I think that the trades are just a little too close to perfect to be believable. If I had to guess, I would say that there are 3 possibilities. First, you have chosen an anomalous period for your examples which shows an unsustainabale level of performance. Second, you "optimized" the hell out of some historical data and then showed the results on that same historical data. Or third, you have an excellent sense of humor. Of course, I could be entirely wrong and could merely be judging your alleged performance from the perspective of my own limitations. However, I don't think so. If you could sustain such performance in real time over an extended period, you would be richer than God. Are you?
Most people say: i can't achieve that so nobody can. That's a huge error, because that would be like saying that Tiger Woods cannot play golf as he does because you can't due to your limitations. Every event that you are not able to achieve would be impossible. Maybe i'm richer than God; how rich is he ( i thought he gave all to the poors)? Read my posting and you will know what my vision on making money is. It's not because you would have as only aim in your live to become the richest man in the world that everybody has the same wish. Don't always look at everything from your limited point of view.
That's all well and good. However, I take comfort in my skepticism and I think I will remain there. P.S. The Tiger Woods analogy is not a very good one. You should know that. The markets have a much more random element than golf. To allegedly trade almost flawlessly for a sustained period in such an environment is suspect to anyone who is willing to use a modicum of critical judgment. Therefore, I will stand by my 3 proffered scenarios. I'm sorry, Mr. Spike, I'm not buying.
Nice work. However, making a good call is not quite the same as having an almost flawless system or method.
I'm not selling neither. Markets have a much more random element to YOU, you make the same error again. Something is defined as random because the observer sees it as random, not because it is random. If you can find out why something happens it isn't random anymore because you had to find the logic behind the happening. The charts were not manipulated, i took those of the last week, that's all. Some weeks are better, some are worse. So those who said that i make 10 points a day for years took the profit from 1 week and extrapolated that to a period of years. Completely wrong, by accident or on purpose? About the posting nononsense is referring to: i'm a daytrader so that posting will not be as exact as my daytrading system. And last but not least: systems have to be judged on hundreds of trades, not on 1 week as people are trying to do here.
If you are saying that there is not a significant random element in the markets, then the technical term for your comment is jive talkin' in my opinion. I am not a golfer, but I am fairly confident that there are far more variables that affect markets (and thus contribute to the random component) than there are in the game of golf. Therefore, your earlier golf analogy in the context of our exchange is without merit. Kindly refer to the first possibility I identified in my first post to this thread on page 9. You could have simply acknowledged that comment in your first response. However, you chose to focus on my limitations. Why would you choose to take me for a ride on my own limitations when you are now saying the exact same thing that I said was the primary possibility? Which brings us to: ...If you say so.
Itâs not the number of variables that has any importance regarding randomness. Itâs about the UNKNOWN variables, because unknow is randomness. A system has to try to control the unknown parameters so that they become predictable till a certain level. It has all to do with the probability that a certain scenario will develop itself in the future. âFirst, you have chosen an anomalous period for your examples which shows an unsustainabale level of performance.â Well I couldnât and still cannot acknowledge this comment because to me it is just a period like this week will be a period. The period was not anomalous as you think. What I meant is, that to have any statistical value, the series of observations have to be statistically representative. The observations have to be large enough in number. So I never said what you said in your primary possibility. âOf course, I could be entirely wrong and could merely be judging your alleged performance from the perspective of my own limitations. However, I don't think so.â If you are sure that your judgement can in no way be wrong due to your limitations, than itâs clear that one of your limitations is that you underestimate or even deny your limitations. Every human being has limitations, even you and me. BTW: i went long at 1207.25 about 2 hours ago in the ES and we should go higher the next hours. I know it's dangerous to post this because if it wouldn't work out it will be for some people the confirmation that the trades are fake. And if it works out it will probably be luck. My stops is at 1206.
After reading this, I am sure that majority of those posted trades were fake, after the fact picked trades .
Hey spike, Why don't you start a real-time trade journal here? Obviously the skeptics will remain skeptics (you can never convince them), but at least some of us can ride your coat tails, eh?