Jack Hershey's System Loses 24 % !
Uenal S. Mutlu
It is the top loser in the challenge there!
Y- Jack Hershey 01/06 *
MANU 14.57 1.61 12.40% 5,850,300 -1.61 n/a -2,736.79 Application Software
ASMI 23.28 1.91 8.90% 439,400 0.11 193.6 462.92 Semiconductor Equipment & Materials
ARXX 10.71 0.86 8.70% 948,800 0.18 53.6 -4,943.34 Aerospace/Defense Products & Servic
PECS 24.71 1.8 7.90% 461,100 0.47 51.3 -4,188.62 Business Services
GRTS 27.05 0.95 3.60% 122,400 1.58 15.5 2,049.00 Specialty Retail, Other
ICTG 15.8 -0.19 -1.20% 23,100 0.63 26.8 -945.56 Business Services
DYII 9.79 -0.32 -3.20% 162,300 0.81 13.5 -6,270.48 Hospitals
RMCF 12.72 -0.52 -3.90% 700 0.95 12.9 -2,604.65 Confectioners
TRPS 19.64 -2.16 -9.90% 315,200 0.62 37 -2,206.35 Technical & System Software
2/ 7 ($21,383.87) -23.8% -23.8%
That is: -23.8 (!) and it is the top loser there of total 14 participants...
www.mutlusoft.com/projects/mystocks
~ The trend is your friend. May the trend be with you. ~
Uenal S. Mutlu
And the best of the 14 in the challenge there has +7.1%:
03/01/02 Price Chg %Chg Volume EPS P/E TTL Profit Industry Score
S~Sperry 02/27 <== The King of the Hill FAQ $10,000 invested in each stock YTD Total
ITWO 5.89 0.44 8.10% 6,600,100 -18.68 n/a 369.72 Application Software
RFMD 16.49 0.85 5.40% 7,641,100 -0.21 n/a 403.79 Semiconductor - Integrated Circuits
LEN 57.4 2.19 4.00% 1,348,200 6.01 8.8 459.18 Residential Construction short
MCDT 16.5 0.5 3.10% 2,797,800 -0.08 n/a -959.45 Communication Equipment
SNIC 5.79 0.14 2.50% 50,500 -0.44 n/a -186.44 Business Software & Services
NXTL 4.9 -0.09 -1.80% 22,660,200 -0.74 n/a -80.97 Wireless Communications
2/ 3 ($912.53) -1.5% 7.1%
Mr. Kevin Bantz
>
> And the best of the 14 in the challenge there has +7.1%:
Yo, ring my bell, 15.7% in 26 days., I'm sleeping under Jack's crap.
Jack gave up some time back as the transaction date incurs...
Eddie Roberts
incoherant and rambling posts that intimidate people into thinking he's got the answers.
And look at how Dufferdon is totally transfixed by his hero, Jack. So much so that he's
actually put up a website (shrine) dedicated to Jack's teachings! LOL!!!
Jack, if you're reading this, I'll publicly apologize to you in this forum if you can
post in clear and understandable English even one simple, testable trading pattern that
has a positive expectation. But I won't hold my breath.
To everyone else, think about the following. If the derivation of Einstein's formula for
time dilation during travel through space can be explained to and understood by freshman
in high school, then why can't Jack clearly explain his concepts? Answer: because they
don't work and it's all a smoke and mirrors. Wake up.
nkhoi
thank you.
WolfAH
Uenal ,
>It is the top loser in the challenge there!
I'm not surprised. Jack's stock picking equations _all _ don't work...
Wolf
dufferdon
Let me give you an update of my own. 2000, 68%; 2001, 27%: 2002 to
date, 12%. Not earth-shattering or anywhere near the performance that
Jack expects of his followers, but better than most I suspect. How are
you doing?
Apparently I have managed to interpret some of Jack's concepts
successfully. I agree he is very difficult to follow at times. One of
the major functions is the site is to allow people to see how I have
interpreted and simplified his writings, rather than having to sort
through several hundred historic posts on Google. Hopefully it will
help the newcomer to get up to speed.
Regarding Uenal's post, if he has understood anything, it should be
that Jack trades on a timescale of a few days. Therefore any reference
to the current price of stocks that were picked at the beginning of
January is meaningless
On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 05:18:22 GMT, Eddie Roberts <nos...@nospam.com>
wrote:
"The crowd never thirsted for the truth" - G. LeBon
Uenal S. Mutlu
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
# From: Jack Hershey (jhers...@home.com)
# Subject: Re: Jack - compiling lists to short
# Newsgroups: misc.invest.technical
# View: Complete Thread (6 articles) | Original Format
# Date: 2002-01-15 17:20:01 PST
#
# Hi David,
#
# See below, please
#
# "David Marshall" <davidkma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
# news:w7018.28470$_x4.3...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
# > Jack,
# > A couple of questions if I may:
# >
# > 1. Did you ever formulate as set of TC2000 equations for selecting stocks to
# > short? i.e. the inverse of your "long" scan equations.
#
# No I didn't. The version 3.0 allowed almost any Boolean formulation so it
# could be done.
...
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My comments (after wading over some of his old postings at google):
He did not have experience in short selling until
about seeing my posted results a few weeks ago.
Till then he meant by "short" "short term trading"
(ie. upto 3 days) but still going long.
And, I would say he is not telling the whole truth. It seems
his formula and method was developed for the futures and
commodities market, and people wrongly think he means the
stocks market. And, he lets the people believe it.
It neems he is only seeking a willingful audiance. True, he
can write good and long. But it's not that helpful if he
is that vague in his statements. He seems to be very "clever"
by doing so. But, IMHO there is no substance for the reality
in his theoretical sayings.
..My 2 cents on JH
--
www.mutlusoft.com/projects/mystocks
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice,
but in practice there is.
Uenal S. Mutlu
I had the impression that you used them for a long
time now, wasn't it?
Jack Hershey
reasons. As such, a lot of people can identify with him. His viewpoints of
me have been fairly consistent, a lot of people identify with these too.
Like nkhoi and uenal. He says:
I have concepts that I espouse.
I am a master of my writing style.
I have some powers that I use.
He feels the concepts do not work, that I write poorly for him to be able
comprehend, and he wants to protect others from my intimidation.
To be helpful to Eddie, I recommend a concept that will work for him: put me
on ignore.
If he can't understand this or it's intimidating (sort of sounds like it to
me) or it's not to his liking, then he should continue to be my foil as he
has in the past because he enjoys it. I can use his comments to clarify
where he is coming from and the possible ways to undo the situation he is in
and why he got there. It is helpful to me too when I do this because I can
focus on the NLP aspect of where people get stuck in not becoming wealthy.
We can use Van Tharp, Tad James and Meyers-Briggs as the focus.
Eddie always makes requests of me and others, without exception. He needs
several things this time:
One simple testable trading pattern.
An acceptable test, to him, to show "a positive expectation" for the above.
So lets see if Eddie wants to put me on ignore of if he wants to be my foil.
What I am personally going to do is imagine this as a junior high classroom.
And Eddie is there too most days. He has loads of Arm's and uses them. I do
not want to expand on this classroom scene at this point but I do want to
see it develop into a sophisticated place to get the record straight on this
lap with Eddie. If you goggle Eddie you can see the other classes he is
attending and how he is using his Arm's in them.
The simple trading pattern, a concept in TA, that I think will be most
rewarding for Eddie to begin with is the support/resistance pattern that
forms all trends and non-trends.
The other item, "a positive expectation" is Eddie's job to create since it
is his test criteria. He might do it at various levels of significance.
Level one for me is done with a straight edge and an eraser and a pencil and
a thousand charts. I will be looking for two points on the bottom and two
points on the top. We may get into details related to making money. I will
scour my notes to find a simple rule that might apply if Eddie gets to the
place that besides a pattern you need a corresponding algorithm or a least a
couple of rules. So far he hasn't understood this as yet. I prefer to
forward test these things but back testing should not be too hard if anyone
wants to do it. If Penal does it, then I recommend that he set up a Asian
distribution in his plan before he embarks on an analysis. This will help
Eddie out a lot because he needs to learn what a valid and statistically
significant test is.
I especially like the second item, because I think we can all find out what
"a positive expectation" is very soon or never if the term is in the
incoherent category. We can put all the concepts that do not meet this
result in a category that is the subset of things that do not work for
people like Eddie. Eddie cannot use the whole spectrum of concepts because
of his personal programming. The pair that exists for making money is: the
algorithm and the operator. An algorithm might work but the operator might
not work. For example, Eddie has determined at this point that I have
concepts, he says, and he says as a topic sentence that I can't trade. I am
an example of the pair. So is Eddie. We do not know his algorithm for
making money as yet, though.
Lastly with respect to the thread, I feel it is fortuitous that the
originator is deep in research of this sort and that he continues along this
path. It draws all this kind of thinking to one place and provides a
terrific platform for what you are going to see until Eddie poops out again.
Eddie Roberts" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:3C81B254.24816B55@n
ospam.com...
Jack Hershey
AGM = Attention Getting Mechanisms
NLG = Neourolinguistic Programming.
Jack Hershey
I screwed up more than usual. Arm's is AGM's and Asian is Gausian; that is
the funniest one to me.
Uenal S. Mutlu
Eddie asked you some clear questions.
Why can't or don't you answer them?
And still continue your usual nothing
saying anecdotes of ages in the past.
FYI: it is not he rather you who is in
the public criticism.
Jack Hershey
stuff be collected here so it can be address swiftly and cogently.
In courtrooms I love this phase of trials as an expert witness. It is the
cross and either the lawyer stops asking next questions when I give my
answer or I can't answer the question.
Just look for the last name in each sequence.
WolfAH
Uenal ,
>I had the impression that you used them for a long
>time now, wasn't it?
I never used Jack's system for real trading...
I did backtestings with poor results...
Wolf
Uenal S. Mutlu
None of these abbreviations appeared in your
recent posting, so what do you mean?
Jack Hershey
slipped into the theme at that point as a newbie to short trading, investing
and the like.
He is now going to be disappointed to learn that I do have some prior money
making experience on short trading. He can verify this by googling thither
and yon. The short cut would be Don's site and the listed dates there. As
a back up go to misc.invest.futures. A very persuasive indicator would be
the IB citations offering discounts to those who use my methods in futures
index trading.
Succinctly stated, I have a neutral bias in commodities.
I suggested to Uenal when he made the switch from long back testing to short
backtesting and then changed his rules from long to short, that the ratio of
trends, long and short, would give him an advantage compounding because of
the ratio. Schwab was the reference I gave him. While it is published, my
knowledge comes from direct contact with Schwab folks locally and in Denver
where there top level Streetsmart software is maintained.
Uenal, in your response to me let me know if you checked out the references
or if you are just continuing your very light weight narrative or just
changing the subject.
"Uenal S. Mutlu" <u...@mutlusoft.com> wrote in message
news:4qi48ucg85v6eoa66...@4ax.com...
Uenal S. Mutlu
>As I first mentioned in this thread, it will be very helpful to have this
I don't see it.
Which posting do you refer?
>stuff be collected here so it can be address swiftly and cogently.
>
>In courtrooms I love this phase of trials as an expert witness. It is the
>cross and either the lawyer stops asking next questions when I give my
>answer or I can't answer the question.
???
>Just look for the last name in each sequence.
???
Uenal S. Mutlu
>Uenal is conveying that he brought up the subject of short trading and I
>slipped into the theme at that point as a newbie to short trading, investing
>and the like.
>
>He is now going to be disappointed to learn that I do have some prior money
>making experience on short trading.
You mean "short term trading" and not "shorting"! There is a big difference!
Hey, not me is disappointed but you were disappointed when I
entered the scene.
Jack Hershey
"> And, I would say he is not telling the whole truth. It seems
> his formula and method was developed for the futures and
> commodities market, and people wrongly think he means the
> stocks market. And, he lets the people believe it.
To clarify your mistaken views.
The paradigm I use for futures (which predates you on here and is neutral
biased) is a derivative paradigm from my equities paradigm and does not use
formulae. My futures paradigm is only applicable to futures commodities
indexes. It is transferable and made neutral biased for several reasons.
Check it out by googling and if you come to any other conclusion than those
I just stated here, let me know and I will get whatever you come up with
straightened out as well.
If you come up with any others thoughts, then post them here as another
subject subtending your first humorous post which Kevin addressed to my
satisfaction and pleasure. Thanks Kevin.
Uenal S. Mutlu
>
>"> And, I would say he is not telling the whole truth. It seems
>> his formula and method was developed for the futures and
>> commodities market, and people wrongly think he means the
>> stocks market. And, he lets the people believe it.
>
>To clarify your mistaken views.
>
>The paradigm I use for futures (which predates you on here and is neutral
>biased) is a derivative paradigm from my equities paradigm and does not use
>formulae. My futures paradigm is only applicable to futures commodities
>indexes. It is transferable and made neutral biased for several reasons.
>
>Check it out by googling and if you come to any other conclusion than those
>I just stated here, let me know and I will get whatever you come up with
>straightened out as well.
>
>If you come up with any others thoughts, then post them here as another
I aldread did it, and it will be a pleasure for me to do more.
I think others will do the same to remember you of your own
statements in your previous postings.
>subject subtending your first humorous post which Kevin addressed to my
>satisfaction and pleasure. Thanks Kevin.
:-)
Hey, friends of Jack, you can collect points from Jack (yes from "him"
personally!). Come on and defend him and his not working system! :-)
Uenal S. Mutlu
>
>"> And, I would say he is not telling the whole truth. It seems
>> his formula and method was developed for the futures and
>> commodities market, and people wrongly think he means the
>> stocks market. And, he lets the people believe it.
>
>To clarify your mistaken views.
>
>The paradigm I use for futures (which predates you on here and is neutral
>biased) is a derivative paradigm from my equities paradigm and does not use
>formulae. My futures paradigm is only applicable to futures commodities
>indexes. It is transferable and made neutral biased for several reasons.
>
>Check it out by googling and if you come to any other conclusion than those
>I just stated here, let me know and I will get whatever you come up with
>straightened out as well.
>
>If you come up with any others thoughts, then post them here as another
I already did a research at google, and it will be a pleasure for me
to do even more. I think others will do the same to remember you of
your own statements in your previous postings.
>subject subtending your first humorous post which Kevin addressed to my
>satisfaction and pleasure. Thanks Kevin.
:-)
Hey, friends of Jack, you can collect points from Jack (yes from "him"
personally!). Come on and defend him and his not working system! :-)
--
Jack Hershey
> can write good and long. But it's not that helpful if he
> is that vague in his statements. He seems to be very "clever"
> by doing so. But, IMHO there is no substance for the reality
> in his theoretical sayings.
>
> ..My 2 cents on JH
"willingful audiance" comes with the territory. Lots of people here comes
here to assess the value of TA and "charting". That is why I come here
too. There is reciprocity and I regard it a "peer" setting because
differing viewpoints are expressed. That makes you and I peers. You as
part of my "willingful audiance" are, of course, here because of your
desires to participate in a contemporary way and through the "willingful
audiance" part of your research which is bearing a great deal of fruit for
me as you help me out to straighten out misperceptions you are gaining as
you do your thing for my benefit. You are a very normal part of my
"willingful audiance" and you keep clarifying where you are in the process
of coming to understand what I espouse.
The substantive aspect of my comments has eluded you because of the many
shortcomings my articulation has had up to this point. Now we are going to
get down to it.
Lets devote this thread portion to each and everything that you judge to be
a vague statement on my part. This thread will be finished when you have
gone through the complete list of citations you have or will research to put
on the table. I have posted here and on the web for years. With you
working on the behalf of all that deem my comments to be vague we can now at
last get on with the clean up that is needed.
I will try also to differentiate between theory and practice as well. You
definitely are screwed up on that point at this time and you need to get
straightened out.
Uenal S. Mutlu
Hi Jack,
what was the resaon for such a bad result?
Why didn't you continue the above testing?
Jack Hershey
"Uenal S. Mutlu" <u...@mutlusoft.com> wrote in message
news:6pp48u44151q5t0dq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:53:45 GMT, "Jack Hershey" <jhers...@cox.net>
wrote:
>
> >As I first mentioned in this thread, it will be very helpful to have this
>
> I don't see it.
> Which posting do you refer?
****** The convention I follow here is time and appearance of posts. Lets
agree to "first" meaning oldest in time. To back this up for clarity lets
think of first as nearest the left to where the thread began also. A it
turns out look from top down doesn't work because of the insertion of
subordinate threads.
Specifically read the post thoroughly that I made to Eddie. You will see
several "clever" things I have said there. Address those there not here.
>
> >stuff be collected here so it can be address swiftly and cogently.
> >
> >In courtrooms I love this phase of trials as an expert witness. It is
the
> >cross and either the lawyer stops asking next questions when I give my
> >answer or I can't answer the question.
>
> ???
****** You are more niave than I thought. If you catch on to this comment
or someone where you live explains it to you after reading it, I can assure
you that you will like watching crime TV and movies a lot more. It will
help you learn about reasoning and the logical processes people with
differences use to engage here too. It may be at this point that you do not
realize by pooping out as you mostly do, you are regarded as impolite and
not responsive or probably wrong in your thought process. Get with it,
Uenal.
> >Just look for the last name in each sequence.
>
> ???
********Find some discussions somewhere that you can follow. If they are
not adversarial notice that they end with an agreement or a compromise. It
there is a disagreement the last person to contribute usually prevails.
This is important in courtrooms. Notice if you are there sometime that the
judge keeps a tab at his post. He is keeping a bridge card game type
scoring of two columns: We and They. In court the questioner (You here in
this exchange) looses when he runs out of quality questions the person on
the stand (Me in this case) can't answer. In this situation you are screwed
and you are going to find this out as you do your thing here.
Those little ???? up there are what I am talking about. Over and over here,
there a lots of things you just don't get. Uenal, it's time to shape up.
Get your mind in gear here and get to work. You are fairly old for not
knowing how to invest successfully. There are many many ways to do it on
many levels. The bottom line in this forum is making money.
The flaming that goes on here by people is a measure of where they are in
life and getting the job done. lot of people gave you many many helpful
suggestions to help you succeed. Your responses were not too swift nor
adequate. It's time to get on the stick and begin to post pro active
creative contributions directed to where the person is that you are engaging
with.
Jack Hershey
experienced as an investor and he uses TA. Right now you are snipping away
irresponsibly for a person who is 39 years old and just getting into
investing as you say.
Eddie Roberts
anything of substance to say.
Let me elaborate on what I meant in my last post using Van Tharp's concepts. I
choose Van Tharp because you've cited him in a a positive manner.
What I meant by "expectation" (a mathematical term) is captured by Van Tharp's
definition of expectancy, so let's use the term expectancy instead. From page
137 of Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom: "Expectancy, as defined in this
book, tells you how much you can expect to make on the average (over a number of
trades) per dollar risked." In broad terms, one of the key points Van Tharp
makes in his book is that, given a system's expectancy and one's account size,
one must develop and apply an appropriate position sizing model to maximize
overall return. But it is impossible (over the long run) to profit, no matter
what position sizing model one uses, if the system traded doesn't have a
positive expectancy.
So that's what I was talking about. Still waiting on something clear and simple
with a positive expectancy. Support and resistance don't cut it -- way too
subjective.
P.S. Do you think you can stick to the issue at hand instead of speaking in
riddles and adulterating your response with stream of consciousness babble? In
other words, can you give me the courtesy of a straight response? I believe
I've given you one.
Jack Hershey
This is a good thread place. I didn't carry forward any of your
childishness because it doesn't serve you well. If you pick up the pace a
little it would be most helpful.
Jack Hershey
> You mean "short term trading" and not "shorting"! There is a big
difference!
> Hey, not me is disappointed but you were disappointed when I
> entered the scene.
Actually I mean what I say. I trade commodities futures indexes long and
short in an intraday context. This means I enter either long or short on a
given day and do about 3 to 5 trades during the day. some trades are long
and some trades are short. Usually during a day I do both kinds of trades:
long trades meaning I buy and sell and short trades meaning I sell then
buy. As an intraday trader my account is settled daily.
In equities I invest for short periods of time, usually 6 to 8 days or less.
The market determines the timing for me always. All of my investments in
equities are "long " investments meaning they are transactions that begin
with a buy and end with a sell.
I cited one for you that Eddie took exception to a couple of years back. It
was an entry and exit that had about 20 buys to get into and 31 sells to
exit. It was short term in duration and it was in an up trend.
Personally I am glad that people participate here and you are included in
people. Your appearance was was interesting for a while to many many
people. Finally someone suggested ignoring you in the manner I suggested
Eddie ignore me. He didn't and we are now finding out what he is talking
about. It is subjective at present and it will go downhill from here on I
guess.
You should think about the ways in which you disappoint people here. Your
short trading does not dissappoint me at all. You substantive contributions
and your style dissappoint me most.
I am dissappointed in your substantive contributions because they do not
show much thinking especially with respect to how the markets operate. As a
person who is imposing an idea on a market instead of using the power of the
market to discover good ideas, you are a lazy person in terms of doing work
using a science. It has been suggested to you where you are in the real
process of innovation. By disregarding any commitment to possible success,
you relate to growth and intellect inappropriately and are where you are as
a consequence. Watch Eddie as another example. His limitations and yours
are kindred. This is dissappointing to many many people here.
Your style, like Eddie's is middle school or Jr high, if you were in the
school system in Switzerland, which is the closest I could in my experience
place you with out disturbing your cultural setting, you would be put in a
vocational setting for lack of maturity with respect to your potential
because of your unstable mental ability to participate with adults. You
would be put in a place where you were compelled to exhibit adult behavior
before you were too old to be given any adult opportunites. Eddie has
fucked up financially in the past and not understod his fuckups. So he is a
very chicken person intellectually. both of you are making beds to sleep
in. The end of this drill comes when each of you crap out.
Jack Hershey
participants...
>
> Hi Jack,
> what was the resaon for such a bad result?
> Why didn't you continue the above testing?
Your googling stinks or you would know. Kevin, helpfully pointed out to you
what was what.
By the numbers FYI:
1. I responded to a request of someone in a thread for some stocks that
might be good on a given day.
2. there was some discussion about stuff.
3. a person running a comparison of trading methods ask if he could post my
list for comparison.
4. I said sure go do what you wish.
5. I saw your humorous post and Kevin's response.
6. I went to see the web site since you posted it.
It appears my list was entered in a set of lists. You have determined
something regarding the list under my name.
You ask two questions that show where you head is located. I will go to
that place and answer the questions.
> what was the resaon for such a bad result?
I do not specifically know. If my list were used for money making several
things would be done with the list if my paradigm were used.
1. entries would be determined and made as the market dictated.
2. stops would be set and adjusted daily.
3. monitoring would occur and if a stock would have been entered, it would
have been exited before the protection stop were reached.
None of the above steps were done by me and I was unaware of the site that
had listed my stocks with my permission. I believe that the person wanted
to check out my list. It looks like he did.
You ask: > Why didn't you continue the above testing?
Because I did not do any testing. I didn't begin it even.
Kevin tried unsuccessfully to inform you and you aren't too swift in many
ways to be able to get the messages here.
The posting you did makes you look like a jerk to me. To avoid this
consider the following:
Try to be more sophisticated as you try to "get" me. I make lots of
mistakes here; point out my mistakes so I can admit them to you.
Do something really terrific in investing that I might get fouled up
understanding and then tell me how dumb I am to not keep up with you.
It would seem to me, in this case, that you might look at the site you found
and see that I wasn't ever there. You are really blowing it here. If I
respond to someone and they ask for my views on stuff, I try to go along and
get the job done. When you ask me dumb questions, you look like a jerk.
Don't ask me dumb questions anymore.
Jack Hershey
You requested a pattern and your test applies to a system.
Which of the two items do you want to change.
The pattern I gave you is the standard for many many systems as you know.
It is called a channel usually.
For intermediate term channels , I recommend trading the natural long 1/2
cycle in the IT trend. My expectation is that a person can usually make 1/2
the potential channel width available. I usually choose 20% or more for a
channel so the yield is 10%
I use Van Tharp for the emotional stuff you use it for investing.
I'm sticking with my starting point since it is so broadly based for other
paradigms in TA that are successful.
For you it is subjective. You should try to get past your difficulty in
using this broadly based tool. If you di you can look at a lot of other
approaches as well and perhaps get a breakthrough on your presnet approach
which you previously explained to us as well as its results. Getting back
on the horse is a possibility for you, I believe.
Jack Hershey
You requested a pattern and your test applies to a system.
Which of the two items do you want to change.
The pattern I gave you is the standard for many many systems as you know.
It is called a channel usually.
For intermediate term channels , I recomend trading the natural long 1/2
WolfAH
Hi Jack,
have you re-tested the 'Dry Up'- equations
for MetaStock, I posted last Thursday?
You can also use every equation (DU1,DU2
and DU3) as an indicator for backtesting
of any stock you want...
Wolf
Eddie Roberts
Jack Hershey wrote:
> Kewl starting point.
>
> You requested a pattern and your test applies to a system.
***Depends on how one defines pattern. I define it as a specific, quantifiable,
programmable and reproducible entry rule, coupled with similarly concrete risk
and profit exit rules.
>
>
> Which of the two items do you want to change.
>
> The pattern I gave you is the standard for many many systems as you know.
> It is called a channel usually.
***No, you gave me subjective fluff.
>
>
> For intermediate term channels , I recomend trading the natural long 1/2
> cycle in the IT trend. My expectation is that a person can usually make 1/2
> the potential channel width available. I usually choose 20% or more for a
> channel so the yield is 10%
>
***You're writing as if we can read what's inside your head. Again, I believe
that's because you have nothing of substance to say.
>
> I use Van Tharp for the emotional stuff you use it for investing.
***How do you know what I use it for, if anything? I used Van Tharp's
definition of expectancy because you brought him up.
>
>
> I'm sticking with my starting point since it is so broadly based for other
> paradigms in TA that are successful.
***Seems to me that you need to return to junior high school to learn how to
communicate clearly.
>
>
> For you it is subjective. You should try to get past your difficulty in
> using this broadly based tool. If you di you can look at a lot of other
> approaches as well and perhaps get a breakthrough on your presnet approach
> which you previously explained to us as well as its results. Getting back
> on the horse is a possibility for you, I believe.
***For any reasonable person, what you wrote is highly subjective. Speaking of
getting back on horses, I believe you need professional help.
Uenal S. Mutlu
A thread is not a newsgroup, it is a discussion theme
within a newsgroup. Learn from others, how they do it,
and how their replies look like. Yours look like garbage.
Don't you still not know what "quoting" is and how to
do it? Haven't you still learned that simple thing even
after more than 10 yrs posting in the usenet?
Uenal S. Mutlu
>"Uenal S. Mutlu" wrote:
>>
>> And the best of the 14 in the challenge there has +7.1%:
>
>Yo, ring my bell, 15.7% in 26 days., I'm sleeping under Jack's crap.
>
>Jack gave up some time back as the transaction date incurs...
Yes, you say it: he gave up the challenge...
--
Uenal S. Mutlu
>Personally I am glad that people participate here and you are included in
>people.
I`m not here because you allow it. And you are not here because I
or others allow it. You should rethink how you think about the world.
I'm independent. And I don't need your allowance to be in this
newsgroup. Accept it or die. It's that simple.
nkhoi
define N as population who trade Jack's (X) stock,
if number of buyers of X / N < 50% then there is more room for it to go
up
if number of buyers of X / N > 50% but < 90% then there it will be a
self full filling move
if number of buyers of X / N > 90% then no more buyers left
your service is to keep the percentage at 50% or less and for that I
thank you.
I would have thank Uenal S. Mutlu too but his argument is so weak.
>Eddie Roberts wrote:
>
> Jack- Why all the obscure BS? Sure seems like it's because you don't have
> anything of substance to say................
> -----------------
Jack Hershey
> ***Depends on how one defines pattern. I define it as a specific,
quantifiable,
> programmable and reproducible entry rule, coupled with similarly concrete
risk
> and profit exit rules.
This will be good for you to ponder. Use the following to set up the program
for entry.
Wnter using the results of the following sequence:
1. Find listed stocks that make DU from a universe derived from the critia
being used by David Marshall. This is easy to program.
2. Enter at market before 11:am if: you have the volume that allowed listing
in 1.
3. Exit on second day that volume does not pace prior volumes on a prorata
basis where the assess ment of prorata is on a thirty minute basis.
Do not invest more than the prior profit after the first ten trades. Before
the first ten trades, invest according to a fibbonacci series where the fib
no. divided by two is the percent of your initial capital and where the
inital capital is deemed sufficient by the broker to maintain a margin
account based on your past performance.
Post you programming here so we can check it out.
> ***No, you gave me subjective fluff.
Channels are terrific ways to monitor stocks for beginners. It is easy to
learn to draw lines as a beginner.
> > For intermediate term channels , I recomend trading the natural long 1/2
> > cycle in the IT trend. My expectation is that a person can usually make
1/2
> > the potential channel width available. I usually choose 20% or more for
a
> > channel so the yield is 10%
> >
>
> ***You're writing as if we can read what's inside your head. Again, I
believe
> that's because you have nothing of substance to say.
You missed on this one. What I typed uses conventional TA languaging and is
a very nice conservative beginner. Realizing half the potential profits on
the table is a nice satisfying place to begin. What I typed above will ease
you into the market profitably with less fear than you usually exhibit.
>
> > I use Van Tharp for the emotional stuff you use it for investing.
>
> ***How do you know what I use it for, if anything? I used Van Tharp's
> definition of expectancy because you brought him up.
You actually do not do anything vis a vis Van Tharp. It's kewl that you are
able to get down with some definitions. It a good starting point. Let us
know if you are able to begin to change your beliefs as a consequence of
examining information.
> > I'm sticking with my starting point since it is so broadly based for
other
> > paradigms in TA that are successful.
>
> ***Seems to me that you need to return to junior high school to learn how
to
> communicate clearly.
Try this post out. I know I have to go to where a person it to communicate.
It works for me to go through the process. As you are able to express what
it is that is on your mind I will be glad to be responsive on that level.
> ***For any reasonable person, what you wrote is highly subjective.
I think that you feel I am subjective for some reason. I really do not care
too much about why you are coming from such a place. Maybe this response
will give you what you are requesting from me.
Jack Hershey
made here and otherwise.
I hope some quality families are run as well.
"WolfAH" <Wol...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:a5u755$9vd1a$1...@ID-23457.news.dfncis.de...
Zed6
>From: Uenal S. Mutlu u...@mutlusoft.com
>Date: 3/4/02 9:46 AM AUS Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <4q958u0429hu9vr23...@4ax.com>
>
>On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 12:08:47 -0600, "Mr. Kevin Bantz" <ba...@charter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Uenal S. Mutlu" wrote:
>>>
>>> And the best of the 14 in the challenge there has +7.1%:
>>
>>Yo, ring my bell, 15.7% in 26 days., I'm sleeping under Jack's crap.
>>
>>Jack gave up some time back as the transaction date incurs...
>
>Yes, you say it: he gave up the challenge...
>
I get nothing but confusion from all these ridiculous posts!!!!!
WolfAH
Jack,
>I think the effort you made is terrific. I am sure there will be some runs
>made here and otherwise.
thanks!
The reason I made this effort has been because, I don't have reliable
volume based algorithms or trend leading indicators in my trading
system. I use volume changes as a trend following indicator only.
When I started testing your system, I first looked at the frequency of
signal events of your DU and FRV functions (backtesting with more
than 10 years of stock history).
Please keep in mind, that this was NOT a question of quality of the
signal (up or downtrend).
The results were:
Example1:
IBM:~ $ 40.-
Only one signal of DU1 (12/30/1996 - 12/31/1996) overall! No DU2
and DU3 signals! (The stock gained more than 10% in the following
two weeks.)
Example1:
HWP: ~ $ 17.-
Only one signal of DU3 (08/06/1996) overall! No DU1, DU2 signals.
(The stock gained more than 4.5% the two days after DU1 event, with
sharp reversal on day three! Final loss: -13%.)
There have been NO signals(!) for: AA, AXP, BA, C, CAT, GE, JNJ,
KO, MCD, MRK, PG, SBC, WMT, XOM over more than 10 years! :-(
For NASDAQ stocks, the frequencies are not very much higher...:-(
So, we would have missed a lot of opportunities....
Regards,Wolf
dufferdon
wrote:
>
>Uenal ,
>
>>I had the impression that you used them for a long
>>time now, wasn't it?
>
>
>I never used Jack's system for real trading...
>
>I did backtestings with poor results...
>
>Wolf
>
>
I don't see how you can effectively backtest his method. To do that
you need clear and rigid systematic rules such as enter when a two
day high is broken. Jack doesn't present a system in that sense. He
presents a style or approach that is subject to some interpretation by
the user regarding things like just how much increase in volume
coupled with how much increase in price constitutes a valid entry
signal.
In addition, he has presented at various times alternative mechanisms
for exiting a trade with a profit or aborting a trade that turns sour.
His qualitatively descriptions of these would make it very difficult
to program a systematic exit strategy for backtesting.
I have used his guidelines, applying my own judgement on how to use
them, in hundreds of trades. I have not been as successful as Jack
thinks a typical grade 5 student should be, but I have consistently
made money to the tune of many thousands of dollars, so it works well
enough for me.
"The crowd never thirsted for the truth" - G. LeBon
Jack Hershey
do it? Haven't you still learned that simple thing even
after more than 10 yrs posting in the usenet? "
The above is a quote. Below are three answers.
No
Yes
Yes
QED.
Uenal S. Mutlu
No it is not! Use the usual quoting method in usenet.
Ever wondered what ">" means? See above. Read the netiquette
about how to write postings. Especially about the size and
the content of a posting in respect to the subject and the
thread.
server not recognized
say.....
=======
I second that. The big money nowadays can be made only by
more trades you do in the less short timeframe as is possible (ie. "Time is
Money").
Simply calculate how much 1% gain on each business day would
make up in a year. Then do the same calculation for two
consecutive (not parallel!) trades a day... This idea should be the
framework for any serious strategy...
www.mutlusoft.com/projects/mystocks
Uenal Mutlu
Herbststr. 34
D-82178 Puchheim
Germany
=======
It looks like after years of study he has stumbled across the compound
interest formula. He actually agrees with JH!!. Perhaps he is a closet JH
fan and has more in common with JH than he knows.
Common Mutlu....out of the closet.
P
"Uenal S. Mutlu" <u...@mutlusoft.com> wrote in message
news:bmf58uc0gmpln5ok9...@4ax.com...
dufferdon
wrote:
First let me say that I do not use formulae, I apply Jack's approach
qualitatively using a well-calibrated eyeball. However I think you
are doing your testing on the wrong type of stocks. The dry-up concept
doesn't work well on the heavily traded institutional favorites. Jack
has repeatedly emphasized the use of stocks will relatively low float,
in the 5 to 30 million range.
Uenal S. Mutlu
>.....who is a Lottery wheel and combinatorial maths whizz has this to
>say.....
Yep, I have been a maths, stats, and combinatorics wizard several
years ago. Haven't done much on that field since 1997.
>=======
>I second that. The big money nowadays can be made only by
>more trades you do in the less short timeframe as is possible (ie. "Time is
>Money").
>Simply calculate how much 1% gain on each business day would
>make up in a year. Then do the same calculation for two
>consecutive (not parallel!) trades a day... This idea should be the
>framework for any serious strategy...
>
>www.mutlusoft.com/projects/mystocks
>
>Uenal Mutlu
>Herbststr. 34
>D-82178 Puchheim
>Germany
>=======
Wow! My old adress! Nice to meet you again! :-)
>It looks like after years of study he has stumbled across the compound
>interest formula. He actually agrees with JH!!. Perhaps he is a closet JH
>fan and has more in common with JH than he knows.
I never agreed with Jack, because the methods we use
are totally different. And, exactly that's his fault. He tries
to convince me of his methods and I reject it because it is
not in the spirit of my method; ie. totally different ideas.
I on the other side don't try to convince him of my method
and ideas. He doesn't like it because I'm not one of his
willingful youngers.
Come on, forget that old man. I'm not interessted in anything
of him, I have found my own way. And I always had my own opinion.
This will remain forever.
>Common Mutlu....out of the closet.
>
WolfAH
>First let me say that I do not use formulae, I apply Jack's approach
>qualitatively using a well-calibrated eyeball. However I think you
>are doing your testing on the wrong type of stocks. The dry-up concept
>doesn't work well on the heavily traded institutional favorites. Jack
>has repeatedly emphasized the use of stocks will relatively low float,
>in the 5 to 30 million range.
true..., and I know Jack's statements. But volume dry up works for _every_
stock in the world! Even looking at NASDAQ-stocks does not very much
improve the signal-frequencies of Jack's DU-equations.
There still has some optimisation work to be done (e.g. changing periods
and factors...)!
Wolf
WolfAH
Hi,
>I don't see how you can effectively backtest his method.
True: Backtesting of Jack's method is impossible for the
average investor.
But, Volume dry ups are happening everytime and every-
where (peaks and troughs). I backtested Jack's DU- and
FRV- equations for the frequency of signal occurence in the
last 10 years. I did not test the overall performance of Jack's
method.
Regards, Wolf
p.s.:Volume dry ups may have played a more important role
in the years before 1998.
dufferdon
wrote:
Possibly, but if you are using EOD data I suspect you would have to
redefine the dry-up and FRV criteria for the institutional favorites.
If you ignore days with artificially low volume, such as Christmas and
New Year's Eves(as I believe you should), you would be hard put to
find days where a stock such as IBM exceeds twice dry-up volume in the
first couple of hours of trading. Intraday behaviour may be a
different matter.
WolfAH
Hi,
>Possibly, but if you are using EOD data I suspect you would have to
>redefine the dry-up and FRV criteria for the institutional favorites.
>If you ignore days with artificially low volume, such as Christmas and
>New Year's Eves(as I believe you should), you would be hard put to
>find days where a stock such as IBM exceeds twice dry-up volume in the
>first couple of hours of trading. Intraday behaviour may be a
>different matter.
>"The crowd never thirsted for the truth" - G. LeBon
What do you want to discuss now, EOD or intraday?
BTW, also NASDAQ stocks don't show much higher signal-frequences...
Success, Wolf
dufferdon
wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>>Possibly, but if you are using EOD data I suspect you would have to
>>redefine the dry-up and FRV criteria for the institutional favorites.
>>If you ignore days with artificially low volume, such as Christmas and
>>New Year's Eves(as I believe you should), you would be hard put to
>>find days where a stock such as IBM exceeds twice dry-up volume in the
>>first couple of hours of trading. Intraday behaviour may be a
>>different matter.
>>"The crowd never thirsted for the truth" - G. LeBon
>
>What do you want to discuss now, EOD or intraday?
Well Jack uses EOD data to derive his DU volume and the intraday
volume data to time his entry. I find that the same price/volume
behaviour can be used to time entries for shorter term trades based on
intraday charts exclusively. have a look at this thread.
also the one dealing with re-entries in previously traded stocks.
>
>BTW, also NASDAQ stocks don't show much higher signal-frequences...
But are you still looking at the large cap stocks that are the
institutional and day-trader favorites, rather than the relatively low
float stocks that he recommends?
>
>Success, Wolf
Jack Hershey
set up a family of tests that show the peak periodicity on the backtesting?
I suggested he come up with a gausian distribution of backtesting
periodicity values, i. e. , going from raw data intervals to equally
(Gausian values) distributed ones so a bell curve forms to illustrate a
Gausian distribution. So far his testing is from far right towards the
presumed peak (ugh) and nothing near the peak nor on the left where he
concludes 1 day is not as good as twice a day.
A normal person in Uenal's maths shoes would do this:
1. think a little.
2. Find out where he is with his method (algorithm A) for selecting and
where he is with his method (Algorithm B) for investing. In English, this
means get a distribution of results for various hold durations and find out
where the peak performance periodicity of hold is. It will be between 3 and
5 times a day (It is fair to me to give him the answers).
3. Repeat for long strategy. It will be between 5 and 3.
4. Discover the ratios of the peak duration periods corresponds to 27:8 for
long:short. I am a helpful guy he will find out. and therefore the value
is 3.5 approx for 2 and 3.
5. Look for an equity market that has the highest ROI. Translation: Select
an optimum trading subset from the 35,000 available entities. He is stuck
with "easy" data so far. Call this a universe. David has polished his
selection to get a nice one of about 200. It is yielding over 1.25% a day
at this point.
6. Change markets again after figuring out what profits really are. (This
is a leap thing) By this time he discovers that he can either stay in a
short rotation of equities or step into a place that is neutral biased (for
optimized trading long and short in a sequence that is optimumized by money
velocity.) and he can also deal with optimizing markets too.
7. Get approved to play in the club of the market determined in 6. What
comes after elite in daytek is having a phone line to the floor in the
highest leveraged market there is. If you are there you only use the last
five digits of your account (usually their is voice recognition, though) and
the designated term on the account is discretionary meaning something Uenal
hasn't dealt with.
8. Keep the capital in step 6 operating at a functional level by siphoning
funds into the operation in step 5. Operate step 5 at 1.25 % a day by
redoing algorithm A to the one he has been reading about for stock selection
and slow the cycle back down to 6 to 8 days average hold using rotating
threads that start with 4 go to 8 to 12 and to 20.
9. Step up the operation of 8 by doubling it's performance several times.
Actually anyone can do this there is no maths requirement to be able to make
this kind of money.
For me the ratio of ROI on steps 8 and 5 is 50:1. You can see what the ROI
starts out as in 5 by the threads we are running.
It is so surprising to see such thin surface posts like "gee whiz if you
trade more frequently you make more money" and "gosh my account at age 39 is
a neat daytekie".
"server not recognized" <win...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3c83879b$0$16638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
WolfAH
Hi,
thanks for your msn thread!
>>BTW, also NASDAQ stocks don't show much higher signal-frequences...
>
>But are you still looking at the large cap stocks that are the
>institutional and day-trader favorites, rather than the relatively low
>float stocks that he recommends?
>
I'm looking for low float stocks. The Code for my Quotes plus scan is:
//;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
If Close(0) >10
and
Close(0)<50
and
Close(-600)>0
and
MovAvg(0,65,Vol) >300000
and
EPS1growth>90 //EPSgrowth for 1 year
and
EPS>0
and
Sharesfloat >5
and
Sharesfloat <30 then
//;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Today's scan result: 15 stocks
The signal-frequencies of Jack's DU-equations, are all
in the range of 4signals per year for each and every stock...:-(
Wolf
JT Roberts
: EPS1growth>90 //EPSgrowth for 1 year
: and
I think Jack uses EPS "rank" (like in IBD) greater than 90, not EPS growth
for 1 year over 90%. But then again, I don't follow Jack very closely.
JT
JT Roberts
"JT Roberts" <nospamf...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:c5Ug8.21332$SS1.3122859214@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
:
: "WolfAH" <Wol...@t-online.de> wrote in message
One more thing, Quotes Plus does have a function for EPSrank, "epsrank(x)".
I've never really checked how closely it corresponds to IBD's ranks.
JT
Eddie Roberts
Again, you've failed to provide what I've asked for. Others have also remarked,
even in this thread, that your methods as you've explained them are too vague to
program and test. I believe it is because you have nothing of substance to
offer.
Good luck to you.
rod
never come back.
What makes you think Jack is here to answer to your obviously biased whim?
Get a brain you cowardly punk.
"Eddie Roberts" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3C843C00...@nospam.com...
Eddie Roberts
a brain? If I'm wrong, you have the Holy Grail here. You should be elated and
simply trade it and watch your millions roll in. I'm a cowardly punk? YOU are
the cowardly punk and I guartantee you wouldn't speak to me like this face to
face.
rod
> I deserve to die for a post you don't like? For posting the truth? I
should get
> a brain? If I'm wrong, you have the Holy Grail here. You should be
elated and
> simply trade it and watch your millions roll in. I'm a cowardly punk?
YOU are
> the cowardly punk and I guartantee you wouldn't speak to me like this face
to
> face.
I bet I would. I also bet there wouldnt be a damn thing you would do about
it either. You should change your e-mail address to nob...@noballs.com or
maybe nobr...@nobrains.com
WolfAH
>One more thing, Quotes Plus does have a function for EPSrank, "epsrank(x)".
>I've never really checked how closely it corresponds to IBD's ranks.
>
EPSrank(0) could be something different, because the resulting picks are
totally different from David's or Jack's results.
I'll check this again.
Thank you very much!
Wolf
Uenal S. Mutlu
You are too good for this bad world.