Quah - Thanks for checking back in - I'm sure we all hope to see what happens with SSVS and whatever else you're cooking up in your lab. Haven't looked in detail at NQ - but so far SVS looks like it had its best day in the ES on Monday, less so on Tuesday, and barely positive on Wednesday and Thursday. My paper analysis has SVS up a little under $500.00 this week (based on 1 contract). All 4 days have been profitable. One question, since it seems you may be implying it anyway - have you decided SVS isn't worth trading after all? If so, I'd like to get your scoop on where this is at in your own thinking... Thanks again
Does it work or not? Well, it met all of the objective I set out to meet, so I guess it works for me. What else can I say that hasn't already been said?
Actually, I think it is worth trading. Are there other ways that will make more money or be as easy to trade? Yes, I think there are. As someone said before, this makes a nice addition to the toolbox of trading systems. If not the exact system - the ideas behind it - the non-subjective approach, the discipline, etc.
What were your objectives? Isn't the point to develop and test the efficacy of this mechanical trading strategy? Have we firm conclusions? Is this a viable mechanical method or not?? I don't think we know this yet do we after a measly one month of mixed results? Seems to me that you are abondoning this project too early for some other reasons that you aren't divulging here. Don't get me wrong that is your right to do so but nothing has been proven or accomplished here unless I am missing something. Am I missing something? Are you on to something even more interesting and you haven't the time for both?
My objectives were stated in my first post on this thread. I don't know that anyone "knows" if this is viable or not - I'd say that it is - but others might not. I didn't set out to prove or disprove anything to anyone - just to share this sort of system and discuss it and see how it turns out over some period of time. Anyone who is interested in results past this point can easily determine them themselves. You are right in that nothing has been proven - but I disagree that nothing has been accomplished. IMO, a lot has been accomplished in this thread.
Sorry, Quah, that's not acceptable. You started this and you have to finish it. You have to post your results every day until we tell you that you can stop. You belong to us, Quah. There is no escape. Moowahhahhahhah . . . --Db
Quah has been extraordinarily generous with his time and effort, no doubt about it. I don't think any of us need him to hold our hands from here on out in terms of testing the method. Having said that, though, it would be really helpful if we could get into the mind that created this thing in the first place and see where SVS stands in his thinking. What worked well? What didn't work as well as hoped? As a launching point for future methods, which are right now being developed at Quah Laboratories )), what stays and what goes? Fib times? Trading by appointment? Stochastics? High win percentage? Smaller profits, bigger losses? I'm not writing this because I think Quah OWES us something - he doesn't - but he's opened up a lot of minds to thinking in new ways, and it would tie this whole experiment together if we got some of his reflections on what happened.
Quah, I've probably been more critical than most, but I want to thank you for giving me some new ideas to work on. You've done this whole project in a very professional manner and made a big contribution.
Yeah but the record must show that it's unfinished as of yet. While I do appreciate your efforts to date all we have here at this juncture is an unproven futures trading system that has no known rational basis in market dynamics (i think its owner would agree with this premise) and with only a month of mixed results in battle under its belt. I guess someone else will have to pick up the ball and run with it from here.