Which systems have been profitable for at least a full year ? - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That what I try to do today-Resistance&Support
but I have to do this manually.
Now I'm working on RS Scalper.
See Attachment.
BDidn't get the idea. Looks more like ad for me.
So, when we have a system comprising of two elements one of which is subjective or ambiguous, the whole system is subjective or ambiguous
good attempt at logic but no thats not what it means.
objective TA do not involve the use of any tools mentioned above that requires the usage of a) human pattern recognition b) any type of human interpretation and decision.
meaning objective TA consists of stuff like moving average cross overs, signals generated by indicators, oscillators. something you can completely mechanize where as subjectige TA requires human intervention.
thus objective TA, because of its truly mechanical nature, can be rigioursly put through statistical analysis to truly measure its potential and accuracy.
To try and answer the original question, I think it's pretty much impossible for any static automatic system to remain profitable over a long period of time as basic market parameters keep changing. For example, all the volatility suddenly dropped out of the market about this time last year, before that you could have killed it with any volatility based system before that (Martingale or Reactive-Corrective type ideas), but now they don't work. As soon as a market inefficiency becomes public knowledge, by definition it disappears, EA's like the Hans123 adviser are at best exploiting transient loop holes. I don't think I've seen a publicly available EA ever that has been any good, I think if there was you would hear the stampede a long way off. Profitable EA trading is obviously possible over shorter periods of time, the MQL contest is proof of this, but whether this is simply an exercise in optimization I guess is open to debate.
To try and answer the original question, I think it's pretty much impossible for any static automatic system to remain profitable over a long period of time as basic market parameters keep changing. For example, all the volatility suddenly dropped out of the market about this time last year, before that you could have killed it with any volatility based system before that (Martingale or Reactive-Corrective type ideas), but now they don't work. As soon as a market inefficiency becomes public knowledge, by definition it disappears, EA's like the Hans123 adviser are at best exploiting transient loop holes. I don't think I've seen a publicly available EA ever that has been any good, I think if there was you would hear the stampede a long way off. Profitable EA trading is obviously possible over shorter periods of time, the MQL contest is proof of this, but whether this is simply an exercise in optimization I guess is open to debate.
no. ur absolutely right. variables keep changing.
To try and answer the original question, I think it's pretty much impossible for any static automatic system to remain profitable over a long period of time as basic market parameters keep changing. For example, all the volatility suddenly dropped out of the market about this time last year, before that you could have killed it with any volatility based system before that (Martingale or Reactive-Corrective type ideas), but now they don't work. As soon as a market inefficiency becomes public knowledge, by definition it disappears, EA's like the Hans123 adviser are at best exploiting transient loop holes. I don't think I've seen a publicly available EA ever that has been any good, I think if there was you would hear the stampede a long way off. Profitable EA trading is obviously possible over shorter periods of time, the MQL contest is proof of this, but whether this is simply an exercise in optimization I guess is open to debate.
This is called "Trader effects"
From "Way of the Turtle" book Author Curtis Faith page 152
The fact that a particular method has made a lot of money in the recent past increase the likelihood that other traders will have noticed it and will start using similar ideas, increasing the chances that the method will not work as well as it did initially.
Curtis Faith address this problem with many examples and how the turtle traders used some obfuscation methods.
Anyway, not all strategies are prone to trader effects, the key is analyze each one to see if there are weak points prone to suffer this effect.
The strategies more prone to traders effects are the breakout systems, there are many strategies created only to exploit the flaws of the most common breakout systems, the counter breakout strategies.
good attempt at logic but no thats not what it means.
objective TA do not involve the use of any tools mentioned above that requires the usage of a) human pattern recognition b) any type of human interpretation and decision.
meaning objective TA consists of stuff like moving average cross overs, signals generated by indicators, oscillators. something you can completely mechanize where as subjectige TA requires human intervention.
thus objective TA, because of its truly mechanical nature, can be rigioursly put through statistical analysis to truly measure its potential and accuracy.Sorry, maybe you missed something or I should have been more clear
Yes, stuff like moving average cross overs are objective signals,
BUT
what about so favorable support and resistence levels?
One more quote to be more clear:
Oh, yes... but if you know how to identify them and, what is even more important: do you know how to identify that lovely moment when one of them is really BROKEN?
IMHO
P.S. Any suggestions about the criteria?I'm still get only one answer
too ambiguous question?
support and resistance is subjective. do not fall under the objective criteria.
objective TA can be fully mechanized, its success can be measured appropriately with the proper tools. this is because it is based on unambiguous event triggers.
support and resistance still requires human intervention. its ambiguous and belongs in the subjective side of TA.
At the end, we need to understand that the signal used to trigger a trader is subjective and ambiguous. but the trade management and money management is not, both are very objective and make the difference between winners and losers.
jjk2
Looks like project1972 (or the author he loves to quote?) totally disagree with you about that "objectivity" matter.