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 : Systems, Strategies and Resources for Trading Futures -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patrick Slevin who wrote (7042)	10/22/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: Nemer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 44573

SPX - SPZ without benefit of the BBx and without benefit of being on line except for the past few minutes ------ appears time for a downdraft about now to me ........ were I trading --- I'd go short right now for a target of 5 points ....... SPX is @ 1077.04 edit ---- ten minutes later ...... I sent a private message to Pat saying that I was short of breath and physically failing when I made the above call --- from unloading some french doors .... left the tile on the trailer .....ggg so I guess I expected the market to do the same ........ gggg wrong direction right timing ........ again .... what was that bout the single factor inversion ...... the factor to use is NEMER ..........

To: Patrick Slevin who wrote (7042)	10/22/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: Tom Trader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 44573

>>First of all, I think the system tends to correct when it is losing and just may send you a buy signal that you will interpret should be a short. If the system was truly a mirror it might not reverse it's signal.<< Not sure that I fully understand what you mean when you say this. >>The debate by the Ivory Tower dudes was that one could invert a variable in the system; by so doing, they theorized, one would turn a losing system into a profitable one. However, I am reluctant to think one could find the "right" variable to invert.<< I agree with you about the correct inverting of variables -- but my point is why do that at all. Just buy when the system says to sell and sell when it says to buy--then the inverting of variables would not be a factor. Of course one would end up using limit or MIT orders since most systems are designed based on entries and exits going through stops. >>Of course, this is my opinion and everyone has one. I have no psychological; problem with it at all. << I really don't have a strong opinion regarding it--I have never tried to use a system that way though I have inadvertently designed systems that seem to lose lots of money on just about every market that I have tested it on. I'd have to say that my problem is psychological at some level -- given that if I developed a system that had the parameters inverted in the first place and it then produced great results over a variety of markets, I'd probably think that I was a genius and look seriously at trading it. >>As a matter of fact, I am of the mind that Fred does the exact same thing. My recollection is that the P-Stop is a tool designed for exits, not entries. If Fred does not know this perhaps we should not tell him. Psychological damage and so forth.<< Hey you are right about this -- we better not tell Fred, for sure. I remember reading about the Parabolic in Wilder's book years ago but have never thought of using this in a system. >>Anyway, I started this week with a Bullish attitude but the systems had me selling. Time will tell if I continue to rely on Mechanical Systems or revert to Discretionary trading.<< I suspect that when all is said and done, you'll end up going the discretionary approach -- remember my fighter pilot and bomber pilot analogy. Pretty impressive market -- does not seem to want to go down and the the other averages did a whole lot better than the DOW on a closing basis. I am done for the day--talk to you guys tomorrow.