|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
On Saturday, June 02, 2001, 10:19:43 PM, Ira Tunik wrote:
IT> You are there requiring proof and back testing.
Asking for proof, yes, back testing, no. Stat analysis is quite
different from back testing.
IT> It has worked now for the past several decades.
It sounds like you have some very good back testing. :-)
IT> I assume that it will continue to work now.
It would also seem that you have enough 'seat-of-the-pants' stats to
warrant that assumption.
Some of us like to assess the stats for a long time period without
having to live through that period. For some new idea, one might do
this for the last 20 years in, say, an hour or two.
IT> You can test until your head caves in and get all those wonderful
IT> statistical results and the system won't make you any money.
It's not clear to me how a statistically good, well-tested system
would not make money. Other than trader error, how could this be?
IT> You can get better results then most traders by just throwing a
IT> dart at the stock listings and go long and liquidate at the end of
IT> the day.
Are you suggesting this would be better than a well-tested system?
IT> There is only one proof and that is your bottom line. If that
IT> isn't increasing, no matter how good your statistical results are,
IT> you have a bad system or you are a bad trader.
Agreed. I was just suggesting that a system that has good stats might
be better than a system with bad stats.
ztrader
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|