders link, 
and don't see any author listed on the PDF.

Here's a copy of a msg I just sent to Colin West:

******************

I read the PDF, and it seems awfully biased at first glance.  I've got no 
axe to grind with either product, I don't own either one, and I've got no 
connection with either vendor.  But, I do think that before plastering such 
a smear job on the internet, the author (who?) should have called Jim Payne 
at Behold! and told him about the errors, and seen what Jim said.  That 
would be standard policy in a magazine review.  Sure, you can publish that 
the product has some glaring mistakes in it, but there's a world of 
difference between saying that the vendor immediately corrected the bugs 
and sent you a new copy, and saying that the vendor didn't care.

Since the author didn't take the next logical step, which would have been 
to find out whether the vendor supports his product (a far more important 
question than whether the product had some unfortunate glaring bugs in it 
in the previous version), I don't think that some of the review has much 
value to someone in my position, trying to decide between the products.

Coincidentally, I s/w Jim Payne last week and he mentioned that he was just 
fixing a bug in the dynamic reallocation routine, so it's entirely possible 
that this review is based on a product that no longer exists.  I note that 
the PDF doesn't mention version numbers.

*******************

I'm grateful for your time and effort, Darryl, if in fact you are the 
author.  I think your review is clear and articulate, and obviously took 
hard work, but I think it begs some major questions that could be easily 
answered, and might just possibly throw a different light on your conclusions.

     Paul