| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Tom P ( C2 Score: 815 ) |
 |
| |
|
| When: | 4/20/06 (14:33) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | Is the the 4/19/06 loss of $62k correct? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 911) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/23/06 (15:55) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Tom P of 4/20/06 (14:33) Is the the 4/19/06 loss of $62k correct?
You bet... see my "my analyst" page for more commentary... |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (16:26) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Lew Payne of 4/23/06 (15:55) You bet... see my "my analyst" page for more commentary...
It amazes me how the Collective2 statistics page, as of 4/24/06, can still report a zero probability of 20% draw-down, after acknowledging this recent instance of a 28% draw-down. Matthew Klein, can you explain this? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (17:11) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/24/06 (16:26) It amazes me how the Collective2 statistics page, as of 4/24/06, can still report a zero probability of 20% draw-down, a...
See entire
It isn't reported in the equity curve either. Probably both are updated less frequently than the other statistics, and not on the date that is mentioned on top of the table. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (18:16) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/24/06 (17:11) It isn't reported in the equity curve either. Probably both are updated less frequently than the other statistics, and not on the date that is mentioned on top of the table.
Yes, one can with some difficulty estimate that the equity curve ends before the draw-down occurred, but the text at the top of the statistics table claims that it was last updated on April 24, presumably in entirely. If that is not the case, the text in the header should clearly state which stats have not been revised. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (19:39) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/24/06 (18:16) Yes, one can with some difficulty estimate that the equity curve ends before the draw-down occurred, but the text at the...
See entire
It shows now so you should be happy.
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/24/06 (22:45) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Craig Bender of 4/24/06 (19:39) It shows now so you should be happy.
Craig
I admit, it demonstrates character that you're able to make a cool comment on this |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (11:18) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Craig Bender of 4/24/06 (19:39) It shows now so you should be happy.
Craig
Craig, I am still unhappy, not with you but with the failure of the stats on the numerical results page to show a non-zero risk of 20% drawdown. Something there seems to be greatly lagging the reported revision date of April 25 2006, don't you agree? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (11:28) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/25/06 (11:18) Craig, I am still unhappy, not with you but with the failure of the stats on the numerical results page to show a non-ze...
See entire
Yes,
I believe Matthew is working on this, but he is working a lot of things right now, and I'm sure that is not a top one. But I'm sure it will be fixed soon. As for my system, I'm very frustrated right now with my performance. As I'm sure you can see why. I need to regroup, and figure out an acceptable stop to put in to avoid these bigger drawdowns.
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (12:19) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/25/06 (11:18) Craig, I am still unhappy, not with you but with the failure of the stats on the numerical results page to show a non-ze...
See entire
"Max Drawdown 56.97% (20060105 to 20060223)
Risk of 20% account loss 12.4%
Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%"
This is from another system (not Craig's). Clearly these
numbers need to look at each other somehow. This system
had 50%+ drawdowns TWICE, months ago, and yet there
is "0% Risk of 50% account loss". |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/25/06 (13:57) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/25/06 (12:19) "Max Drawdown 56.97% (20060105 to 20060223)
Risk of 20% account loss 12.4%
Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%"
...
See entire
Good point. I think I understand what happens with these probabilities. It is not a matter of updating. They are probably derived from the Monte Carlo simulation. Then these outcomes may be a consequence of some details of the method, that I already discussed privately with MK. However, I promissed not to disclose anything about the method, so I cannot tell you more. I will inform him privately of my idea.
MK: Feel free to delete this post if you feel I disclose too much.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (0:34) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/25/06 (12:19) "Max Drawdown 56.97% (20060105 to 20060223)
Risk of 20% account loss 12.4%
Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%"
...
See entire
Sam, can you help me find the system you noticed with the 57% drawdown? I am interested in looking at its Monte Carlo simulation curves to see whether they support the assertion of '0% Risk of 50% account loss". Thanks for your interest. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | charles curty ( C2 Score: 74) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (2:05) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/24/06 (22:45) I admit, it demonstrates character that you're able to make a cool comment on this
I have an idea for the trader, a good idea...I think, to recoup his loss....with good money management and low risk :
go long or short 200 ES this time !
Are records not made to be broken ?
-;))
Charles
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Chris Morse |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (2:18) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by charles curty of 4/26/06 (2:05) I have an idea for the trader, a good idea...I think, to recoup his loss....with good money management and low risk :
...
See entire
I am not a subscriber of this system and looking at the way it is traded, I probably will not anytime soon. But I think this is really bad taste if a vendor keep on making comments about another vendor. Besides that is very unprofessional, this is telling me that he doesn't has a system to compete with the other systems on C2 and feel threatened and the only way to make his system(s) looks better is to bad mouth other systems.
Chris |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (7:39) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Chris Morse of 4/26/06 (2:18) I am not a subscriber of this system and looking at the way it is traded, I probably will not anytime soon. But I think this is really bad taste if a vendor keep on making comments about another vendor. Besides that is very unprofessional, this is telling me that he doesn't has a system to compete with the other systems on C2 and feel threatened and the only way to make his system(s) looks better is to bad mouth other systems....
See entire
Chris, I agree completely.
Maybe its a double standard since as a non-vendor I feel fine about taking cheap shots at any vendor I want, but for one vendor to post crap like this about another vendor (on that vendors board no less) is unacceptable IMO.
I would be very reluctant to ever subscribe to any vendor who presented themselves in public with that kind of unprofessional attitude. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (8:19) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/26/06 (7:39) Chris, I agree completely.
Maybe its a double standard since as a non-vendor I feel fine about taking cheap shots at any vendor I want, but for one vendor to post crap like this about another vendor (on that vendors board no less) is unacceptable IMO....
See entire
I agree. There have been several as of late to come on others forums and make complaints when they don't subscribe nor plan to, but just want to make others look bad, so their systems look better.
I know I've made a few mistakes, but I've never ran from them. I'm still here, trying to learn from them, and improve. Maybe if I show a steady enough comeback then people will come back around.
Good luck to all,
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (8:22) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/26/06 (7:39) Chris, I agree completely.
Maybe its a double standard since as a non-vendor I feel fine about taking cheap shots at any vendor I want, but for one vendor to post crap like this about another vendor (on that vendors board no less) is unacceptable IMO....
See entire
Chris and Pete,
It is a double standard, and I don't necessarily agree with it. A vendor can also be subscribed to another system. We don't know the subscribers. So someone who you call a vendor might view himself primarily as a subscriber. As a subscriber, I think he is entitled to comment on any system.
However, I think that everybody who is not subscribed to a system on which he comments, regardless of whether he has a system himself, should try to comment with a neutral tone. Well, people who are actually subscribed to the system should try that too, but everybody can understand if they express some emotions.
So if Charles has lost money in this I can understand his reaction (although it is not particularly informative). If he was not subscribed then I think he should comment in a different style, or not comment at all.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Pete * |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (13:25) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/26/06 (8:22) Chris and Pete,
It is a double standard, and I don't necessarily agree with it. A vendor can also be subscribed to another system. We don't know the subscribers. So someone who you call a vendor might view himself primarily as a subscriber. As a subscriber, I think he is entitled to comment on any system....
See entire
Jules, I disagree. Even if a system provider subscribes to another system provider's system I don't think that puts them on an equal footing with a non-system provider (subscriber or not).
System vendors are competitors for the limited number of subscribers at C2 and as such I think there is an inherent bias that cannot be avoided. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (13:45) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/26/06 (13:25) Jules, I disagree. Even if a system provider subscribes to another system provider's system I don't think that puts them on an equal footing with a non-system provider (subscriber or not)....
See entire
I can understand a subscriber (non-system provider) to a system criticizing that system created by a system provider. But, a non-subscriber, regardless of whether he himself is a system provider or not has no merit in criticizing a system that he has not subscribed to. If he is a system provider, he may want to post some general comments supporting his reason in his own forum. If not, his comments would have merit if he proves the worth of his own system by creating one at C2 before commenting on others.
ps: Individuals who trade their own creation are not dependents, i.e., true creators are not dependents, neither in matter nor in spirit. The dependents among men in this issue are the non-creators. Some of them do not care to perform any kind of work, but plead for unearned support from others; these are the moochers. Others turn criminal and seize the unearned; these are the looters. Others peddle various forms of mysticism (e.g., astrology), which, though non-criminal, contribute nothing to the maintenance of human life or actively undermine it. Others - by far the largest subcategory - are the second-handers, who hold a legitimate job but drift through it out of focus, exercising no judgment, reaching no conclusions, merely imitating the motions of those around them. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (14:10) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pete * of 4/26/06 (13:25) Jules, I disagree. Even if a system provider subscribes to another system provider's system I don't think that puts them on an equal footing with a non-system provider (subscriber or not)....
See entire
Pete,
A bias may be there, but let him comment on his own forum. If he doesn't subscribe to my system, then why you he criticize my system just to make his look better? That's poor no matter who it is, and definitely doesn't say much about one's character.
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | charles curty ( C2 Score: 74) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (19:16) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/26/06 (8:22) Chris and Pete,
It is a double standard, and I don't necessarily agree with it. A vendor can also be subscribed to another system. We don't know the subscribers. So someone who you call a vendor might view himself primarily as a subscriber. As a subscriber, I think he is entitled to comment on any system....
See entire
Do I am really the only one here criticizing of how some "traders" handle their published "account" and not be a subscriber to them ?
Charles |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (19:45) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Craig Bender of 4/26/06 (14:10) Pete,
A bias may be there, but let him comment on his own forum. If he doesn't subscribe to my system, then why you he criticize my system just to make his look better? That's poor no matter who it is, and definitely doesn't say much about one's character....
See entire
Craig,
Sorry, perhaps I have a language problem now (English is not my first language). I guess that some words are missing in the second part of your second sentence; I'm not sure that I understand it. Which behavior do you consider poor? I think you mean that "criticize my system just to make his look better" is poor. But doing that poor thing would say something about one's character, isn't it? Then why do you say the opposite?
Pete,
Yes, there would be a bias. Perhaps we have different standards of morale (although we often agree :-)). I think we agree that none of us I would appreciate a situation where 300 system vendors hunt down a system in trouble to celebrate its latest loss. On the other hand, I think that other vendors can, at least in theory, have a meaningful contribution in discussions, because their level of knowlegde of trading is generally greater than that of ordinary subscribers. So for me it mainly depends on what they say and how they say it. They may have a second agenda, but then they can still have a valid point. This being said, I agree that every vendor should be aware that his comments are likely to be perceived as plain envy.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/26/06 (20:07) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by charles curty of 4/26/06 (19:16) Do I am really the only one here criticizing of how some "traders" handle their published "account" and not be a subscriber to them ?
Charles
In addition to my previous post:
I think that Charles has a point in that traders criticizing each other may be a contribution to C2. But perhaps it should be organized in a different way. Putting your comments on the systems own forum gives the feeling of some kind of territorial breach.
Charles,
As you can read in my previous post, I (being just a subscriber) am not against criticism per se, but I think many of your comments are perceived as too absolute, too negative, and too much "I know it all". Perhaps you're right in all these things, but why should we believe that? The fact that you offer a system yourself doesn't help. The point is that C2, in my view, is about objective evaluation of systems, based on real data and statistics. Under these circumstances there is no need for sarcastic comments. That can be different in other settings, where such data are unavailable, but here there is no need. Everybody can see the $62K drawdown, so why would you rub it in?
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Pal Anand ( C2 Score: 988) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (2:06) | |
| Systems: | Direxion (FAS/FAZ), Direxion BGU/BGZ, Direxion DRN/DRV, Direxion DZK/DPK, Direxion EDC/EDZ, Direxion ERX/ERY, Direxion LBJ/LHB, Direxion MWJ/MWN, Direxion NUGT/DUST, Direxion SOXL/SOXS, Direxion TMF/TMV, Direxion TNA/TZA, Extreme Stocks, ProShares AGQ/ZSL, Proshares TQQQ/SQQQ, ProShares UCO/SCO, ProShares UGL/GLL, Proshares UPRO/SPXU, ProShares UUP/UDN, ProShares UVXY, ProShares UYM/SMN, ProShares XPP/FXP, System 78433109, System 1200737, System 13513226, System 14747274, System 14900604, System 17333270, System 18570303, System 21001636, System 22811602, System 25126348, System 25286922, System 25480083, System 26583686, System 26874100, System 28959109, System 30070387, System 30091398, System 30092309, System 32171590, System 33686814, System 36312421, System 39940733, System 49372097, System 51623361, System 56204818, System 59614452, System 62659351, System 63709256, System 64327252, System 64862505, System 65149161, System 65149202, System 66082786, System 69788609, System 69789319, System 74827691, System 76000954, System 76001024, System18339738 |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 4/26/06 (20:07) In addition to my previous post:
I think that Charles has a point in that traders criticizing each other may be a contribution to C2. But perhaps it should be organized in a different way. Putting your comments on the systems own forum gives the feeling of some kind of territorial breach....
See entire
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | futurm * ( C2 Score: 999) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (9:20) | |
| Systems: | New Turning Points, Turning Point, AQUA, Commodities P/X (Test System), Commodities Plus, Intensive Care, Lunar Cycles, Neotrends, no name, PLUM, Sparkling Future, STP 100, Turning Points |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Pal Anand of 4/27/06 (2:06) I agree.
I also agree,
Three words, one more than Pal wrote, is everything ok with you Pal? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (10:45) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/26/06 (0:34) Sam, can you help me find the system you noticed with the 57% drawdown? I am interested in looking at its Monte Carlo s...
See entire
"Sam, can you help me find the system you noticed with the 57% drawdown?"
I'll take a look, but I'm not sure off hand....I was just browsing.
Nonetheless, there are several system results with similar
flaws in the data. I'm not picking on these systems, indeed some
have found their groove and done very well, but if
your DD is 101% than your ROR or risk of 50% loss is more than 0%!
vicinoo! 36% DD / Risk of 20% account loss 0.0%
Dog eat Dog 56.97% DD / Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%
Contra Trading 74.63% DD / Risk of 50% account loss 0.4%
Currency Scalper 57.07% DD / Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%
RYDEX-Geared 78.12% DD / Risk of 50% account loss 0.0%
Pinnacle Trading 101.35% DD / Risk of 50% account loss 0.0% |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Alan Thielke |
|
| |
|
| When: | 4/27/06 (12:30) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 4/27/06 (10:45) "Sam, can you help me find the system you noticed with the 57% drawdown?"
I'll take a look, but I'm not sure off hand....I was just browsing....
See entire
Sam, I agree completely with your view of how past drawdowns should affect the Risk of n% account loss. Jules Ellis found for me the system with the 57% drawdown: Back to Future. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/01/06 (12:10) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Alan Thielke of 4/27/06 (12:30) Sam, I agree completely with your view of how past drawdowns should affect the Risk of n% account loss. Jules Ellis found for me the system with the 57% drawdown: Back to Future.
It seems that the system made an almost equally spectacular recovery of $40K in a few days... |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (10:15) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 5/01/06 (12:10) It seems that the system made an almost equally spectacular recovery of $40K in a few days...
"It seems that the system made an almost equally spectacular recovery of $40K in a few days..."
This is NOT the point. It's not to say a system is good or bad, but if
C2 shows a 57% DD and a 0% chance of 20% account loss then
the math is wrong....It's that simple.
Are you really trying to argue that 57% < 20% ? |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (13:04) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 5/02/06 (10:15) "It seems that the system made an almost equally spectacular recovery of $40K in a few days..."
This is NOT the point. It's not to say a system is good or bad, but if
...
See entire
Sam,
This thread started with pointing out the loss, and now I point out this winner. That may not be your point, but it is still a point. Moreover, it is a relevant point, since we are on the system's message board and not on the general Suggestions board where the statistics should have been discussed.
I don't understand why you think that I try to argue that the earlier discussed statistics are correct. I just wrote that the system made a remarkable recovery, no more than that.
Jules |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Lew Payne ( C2 Score: 911) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (15:35) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 5/02/06 (10:15) "It seems that the system made an almost equally spectacular recovery of $40K in a few days..."
This is NOT the point. It's not to say a system is good or bad, but if
...
See entire
Sam -- Though it may not be your point, it seems to be Jules' point... and I appreciate the diverging opinions. Too bad I couldn't buy options on those opinions. |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Sam Cook ( C2 Score: 276) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (16:44) | |
| Systems: | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 5/02/06 (13:04) Sam,
This thread started with pointing out the loss, and now I point out this winner. That may not be your point, but it is still a point. Moreover, it is a relevant point, since we are on the system's message board and not on the general Suggestions board where the statistics should have been discussed....
See entire
Not only is it not the point, but we weren't even talking Bender's
system in regards to the 57%. Craig never had a 57% DD
as you implied by responding with your 180 degree Bat turn
about example from another system. Here's Craig's:
"Actual DD 29.9% (20060417 to 20060424)
Risk of 20% account loss 0.0%"
"since we are on the system's message board and not on the general Suggestions board where the statistics should have been discussed."
BTW, you were involved in the inappropriate
theoretical "stat" discussion too:
"Posted:Jules Ellis My Analyst page for
When:4/25/06 (13:57). I think I understand what happens with these probabilities. ...."
I should stay on topic by talking porn, right? While pointing
out obvious math errors on the C2 site relating to this and other systems is out of bounds?
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (17:10) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 5/02/06 (16:44) Not only is it not the point, but we weren't even talking Bender's
system in regards to the 57%. Craig never had a 57% DD
...
See entire
In regards to my own though, I have made about 44K since my HUGE drawdown. :)
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (17:39) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Sam Cook of 5/02/06 (16:44) Not only is it not the point, but we weren't even talking Bender's
system in regards to the 57%. Craig never had a 57% DD
...
See entire
Sam,
When I wrote that "the" system had recovered, I meant Bender's S&P Emini crossover, not the system with 57% drawdown. It is perfectly legitimate if I say something about Bender's S&P Emini crossover, because this is the forum of that system.
Yes, I was involved in the stat discussion too, but that doesn't mean that I should confine my remarks to that discussion only. As I said, the thread started with the observation of the $62K drawdown and I don't see why I may not continue with that point too. The more so, since the conclusion about the statistics is already clear in my opinion: They are wrong.
It was not my intention to accuse you of improper discussions, I just wanted to justify that I wrote about Bender's S&P Emini crossover, by pointing out that it was more on topic than our statististical discussion.
I experience your last post as unfriendly, but I don't understand why. Did I do you any harm?
Jules
|
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (17:42) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Craig Bender of 5/02/06 (17:10) In regards to my own though, I have made about 44K since my HUGE drawdown. :)
Craig
That's what I wanted to say. (Sorry that I even underestimated it with 4K). |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Craig Bender (Admin) ( C2 Score: 144) |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (18:51) | |
| Systems: | 10k loss, Always a Stop, No Rules Just Money, Overnight in the S&P, 3 Point Stop, 3K a Day in the S&P, 4 Point Stop in the S&P, 5-7 points in the S&P, Bender's S&P Emini crossover, Going for a Million, Lets Make a Run!!, LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME2, Making money in the S&P, Money Management in the S&P, One for the Ages, One Last Try, Protect the money, slow and steady, Staying Consistent, try, trying again |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Jules Ellis of 5/02/06 (17:42) That's what I wanted to say. (Sorry that I even underestimated it with 4K).
No problem, I thought you meant the other system too :)
Craig |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
| Subject: | 4/19 loss? |
| Posted by: | Jules Ellis |
|
| |
|
| When: | 5/02/06 (19:26) | |
|
|
|
|
| | In response to post by Craig Bender of 5/02/06 (18:51) No problem, I thought you meant the other system too :)
Craig
And now I understand why... because the automatic quotation says that I replied to Alan. Well, sorry that I didn't scroll to the beginning of the thread. OK: For now and ever all people should know that I usually just click on the last post and that this doesn't mean that I actually want to reply to this last post. :-) |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
