Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Technology Stocks & Market Talk With Don Wolanchuk -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (919)	2/12/2002 3:57:15 PM
From: peter n matzke	Respond to of 207865

Chip, i try to look at each method as a stand alone system. ie cycles must make money all by themselves are they don't deserve to be combined with anything else. Same with clx's etc. It must be independently verifiable and profitable to be considered for a trading system. I have recently developed some very solid mechanical clx based systems. all trades are mechanical triggers, no discretion, no other inputs. fancy math 34K dow points 146 trades since 11/99 no months had a net loss ma based system 24K dow points 87 trades since 11/99 no months had a net loss draw downs and losing trades do exist no matter how its structured. nn's showed potential to be even better, but you can't verify a nn as far as i know. heck, i can't even understand what kind of patterns they think they have determined. clx seems to work a little better on the dow than on the sp or nq. all are profitable eod or intraday. It seems that the size, maturity, and volume of the dow just seems to work better for clx'n the cycle work, that i have done, has all been astro related, Delta etc. it is verifiable, beyond any doubt.