> So now you’re saying that he’s acting like a market-maker?
To the extent market makers steal money…yes.
>As MK said, the automatic page refreshes is what is causing the number of page views to go up and is an error in C2 software which will be fixed shortly. As I understand quotes are not updated until 20 minutes has passed, so there is no need to refresh the page every few seconds. Some may not be aware of this.
He was getting 1000+ “hits” an hour. If you think this was a “refresh” accident, I have a bridge you will just love. No other systems had this
"refresh" problem.
> ps on an unrelated item, you should also learn the difference between a system and a method.
Are you talking to me? Huh? You talking to me?
Does it matter what you call it if it has consistent $250,000 drawdowns?
I’ll just call it untradeable, worthless, whatever.
A mechanical system is something that is fully automatic and requires no human intervention. In trading that would mean that you do whatever the system dictates, and the only intervention is that you place the orders. A system is something you blindly follow on faith.
A method is made up of an adaptive system, strategy and trading style. It allows more human intervention. With a method, if the human sees that the method is no longer working, he stops trading it or atleast stop taking new positions and be willing to possibly have to change a parameter or two (adjustment) if that will keep the method working…
How do you come up with a good method? You do it through observation and back testing. You dont want to go back too far in testing a good method. Otherwise, you will average in too much data. What you want to know is what has been working recently? Lets say in the last month or the latest 30 trades.
Ok. If one had done this deliberately, then it would be a marketing deception. There cannot be so many page views without some form of automatic page refreshing.
>Ok. If one had done this deliberately, then it would be a marketing deception. There cannot be so many page views without some form of automatic page refreshing.
Exactly. he was getting 1000+ page views per hour after market hours
and after it was brought to his attention. Accident? Whatever.
> A method is made up of an adaptive system, strategy and trading style. It allows more human intervention.
Your stuff has $250,000 DD’s nearly across the board. Is that mechanical
or talented human intervention? Does it matter what you call it?
> With a method, if the human sees that the method is no longer working, he stops trading it or atleast stop taking new positions and be willing to possibly have to change a parameter or two (adjustment) if that will keep the method working…
Often the generals fight the last war. And so it is with flimsy “methods”.
A trader takes a big hit, alters his system/method to accommodate that
event, and is blindsided by the next different event. “Surprises” like
this happen to methods that are “robust” over a too small data sample.
Virtue is not automatically rewarded, but this does not chage the fact that it is rewarded, ultimately. Virtue minimizes the risks inhrerent in life and maximizes the chance of success. Concepts teaches one how to build a method, how to organize methods so that the best among them rise to the top. It teaches one how to safegaured one’s interests in principle and therefore against every danger that can be foreseen. This does not give one omnipotentnce; what it given them is the means of preventing, mitigating, or counteracting innumerable evils that would otherwise be intractable.
There is no cosmic overseer, who takes note of virtue and crowns it with success. Nor is this an injustice on reality’s part; it is an expression of causality and identity - of causality, in that certain causes lead to certain effects, whether one desires them or not; of identity, in that man, like every other existent, is of limited knowledge. So success is not automaticallyguaranteed to the virtuous. Nothing can alter the given fact that one is not omniscient or omnipotent. Regardless of a person’s virtue, he may fail in an undertaking through simple error. The pilot “wrong-way Corrigan,” let us say, was conscientious and honest, but these qualities did not automatically point his plane in the right direction. If one does not acquire the necessary knowledge, then one cannot avoid suffering the consequences, even if one is no way morally deficient.
Besides errors of knowledge, one must also reckon with the factor of other men. If one’s goal in an undertaking involves the cooperation of others, his own virtue (or knowledge) cannot ensure success. The ideas, the motivation, the skills, character traits that he needs in others depend on their choices, not his. For eg., there are no options on futures at C2 to hedge your futures positions and the leverage on forex at C2 is too low to provide an effective hedge for the portfolio. My real track record has positions that includes options on futures as well as forex.
An individual in a free society is free to search the kind of men he wants or to try to persuade others to share his ideas. But no act of persuation, however skillful, can nullify human choices. One cannot change a man’s mind without his consent.
Palsun tactic: When short on facts, resort to double-speak.
There is no cosmic overseer, who takes note of virtue and crowns it with success
ie, you are saying there is no God. This is kind of a bold statement to make, as it is impossible to prove. Saying it in long prose does not particularly make it factual or definitive…
> A method is made up of an adaptive system, strategy and trading style. It allows more human intervention.
Here’s an example:
USD/INR 45.91000 7/2/06 19:06 BTC 22 46.01000 7/9/06 19:06 ($37,378) ($479)
$100,000 $55,128 $240,621 ($43,460) $142,032 ($33,817)
Pull all the stops, add to losers, let losers run. Ultimately traders are
their system. It doesn’t matter what you call the latest system/method, or how much research you do, etc. If you have losing tendencies and bad habits (no stops, add to losers, let losers run) you will lose again and again. “Human intervention” will guarantee it. It’s not a question of if,
but when…get another system/method name ready, you’ll need it (Z, Z1, Z2, Z3…may I suggest Z4?
The world’s most successful traders believe in themselves and their ability to win. In fact, many of them feel that they “own” the market. They are not necessarily being arrogant, but they are sure of themselves and sure that they are able to take profits out of the market. Most important is that they believe that they deserve to win. They have a mind-set that is conducive to winning as a trader. It’s essential that you make sure you, too, have such a mind set.
I get it: you are an agnostic. That is a more cowardly position than taking a stand with what one believes to be "the truth." The burden of proof lies on one who makes the positive assertion. You still have to get that concept.
Beliefs, assertions or "taking a stand" or "believing a truth" are irrelevant. There are beliefs in well over 1000 divinities in this world. There are agnostics and there are atheists. Obviously, they all cannot be right.
There cannot be a divine Siva and no God simultaneously. Without any kind of definitive proof, what anyone thinks is no better than what anyone else thinks.
Scientists struggle to explain an increasingly complex cosmology by throwing an 11 dimensional multiverse (each possibly of a different set of constants) composed of mostly dark energy, some dark matter, and a little baryonic (visible) matter, predominately of unknown origin.
And why is what any particular human thinks (as opposed to fact)any better than the opinion of a porpoise or even a tomato plant?
And where did you get the concept I was an agnostic? There was nothing in the previous statements to derive this. Anyway, this is really not the appropriate forum or website to exercise this line of thinking.
Lets stick to trading.
Good. You are taking a stand now.
The onus of proof rule states the following: If a person asserts that a certain entity eixsts (such as God, gemlins, a disembodied soul, a tomato plant), he is required to adduce evidence supporting the claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he as misinterpreted certain data. But if he offers no supporting evidence, one must dismiss his claim without argumentation, because in this situation argument would be futile. It is impossible to "prove a negative," meaning by the term, prove the nonexistence of an entity for which there is no evidence.
The onus of proof rule states the following:
That is not what the onus of proof rule states. This has been stretched out of its domain. Misapplying a convenient definition has no place here. Since onus of proof applies in civil legal matters, and since this is a theological & scientific question, then neither “onus of proof”, “preponderance of the evidence” nor “beyond a reasonable doubt” has bearing. You must use reasonably grounded theological and scientific statements or methods of proof, not legal or civil. “Palsun’s Axioms” are not such.
And if it were a civil matter, the onus of proof rule also states: the burden of proof is not always on the plaintiff. In some issues it may shift to the defendant if he/she raises a factual issue in defense, such as a claim that he/she was not the registered owner of the car that hit the plaintiff, so the defendant must prove his/her claim. If at the close of the plaintiff’s presentation he/she has not presented any evidence on a necessary fact then the case can be dismissed without the defendant having to put on any evidence
You basically claimed there is no God, and without any form of evidence other than your own statement, it would most likely have been dismissed in court.
This has nothing to do with trading… discussing the onus of proof. I remind you that the system to which you refer (courts) is inherently flawed, and thus serves no useful purpose as the basis of your comparison.
It is the same system that sends innocent men to death row, until DNA evidence proves otherwise. That is but one of many examples.
Your example was flawed ipso facto. Given that defendant was accused of hitting plaintiff with her car, the likelihood of culpability would first be established by plaintiff, and said likelihood would have to be strong enough to merit hearing the case.
On another note, I do wonder if Palsun would spend time ascribing human characteristics to a completely mechanical trading system, since he has made it clear you need certain human characteristics in order to be a successful trader.
This has nothing to do with trading… discussing the onus of proof
That was my point. That Pal’s use of onus of proof was not applicable. And that is why I agree with you when I said “Let’s stick to trading” in the earlier post.
serves no useful purpose as the basis of your comparison.
It is the only means of comparison, since the earlier notes that preceded this were making the point that Pal was using “onus of proof” from the civil arena domain, and he was trying to stretch it to an unfounded theological assertion, that he says there is no God, and the onus of proof was on someone stating otherwise.
Your example was flawed ipso facto
The example was straight from the definition.
