To: Andrew Vance who wrote (14945 ) 7/20/1998 12:12:00 AM From: Patrick Slevin Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17305
Now I see what you were speaking of in the P-Mail. I've been so wrapped up over here I could not draw a clue about your reference. I have the system building models and I'm going to allow it to run another 10 minutes to see if I finally got the pieces together somewhat or if I have to throw the sub-systems out and reconstruct "Harry" again. I really got wrapped up in it tonight and was oblivious to all else, sorry. BTW; My cars are paid for only because I found a gem in 1985 and paid cash for it with trading profits and never sold it. It only has 44,000 miles on it; I go nowhere by car except annually to darkest Canada. My wife gets a new Buick every couple-three however. But the kid wants my old one so I'm going to a 750 next year when he's old enough. So the only reason I'm not broke from buying cars is because I buy the one I wish to have and maintain it. As far as the house was concerned, that was easy because I always put more money into the payment than I needed to. It's anathema to me to pay a bank. When I saw what I would be giving them over 30 years I immediately, from the first payment, started keeping track of what I was NOT paying them (or saving, I guess) by throwing in extra cash each month. Particularly in the early going, that is a heck of a lot of money that is not leaving my pocket over the years. So perhaps the real truth of my existence is I'm cheap. The Neural Optimizer has completed it's run. Cross your fingers for me. EDIT. Nope. Best model returned about 40,000 on a 2,000 initial investment over a period of about 18 weeks. Back to the drawing board. It has 68% winners on 25 trades. I need better because I find my own average is in that neighborhood and recently has been far better, so I don't need a machine for that. I wish to see something like 50, 60 thousand or 75% winners.