Where are the big winners of the decline?

"no one "predicted" the Chinese market drop on THAT day. They just happened to ride their short on that day."



The true trigger was on Feb. 20, the Chinese market drop just accelerated the move, all this had been set up since Oct.26 and before. What happened between Feb. 20 and Oct. 26 made a correction inevitable, only something very strong could have delayed it.



Of course this is after the fact, but keep an eye on Turning Points over the next year or so and you might just be amazed.



Turning Points sold mini S&P 500, Feb. 22, but since no trades have been turned loose yet, it was ended Feb.25.

Palsun



Why are you harping on a system with a 10 day track record???



Just the facts? OK – lets examine some Palsun systems:



Z1 (V. Agg.) Test – took system from $100K down to $0 and then to MINUS $100K at one point. “Bankruptcy court.”



Mosaik (E. Agg.) Test – took system from $100K down to about $25K at one point. How many subs would have stayed?





Z3 (Prudent) Test – took system from $100K down to about $36K at one point. Very prudent.



Midas (Prudent) Test – may have set a record for the number of journeys above $300K and down near $100K again. Watch out for concussions and whiplash
Great example of how NOT to manage your gains.



Magnum (Conservative) Stocks – sideways so far




In short, Palsun is mostly great at bankrupting you, chasing you out of the trading game due to your newfound schizophrenic fits, or losing your profits.

(From his system page):“listen to no one except your signals.” Palsun does this well; he listens to no one.




(sorry Sam, I saw it first)

Hawk Fx

Always interested in general commodities systems, Frank



But why did you let your other 2 systems die?

Always interested in general commodities systems, Frank



But why did you let your other 2 systems die?

>In short, Palsun is mostly great at bankrupting you, chasing you out of the trading game due to your newfound schizophrenic fits, or losing your profits.



I disagree. My methods have evolved over time. You must judge each method on its own merits. I’m sure Uncle Sam would agree. He is more reasonable than you…

> Anyone who happened to be short that day was lucky, not a big winner



That’s just not true. Well known mechanical systems that use breadth

and/or channel breakouts were either short coming in or got short in the

pre-opening breakdown.



> It was not a predictable event,



A well known Elliott Wave pontiff identified the “diagonal triangle” and

called for a sharp break days or weeks in advance. A friend of mine told me on a ski lift the afternoon before that he thought the market was ready to topple.



I agree the exact event was not predictable, but the fact that there was

a trading opportunity when the bottom of the wedge broke was “predictable”.



There was even a Ken Roberts / Joe Ross 1-2-3 / 1-2-3 bear hook on the

NQ hourly charts.

> Just the facts:



With 9 or 10 systems odds are one might be short…

ps: Also Magnum (Conservative) futures have made 57 trades. It is number of trades one should see, not the age. I might add that the number of trades generated by the method is not very large in any one market, ranging from about 1 to 2 trades per market. However, when you combine the trades into a single portfolio equity curve, as shown in the Fig. at the system details page at C2, there are 57 trades in all. That larger number of trades should give us confidence that the method has not been over-optimized.



Moreover, the fact that the same set of parameter values works well in over 20 different – some correlated, some non-correlated -markets further increases the chances of the system holding up well in the future. Also note that the equity curve for the portfolio, as shown in Fig. at the system details page, is smoother and straighter than any of the other systems equity curves, also evidenced by a higher Sharpe Ratio – one of the virtues of diversification.



Generally it is accepeted by statisticians, that a system that has

at least 30 trades could have statistically significant results.



More on this here:



http://www.adaptrade.com/Articles/article-sig.htm

Sorry to disappoint you, Uncle Sam, Only 2 methods were short and only those 2 methods were trading (exclusively) futures or stocks…trust me…

(sorry Sam, I saw it first)



I'm just working my way down...apologize for any redundancies.

> trust me…



I was born at night, but I wasn’t born last night…

One was a test system before test systems could be hidden, so I brought it back to profit and killed it.



One thing I have learned over time is each different type of trading requires work on getting into a correct state of mind, paper trading, real trading and here at C2. Here at C2 was a struggle for a while so I killed the system to start over. With turning points there has still been some struggle but not enough to cause frustration. At this point everything is feeling natural and good.







"Generally it is accepeted by statisticians, that a system that has

at least 30 trades could have statistically significant results."



That is not true. No statistician would ever say that. Well, perhaps if he means "could have" as in "could have or could not have as well", but then he would not say "at least".

Well, show me the proof since you assert it. The onus of proof lies on those who assert the positive…

NO. The onus of proof are on those whose every assertion borders on the inane, the incredible, and the foolish.



"I disagree. My methods have evolved over time. You must judge each method on its own merits. I’m sure Uncle Sam would agree. He is more reasonable than you…"



I have seen few people ever agree with you, who has seen the dozens of PPPs (Palsun Pontification Posts).



You respond as much as your own posts as you do to other’s posts. When people make clearly relevant points against your words, you either go silent, go on for 20 paragraphs or change the subject.



Getting a meaningful response out of you, is like trying to pin down a drop of mercury with your thumb.

Dear Panu,



Taurus is a system that was short on 27th. Actually the trade was the following:



STO 1

@ER2H7 E-MINI RUSSELL 2000

819.30 2/15/07 14:23

BTC 1

772.00 3/5/07 9:58



Max DD: ($1,260)

Profit: $4,730



Now, I will explain this trade: my system was short in ER2 since Feb. 15th. On 26th it was big in DD but it still indicated short.



Since the Princeton Model had predicted a large decline between Feb. 24th and 27th, I decided not to close the position and let it run for a while more.



As you can see, it was a profit of 47.3 ER2 points per contract.



Unfortunately, due to some bad FX trades which were simultaneously open, the equity curve does not show anything special.



Actually the system has underperformed the market until now due to three very big loses, which is no reason of pride for me.



However, in the meantime I made some changes which are improving the performance. The system signals are used for entries but closures are very often based on discretionary decisions. I decided to act that way because I saw that the system leaves far too many profits on the table between entry and exit signals.



We will see how the system performs in the future. right now I am doing a break until the stock and FX markets stop this unpredictable behaviour.

I disagree.

I’m talking about stock market now.